R-29 in China !???

Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hi guys … once again I have a problem related to some contradicting reports. Several “sources” say that China obtained the MiG-23MS (together with several other items) via Egypt during the mid to late 1970s.

Then it is said that Institute 601 and Factory 112 carried out a full and comprehensive technical analysis and that this engine – reportedly to be manufactured by Factory 410 – was planned to power the J-9, J-13 and Q-6 (in all three it was under consideration after the original WS-6 has failed or the WS-9 was deemed unsuitable).

My problem now is the designation: most “sources” call this reverse engineered powerplant WP-15 indicating a turbojet … but since the R-29-300 was a turbofan, the designation seems wrong or at least inappropriate and a WS-designation would have been correct. Any idea or help to that ??

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Thanks a lot, Deino :confused:
 
Semi-Lobster

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
Deino said:
Hi guys … once again I have a problem related to some contradicting reports. Several “sources” say that China obtained the MiG-23MS (together with several other items) via Egypt during the mid to late 1970s.

Then it is said that Institute 601 and Factory 112 carried out a full and comprehensive technical analysis and that this engine – reportedly to be manufactured by Factory 410 – was planned to power the J-9, J-13 and Q-6 (in all three it was under consideration after the original WS-6 has failed or the WS-9 was deemed unsuitable).

My problem now is the designation: most “sources” call this reverse engineered powerplant WP-15 indicating a turbojet … but since the R-29-300 was a turbofan, the designation seems wrong or at least inappropriate and a WS-designation would have been correct. Any idea or help to that ??

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Thanks a lot, Deino :confused:
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that afwing seems to have accidently refered to the
R-29 as a tubojet rather than turbofan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Even English sources have made the same mistake

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
This was the answer I got at the Key-Forum ?!!

Flex said:
The R-29 is actually a turbojet as well, so there is no contradiction in that respect.
Click to expand...

But how can an engine be a turbojet and a turbofan at the same time ??? Could anyone please elaborate or explain that to me ... !!

Deino
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
Deino said:
This was the answer I got at the Key-Forum ?!!



But how can an engine be a turbojet and a turbofan at the same time ??? Could anyone please elaborate or explain that to me ... !!

Deino
Click to expand...

I think he's saying the R-29 is actually a turbojet, and so it doesn't contradict with the WP-15 which is obviously a turbojet going by its 'WP' designation. Now, is the R-29 a turbojet or a turbofan?
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Quickie said:
... Now, is the R-29 a turbojet or a turbofan?
Click to expand...

It is a turbojet and therefore the WP-15 designation is - or at least could be correct ! (I don't know why they jumped from WP-8 or maybe 9 to 15 at a time when other designations were still unused. :confused:

Deino
 
Semi-Lobster

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
As far as I can tell the wikipedia link is incorrect. Other than it, to be honest I've never heard of the R-29-300 or any R-29 variant being called a 'turbofan', I was waiting for somebody else to possibly mention an explanation that I may have never heard of or something but to put it flatly the wikipedia link is wrong. Here are some websites that are pretty much irrefutable

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Goverment of Romania

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Flight Global

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Government of India
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
Deino said:
I don't know why they jumped from WP-8 or maybe 9 to 15 at a time when other designations were still unused. :confused:

Deino
Click to expand...

You got a point there. Possible reasons could be:

1. The R-29 actually has no relation to the WP-15.
2. The WP-15 is a much more recent development.
 
Semi-Lobster

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
Quickie said:
You got a point there. Possible reasons could be:

1. The R-29 actually has no relation to the WP-15.
2. The WP-15 is a much more recent development.
Click to expand...

Not true, there were two seperate WP-15 projects. The original was a copy ofthe Tumansky R-29 that failed and was shelved bythe early 90's. The designation was reused and the second WP-15 turbojet engine was originally conceived forthe J-10 but that to was cancelled (maybe 15 is not a lucky number for the PLAAF?). As for the name scheme, I'm no expert but you have to remember that theytend to jump around alot. We had the J-12 designation being used in 1970 parralel to the J-7s development afterall.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Semi-Lobster said:
Not true, there were two seperate WP-15 projects. The original was a copy ofthe Tumansky R-29 that failed and was shelved bythe early 90's. ....
Click to expand...

Really onyl in the eraly 90's ??? Do You have any additional information on that ?? As far as I'm informed, it was "only kept as a technical resource for future develoopments" (without any given date) but the J-13 was the last proposed fighter to be powered from it.

Thanks in advance, Deino
 
Semi-Lobster

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
Deino said:
Really onyl in the eraly 90's ??? Do You have any additional information on that ?? As far as I'm informed, it was "only kept as a technical resource for future develoopments" (without any given date) but the J-13 was the last proposed fighter to be powered from it.

Thanks in advance, Deino
Click to expand...

Well the death of the J-13 was sort of a slow, agonizing process that limped on for about ten years. Afte the J-8II came around in 1979, any real funding was cut from the program, including for the WP-15, but the WP-15 remained the only engine 'available' so the requirements for a newengine were never changed (if only they had gotten an R-35 turbojet instead, perhaps things could have ended better). Shenyang Liming only had about 2 years to try to make a copy before the J-8II rolled out. You are correct though, there are no real numbers revealed when the project was finally cancelled but most analaysts give it around the early 90s just as the J-10 was starting up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top