I do wonder if or when China intends to switch to high bypass turbofans entirely for all their special mission aircraft like the US instead of current turboprops. IMO they're almost at that stage now given the various high bypass turbofans design either near or in serial production
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
China has been developing several turboprop engines so I think this is unlikely. The US has not developed and put into service a whole new turboprop in decades.
There was a turboshaft program for the Blackhawk/Apache which got cancelled. There is the turboshaft in the CH-53K. Even that is based on a cancelled Reagan era turboprop design of decades ago.
There was a turboshaft program for the Blackhawk/Apache which got cancelled. There is the turboshaft in the CH-53K. Even that is based on a cancelled Reagan era turboprop design of decades ago.
Last edited:
Why is China pushing for turboprops so much when its turbofan side is practically booming currently?
For smaller transport, is there any reason to go with turbofan? Especially in the roles that they have them operating in. I don't think the special missions platform need to fly particular fast. in fact, it's probably better to fly a little slower.
I mean, many countries are switching to turbofan based ASW/MPA aircrafts so I imagine it has some value that turboprops don't. And in fact, to me it's not a question of if China will do it but when, and I imagine the answer to that might be soon. IIRC there was a nice graphic floating around here that depicted the C919 being adapted for various special mission roles like the B737 did.
well, that depends on what platforms you have available. If the most obvious platform is 737, then you pretty much has to with turbofan aircraft. China has Y-9 platform, which is the most logical size for this category, so it's going with it.
Now, it is possible C919 could be adopted for special missions with PLA once it has a fully domestic supply chain, but we are not there yet. And more importantly, it's not clear me to why C919 would have better fuel economy than a next-gen turboprop aircraft that is likely to use hybrid propulsion?
Loitering time and fuel economy is always with the turboprop over the turbofan when both are at their intended flight envelopes. That is the reason for using an external propeller. But the turbofan has the better performance for speed and altitude. If you want pure performance at the highest altitude, you get rid of the fan and go with a turbojet but your loiter time and fuel economy will be shit.
Generally, you gain an advantage the higher you go and the faster you get there but you also need decent loiter time so the turbofan would be a good choice if you had everything -- basically the USAF E-3.
If you want saturation of AEW assets with the longest loiter time possible then the PLAAF's KJ-500 fleet is a better fit.
Right now, China doesn't have an E-3 Sentry option until the CJ1000A goes live with the C919. It is going with the KJ-3000 with WS-20 turbofans as a partial answer for the E-3 -- military transport with TF speed and altitude vs a more economically efficient civilian jet.
If China's strategy is saturation at all times including peacetime then you will still see a lot of turboprops even when the C919 is fully domestic. You simply can't loiter a jet, even a turbofan, as efficiently.
A geared turbofan does better than a regular one. You also have propfans. But in practice the turboprop is more fuel efficient and gives you the longest loiter time.
It is just too expensive to design an aircraft just for ASW. So things like the P-8 are suboptimal designs.
It is just too expensive to design an aircraft just for ASW. So things like the P-8 are suboptimal designs.