Eh, never heard of MTU, Avio or IHI?
10-15 years is quite optimistic. But people aren't doing things because they are easy.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
Eh, never heard of MTU, Avio or IHI?
10-15 years is quite optimistic. But people aren't doing things because they are easy.
Those three can produce licenced engines of previous generation, as they do, but i wouldn't put them up with the first tier engine developer companies. Even the ej200, where aero and mtu are partners, was largely based on rolls royce's work on its demo engine from 1980s.
When it comes to development of advanced military engines, i'd rate the US players first - GE, PW; then Rolls Royce and russia's UEC slightly behind, then Snecma somewhat behind still, then probably even best chinese makers somewhat behind Snecma before the other mentioned makers such as MTU, IHI, AERO, Honeywell, then further behind GKN, indian engine makers etc...
That means that while IHI or MTU could produce an engine that's somewhat more reliable in actual serial production - design wise if they were to develop a new engine (which they don't) i'd rate them somewhat behind the laboratory perfomance of newest chinese engines.
When it comes to development of advanced military engines, i'd rate the US players first - GE, PW; then Rolls Royce and russia's UEC slightly behind, then Snecma somewhat behind still, then probably even best chinese makers somewhat behind Snecma before the other mentioned makers such as MTU, IHI, AERO, Honeywell, then further behind GKN, indian engine makers etc...
That means that while IHI or MTU could produce an engine that's somewhat more reliable in actual serial production - design wise if they were to develop a new engine (which they don't) i'd rate them somewhat behind the laboratory perfomance of newest chinese engines.
Are you sure they are FN not F? After this many years you know the difference between those two, right, Deino?
To admit externally - especially with only the exhaust visible - they are the same and as such it is not possible to know.
However since CAC specifically demanded a modified version of the trusted AL-31F with the gear-box relocated to the bottom of the engine for the J-10 that became the AL-31FN, since exactly the same was demanded for the FC-1/JF-17's engine when Klimov relocated the gear-box of its RD-33 to the bottom to develop the RD-93 ... I simply can't think that CAC uses an engine with its gear-box back on top as on the AL-31F or RD-33. Otherwise the J-10 and JF-17 could have easily used the original engines too.
As such ... only my estimated guess.
Deino
PS: by the way what's about these batch 02 J-15s ???
plawolf
Lieutenant General
While that certainly makes good sense, and fits in with the establish pattern of past behaviour, we should also consider the fact that both J10 and JF17 are single engine, single finned fighters, whereas the J20 is twin engined and twin finned, thus the pattern may not necessary hold.
The twin engined, twin finned J11/16/15 all have their engine gear boxes on top, so I guess the main question to ask is, what are the pros and cons of having the gearbox on the bottom and top respectively?
That may give us clues about the J20's engine arrangement.
I always though of it as a matter of convenience.
For twin engined, twin finned fighters, their engines are almost always located between twin vertical fins. As such, you can install access panels and give crews easy access to the engines (and since the gearbox is one of the most complicated and part most in need of regular checks, maintenance and repairs, you naturally want the easiest access to them).
For single engine, single finned fighters, the fuselage is generally too narrow, and the vertical fin is generally in the way too much to allow crews to work at the engine from above, thus the access gearbox and panels are positioned under the plane.
From just a layman POV, I would think having the engine under your feet would be a lot easier to work on than having it over your head.
Thus, if given a choice, I would probably have preferred to have the gearbox and access panels on top wherever possible.
But that is just me, maybe there are other considerations I am not thinking off?
antiterror13
Brigadier
deleted
Aqreed, but IMO the use of the "old-style gear-box on top-design-solution" for all these Flanker-versions is mostly regarded to the fact that a change to a new engine would have required yet another redesign. Just look at these slim nacelles.
Also, the J-31 uses two "gear-box on the bottom" RD-93, when it could have easily taken the standard RD-33.
Deino
Quickie
Colonel
I'm speculating the dimension of the engine nacelle has already been fixed to that of the new engine and not the AL-31F/N, or whatever it currently is. This explains why a gab is left between the engine nacelle and the engine. This may be an indication that an engine change is going to happen sooner that later
- Status