Is the CJ-1000A test engine installed on the same engine mount as the #2 engine (from the left side)?
I don't think Y-20 has a big enough wing to fit 3 engines at once.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
I don't think Y-20 has a big enough wing to fit 3 engines at once.
Perhaps the two wings on both sides of the Y-20 have a D-30 engine removed, and the two wings on both sides are replaced with two CJ-2000A for testing. Who knows? This diagram is simply a localized picture.
No, they are two different things. 空天 means atmospheric(空) and orbital (天) or out of atmosphere (engines). Aero-engine is within atmosphere (aircraft, missile engines). The link you referred to is a high altitude test chamber from AECC for turbo engines.The banner reads "祝贺空天动力试验台顺利进入系统联调", which roughly translates into "Celebrating the smooth transition into systematic calibration/debugging phase of a aero-engine test bench". I wonder if this might have something to do with this, although the model doesn't quite exactly match this.
So this system is to test something like TBCC, RBCC and TRRE etc. Do you know what institute is this photo from?
[edit]
I found it, it is CAS Jinan test site. The facility is to simulate near space condition for full engine test.
Last edited:
Cropped from this, looks CGI
Perhaps the first application of the CJ-1000 is for the civilian version of the Y-20.
... why do you think that??
nope. misleading information
CJ-1000 is strictly for C919.
Y-20 civilian version Y-20F-100 will have AEF1300 engine. civil version of WS-20 engine. they have showcase model in Zhuhai air show
Still the same old SF-A (now AEF-1300) vs SF-B (now CJ-1000A) competition from years ago. Plastic models and new designations in a trade show don't mean much.
Does it make sense for a single company (AVIC/AECC) to market two brand new civilian engines in the same class at the same time? Eventually the accountants will start to complain.
SF-A was a backup to SF-B. If CJ-1000A has longer-term potential and getting really close, why not ease that engine into commercial use in a freighter first to prove its reliability and efficiency before letting it carry innocent passengers. AEF-1300 may have a much harder time getting certified given its military heritage (i.e. no early involvement/shadowing by CAAC).
WS-20/AEF-1300 engines design by Shenyang liming engine institute and assemble by Xian aero engine also known as XAEC
CJ-1000/CJ-2000 design/assemble by Aero Engine Corporation of China. also known as AECC
two separate entities but Shenyang/Xian comes under AECC as China formed AECC in 2016 to merge all engine related firms.
AECC established just to focus on civilian engines and de facto leadership of Chinese aero engine industry.
Shenyang is totally different from AECC when it comes to research , components manufacturing and assembly. they are also working on WS-20 successor. they have nothing to do with CJ1000/CJ2000 engines.
Exactly. Two groups of engineers competing for the same pot. I just feel, from parent AVIC bean counter's point of view, only one will eventually win and I think the 'natural' winner is CJ-1000A. Not a huge loss for XAC as they have the WS-20 program and not much effort is wasted. Just rename AEF-1300 as WS-20B (that may already be the case so just no extra pocket money to build another XAEC hotel in Shenyang).
If that picture of CJ-1000A on a Y-20 is real, I am guessing AECC poured enough resources into CJ-1000A and it caught up or ahead of the AEF-1300 development which is excellent news for all. Has there ever been a picture of a working AEF-1300. CAAC is very protective of its reputation and is very strict. ARJ-21 (EASA only) and MA-60 (neither EASA nor FAA) had similar issues with CAAC. C919 is the first with all paperwork done properly.
I remember when AECC was first created, Aviation Week magazine had an article comparing the number of engineers at GE/RR vs AECC and commented that it was a good start but China still wasn't putting nearly enough money into engine development to be competitive. I don't remember the numbers but the gap was huge (1/5?). AECC does sounds much more confident these days.