Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Is it Possible AVIC can't solve current jet engine production issue?
WS10A suffering from low yield, low quality issue. Is it possible that they are frustrated with this whole thing and discard this serie and going back to the drawing board. Sometimes, a complete new design is better instead patching here and there and more problems will pop up. A clean slate so to speak. The redesign will incroprate the latest design methodgologies, software simulation and advancement of materials. Also hiring outside consultants to fine tune the process. MAybe that should be the way instead of keep tweaking the ill-fated current design.
no need to open up another thread on the WS10A
Threads merged.
bd popeye super moderator
WS10A suffering from low yield, low quality issue. Is it possible that they are frustrated with this whole thing and discard this serie and going back to the drawing board. Sometimes, a complete new design is better instead patching here and there and more problems will pop up. A clean slate so to speak. The redesign will incroprate the latest design methodgologies, software simulation and advancement of materials. Also hiring outside consultants to fine tune the process. MAybe that should be the way instead of keep tweaking the ill-fated current design.
no need to open up another thread on the WS10A
Threads merged.
bd popeye super moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Is it Possible AVIC can't solve current jet engine production issue?
Integrating domestic design and manufacturing of a gas turbine engine is no small feat, and even the Soviets faced issues in their early years of development. However, there seems to be sufficient confidence in the core engine design of the WS-10 for derivatives to be developed from this, both marine turbines and high bypass engines.
Integrating domestic design and manufacturing of a gas turbine engine is no small feat, and even the Soviets faced issues in their early years of development. However, there seems to be sufficient confidence in the core engine design of the WS-10 for derivatives to be developed from this, both marine turbines and high bypass engines.
Not Ready For Prime Time, Yet
February 14, 2009: .Chinese engineers thought they had managed to master the manufacturing techniques needed to make a Chinese copy of the Russian AL31F engine. This Chinese copy, the WS10A, was meant for the Chinese J-10 fighter, which entered service two years ago. But the Chinese Air Force was not satisfied with the reliability or performance of the WS10A, and have ordered another hundred AL31Fs from Russia, in order to continue building J-10s.
China has long copied foreign technology, not always successfully. But in the last decade, China has poured much money into developing a jet engine manufacturing capability. The Chinese have encountered many of the same problems the Russians ran into when developing their engine design and construction skills. Russia has yet to match the quality of Western engines, but has been closing the gap more quickly since the end of the Cold War, which made it possible for Western suppliers to provide Russian manufacturers with the best components and manufacturing technology.
February 14, 2009: .Chinese engineers thought they had managed to master the manufacturing techniques needed to make a Chinese copy of the Russian AL31F engine. This Chinese copy, the WS10A, was meant for the Chinese J-10 fighter, which entered service two years ago. But the Chinese Air Force was not satisfied with the reliability or performance of the WS10A, and have ordered another hundred AL31Fs from Russia, in order to continue building J-10s.
China has long copied foreign technology, not always successfully. But in the last decade, China has poured much money into developing a jet engine manufacturing capability. The Chinese have encountered many of the same problems the Russians ran into when developing their engine design and construction skills. Russia has yet to match the quality of Western engines, but has been closing the gap more quickly since the end of the Cold War, which made it possible for Western suppliers to provide Russian manufacturers with the best components and manufacturing technology.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
WS 10A is not a copy of AL31F Itwas based on Snecma engine licence from GE I forgot the name CFM somethin.You got it wrong!.
Introducing new technology will encounter problem that is not unusual and there is no short cut to it. You have to undergo debugging period. The most important thing is they have design team in place. They have the testing stand and domestic 5 Axis CNC machinery in production .
Give it a little bit time for the engine to mature and attained its specified reliability. Most problem will probably encounter in Manufacturing and quality control.
Hyperwarp
Captain
WS-10A for J-10? That is not what we have been hearing. It was said that the WS-10A would be powering the J-11B. But unfortunately it seems the 1st J-11B regiment still uses the (Personally for me was a huge dissaponitment
)Regarding the WS-10A being a copy of the AL-31F. maya should be able to give you some technical differences.
Maybe the problem is much bigger. Instead of just some debugging, maybe some of components need to made of different materials. different size, ...
that's fundamental problems requiring new material advancement, better CNC, better software simulation, .... maybe a new design?
In another words, the current tools and tech at their disposal are not good enough to meet that type of reliability and yield. Better materials and tools are needed. Back to the drawing board.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
No it is not. The design has been confirmed on the test stand .There is big difference between hand made prototype and production model. Worker need to be trained and supplier need to raise the quality of their part. Because you are as good as your weakest link which is most likely the part spplier, remember Gas Turbine contain hundreds of parts.
Anyway even the best suffer from teething problem Here it is
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.
"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats....
Related link:
Well, here's an analogy, In semicondcutor chip design field, a design has made and prototype, the first silicon come back and tested, it works. But later when try for masss production the yield is only 40%.
The designer engineer complain it must be the process issue, therefore the process engineer should fix it. Then process engineer counter back hey your design works but the margins are too low therefore yield is low.
A design works doesn't mean anything, the most important aspect is how much margin you have above the spec. Because variance of manufacturing process can throw a weak design, with little margin off easily. A design with good margin will buffer against those manufacturing variance. hence good yield.
majority of time, if the yield is low, the design engineer has to modify the design to introduce more redundancy or margin for the chip. That usually solves the probelm.
So, that bring back the questions, how much margin does the WS10A design has? All indications seem like it's weak design with little margin.
Like the chip design case, I think this WS10A has to be modified.
Another option is wait for WS-15 which has designed with higher spec, so the WS-15 design would easily meet WS-10A critieria, therefore use the overkill of the superior design of WS-15 to generate good yield. (the WS-15 design should give very good margin when stacking against the WS-10A spec)
Last edited: