Chinese Engine Development

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by jackbh, Sep 14, 2005.

  1. manqiangrexue
    Offline

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,415
    Likes Received:
    7,943
    First of all, 180kN is cutting edge. I don't know what kind of crooked definition you would need to come up with to say 180kN isn't cutting edge but it seems like you're suggesting that there is only 1 engine that's cutting edge and it's the F-135/6.

    Could you provide a source for that F-119 having 180kN prior to the rectangular nozzles? I'm seeing 156kN and that's not clear if it includes the reduction from the nozzles.

    I can see one source saying the F-135 did 220kN in testing but I don't know if that's rated for use. Most of the sources I see give the F-135 a 191kN rating for this big engine.
     
  2. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Engine thrust alone is not a good metric. Typically to see the engine generation you look at other parameters like thrust/weight ratio and specific fuel consumption. Not just thrust.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  3. manqiangrexue
    Offline

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,415
    Likes Received:
    7,943
    Yes, specific fuel consumption and reliability are very important parameters but I think TWR is overrated because engines are such a small fraction of the weight of the whole jet. So if your engine became 20% heavier but you only got 10% more thrust out of it, that might look like a stale deal comparing engine TWR but when you compare jet TWR, you are definitely going to be ahead.
     
  4. duncanidaho
    Online

    duncanidaho Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    411

    Where did you get the figure of 220kN for F135? The data I get is 43,000 pounds or 191kN max Thrust.


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ne_pcard.pdf&usg=AOvVaw37arw_SMABGGCpSIww3lBn
     
  5. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    6,970
    https://web.archive.org/web/2010122...&id=news/asd/2010/08/27/01.xml&headline=Pratt

    The engine achieved such thrusts during testing. I don't think the engine could sustain it, lest the fan blades & compressors be damaged.
     
  6. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,329
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Can we try and make a roundup of mass produced turbofan engines for planes in China? but ONLY ones for which we have actual proof from the manufacturer and/or lots of photographic evidence.
    There's the WS9, which was made for JH7A, some 400+ of them. Do we have proof for those? One can occasionally find articles such as this, where Xian officials mention WS9
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ng-and-shows-off-39maverick39-missile-123075/

    There's the WS10, of which 600+ were made by now. We do have lots of photos from Zhuhai airshow on the engines and they're fairly easy to distinguish on photos of actual planes in service.

    Then there are engines for which I'd like to see some confirmation.
    We have JL-10 being built in high numbers. Either they're using Ukrainian made engines or Chinese made engines on Ukrainian licence of Chinese made engines of Chinese design. Again, please don't just pick one of the options but provide actual proof, if possible.

    We have H6K as well as Y-20 being built in high numbers. Are they using Russian made engines or Chinese made engines on Russian licence? We did hear rumors of such licence, but again, is there actual proof that such production indeed came to be?

    Lastly, are there any other turbofan engines that have gone past the development stage and are in mass production?
     
    mys_721tx and Deino like this.
  7. Xsizor
    Offline

    Xsizor Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2019
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    393
    gelgoog likes this.
  8. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,698
    Likes Received:
    26,736
    Development and progress of CJ-1000A The core engine was tested in 2017, and the actual machine was tested in 2018
    CJ-1000Aの開発進展 2017年にコアエンジンの試験を行った、2018年に実機の試験を行った
    From Oedo
    [​IMG]
     
    AeroEngineer, N00813, jobjed and 4 others like this.
  9. KIENCHIN
    Offline

    KIENCHIN Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    665
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Do we know the progress of WS20 since pictures appear of the engine mounted on the il76 test bed possibly two years ago.
     
  10. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    621
    Yes, we know that under ideal conditions the F135 can reach 220 kN. The J-20 and F-35 should be seen as twins when it comes to engines; the J-20 is currently hobbled by a crap engine, while the F-35 is also hobbled by non-mature engines. The US often tends to just negate aerodynamic disadvantages by increasing thrust; see the P-51s and the history of American aviation up until the present day. While the F-35 may be a crap or mediocre dogfighter today, future thrust increases (10% thrust increase from 190kN to 219kN is essentially resting thrust) will make the F-35 more competent and capable in WVR.
     
Loading...

Share This Page