J-10 Thread IV

b787

b787

Captain
Equation said:
It don't matter how many AL-31s China buys now because in the future when the WS-10s, 13s, 15s, and etc., would be replacing those Russian made engines. That's why the Russian are nervous therefore relying on their media mouth piece to sell their engines to whatever customers they got left.
Click to expand...
is not media propaganda, the Al-31, is an old engine, built since 1981, it is a mature engine flying in more than 1500 Su-27s and derivatives world wide and in J-10s , about the future i do not know, perhaps you are right perhaps you are not, however blame the Al-31 for the J-10 accident is not realistic, first, accident happen, and second a single engine aircraft has more probability to crash than a twin engine, statistics do not lie
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
Drones in the next few years maybe, but jet engines will likely take a few more decades.
Click to expand...
The fact is that pretty much all new flankers fly on WS-10 so saying it'll take China a few more decades to develop something it already has working is like saying it'll take someone at least another few days to get here when he's been standing in front of you since yesterday. You also don't seem to know much about the engine situation in China; I've seen you ask a few times what engines a crashed J-10A or AS was using when it's common knowledge that all except maybe 2 J-10B prototypes use AL-31.
 
B

Brainsuker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Look at all those fighters. Only Fighters from Shenyang got WS-10. All Chengdu one use Russian engine. So maybe WS-10 just for Shenyang for now.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Blackstone said:
Drones in the next few years maybe, but jet engines will likely take a few more decades.
Click to expand...

Decades? Nah, China is building air craft carriers that the Russian couldn't even build today. Remember, it's all about the program. Sustaining such a program of any kind takes money, the right people and the will to do it. That includes, jet engines, missiles, rocketry, space, ship buildings, etc.
 
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
manqiangrexue said:
I want Chinese engines to succeed more than anyone, and I didn't say that no news means it happened. I'm saying that every time it happens with a J-10, we know it cus there's a crash, but we would not know it IF it happened with J-11 because there wouldn't be a crash (except for a double flame out). Therefore, you cannot conclude, with certitude that hearing J-10 crash but not J-11 crash means that AL-31 is less reliable than WS-10A.

Also, if I was AVIC, I wouldn't use less reliable engines on a single-engine aircraft and more reliable engines on a double-engine aircraft; I would do it the other way around to reduce likelihood of total engine loss-related accidents.

And landing a Flanker on one engine is not considered heroic at all; landing a J-10 with no engine, however, is.
Click to expand...
Conclude with certitude ? Leave military forums & go to Hollywood ones instead then, unless you're the engineer or those inside the military.
We can only make logical conclusion based on available info & that's we have multiple crashes due to AL31, the Russians themselves don't dare to build single engine jets & zero flame out with WS10 on J11 & derivatives. Want to say otherwise ? Come back with facts or even rumors from credible sources not wishful thinking or because of inferiority complex.
Clearly AVIC used AL31 on J10 because it was the only choice then. Cheapness of AL31 may have made it attractive to continue using them but the crashes now call for an urgent rethink.
Russian stuffs are known to be unreliable & short lived. Unless something is done. We can expect many more J10 crashes as we get closer to AL31's end of SHORT life with plenty of life left in the J10 air frame.
And you seem not to know too much about PLA, it shows. The 'heroic' part is what a PLA propaganda would typically report a news like engine flame out. I didn't say I would describe it as such.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Schumacher said:
Conclude with certitude ? Leave military forums & go to Hollywood ones instead then, unless you're the engineer or those inside the military.
We can only make logical conclusion based on available info & that's we have multiple crashes due to AL31, the Russians themselves don't dare to build single engine jets & zero flame out with WS10 on J11 & derivatives. Want to say otherwise ? Come back with facts or even rumors from credible sources not wishful thinking or because of inferiority complex.
Clearly AVIC used AL31 on J10 because it was the only choice then. Cheapness of AL31 may have made it attractive to continue using them but the crashes now call for an urgent rethink.
Russian stuffs are known to be unreliable & short lived. Unless something is done. We can expect many more J10 crashes as we get closer to AL31's end of SHORT life with plenty of life left in the J10 air frame.
And you seem not to know too much about PLA, it shows. The 'heroic' part is what a PLA propaganda would typically report a news like engine flame out. I didn't say I would describe it as such.
Click to expand...

I think you've confused "...zero flame out with WS-10 on J-11..." with "...zero double flame out with WS-10 on J-11..." You cannot assume zero flame out by lack of crash if a flame-out wouldn't cause a crash. That's called you are using a broken test indicator. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; have you heard of that? So because your indicator is broken, the number of WS-10 flame outs is not a 0; it is X. X can be larger or smaller than the AL-31 rate, but you are making the mistake of assuming that X is smaller because the AL-31 rate has a confirmed positive value while X does not. This is faulty and illogical; it's akin to assuming that your car's not running short on gas because the fuel gauge is broken and stays at full. I am a PhD in biological sciences; I set up experiments, analyze data and draw conclusions. Although you are right in that there is no conclusion that can be set with absolute certitude, I assure you that your conclusion cannot even qualify as logical.

Just to be clear here, I'm not saying that this means that the WS-10 has better, similar, or worse reliability than AL-31; I'm saying that we cannot draw a conclusion, at least not based on crash reports.

Regarding the part about the PLA propaganda, all I can say is that I don't agree. I don't agree that if a J-11 experienced a single-engine loss, it would be on the news to praise pilot skill. I've never seen an example of that happening anywhere (since it is well-within the realm of expected competency for an average pilot to do so) and it especially would not be publicized if it's an ongoing problem that occurs multiple times per year. However, such a thing may be mentioned in retrospect, uncovering an incident several years old to show people how much the industry has matured.
 
Last edited:
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
manqiangrexue said:
............ I am a PhD in biological sciences; I set up experiments, analyze data and draw conclusions. Although you are right in that there is no conclusion that can be set with absolute certitude, I assure you that your conclusion cannot even qualify as logical.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your 'PhD in biological sciences' won't get you far here. I've seen plenty of PhD who are too narrowly focused on their field of studies to lose touch of the wider real world.
And in the real world, when an engine, whose reliability is suspect to begin with, causes multiple crashes, it will be questioned again & compared unfavorably with contemporaries which are doing well.
If you're upset with WS10 doing well, come up with proofs it's not. We're in the real world, not your lab.

manqiangrexue said:
Regarding the part about the PLA propaganda, all I can say is that I don't agree. I don't agree that if a J-11 experienced a single-engine loss, it would be on the news to praise pilot skill. I've never seen an example of that happening anywhere (since it is well-within the realm of expected competency for an average pilot to do so) ............
Click to expand...
And all I can say is apparently you do not follow PLA news close enough. I've seen plenty of such news. Maybe you're spending too much time on your 'PhD'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top