Chinese Engine Development

tphuang · Jul 8, 2016

Daniel707 said:
AVIC report: China's Taihang engine widely deployed in military
By Jiang Jie (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) 14:45, July 07, 2016

View attachment 28916

China’s Taihang engines have become a significant, large-scale presence in the military, making China the third country in the world that has mass deployment of domestically-produced high-thrust engines for military use, according to the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) annual report.

AVIC's social responsibility report showed that the company is capable of independently conducting research and development on the next generation of high-thrust aerial engines, along with advanced drones such as Wing Loong, which have also been deployed in the military.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force has deployed no less than 400 Taihang engines in five air force regiments. Various types of fighter jets are equipped with the engine, including the J-11B and J-15 carrier-based fighter jets, reported China Science Communication, a news site under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. So far there have been no crashes due to engine failure among Taihang engine-equipped fighter jets, the news site also noted.

Some doubts have been voiced about the originality of the Taihang engine, as there are people who believe the Chinese-made engine is a copy of its Western counterparts. However, according to China Science Communication, the development of the Taihang engine was based on accumulated experience and technological advances gathered since 1978. The engine was also based partially on its predecessor, WS-6, which spent some 20 years in development.

Meanwhile, the engine also took inspiration from the control system of Russia's AL-31F aircraft turbofan engine, China Science Communication admitted, calling the Taihang engine a result of “independent development combined with technology from the Soviet Union and the U.S.”

“China has become the fourth country in the world to independently design and produce large transportation aircraft, as well as the third country to independently develop stealth fighter jets,” the AVIC report said, adding that China has advanced its air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles to the fourth generation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Finally Got the answer

a while ago, I mentioned that Taihang has achieved production certification. Why is this still big news?

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

according to big shrimps on chinese bbs, there definitely real engine issues in the beginning. Now, whether or not engines were the main reason for any of the flanker crashes, that's a different story. Also any new engine will have issues when it gets flown a lot and any of those issues could potentially cause a crash. So to get so defensive is completely unnecessary.

Bltizo said:
Blackstone, you're ignoring the fact that almost all WS-10s have been equipped on SAC Flankers -- twin engine aircraft.

In other words, even if a single WS-10 failed on a J-11B or J-16 or other SAC Flanker, then it would not lead to a crash. It would require both WS-10s on the same Flanker to fail to actually make it crash.

So all the insisting that quality or manufacturing issues might have resulted in accidents with WS-10 won't change the fact that virtually all WS-10s are aboard twin engine aircraft which will need both to fail in the first place to have a WS-10 equipped aircraft crash.
If there were 400 WS-10s all equipped on single engine aircraft, then the claim that there has not been a crash would be slightly dubious, but considering they are all on twin engine aircraft, the claim is actually immensely reasonable.

why are you so obsessed about whether any flankers were crashing due to both engines failing? It may or may not have happened, but the point is WS-10 was extremely unreliable in the beginning and now it is reliable. That's a process that every engine has to go through.

As for the accuracy of Chinese sources, they are like any other sources. You have to vet them based on where it comes from, the motivation and such. There are a lot of propaganda, but you can also get some real intels from those articles.

tphuang · Jul 8, 2016

Alright, I've deleted a bunch of posts arguing on legitimacy of Chinese sources.

It's okay to take the position that China a controlled media that may not let certain news leak. It's also okay to take the position that there is no reason to believe that something posted by Chinese news to be not truthful.

Either way, both of these posts are entirely off topic. This is a Chinese engine development thread.

Hendrik_2000 · Jul 8, 2016

Hyperwarp said:
Huh? How did the Indian Su-30MKI or Indian AF come into this? I am speaking of the PLAAF/PLAN and I specifically said AL-31FN (Salut) which powers the J-10. The J-10 are not falling out of the sky. There are 300 to 400 J-10 of different variants flying (I lost count). How many were lost due to engine failure? The latest most advanced J-10C has a AL-31FN Series 3 engine. There are only 1 or 2 J-10 prototypes flying with WS-10B and only 2 J-10B (#0154 & #0155) in-service with WS-10B. There are no J-10C with WS-10B.

So the key test for the WS-10B is when it starts powering the J-10 series. If the PLAAF starts ordering J-10 with WS-10B in large quantities then, yes it is truly proven. But, until then..... we will just have to wait.

PS: ever since the J-11B issue, Russia stopped selling AL-31F to China with the exception of spares already paid for existing flankers (Su-27/30, J-11/11A). Even the AL-31 in the J-15 were scavenged from other planes. Only new AL-31 variants sold are by Salut for J-10 and J-20. Only when the Su-35 enters service will this change with introduction of the 117S by Saturn.

I bring the SU30 MKI to rebut your contention that the reason for no crashes is due to nature of double engine aircraft. But that is not true because crashes due occur even for double engine aircraft like SU 30 MKI

Hmm let see your estimate of 400 J10 is on the high side most likely the total is low 300
We know 9 accident due to engine failure so that work out 3% That is unacceptable high percentage

Remember too that China did improve the AL31FN therefore increasing their reliability. To judge Russian engine you need to look at the unadulterated version of AL 31

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The idea that somehow restrict the availability of AL 31F due to China copying SU 27 is nothing but a myth. They still supplied parts and now specially that the Russian economy is in need of cash they more than glad fill any order.

But there is no order in the last 3 or 4 years. It can be explain that there is still stock in the inventory of AL31. But by now the stock should be close to exhausted So new order should be coming. I am still waiting

In the Turbofan engine thing doesn't stay static and I believe the J 10 B used newer version of AL 31F So Shenyang come up with WS 10B But it is a new engine and that has to go thru the rigorous testing regime which take time. Salyut has a head start and if the price is right why not use them for a while until WS 10 B mature

Blackstone · Jul 8, 2016

Deino said:
Yes ... following my information the first four are already under construction to make their maiden flights in late 2016 - more likely early 2017 - ...

Deino

Does China get any voluntary technology transfer and IP-sharing for the purchase?

Blackstone · Jul 8, 2016

siegecrossbow said:
In that case well over 200 J-11B and J-16s then, not accounting for the 30 or so J-11Bs that entered service with AL-31s.

Can't be over or even near 200 planes, because if they only made about 400 WS-10 engines, then some must be in storage as reserves.

Blitzo · Jul 8, 2016

tphuang said:
why are you so obsessed about whether any flankers were crashing due to both engines failing? It may or may not have happened, but the point is WS-10 was extremely unreliable in the beginning and now it is reliable. That's a process that every engine has to go through.

I'm not "obsessed" -- the subject of the back and forth discussion around the WS-10 before that post of mine, revolved around whether "accidents" with WS-10 may have still happened. My post was to illustrate that it is perfectly reasonable for any accidents to have occured with WS-10 equipped aircraft, yet still have no "crashes due to engine failure" as claimed in the original article, because almost all WS-10 equipped aircraft are twin engine Flankers.
Nowhere in my post did I deny that accidents may have occurred. But by writing that post, I was essentially demonstrating that any such claims of accidents with WS-10s (while likely to have occurred over the years) are also entirely consistent with the claims of the article itself, therefore his skepticism towards the "no crashes due to engine failure" is an illogical one.

Also, my post did not make any claim about the reliability or lack of reliability of WS-10 during its early development, and I'm fully aware that WS-10 obviously was unreliable during the earlier years.

Blitzo · Jul 8, 2016

Blackstone said:
Can't be over or even near 200 planes, because if they only made about 400 WS-10 engines, then some must be in storage as reserves.

Hard to say what they mean by "deployed no less than 400 Taihang engines in five air force regiments" -- is that the number of engines which are fitted aboard any number of fighter aircraft at any one time, or perhaps engines fitted on aircraft + engines which are present at the regiment for spares (but doesn't include engines which may be sent back to factory for overhaul)?

So it is very possible that their definition of "deployed engines" is not the same as the number of "engines that have been made"

I also don't know if those "air force regiments" include naval aviation regiments which are equipped with J-11BH/BSH, whose aircraft of course are also equipped with WS-10s.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if they're including the relatively recent J-16s in their number as well, which are also equipped with WS-10s.

siegecrossbow · Jul 8, 2016

Blackstone said:
Can't be over or even near 200 planes, because if they only made about 400 WS-10 engines, then some must be in storage as reserves.

Lol did you even read the quote I was replying to?

tphuang · Jul 9, 2016

Bltizo said:
I'm not "obsessed" -- the subject of the back and forth discussion around the WS-10 before that post of mine, revolved around whether "accidents" with WS-10 may have still happened. My post was to illustrate that it is perfectly reasonable for any accidents to have occured with WS-10 equipped aircraft, yet still have no "crashes due to engine failure" as claimed in the original article, because almost all WS-10 equipped aircraft are twin engine Flankers.
Nowhere in my post did I deny that accidents may have occurred. But by writing that post, I was essentially demonstrating that any such claims of accidents with WS-10s (while likely to have occurred over the years) are also entirely consistent with the claims of the article itself, therefore his skepticism towards the "no crashes due to engine failure" is an illogical one.

Also, my post did not make any claim about the reliability or lack of reliability of WS-10 during its early development, and I'm fully aware that WS-10 obviously was unreliable during the earlier years.

My point is whether or not J-11B crashed due to WS-10 is not that important in the original context of what blackstone was saying. The point is that WS-10 was extremely unreliable in the beginning. Numerous SAC insiders stated that the main reason for all the delays in J-11B program was due to issues they found in WS-10 equipped J-11Bs. It was so bad that they had so many flankers without engines parked outside of the factory. What's the point of saying WS-10 did not cause crash in J-11B when it was so unreliable that they couldn't even install it on J-11B before these issues were fixed? And I remember distinctly that the big shrimps (who were SAC supporters) did say at least one flanker crashed due to WS-10 issues.

You can say those people were putting the blame on WS-10 so that SAC doesn't take all the blame. And that a flanker crashed because it couldn't handle problem in one of the WS-10 engines. Either way, the bigger point is that WS-10 was very unreliable back then and now it's reliable. It's taken many years, so we should expect a lot of progress.

Hendrik_2000 · Jul 9, 2016

tphuang said:
My point is whether or not J-11B crashed due to WS-10 is not that important in the original context of what blackstone was saying. The point is that WS-10 was extremely unreliable in the beginning. Numerous SAC insiders stated that the main reason for all the delays in J-11B program was due to issues they found in WS-10 equipped J-11Bs. It was so bad that they had so many flankers without engines parked outside of the factory. What's the point of saying WS-10 did not cause crash in J-11B when it was so unreliable that they couldn't even install it on J-11B before these issues were fixed? And I remember distinctly that the big shrimps (who were SAC supporters) did say at least one flanker crashed due to WS-10 issues.

You can say those people were putting the blame on WS-10 so that SAC doesn't take all the blame. And that a flanker crashed because it couldn't handle problem in one of the WS-10 engines. Either way, the bigger point is that WS-10 was very unreliable back then and now it's reliable. It's taken many years, so we should expect a lot of progress.

But that can be said for all newly inducted engine. It is normal that you have teething problem. But what rankle me is when it come to China the critic will heap scorn, ridicule or get off tangent and imply political reason as the cause. When in fact it is normal phases development that every new engine has to go thru. Specially for China that has very weak industrial base and subject to stringent embargo. Basically a third world, agrarian country on shoe string budget attempt to built high performance engine with no help.

It is gargantuan effort . Even highly industrial country with long tradition of Aero engine manufacturing suffer teething problem

Airbus A 400 engine suffer various crack

Chinese Engine Development

tphuang

Lieutenant General

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Blackstone

Brigadier

Blackstone

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

siegecrossbow

General

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General