well, what ever people think are their rights. We are not here to change that, so long as we all keep the posts relevant to the subject that are brought up.
Let's just leave it, it has been lasting for too long.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Let's just leave it, it has been lasting for too long.
antiterror13
Brigadier
you absolutely have right to doubt it ... no issues here
antiterror13
Brigadier
But we also absolutely have full right to trust or believe the quality and reliability of WS-10A/B
MwRYum
Major
Correct, China still operates on the "engine pair with airframe project" mode largely due to the engine R&D lag behind airframe R&D, so all those new planes will have their own pairing engines' R&D settled (or outright use AL-31F series). Even the civilian C-919 has its own domestic engine model as part of its overall plan, just that the C-919 will use CFM engines at this stage to make its goal more realistic.
However, it could also be a consolidation effort to group all the engine R&D and production faculties under a new umbrella consortium, so to better spend the monies and resources.
b787
Captain
it is not about doubting or believing, it is about statistics, the WS-10 since it is a new engine has benefited from more advanced avionics and electronics that early Al-31s or F-110 built in the 1980s or 1990s did not have, So it has to be compared to engines built in the same period.
If you compare a modern Al-31-F3 series or 117 engine to a WS-10 you will find the reliability of the Chinese claim, you can also compare it to the modern F-119 or F-135 in reliability.
If the statistics go alone to what these modern engines you can ascertain what they say is true.
The Chinese usually claim things under a very patriotic gaze, this is not exclusive to the Chinese, but is not the whole picture.
Take for example their claim China is the third country to design a high power engine for military aircraft.
The French built the M88 and M-53 of 9000kg/thurst not tell me can the Rafale consider an inferior jet to the J-11?
or the claim they are the Fourth country to have developed an engine for large jet aircraft.
Tell me Because France build engines in partnership their engines are not reliable or used?
In military engines the class of 12 tonnes is the F-110 and Al-31, so China is claiming only the USA and Russia have built engines on this class besides China, but let us see the reality, England can build engines in the class of the Trent why have they not built an engine in the class of WS-10 or Al-31 the answer is they want engines for cheaper medium size fighters not heavy type aircraft like F-15, same is France
In the Class of large transportation aircraft, only Ukraine, England, the USA and Russia have built those engines thus the Chinese claim is false
where are those countries, well in the An-124, Ukraine made Engine D-18T, PD-14 Russia, Trent England in Airbus series and the USA with C-5 and B-747
Here the Chinese arranged the words, they say the forth because An-124 is not a civil aircraft, however China does not build any aircraft in the range of the A-380 or B-747 or even Il-96, their engine fits the PD-14 class and up to these moment no aircraft is flying commercially with that engine
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
b787
Captain
Aviation is a business, a jet engine is judged upon the numbers it is made, the money it makes and the reliability it has, military engines are judged to by the money they make too.But yet China can still build HGV engines that surpasses BOTH the US and Russia.
The D-18T that powers the An-124 has been built in small numbers (around 200), and it will not be build any more in the new future the most likely, Ukraine thus has opted by a smaller jet engine for An-148, the Progress D-436
Numbers count for example
The V2500 is a joint project but in terms of numbers is among the 3 most produced jet engines for airliners.
So the article pretty much claims China is the forth country to have developed an engine for large aircraft but in numbers Germany and Japan have build more parts for V2500 than China has ever done, so the whole point the article while considers some points under the nationalistic chinese optic that Germany or Japan do not build a larger engine than China or Ukraine builds an engine for a cargo aircraft the reality is Japan and Germany as well as Ukraine are big players and the former two are in the second most successful engine program for jet airliners
consider the French do not make engines larger than what the Chinese claim but they have built more than 30000 engines see the Chinese article forgot many details
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
But HGV is the next super engine for both military and civilian application and China is the leader in that category while at the same time improving and developing their very own engines for large aircrafts. Remember like I always said, 'It's all about the program.' A good program needs money, numbers of good scientists and engineers, super computers, state of the art testing facility equipment and a sustainable budget to maintain that program for the long term and near term. And right now no other country could keep up with China's growing aviation program.
By HGV you mean Hypersonic Glide Vehicle?
I can see very little civilian application in it since all our airliners are still subsonic. The only civilian applications I can think of are for science or "space tourism".
Despite China seems to be pretty good at designing HGVs(Based on the many times that WU-12 was tested with success), China is still one generation behind on HGV engines(Jet & Rocket) compared to world leaders. (US, Russia, UK)
It is possible for China catch up in a decade or two, but I wouldn't make the assumption that other countries won't be able to keep up. There are many promising projects with significant progress(Mainly from the US) that may lead the engine technology to the next generation. It is simply too early to make the conclusion now. Remember the first production F-119 was delivered back in 2002, that was 14 years ago. And we are still a few years away from that.