Chinese Engine Development

Blackstone

Brigadier
Except as I said there are big shrimps on chinese bbs that have specifically said that flankers have crashed due to WS-10 problems. The distinction of whether the engine or rest of aircraft caused a crash is not necessarily black & white issue.
Big shrimps claiming flankers crashed due at least in part to WS-10 problems might be another one of those Internet rumors on Chinese sites, but it is enough to question if malfunction WS-10s caused crashes, and if so, was the information deemed too sensitive for public consumption, at least for some period of time?
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There are some people who will always be offended no matter whether a programme is attacked or criticized in a just or unjust way.

But in this case, the sheer consensus and chorus of counter arguments made against Blackstone is a reflection of the poor logic and premises of his conclusion, and his position became further inflamed by his unsupported and frankly stereotypical assertions of "government cover up" and "media control" etc, all of which put together was condescending and a few steps away from being outright inflammatory.

In other words, the furor due to Blackstone's post was not only due to a result of the conclusion he made, but the underlying logic and premises in which he reached that conclusion, and it is those underlying things which has caused such a comprehensive dissection of his argument by so many members.

Don't lump and blindly mix knee jerk "CHINA STRONK!!111!" posts and members, with those which are actually interested in looking at an argument's logic and premise logically and critically.

Well do it in response to someone else's post or make a separate post about it, and don't do it as a reply to my post, because nowhere have I made any claim saying that WS-10 did not face difficulties or did not face accidents during its development... otherwise it makes it seem like you're putting up a straw man.
except as I said there have been reliable people connected to SAC on Chinese forum who have blamed flanker crashes on WS-10 issues. The fact that there is a consensus is because it's a pro-China forum. I've said many times in the past to not accept as complete fact everything stated in an official source. I will continue to state that here.

When there are conflicting claims, and without further evidence to support either side, I trust AVIC corporate statements and China Aviation News (中国航空报) more than so-called "big shrimps" on Chinese forums.
If you just rely on avic1 statements, you will never get the full story. You will rarely hear about troubles. I've clashed numerous times with members on this thread in the past about avicone stories on Chinese engines that are simply pieces to praise avic1 firms rather than actually giving full view of the situation.

Don't matter, China haters, doubters and naysayers will always find an excuse or reason to put the PRC and it's Communist Party government down, even if their own government or god were NOT doing to well for them.;)

Or rather question the legitimacy of those rumors instead of using them as "facts" to draw a wrong conclusion?

Lots of Sino economy, military, commercial, space, geopolitics, science, technology, and so on, started out as rumors on this forum and then later proven or dis-proven by facts. Therefore, it's perfectly legit to speculate or to bring up rumors for discussion/debate. Facts will later sort out the truth, but it may take a long time if Zhongnanhai wants to bury embarrassing events like bad jet engines causing crashes (I'm not saying it actually did that).

What does any of this have to do with Chinese engine? Anything more of this type will get deleted.
 
Last edited:

superdog

Junior Member
If you just rely on avic1 statements, you will never get the full story. You will rarely hear about troubles. I've clashed numerous times with members on this thread in the past about avicone stories on Chinese engines that are simply pieces to praise avic1 firms rather than actually giving full view of the situation.
You got that impression because you don't know where most of the so-called "big shrimps" get their information from. How many of them do you think are real insiders of AVIC or PLA and that they're leaking sensitive information (e.g. undisclosed accident investigation report of military projects) to the Internet? Good luck finding one. There may be a few who's really an insider, but they will be extra careful in choosing what to discuss, because once they say something they shouldn't, there will be serious disciplinary or legal consequences. Besides, many real insiders tend to make their real life identity public, such as test pilot Xu Yongling, or the recently deceased CMS pilot/navy photographer Sun Liping (Xunhai).

Then there are those people who may have loose affiliation to relevant industry/military circles, and sometimes they can get bits of general information like project xxx has been started, equipment x has been delivered, deal x with Russia has been signed, etc., but what comes from them are often vague, and could be inaccurate (think about the Su-35 deal). It is unlikely that these people can provide you specific information on an military aviation accident report.

The rest of them, which are the vast majority of "unofficial sources" on Chinese military BBS, consists of people who make stuff up to pretend they're "big shrimps", as well as people who simply monitor, organize, and analyze information available from open channels. If you're good at digging and analyzing open information you can become a "big shrimp" too. For example, let us look at this article about the WS-10 development:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The author is not an AVIC insider. Where do you think he get all those historical details from? I can tell you they were collected from news articles published on the newspaper China Aviation News many years ago. Guess who owns China Aviation News? Who else but AVIC.

In short, if you think WS-10 troubles were hidden by official reports and leaked by so called "big shrimps", you just haven't learned to look at the right place like a "big shrimp" does. Have you wondered who is this "big shrimp" you trusted that told you WS-10 caused a crash? What could be his real life role, how did he get the information, and how good was his track record? Have you considered these factors, or do you just trust him just because he has a bunch of followers calling him a "big shrimp"?
 

b787

Captain
AVIC report: China's Taihang engine widely deployed in military
By Jiang Jie (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) 14:45, July 07, 2016


Meanwhile, the engine also took inspiration from the control system of Russia's AL-31F aircraft turbofan engine, China Science Communication admitted, calling the Taihang engine a result of “independent development combined with technology from the Soviet Union and the U.S.”

(For the latest China news, Please follow People's Daily on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
(Editor:Jiang Jie,Bianji)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here are some proof about China's Taihang engines

original data
According to Saturn`s Victor Mihailovic Chepkin, chief designer of the 117 and 117S engines, the Chinese WS-10 was developed with the aid of the AL-31`s maintenance technical documentation

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

delft

Brigadier
For the A400 it was probably the second or second dash since if it was defect in material then the problem would have appeared in random in both clock wise spinning engines as well as counter clock wise ones.
OT
The propeller shafts are turning in one direction or the other. There are no different handed gas turbines so the difference is in the gearboxes that do or do not change the direction of rotation. The problem therefore is in the design and/or production of one of the two types of gear boxes.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Meanwhile, the engine also took inspiration from the control system of Russia's AL-31F aircraft turbofan engine, China Science Communication admitted, calling the Taihang engine a result of “independent development combined with technology from the Soviet Union and the U.S.”

What is your point b787 Are you implying that China copy AL31 engine because they took inspiration from the control system of AL31?

Turbofan engine is more than control system even if china copy the design of control system it doesn't make it copy of AL31. Because is is only one component of the system. Anyway WS 10 derive from CFM 56 lineage and not from Lyulka Saturn engine. And to insinuate that you can designed complicated GT from reading manual is INSANE

Why you single out China? When every one does it It is normal to take inspiration from your competitor .It is done multiple time in history and by various country.
That is how engineering progress

Even Soviet first try at gas turbine copy the NENE engine
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Immediately after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Soviet Union manufactured copies of first generation German
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
engines, which were advanced designs with poor durability, limited by Germany's availability of rare metals at wartime. However in 1946, before the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had really begun, the new British
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
under the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, keen to improve diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, authorised
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to export 40
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
flow
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
engines. In 1958 it was discovered during a visit to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, then deputy chairman of Rolls-Royce, that this engine had been copied without license
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to power the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, first as the RD-45, and after initial problems of metallurgy forced the Soviet engineers to develop a slightly redesigned (and metallurgically closer) copy, the engine had then entered production as the Klimov VK-1 (Rolls-Royce later attempted to claim £207m in license fees, without success).

The RD-45 was further improved to produce the VK-1, which differed from the Nene in having larger
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, larger
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and revised greater airflow through the engine, raised from the 41 kg/s for the Nene, to 45 kg/s.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The VK-1F added the afterburner.


The US GUPPY submarine derive heavily from type 21 submarine of the Deutschland krieg marine.Here is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Greater Underwater Propulsion Power Program (GUPPY) was initiated by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
after World War II to improve the submerged speed, maneuverability, and endurance of its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (The "Y" in the acronym was added for pronounceability.)

The navy began the program by testing and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
two captured German
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. That analysis led to four goals—increasing the submarines' battery capacity, streamlining the boats' structures, adding
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and improving
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
systems. The navy immediately focused on designing a new class of submarines, but the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
believed
the fleet of existing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
class submarines could be modified to

Or the TU 4 which direct copy of B 29 to the last bolt
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


For that matter the whole NASA and Soviet rocket program are derive from German experience
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
except as I said there have been reliable people connected to SAC on Chinese forum who have blamed flanker crashes on WS-10 issues. The fact that there is a consensus is because it's a pro-China forum. I've said many times in the past to not accept as complete fact everything stated in an official source. I will continue to state that here.

I do not disagree with the idea that state media needs to be sometimes taken with a hint of salt, but that goes for almost any new piece of PLA related information.
But I also believe that everyone else was also perfectly logically justified in shutting down Blackstone's original arguments, because the way he wrote it was condescending, inflammatory and relied on at least a few poor premises to support his original arguments.

Whether there were any reliable rumours from big shrimps suggesting that WS-10 accidents did cause Flanker crashes is another question, and by all means let's discuss this further, but I think you're being rather out of touch by castigating everyone for "ganging up" on Blackstone, considering his original posts really did deserve it.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'm inclined to believe the AVIC reports on the engines not being the cause of any crashes.

Having both engines flame out at exactly the same time is pretty unlikely, but that doesn't mean that a single engine couldn't have failed catastrophically.

Plus J-11s awaiting engine installation may have been due to production issues, rather than engine reliability.

And what would be the point in publishing a lie, when they could just keep silent like in past years?

Going public now with lies adds nothing as the only customer is the Chinese Air Force anyway.

But the AVIC engine businesses were recently restructured/merged as a separate business, so they probably felt they had to say something about engines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
but I think you're being rather out of touch by castigating everyone for "ganging up" on Blackstone, considering his original posts really did deserve it.
I was watching the conversation from the beginning and was rather amazed that it became so convoluted because unconsciously you guys through different mouthpiece with Blackstone created a much wider, unnecessary and unfocussed conversation. The original issue was simply about WS-10 reliability and transparency. It morphed out to include problems, accidents or crashes; double engine failure; conspiracy in reporting; reliability of big shrimps vs official sources, et al. TP's point I thought was to bring everybody back to the center of gravity and i.e. there were some serious initial problems with the WS-10 and now is working fine, a path not unlike any engine development in history. I thought Blackstone's original assertion was rather weak but you guys gave oxygen to the conversation.
IMO, the lesson in this is just to stay on topic and unfortunately emotional appeal got into the mix.
 
Top