Chinese Engine Development

Blackstone said:

1. I don't agree with your final point to treat sources indiscriminately. I say that because on balance Free Media, even with their well-documented faults and biases, are still better than state-owned media, especially on what topics they can cover. Also, my SOP is to trust my own government over the PRC, unless evidence say otherwise. Of course, caveat emptor is always the rule with any and all news outlets.

Click to expand...

So how to choose? Anything positive about the Chinese would be deemed untrustworthy? As long as China is not saying anything, we should assume the worst has happened? China has not said anything about alien invasion. As Chinese govnt has no free press, we should assume that all Chinese have been infested by the body snatchers?

Blackstone said:

True enough, but one engine failure on a J11/16 series test planes would qualify as "accident," right?

Click to expand...

First of all, I need to correct you and say that J-11B, J-16 etc are not test planes -- both of those types are equipped with WS-10 and are in service.

Second -- the original article said "not a single aircraft has crashed due to engine failure".
In other words, if a single engine failure did occur, yes it would be qualified to be called an accident but it's still not a crash -- and the article only mentioned crashes due to engine failure, not engine failures in general.

And if you try to say "oh they might have only reported "crashes due to engine failure" because they want to hide the fact that WS-10 might have had engine failures without crashes which still qualify as accidents" -- I think you need to take a step back and ask why you may be insistent on knowing what the accident rate for WS-10s are in the first place.

To be honest it seems like you are consistently searching for tidbits of information or gaps in reporting to try and insinuate the possibility that Chinese engines are all a house of cards and cannot perform competently, based on information and positions about the WS-10's manufacturing process or quality that may have been true ten or even five years ago but which may be less true now.

Let's do a 'what if' exercise; IF there was a WS10-caused crash (yes, it means both engines would have to fail), and IF the Communist apparatchik wanted to cover it up for some ego, security, and PR reasons, the state-owned media would obey party bosses' orders and report the cause as something else, right?

Click to expand...

Possibly, however at the same time we have generally been quite well informed about aircraft crashes via both the PLA's media releases or often via photos and videos from the general population, in the recent past.

The PLA have not been shy to report on fighter crashes whether it has been J-10s using Al-31s or JH-7/As using WS-9 engines, and I see no reason to think they would seek to "cover up" a crash if an aircraft was powered by WS-10s.
To be honest I think you are the one reading too much into how much "political" or "prestige" value the PLA or the govt puts into the whole WS-10 turbofan. It seems like you believe that the Chinese political or military elite see the WS-10 as some kind of "crowning achievement" for which they are so invested into for "propaganda" purposes that they would try and deliberately spin out lies for the sake of stroking their own egos.

Blackstone said:

1. I agree PRC state-owned media are at times creditable
2. I agree no evidence of WS-10 accidents in test planes have surfaced, yet
3. I'm not at all certain Communist apparatchik would be forthcoming on important national projects like turbofan development failures/accidents; I suspect the opposite
4. I don't agree with your final point to treat sources indiscriminately. I say that because on balance Free Media, even with their well-documented faults and biases, are still better than state-owned media, especially on what topics they can cover. Also, my SOP is to trust my own government over the PRC, unless evidence say otherwise. Of course, caveat emptor is always the rule with any and all news outlets.

Click to expand...

A single engine failure with no crash would count as an incident, and there is usually no reason for any government to report incidents like this. Do you believe that no F-22 has ever suffered a single engine out and made it back to base with the incident kept under wraps? If your SOP is to trust your own government over foreign (PRC) governments, then that's fine and patriotic but it's not the way to go about seeking the truth. I thought that's what we were trying to do here. I can say that I support my government's actions no matter whether they are considered in general to be good or evil simply because it is my government; that's fine, but I won't be getting into any moral debates about it. So it's totally understandable for you to trust your own government over the CCP, but.... did your government tell you that WS-10A-equipped aircraft crashed?? It seems that there is no source anywhere that says that except your own imagination.

Yeah, it's possible that a J-11B crashed and just so happens nobody was around with a cellphone, nobody heard an explosion and came out to check, etc... and the government covered it up. It's "possible." It's also "possible" that all of the PRC's fighters are equipped with secret cloaking technology not to be revealed until time of war. There's no end to this BS if we talk about "possibilities" but we're talking about what we have reason and evidence to believe.

Blackstone said:

1. I agree no evidence of WS-10 accidents in test planes have surfaced, yet

Click to expand...

This is the key. You admit that there is no evidence. No evidence, no hypothesis, no conclusion. End of story. Anything else is just waste of time.

Hendrik_2000 said:

A good news indeed I have been telling it for a while and debate it with "our resident expert" who is convince that accident must occur because at one time they grounded the fleet, early in the J 11B program.
Look it up in this thread few pages back

But now we have proof from none other than China science communication, that indeed NO ACCIDENT! involving WS 10 engine has occur. China science is under arm of China academy a credible institution

All they have to do now is keep improving the engine and get more mileage out of it !.

All those doubter and nay sayer have been wrong all this time!. It is 5 years now since WS 10 was inducted . Long enough time to say that China turbo fan industry has matured.It must be hard on the skeptic in the west who keep saying China can't built reliable engine

Click to expand...

To make things clear, accidents did occur during WS-10's engine test-flight as well as during its early deployment, just that they did not result in any crash. In other words, WS-10 did have serious problems around 2003-2009 and accidents did happen (the most serious being blade fracturing during flight) but it did not result in the loss of any airframe or pilot. Having serious problems at the early stages is normal for any country when developing a completely new class/generation of engine, not to mention China was relatively inexperienced building ANY turbonfan at the time. There is no shame in admitting this, and indeed the "Communist-controlled media/institution/factory/company" has admitted it in open publication, otherwise how could I possibly know?

The problem with some people is that they blame the CCP for not telling them the details of its military engine development, and use this as an excuse to deny the claims of achievement that were disclosed. Needless to say there are a lot problems in this line of thinking:

First of all, details of military engine development (including contained accidents) is not something that all government is legally or morally obliged to disclose to the public, not to mention disclosing to a foreign audience.

Secondly, it is not logical to equate secrecy with incompetency (i.e. if they're hiding something they must be hiding their failure, not their achievement), especially given China's track record of surprising observers in military-tech development.

Thirdly, plenty of information were actually disclosed to the public, but because of language barrier and various other issues (e.g. it is all Communist-controlled media so why should I care), they have no idea about these information, and then they say the CCP is hiding or lying. I mean, it is not one's fault that they don't read Chinese, but it will be their fault if they make statements or accusations based on their political bias against "Communist-controlled whatever", rather than based on logic, history, evidence, and information that are actually out there.

superdog said:

To make things clear, accidents did occur during WS-10's engine test-flight as well as during its early deployment, just that they did not result in any crash. In other words, WS-10 did have serious problems around 2003-2009 and accidents did happen (the most serious being blade fracturing during flight) but it did not result in the loss of any airframe or pilot. Having serious problems at the early stages is normal for any country when developing a completely new class/generation of engine, not to mention China was relatively inexperienced building ANY turbonfan at the time. There is no shame in admitting this, and indeed the "Communist-controlled media/institution/factory/company" has admitted it in open publication, otherwise how could I possibly know?
.

Click to expand...

By accident I meant serious accident that result in loss of air frame or death.
I am quite aware of China's in experience and low industrial base when they start the project. My earlier post acknowledge this. I don't see any problem with it

In engineering failure is the first step of success. But what I object is the constant lie and disinformation that spread in popular press that some how China is incompetence and genetically not fit to build Turbofan

Hendrik_2000 said:

By accident I meant serious accident that result in loss of air frame or death.
I am quite aware of China's in experience and low industrial base when they start the project. My earlier post acknowledge this. I don't see any problem with it

In engineering failure is the first step of success. But what I object is the constant lie and disinformation that spread in popular press that some how China is incompetence and genetically not fit to build Turbofan

Click to expand...

Generally accident could mean a lot more things than crashing, so the way "accident" was used in the last couple pages of discussion could lead to misunderstanding. While given your explanation I get what you mean when you say accident, I suggest sticking to the original AVIC claim which says "no carshing as a result of engine". It did not say "no accident as a result of engine".

superdog said:

I suggest sticking to the original AVIC claim which says "no carshing as a result of engine". It did not say "no accident as a result of engine".

Click to expand...

But again blade fracture cannot be classified as accident It is component defect that need rework.Engine stall is accident because it can result in loss of airframe if not recover.

That is why they have graded testing regime and the engine certification accordingly

但截至目前，没有一架搭载涡扇10发动机的战机因发动机故障坠毁。

Click to expand...

The original Chinese link pretty clearly specifies that no WS-10 equipped aircraft crashed due to engine failure. They didn't say anything about the aforementioned blade fracture or other serious defects. I think that pretty much puts the case to rest.

siegecrossbow said:

The original Chinese link pretty clearly specifies that no WS-10 equipped aircraft crashed due to engine failure. They didn't say anything about the aforementioned blade fracture or other serious defects. I think that pretty much puts the case to rest.

Click to expand...

Only if the news sources are trustworthy. Readers should approach state-controlled media with skepticism on some of the news they print, and cynicism on some of the topics they avoid.