Blackstone
Brigadier
Doubtful in near years, maybe in 5 or 6.But we can safely assume the WS-10 engines will be used more often than the AL-31 engines in the coming years for future PLAAF and PLANAF air crafts.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
I'm not sure about that -- there is a good chance that soon there will be more WS-10s aboard Chinese fighter aircraft than Al-31s (in terms of absolute numbers) in coming years, given all new build land based SAC flankers are WS-10 powered.
It will very much depend on the production rate of J-11B/BS+J-16/D+J-11D (and possibly J-15 once it is powered by WS-10s, as well as J-10B/C when they are powered by WS-10s) versus the production rate of J-10B/C powered by Al-31s and J-20s and J-15s powered by Al-31s.
So the tipping point of absolute numbers of WS-10 installed on Chinese fighter aircraft vs numbers of Al-31s installed on Chinese fighter aircraft could be sooner than we think, and that's simply because of the projected production rate of SAC land based flankers. If J-10B/C and J-15 are produced with WS-10 as their powerplant in the next couple of years then it would speed the process up even more.
[edit: your original post said decade, before it was changed, so my post here was in reference to decade. I do believe 5-6 years is within the reasonable bounds for expecting when there will be more airborne WS-10s than Al-31s, though I think it could also occur within 2-3 years as well]
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Firstly, we need to appreciate that birds vary massively in size. An engine eating a sparrow is not even in the same ball park as the same engine sucking in a seagull.
Given that this was a naval fighter, and the reported location of the crash, I think chances are good that it eat a seabird. Seabirds are generally larger than their land based cousins, making them far more dangerous to engines.
Secondly, commercial jetliner bird strike engine tests and standards are not really applicable to compare with military fighter jet engines.
The most obvious issue is commercial jumbo jet engines are generally several times larger than military fighter jet engines. Airline engines are also a lot simpler structurally compared to military engines, so there are far fewer sets of blades the bird will have to pass through, reducing the physical force needed to force the mass through the engines.
So the same bird hitting the two engines are going to have vastly different effects because of the mass difference alone. A chicken compared to a common commercial jet engine is probably equivalent to a sparrow for a military jet.
You can only ever design your engine to deal with so much foreign mass going into it. To design a military fighter turbofan to be able to take a chicken sized bird is probably equivalent to wanting a commercial jetliner engine to be able to take something the size of an albatross if not bigger. Possible, but extremely hard, with server performance rentals ties that are just not deemed to be worth the cost.
It's pretty clear as soon as it was revealed that the crashed was caused by a bird strike that it should be discounted from any reliability stats and analysis.
I simply don't think there is anywhere like the amount of information available publicly for anyone to make an objective, well-informed conclusion on AL31 Vs WS10A reliability.
For something like that, you need to have detailed database information for all sorts of critical factors. The PLAAF itself would have had to have operated the WS10A for years to build up enough data points to conclusively answer that question. Which is why they stuck with the AL31 for so long.
It is also futile trying to compare accident rates between different air forces because there are almost certainly going to be all manner of differences in important factors. Things like operating frequency and intensity. Quality of ground staff technicians and test equipment. Availablity and quality of spares and thresholds for replacement of non-defective parts etc.
The simple fact is that engine reliability is an order of magnitude more important for a single engines fighter compared to twin engined.
The F16 vs F15 engine failure to crash rate chart posted earlier is a perfect illustration of that point. For a twin engined fighter, loosing an engine hardly ever results in the loss of the fighter. For a single engined bird, the odds are an order of magnitude greater.
That is why the PLAAF started WS10A use on the J11. And are only now introducing it on the J10 after years of field use.
The very fact that the PLAAF has deemed the WS10A reliable enough to start being used on J10s should be taken as a massive vote of confidence in its reliability.
However, there just isn't enough information available for us to be able to conclusively decide for its more or less reliable than the AL31.
Given that this was a naval fighter, and the reported location of the crash, I think chances are good that it eat a seabird. Seabirds are generally larger than their land based cousins, making them far more dangerous to engines.
Secondly, commercial jetliner bird strike engine tests and standards are not really applicable to compare with military fighter jet engines.
The most obvious issue is commercial jumbo jet engines are generally several times larger than military fighter jet engines. Airline engines are also a lot simpler structurally compared to military engines, so there are far fewer sets of blades the bird will have to pass through, reducing the physical force needed to force the mass through the engines.
So the same bird hitting the two engines are going to have vastly different effects because of the mass difference alone. A chicken compared to a common commercial jet engine is probably equivalent to a sparrow for a military jet.
You can only ever design your engine to deal with so much foreign mass going into it. To design a military fighter turbofan to be able to take a chicken sized bird is probably equivalent to wanting a commercial jetliner engine to be able to take something the size of an albatross if not bigger. Possible, but extremely hard, with server performance rentals ties that are just not deemed to be worth the cost.
It's pretty clear as soon as it was revealed that the crashed was caused by a bird strike that it should be discounted from any reliability stats and analysis.
I simply don't think there is anywhere like the amount of information available publicly for anyone to make an objective, well-informed conclusion on AL31 Vs WS10A reliability.
For something like that, you need to have detailed database information for all sorts of critical factors. The PLAAF itself would have had to have operated the WS10A for years to build up enough data points to conclusively answer that question. Which is why they stuck with the AL31 for so long.
It is also futile trying to compare accident rates between different air forces because there are almost certainly going to be all manner of differences in important factors. Things like operating frequency and intensity. Quality of ground staff technicians and test equipment. Availablity and quality of spares and thresholds for replacement of non-defective parts etc.
The simple fact is that engine reliability is an order of magnitude more important for a single engines fighter compared to twin engined.
The F16 vs F15 engine failure to crash rate chart posted earlier is a perfect illustration of that point. For a twin engined fighter, loosing an engine hardly ever results in the loss of the fighter. For a single engined bird, the odds are an order of magnitude greater.
That is why the PLAAF started WS10A use on the J11. And are only now introducing it on the J10 after years of field use.
The very fact that the PLAAF has deemed the WS10A reliable enough to start being used on J10s should be taken as a massive vote of confidence in its reliability.
However, there just isn't enough information available for us to be able to conclusively decide for its more or less reliable than the AL31.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Thanks for the details!
A duck would have given the engine no chance.
I know F16s have eaten sparrows (the bird, not the missile obviously
) and maybe starlings/blackbirds and make it back to base ok. But I know of no instance where a single engined fighter had ingested something as large as a duck and make it back to base before.Some examples of F16 which survived bird strikes or we're deemed to should have survived but for pilot error.
Last edited:
OT, obviously.Thanks for the details!
A duck would have given the engine no chance.
I know F16s have eaten sparrows (the bird, not the missile obviously
Some examples of F16 which survived bird strikes or we're deemed to should have survived but for pilot error.
I remember the story of a Dutch Hawker Hunter, very long ago, with a RR Avon engine, choking on a gull and crashing and the only reusable parts were the pilot, who had left his office in the approved way, and the engine.
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
According to the true expert on Air Force hardware on Hangzhou Sha Chang TV ( definitely not Zhang Zao Zhong ), the real reason Indian MKI are suffering poor engines performance are below ... ...
1) Indian Military is always obsessed in getting the Newest, and the Best and the most Cutting Edge technology when they import and buy military hardware from other nation, for the purpose of ( Looking Good ) to the point of always sacrificing * RELIABILITY.
2) Further, he true expert on Air Force hardware on Hangzhou Sha Chang TV explained ... ...
Indian Military and population are always suffering from Inferiority Complex versus PRC in every area, since the 1962 annihilation.
Indian Military and population want to badly beat PRC in everything
from the GDP--growth to the Outer--Space--Exploration, and
to the Military--Hardware--Possession .
Consequently, Indian Military always wants to import and buy all weapon system that are much more Cutting Edge than the PLA, in order to look good, again by always sacrificing * RELIABILITY factor.
Being dishonest, now the Indian Military is blaming the Russian manufacturing quality for their MKI problems.
When they are absolutely realized from beginning that they are sacrificing * RELIABILITY factor in order to Look--Good by importing and buying the Cutting Edge weapon.
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Judging from all your posts, we all know for some unknown personal experience, you are anti Russian to the point of Sacrificing--PRC
national interest and you are being illogical and shallow minded with respect to things related to Russia.
Are you willing to declare in this forum that you are willing to ride the American Boeing and Euro Airbus jets that have their engines hit by BIRDS ??
Last edited:
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
According to the Hangzhou Sha Chang Air Force technical expert ... ...
When the J-10B first batch was released in 2008, at that time their DSI Aerodynamic inner structure and Center of Gravity were optimized for AF-31FN engine.
Now, the DSI Aerodynamic inner structure and Center of Gravity of J-10C are optimized for TaiHang WS-10G engine.
When the J-10B first batch was released in 2008, at that time their DSI Aerodynamic inner structure and Center of Gravity were optimized for AF-31FN engine.
Now, the DSI Aerodynamic inner structure and Center of Gravity of J-10C are optimized for TaiHang WS-10G engine.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
That's a nice post right there. I did not even consider that they had to re-optimize center of gravity and DSI internal structure to change between engines. Where did you hear that they are now optimizing for WS-10A? Thanks for the info, and seeing the PLAAF have enough confidence to produce J-10 for TaiHang really makes me happy. Look back on how far they've come! Over a decade ago, the TaiHang exploded on a Flanker in its test run, causing it to land on its other engine (AL-31), an incident that nearly demoralized the program to a point where it would be shut down. Then, in 2009, although they were usable, the TaiHangs were unacceptably short-lived, lasting only 30 hours. And now, China's ready to power its most expensive and advanced single-engine fighter with it!
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Thanks ... ...
From the Hangzhou Sha Chang Air Force technical expert ... ...
Sorry, I did not bookmark the video.
Maybe this link:
From the Hangzhou Sha Chang Air Force technical expert ... ...
Sorry, I did not bookmark the video.
Maybe this link: