Chinese Engines Miss The Finish Line

MiG-29 · Oct 13, 2011

Lacrimosa said:
1) That's now how things work. You make a claim, you have to back it up. The burden of proof is not on the other party to debunk it. Point of views is no more than opinion. It is pointless to bring up mere opinion and demand solid proof in return.

2) If you actually read your own sources, you'll find for instance that China defense mashup agrees that there is significant Russian input in WS-10. That is not the same thing as being a copy or a clone.

3) I see that you are continuing your steadfast refusal to acknowledge evidence that your own sources are flawed.

prove them they are flawed, do you have an official source? i guess not, you simply support a theory that fits your taste, unless you prove with official sources no Russian input, other sources as "theories" have the same veracity.

There is a true history, but i guess it has not been released by the chinese officialy and you support speculation that later becomes solid facts in the mind of some, but has no real evidence.

Yeah the Russians might be wrong, it is possible, same popular mechanics but prove them wrong, popular mechanics is recalling a real fact, Moo is a real person and he was caught in the US, charged and popular mechanics is telling us a real life story.

Lacrimosa · Oct 13, 2011

MiG-29 said:
prove them they are flawed, do you have an official source? i guess not, you simply support a theory that fits your taste, unless you prove with official sources no Russian input, other sources as "theories" have the same veracity.

There is a true history, but i guess it has not been released by the chinese officialy and you support speculation that later becomes solid facts in the mind of some, but has no real evidence.

Yeah the Russians might be wrong, it is possible, same popular mechanics but prove them wrong, popular mechanics is recalling a real fact, Moo is a real person and he was caught in the US, charged and popular mechanics is telling us a real life story.

Are you able to read? I ask with genuine interest as what I said is this:

"2) If you actually read your own sources, you'll find for instance that China defense mashup agrees that there is significant Russian input in WS-10. That is not the same thing as being a copy or a clone."

How you can read that and interpret that as 'no Russian input' is entirely beyond me.

As for 'you support speculation'. I don't recall to have speculated. I state that your source is in error about what ITS source says, and ITS source says thus and so. Again I question your fluency in the English language.

Moo is real but pretty much anything else is not. I have pointed out some errors. I am not obliged to point out any more, as the burden of proof is on you to explain why somebody convicted of trying to acquire the F110 (the fact) supports the WS-10 is a clone of the AL-31 (speculation). Surprisingly enough it is actually possible to mix facts with speculation.

Deino · Oct 13, 2011

MiG-29 said:
prove them they are flawed, do you have an official source? i guess not, you simply support a theory that fits your taste, unless you prove with official sources no Russian input, other sources as "theories" have the same veracity.

There is a true history, but i guess it has not been released by the chinese officialy and you support speculation that later becomes solid facts in the mind of some, but has no real evidence.

Yeah the Russians might be wrong, it is possible, same popular mechanics but prove them wrong, popular mechanics is recalling a real fact, Moo is a real person and he was caught in the US, charged and popular mechanics is telling us a real life story.

Sorry but by this "logic" You can post whatever You read, whatever You think - what You surely can - , whatever proves Your opinion even if other more trusted "sources" state other and it's up to us to prove that You are wrong. Sorry, but that douesn't improved neither these sources' cor Your credibility !

I agree with You that as long as there are no official documents available it seems simply like "Your opinion vs. "my opinion" but this is not a legal case where whenever I can't disprove You it automatically means You are correct. I don't know how long You are around in that scene but to get a feeling who's reliable and who's not, what source can be trusted and what postes always trash needs years and I think most here will agree that even after years mistakes occur and so long trusted "big shrimps" post wrong things as well. But simply use Your brain and how can two engines with a completely different inter structure, external appearance be a clone of each other ?? As such no one here would take neither Popular Mechanics nor Lenta or Rian.ru a reliable source and that won't change if You repost them as mach as You like or still insist to that "logic".

Again You might be correct that Mr. Moo is a real person that's a fact ... but doesn't automatically makes all other things facts too. Sorry.

Deino

MiG-29 · Oct 13, 2011

Deino said:
Sorry but by this "logic" You can post whatever You read, whatever You think - what You surely can - , whatever proves Your opinion even if other more trusted "sources" state other and it's up to us to prove that You are wrong. Sorry, but that douesn't improved neither these sources' cor Your credibility !

I agree with You that as long as there are no official documents available it seems simply like "Your opinion vs. "my opinion" but this is not a legal case where whenever I can't disprove You it automatically means You are correct. I don't know how long You are around in that scene but to get a feeling who's reliable and who's not, what source can be trusted and what postes always trash needs years and I think most here will agree that even after years mistakes occur and so long trusted "big shrimps" post wrong things as well. But simply use Your brain and how can two engines with a completely different inter structure, external appearance be a clone of each other ?? As such no one here would take neither Popular Mechanics nor Lenta or Rian.ru a reliable source and that won't change if You repost them as mach as You like or still insist to that "logic".

Again You might be correct that Mr. Moo is a real person that's a fact ... but doesn't automatically makes all other things facts too. Sorry.

Deino

My point is simple the veracity is given by the reader, true, i agree, it is possible it is not based upon the AL-31, however, some reports claim it is, unless you have an official source, you won`t be able to tell which one is the correct one, about not being the same well it can have modifications, but who knows, like i said the reader leans to what he or she wants to believe.

However mocking the article without an official source is not real research, prove the article wrong upon official sources, not gossips or opinions of so called experts who are simply posters on forums and have as much veracity as Lenta.ru or Popular Mechanics and probably even less since LENTA.ru and popular mechanics are Media well known.

Deino · Oct 13, 2011

MiG-29 said:
My point is simple the veracity is given by the reader, true, i agree, it is possible it is not based upon the AL-31, however, some reports claim it is, unless you have an official source, you won`t be able to tell which one is the correct one, about not being the same well it can have modifications, but who knows, like i said the reader leans to what he or she wants to believe.

However mocking the article without an official source is not real research, prove the article wrong upon official sources, not gossips or opinions of so called experts who are simply posters on forums and have as much veracity as Lenta.ru or Popular Mechanics and probably even less since LENTA.ru and popular mechanics are Media well known.

Ohhh come one, use Your brain !!!!! Simply some common sense usually helps a lot ... and in this case it is more than clear even without an official confirmation from AVIC, CAC, SAC or Lyming that the WS-10A is not an AL-31FN-clone nor does it uses the same design in the same way as the J-10 is not a Lavi clone or the J-20 based on the MiG 1.44, even if that is written all over in some "sources" and I can't disprove that.

Sorry to say that, but I won't continue that discussion ....

Deino

MiG-29 · Oct 13, 2011

Deino said:
Ohhh come one, use Your brain !!!!! Simply some common sense usually helps a lot ... and in this case it is more than clear even without an official confirmation from AVIC, CAC, SAC or Lyming that the WS-10A is not an AL-31FN-clone nor does it uses the same design in the same way as the J-10 is not a Lavi clone or the J-20 based on the MiG 1.44, even if that is written all over in some "sources" and I can't disprove that.

Sorry to say that, but I won't continue that discussion ....

Deino

No problem, no need to continue the discussion but you are using visual opinion, do you have blue prints or cutaways of WS-10 and AL-31?, do you have a detailed scheme of each and every part?

Do you know that actually the F-101 had a derivative called F-110 or and the F-100 had another derivative called PW1120, also the R-13 and R-25 were derived from the R-11 tumansky in China know as WP-13 and WP-7, a derivative is as based upon a AL-31, that is the whole concept.

see F-101 and F-110

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

R-11 and R-25

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

delft · Oct 13, 2011

MiG-29! R-11 &c. were designed by Tumanskii, AL engines were designed by Lyulka, quite a different design bureau.

Deino · Oct 13, 2011

MiG-29 said:
...
Do you know that actually the F-101 had a derivative called F-110 or and the F-100 had another derivative called PW1120, also the R-13 and R-25 were derived from the R-11 tumansky in China know as WP-13 and WP-7, a derivative is as based upon a AL-31, that is the whole concept.

Sorry, but this part I do not understand ???

Qasim57 · Oct 13, 2011

I don't understand how America and Russia can blame anyone of "copying". The F-100 is said to be the first true US-designed engine, their previous were heavily "inspired" by German designs.

There was a huge rush after World War-2, with Russia and the US pushing to grab as many German scientists and secret tech, atleast China never had to kidnap US scientists to make their tech. Many German scientists even worked on engines for USA's Saturn space rockets. And for Russia, their copy of Rolls-Royce engines was so blatant, Britain tried for years to get the Russians to explain the abnormal similarities between it's designs and theirs.

So, for these people to blame anyone else of "copying", is a little hypocritical to say the least. As a Pakistani, I hope WS-13A progresses along nicely, the Russian RD-33 variant we use in JFTs are smokey(meaning fuel isn't burnt efficiently - wasted fuel results in smoke). The J-10Bs PAF is to get are also likely to be powered by the WS-10.

Quickie · Oct 13, 2011

The WS-10A is a further development of the WS-10, the development of which started long before China has access to the AL-31. Among the obvious differences, the WS-10A has a wider diameter and its afterburner is pinkish in colour.

Chinese Engines Miss The Finish Line

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

Lacrimosa

New Member

Deino

Lieutenant General

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

Deino

Lieutenant General

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

delft

Brigadier

Deino

Lieutenant General

Qasim57

New Member

Quickie

Colonel