Z-10 thread
- Thread starter Red Guard
- Start date
- Status
Thanks ...but even if I wasn't able to read the whole report I'm a bit skeptical to say at best: 
Since when did the WZ-10 (which is called Z-10 only in fact) use the French Tubomeca Makila ??? I always thought it used PW Canada PT6C-76C ??? ... when did European claim that the current WZ-9 engine is in fact a clone of the Russian Klimov TV3-117 ??? .... and finally regarding the Z-19, since when is this type not in operational service ???
I'm confused ... either with what I thought to know about the Z-10 and Z-19 or (IMO more likely) in regard to the author's reliability !
Deino
Since when did the WZ-10 (which is called Z-10 only in fact) use the French Tubomeca Makila ??? I always thought it used PW Canada PT6C-76C ???
... when did European claim that the current WZ-9 engine is in fact a clone of the Russian Klimov TV3-117 ??? .... and finally regarding the Z-19, since when is this type not in operational service ??? I'm confused ... either with what I thought to know about the Z-10 and Z-19 or (IMO more likely) in regard to the author's reliability !
Deino
Black Shark
Junior Member
Thanks ...but even if I wasn't able to read the whole report I'm a bit skeptical to say at best:
Since when did the WZ-10 (which is called Z-10 only in fact) use the French Tubomeca Makila ??? I always thought it used PW Canada PT6C-76C ???
I'm confused ... either with what I thought to know about the Z-10 and Z-19 or (IMO more likely) in regard to the author's reliability !
Deino
I also think lot of what is claimed in this article is not true as the author wants to portrait it.
WZ-9 engines not only are not TV3-117 engines they do not even share the configuration.
This is the TV3-117VM on a Mi-8 helicopter
This is the picture we saw of the WZ-10 with opened maintenance entrance to the WZ-10 engine compartment that was posted here before.
If someone can provide WZ-9 engine picture for comperision it would be nice. Couldn't find a good picture over 200pixel.
The fact that he states that the gearbox is infront of the engines on WZ-10 already terminates the usage of TV3-117 also the information i could find to the power output of WZ-9 do not match in the slightest with TV3-117 engines.
The first models of the WZ-10 prototype that had a different engine compartment arrangement was the original that was ought to be used with PT7-6C engines that case was broken with the Canadian Pratt & Whitney company getting sued for selling china those engines, leaving china to search for different engines and were forced to re-arrange the engine compartment to fit future engines in it. The configuration of the gearbox and engines are arranged tandem and not side by side gives them only opportunity to go with engines that can transmit power along its axis and not any other engines so WZ-9 are officially currently used on WZ-10 untill WZ-16 engines are ready for use, this hints already that those are unlikely to be TV3-117.
There are quite lot of points to be questioned where they got their sources from.
They are not directly comparing the WZ-10's HMDS with IHADSS of the AH-64 but they use it as a comperision, which lets me grin always when comparing modern HMDS with that old IHADSS that isn't safe for operator nor uptodate and leaving the stress time to headache factor far higher than on any double eye HMDS system.
However the part that made me smile was the claim of superior avionic system and naming the YH radar in comperision with an already operating radar with higher power supply, dimension and multibandwidth capability which is the currently radar not making trouble like Mast mounted radars have to face with power supply, cooling, vibrations, maintenance etc.
They claim that the WZ-10 had only on prototypes the Target Sight System and Piloting NVS and the production examples lack the Target Sight Systems. What is he talking about?
He either claims that the current FLIR WXG1006 is only a Day-Light TV Camera or that the WXG1006 is not a modern version compared with the prototype FLIR that was installed before.
Overall not really satisfied with the article.
Thanks ...but even if I wasn't able to read the whole report I'm a bit skeptical to say at best:
Since when did the WZ-10 (which is called Z-10 only in fact) use the French Tubomeca Makila ??? I always thought it used PW Canada PT6C-76C ???
I'm confused ... either with what I thought to know about the Z-10 and Z-19 or (IMO more likely) in regard to the author's reliability !
Deino
What's the issue? The article itself tries to debunk the claim of a TV3-117 clone in the very next few sentences after it mentions it.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Very informative analysis, Shark, keep up the good work!
shen
Senior Member
In light of the recent Iraqi Mi-35 shoot downs, let's take at Z-10 defensive counter measure systems. Z-10 has missile launch warning and tracking sensors, and flares. But except for a few units, most don't even have IRCM which Iraqi Mi-35 had. In order IRCM to operate effectively, it really need to combined with engine exhaust suppressors and low IR reflective paint. Z-10 probably has low IR reflective paint, but no operational Z-10 have exhaust suppressors due to the insufficient power of WZ-9 engines.
The decision to introduce Z-10 to operational units without these critical defensive measures is still the right one. Many PLA helicopter units can start training with these new machines and develop tactics. But in its currently form, Z-10 is even more vulnerable than those Iraqi Mi-35s against modern MANPAD such as FN-6, Igla or late model Stinger. If Z-10 is going to be combat deployed on a UN mission, I guess PLA will at least install exhaust suppressors and IRCM at the expense of lower payload, which is acceptable for peace keeping missions.
The decision to introduce Z-10 to operational units without these critical defensive measures is still the right one. Many PLA helicopter units can start training with these new machines and develop tactics. But in its currently form, Z-10 is even more vulnerable than those Iraqi Mi-35s against modern MANPAD such as FN-6, Igla or late model Stinger. If Z-10 is going to be combat deployed on a UN mission, I guess PLA will at least install exhaust suppressors and IRCM at the expense of lower payload, which is acceptable for peace keeping missions.
But why does he mention this issue anyway if it's wrong ??? ... and it still does not explains the other points I mentioned !
He mentions it because he's debunking them. I'm not sure why that seems so strange. As for the other stuff, I don't know.
Black Shark
Junior Member
The Z-10 lacks IRCM like a lot of newer Attack Helicopters, because they found out they are useless against modern SAM/MANPADS and ATAM, despite that there are still alot of older missiles that could be dazzled with IRCM's i've read that they might believe that due new filtration methods and the modelation of the filter that they get even attracted towards such devices like IRCM who produce artificially high IR spectrum and change it rapidly in sequences and multi spectrum seeker of Image Infrared technologies can not only distinguish the false IR signals but that those IRCM could act as beacons in visually high IR-spectrum distractive environments, like several aircrafts flying and all are starting flaring due the warning they recieve from MAWS and therefore creating high flase IR-spectrum.
This is what i could read about the few Mi-24 that were shot down with different MANPADS and some older where very easily dazzled and others were reported have no effect.
The Engine IR suppressors will come when they have sorted out when the WZ-16 engines are ready, because it would be money wasting and no effort to bring now IR suppressors and design them explecit for WZ-9 engines when the engines is rather weak compaired with WZ-16 and they would end up with useless IR suppressors that are not fully or effectivley reducing the exhaust gases and if they would install now IR suppressors designed for exhaust temperatures of WZ-16 engines and apply them to Z-10 equipped with WZ-9 they would further downgrade the power output of the engines.
It has without doubt RAM coating.
I also have the feeling that they leave the engine compartment room unchanged untill this engine problem is sorted out. I have the feeling that the maintenance and entrance doors to the gearbox and engines are not really armored at least they look like simple outerskin aerodynamic covers and are not that thick. If this is true that the Z-10 uses aluminium alloy and composite armor then it looks like that the engine compartment doors are rather only one with no further protection i hope they only leave this untill they have fully rearranged the compartment and will armor it up after that. Maybe i am wrong to that regard and i really hope so that i am wrong.
- Status