I dont think that the problem is SOE reform or the lack of it. They have to concentrate resources, something that they should have done a long time ago, even if short-term they will have problems integrating the organization together. I think that only recently they have realized the importance and perhabs more importantly, the difficulty of developing this tech, and are investing in the area the resources it needs to develop better produts. But now it will take time.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
I dont think that the problem is SOE reform or the lack of it. They have to concentrate resources, something that they should have done a long time ago, even if short-term they will have problems integrating the organization together. I think that only recently they have realized the importance and perhabs more importantly, the difficulty of developing this tech, and are investing in the area the resources it needs to develop better produts. But now it will take time.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I did post this article way back when just to refresh it I re post it again still available from bloomberg
This is the engine that get delay and still face problem. This is just one engine which is more than the total capitalization of the new Chinese engine company of 7 billion $. Now think of GE, Honeywell, Lycoming? How much are they spending?
The Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
A simple idea’s almost 30-year, $10 billion journey to the aircraft mainstream.
The Jet Engine of the Future
Pratt & Whitney’s new PurePower Geared Turbofan aircraft engines are impressive beasts. Scheduled to enter commercial service before the end of the year, they burn 16 percent less fuel than today’s best jet engines, Pratt says. They pollute less. They have fewer parts, which increases reliability. And they create up to 75 percent less noise on the ground, enabling carriers to pay lower noise fees and travel over some residential areas that are no-fly zones for regular planes. Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Irkut, and Mitsubishi have certified the engines for use on their narrowbody craft. JetBlue, Lufthansa, Air New Zealand, Malaysia’s Flymojo, and Japan Airlines are among the engine’s 70 buyers in more than 30 countries.
To people outside the aircraft business, what may be most remarkable about the engines is that they took almost 30 years to develop. That’s about 15 times as long as the gestation period of an elephant and unimaginably longer than it takes to pop out a smartphone app. Could Pratt have gotten the hardware out faster? Probably. But industrial innovation on the scale of a commercial jet engine is inevitably and invariably a slog—one part inspiration to 99 parts perspiration.
In Pratt’s case, it required the cooperation of hundreds of engineers across the company, a $10 billion investment commitment from management, and, above all, the buy-in of aircraft makers and airlines, which had to be convinced that the engine would be both safe and durable. “It’s the antithesis of a Silicon Valley innovation,” says Alan Epstein, a retired MIT professor who is the company’s vice president for technology and the environment. “The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
Graphic by Bloomberg Businessweek; Data: Compiled by Bloomberg
The PurePower GTF began to take shape in 1988, when Pratt staffers in East Hartford, Conn., including a 28-year-old engineer named Michael McCune, started developing a gizmo to slow the fan—the big rotating blades at the front of the engine that provide most of a jetliner’s propulsion. For planes flying at typical speeds, a slow fan that moves large volumes of air at a moderate velocity is more efficient than a fast-spinning fan that accelerates a smaller volume of air. (The slow fan’s also quieter.)
The problem was that the fan was attached to the same shaft as two other parts of the jet engine, the low-pressure turbine and low-pressure compressor. Those parts would be more efficient if they ran faster, not slower. Sharing a shaft was a compromise that hurt each part’s performance and left nobody happy.
The solution McCune and his co-workers pursued was one that had already been used successfully on turboprop planes: a gearbox between the shaft and the fan that lets the fan run slower while the compressor and turbine run faster. The gearing approach hadn’t been tried at the scale of a commercial jetliner because the conventional wisdom was that it would be too heavy and wear out too quickly. “We started studying all gearboxes in service” to determine what the obstacles really were, says McCune.
The biggest challenge in scaling up was how to keep the gearbox, which is about 20 inches in diameter and weighs about 250 pounds, from being torn apart if there was a shock that wrenched the fan in one direction and the shaft in another. Adding steel for stiffness would make the engine too heavy. To put some give into the system, McCune’s team attached the gearbox rigidly to the fan but somewhat loosely, with bendable metal baffles, to the compressor/turbine shaft and the engine case.
Pratt engineers borrowed technology and ideas from other divisions of parent United Technologies: notes on gears from Sikorsky, which makes turbine-powered helicopters; bearing know-how from Pratt & Whitney Canada, which makes the geared PT6 engine for smaller turboprop aircraft; and simulations of how lubricants move through the gear from the United Technologies Research Center. It also got special parts from Timken, the 116-year-old bearing maker, and permission from NASA to use its wind tunnels in California and Ohio.
At times, the extent of the operation had to be protected from bean-counting Pratt executives, says Epstein. “Sometimes we spent a lot. In other years we hid him [McCune] behind the curtain and slipped him some sandwiches so management wouldn’t know what the investment was,” he jokes.
By 2008 the engine was ready for testing. Pratt engineers deliberately broke a prototype, letting a fan blade fly off to test whether the accident would destroy the gears. Afterward, Epstein says, “we took the gearbox apart, and it looked brand-new. You could even see the machining marks on the gears.”
“There were a lot of false starts there, but they knew they had a concept that would work,” says Ernest Arvai, a partner in commercial aviation consultant AirInsight. “I’m amazed that they kept the research going as long as they did. I think they’ve got a winner there.”
Epstein gives much of the credit for the project to McCune, who has 66 patents to his name. “Mike has succeeded in what many people thought was an impossible challenge,” he says.
Close all those tabs. Open this email.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
One consequence of the engine’s decades-long development is that it’s missed the window to be considered for inclusion on the latest generation of widebody jets, says George Ferguson, a senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. In the more important market for narrowbody jets, Ferguson says, the large fan makes the engine too big for Boeing’s 737 Max, which has low wings. On the plus side, Pratt & Whitney has fought General Electric nearly to a draw on airlines’ orders for engines for the Airbus A320neo family (46 percent vs. 54 percent, respectively, among orders in which an engine was chosen). And the PurePower GTF is the exclusive engine for the new narrowbodies from Bombardier, Embraer, and Mitsubishi. The jet engine market-share war plays out over decades. Speaking of the new engine, United Technologies Chief Executive Officer Gregory Hayes told analysts earlier this year: “Long-term, we like where we are.”The bottom line: The GTF’s almost 30-year incubation period cost Pratt some big customers, but the engine’s efficiency has attracted other
This is the engine that get delay and still face problem. This is just one engine which is more than the total capitalization of the new Chinese engine company of 7 billion $. Now think of GE, Honeywell, Lycoming? How much are they spending?
The Little Gear That Could Reshape the Jet Engine
A simple idea’s almost 30-year, $10 billion journey to the aircraft mainstream.
The Jet Engine of the Future
Pratt & Whitney’s new PurePower Geared Turbofan aircraft engines are impressive beasts. Scheduled to enter commercial service before the end of the year, they burn 16 percent less fuel than today’s best jet engines, Pratt says. They pollute less. They have fewer parts, which increases reliability. And they create up to 75 percent less noise on the ground, enabling carriers to pay lower noise fees and travel over some residential areas that are no-fly zones for regular planes. Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Irkut, and Mitsubishi have certified the engines for use on their narrowbody craft. JetBlue, Lufthansa, Air New Zealand, Malaysia’s Flymojo, and Japan Airlines are among the engine’s 70 buyers in more than 30 countries.
To people outside the aircraft business, what may be most remarkable about the engines is that they took almost 30 years to develop. That’s about 15 times as long as the gestation period of an elephant and unimaginably longer than it takes to pop out a smartphone app. Could Pratt have gotten the hardware out faster? Probably. But industrial innovation on the scale of a commercial jet engine is inevitably and invariably a slog—one part inspiration to 99 parts perspiration.
In Pratt’s case, it required the cooperation of hundreds of engineers across the company, a $10 billion investment commitment from management, and, above all, the buy-in of aircraft makers and airlines, which had to be convinced that the engine would be both safe and durable. “It’s the antithesis of a Silicon Valley innovation,” says Alan Epstein, a retired MIT professor who is the company’s vice president for technology and the environment. “The Silicon Valley guys seem to have the attention span of 3-year-olds.”
Graphic by Bloomberg Businessweek; Data: Compiled by Bloomberg
The PurePower GTF began to take shape in 1988, when Pratt staffers in East Hartford, Conn., including a 28-year-old engineer named Michael McCune, started developing a gizmo to slow the fan—the big rotating blades at the front of the engine that provide most of a jetliner’s propulsion. For planes flying at typical speeds, a slow fan that moves large volumes of air at a moderate velocity is more efficient than a fast-spinning fan that accelerates a smaller volume of air. (The slow fan’s also quieter.)
The problem was that the fan was attached to the same shaft as two other parts of the jet engine, the low-pressure turbine and low-pressure compressor. Those parts would be more efficient if they ran faster, not slower. Sharing a shaft was a compromise that hurt each part’s performance and left nobody happy.
The solution McCune and his co-workers pursued was one that had already been used successfully on turboprop planes: a gearbox between the shaft and the fan that lets the fan run slower while the compressor and turbine run faster. The gearing approach hadn’t been tried at the scale of a commercial jetliner because the conventional wisdom was that it would be too heavy and wear out too quickly. “We started studying all gearboxes in service” to determine what the obstacles really were, says McCune.
The biggest challenge in scaling up was how to keep the gearbox, which is about 20 inches in diameter and weighs about 250 pounds, from being torn apart if there was a shock that wrenched the fan in one direction and the shaft in another. Adding steel for stiffness would make the engine too heavy. To put some give into the system, McCune’s team attached the gearbox rigidly to the fan but somewhat loosely, with bendable metal baffles, to the compressor/turbine shaft and the engine case.
Pratt engineers borrowed technology and ideas from other divisions of parent United Technologies: notes on gears from Sikorsky, which makes turbine-powered helicopters; bearing know-how from Pratt & Whitney Canada, which makes the geared PT6 engine for smaller turboprop aircraft; and simulations of how lubricants move through the gear from the United Technologies Research Center. It also got special parts from Timken, the 116-year-old bearing maker, and permission from NASA to use its wind tunnels in California and Ohio.
At times, the extent of the operation had to be protected from bean-counting Pratt executives, says Epstein. “Sometimes we spent a lot. In other years we hid him [McCune] behind the curtain and slipped him some sandwiches so management wouldn’t know what the investment was,” he jokes.
By 2008 the engine was ready for testing. Pratt engineers deliberately broke a prototype, letting a fan blade fly off to test whether the accident would destroy the gears. Afterward, Epstein says, “we took the gearbox apart, and it looked brand-new. You could even see the machining marks on the gears.”
“There were a lot of false starts there, but they knew they had a concept that would work,” says Ernest Arvai, a partner in commercial aviation consultant AirInsight. “I’m amazed that they kept the research going as long as they did. I think they’ve got a winner there.”
Epstein gives much of the credit for the project to McCune, who has 66 patents to his name. “Mike has succeeded in what many people thought was an impossible challenge,” he says.
Close all those tabs. Open this email.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
One consequence of the engine’s decades-long development is that it’s missed the window to be considered for inclusion on the latest generation of widebody jets, says George Ferguson, a senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. In the more important market for narrowbody jets, Ferguson says, the large fan makes the engine too big for Boeing’s 737 Max, which has low wings. On the plus side, Pratt & Whitney has fought General Electric nearly to a draw on airlines’ orders for engines for the Airbus A320neo family (46 percent vs. 54 percent, respectively, among orders in which an engine was chosen). And the PurePower GTF is the exclusive engine for the new narrowbodies from Bombardier, Embraer, and Mitsubishi. The jet engine market-share war plays out over decades. Speaking of the new engine, United Technologies Chief Executive Officer Gregory Hayes told analysts earlier this year: “Long-term, we like where we are.”The bottom line: The GTF’s almost 30-year incubation period cost Pratt some big customers, but the engine’s efficiency has attracted other
Last edited:
superdog
Junior Member
Not to mention some of the WZ series and even the QC series, I don't think they're 2 generations behind, some are in fact quite comparable to western engines widely used today (just not the newest and most advanced).Is WS-10 a serie produced engine that is equal to current operational engine in the West? If you replace West with USA, WS-10 is one generation behind, still qualifies per your standard? Or when you said West, you forgot Europe?
Strange that you overlooked it after 6 years in this forum.
Also the notion that "China made 2 or 1.5 steps while the rest of the world made 3 if not 4" is absurd, as that would mean China was much closer to the levels of PW/GE/RR/Saturn etc 20-30 years ago than it is now. Reality shows quite the contrary.
b787
Captain
this is what i can tell you for what i see.
The Chinese seem to have mastered the WS-10, at least for the pictures of J-11s, i do not think they have surpassed Russia`s 117 and latest Al-31M3 variants.
But Russia is not the Soviet Union, they are struggling to introduce the type 30 engine which is a F-135 type engine, if Russia flies that engine next year as planned China is very likely in the late 1990s tech of F-110 or F-100, and they mastered it the tech very likely they are between 15 to 20 years behind engine for heavy type fighters and 30 years for Trent series type engines, Russia says they are around 15 years behind the Trent series..
Russia is already testing the PD-14 and it seems China has an equivalent but it seems Russia is ahead because Y-20 has Russian engines and Il-476 has better engines and soon MS-21 will fly with Russian engines.
So i think Russia is ahead of China maybe by 10-15 years.
Japan has engines with TVC nozzles and 9:1 TWR but of low thrust, so I do not think Japan is ahead of China by more than 2 years so they are more or less at the same level.
India is definitively behind China but not by much.
Brazil is behind China too but they have engines for cruise missiles so in jet engines for cruise missiles they might be matched, but who knows.
But China already is an established jet engine manufacturer
Last edited:
Thank you for your fairness, at least you're using the "pictures" as evidence and not accusing the Chinese PS'd those pictures.
It appears that you're giving out the verdicts of who-is-behind-who-by-how-many-years rather casually.
Again, you mentioned a lot of Russian stuffs, but failed to mention that China has been testing WS-20, to be equipped on Y-20. What's with these x years behind stuff?
Clearly, Russia is currently ahead of China in turbo engines. But do you really think in 15 years, Russia will come up with an engine equivalent to the Trent series? Or, for that matter, do you really believe in 15 years China will still be testing its PD-14 equivalent?
What aircraft does this Japanese aircraft engine power? Can you provide some references or links? Those specs read very appealing and intriguing, are they just on paper or in the lab?
You started with "definitely", which was quite promising, but then quickly shoot yourself with "but not by much." ;-) Seriously, can you tell us how you came to this conclusion? China has WS-10 powering hundreds of its front-line heavy fighter aircraft J-11B and WS-9 powering hundreds of its fighter bombers JH-7/JH-7A? Does India have any production aircraft engines at all? Any aircraft powered by them?
You're trying so hard to establish more "equivalence" with China in aircraft engines, this time turning to Brazil, but stretching rather hard to use "jet engines for cruise missiles" as benchmark. Sure, you threw in a "who knows" to hedge, rather innocently.
But Brazil's cruise missile, AVTM-300, is still under development, and the first delivery was expected to be in 2016, while China has had her own cruise missiles since the '90s and has since then developed land-, air-, ship-, sub-launched cruise missiles with hundreds if not thousands of them in service. How exactly Brazil is "matched" with China in "jet engines for cruise missiles" even if we agree they're jet engines for the sake of arguments?
Having "established" that China has roughly achieved parity with Japan, India, Brazil in jet engines, but still behind Russia for 15 years, you finally "acknowledge" that "China already is an established jet engine manufacturer."
Whew, what a seal of approval. Congratulations China!
Last edited:
MwRYum
Major
Then please enlighten us all why'd the Z-10 be so underpowered that it has to forgo armor and countermeasure suites (without things like active ECM, laser warning/jamming, IR dampening exhaust vents, makes it "naked" by international standard), and still has to go with piss-poor loadout to compensate such a handicap? If they've made a new WZ model and "cured" such crippling handicap they won't be quiet about it, but so far we've heard nothing from the manufacturer. Saving the good news for the upcoming Zhuhai Airshow 2016 perhaps? That's my best attempt at optimism if it'd makes you lads a bit happier...
So the whole "US-Europe-Russia/USSR-China" ranking remain the status quo then. Russia's biggest hamper is money and they're spending their last of the USSR legacy...Russia is clearly slowed to a crawl and yet China is still decades behind. Truly heartbreaking.
Japan is deeply ingrained in the US / Western bloc manufactorum so it's easily counted as part of that superior breed instead as of its own. Japan's engine biggest application would be their domestic military projects, while previously their unit cost couldn't come down due to self-imposed export ban, things might change now...if they can garner a few export orders.
India...they've the Russian and Western manufactorum at their beak and call, yet their Kaveri got canned...they made the Chinese "lone wolf" struggle that has a similar timing such a shining beacon. Irony.
And those who know me should know I'm anything but those "China bashing" type, because if I'm of that type, I'd have use far harsher words.
b787
Captain
please first go and google a bit, about Russia i can tell you this.
PD-14 is program to fly next year on MS-21, Type 30 is also program to fly either in 2017 or 2018 powering PAKFA.
Y-20 is not flying on Chinese engines WS-20 but Il-476 is flying powered by PS-90s.
The Il-476 just by using a new wing and engines with a older fuselage more or less to stay effective.
PD-14 is now being redesigned to generate a new family of engines that will end up in PD-30 which is a Trent type.
If the Chinese fly their C919 with WS-20 by 2017 then you could say they are matching Russia, but the C919 will fly first with american engines same like MS-21 but by 2017 MS-21 will fly with PD-14.
Japan has the XF-5 engines and the XF-7 engines which are state of the art, their thrust is lower but not their technology.
XF-7 already is operational
Brazil today can develop small jet engines of very high performance see the cabure cruise missile
powered by the TJ-200
So as i said i do not know who is behind or ahead, but i am sure you underestimate the state other countries have
As usual, you're throwing tons of "information" without really addressing the questions. Re-read my questions commenting your assessment of Japan, India and Brazil being roughly matched or equivalent to China in jet engines.
I didn't say China has "matched" Russia in engine, did I? I said Russia is clearly ahead of China, didn't I?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Couple of issues; when you said X is ahead of Y by 15 years, what do you mean? That Y will take 15 years to catch up to X, that Y will take 15 years to get to where X is now (not counting X's advances in those 15 years), or that 15 years ago, X is where Y is now? Those are very different and because China moves so fast, what you say could be overly generous by 1 definition but insultingly underestimating by another.
Japan's midget prototype engines (TWR 7.8, not 9, wet thrust <50kN) are definitely not in the league of the WS-10 variants currently in use on the Flankers. You may assume they are very very advanced internally, but that is not backed by their performance, which we use as evidence of technological prowess.
India is not far behind China? China has WS-15, WS-20, etc in testing, WS-10X in production/use by the hundreds, and it is not far ahead of India? With their Kaveri program scrapped and the engine deemed unfit except perhaps for drone use with afterburner stripped? How's that going? Any Indian drones in service with it? I dunno. If that's not far behind, then I'm not far behind the Olympic swimmers in the pool; I just have to learn to swim without a hoop first.
b787
Captain
i did i say China is already an established jet engine maker with design capabilities no doubt about it, but you need to google, the rest of countries are also advancing, if you think India will stay behind or Brazil will not advance, every one advances, China is not a retrograde country to put you an example if the USA or Britan did not advanced you could say China already catch up in the technology they had in the 1990s with F-15s, but the west also advanced, they are flying much more advanced engines than in the 1990s.
You expect Russia will fall behind too, they will not, they spent their selling more than 2000 Al-31s only to China and India, that money is the one used to develop 117s and Type 30s.
SSJ-100 also flys with a Russian french engine, ARJ-21 uses american engines, how can you expect then the WS-20 is ahead of PD-14? you have to sense every one is advancing
Last edited: