Chinese Engine Development


latenlazy

Colonel
Doesn't answer the question why and what exactly. All I was asking about the nature of the problem and how they tackled it. It seems like we only know that they used to have a spool up issue and judging by the fact that multiple iterations are there, they'd come up with a solution.

The solution itself needs to be known. If they are suffering from a FADEC related issue and if they've solved it, then that mean all is well (kind of).
If it isn't FADEC but the design of the engine itself (compressor stage) then that'd mean they are solving the issue by seeking to tolerate certain operational shortcomings. If the compressor can't handle the sudden increased thrust demand and takes time to generate thrust, it is obviously going to affect the flight performance of the aircraft. A pilot may seek for increased throttle but the FADEC won't translate that request fluently, instead gradually increasing it owing to the limitations with the compressor design. Also, other factors like air density (altitude) etc would come into consideration.
There is also such a thing as redesign of components...again it’s been 10 years.
 

Inst

Senior Member
I'll also point out that there's a CCTV report claiming what are likely WS-10Ds on the J-11 have hit 147 kN. I can repost it if you'd like; weasel on CDF posted it.

It's very promising because 147 kN is better than all competing 4th gen engines to my knowledge; the Su-35, for instance, only has 142 kN worth of thrust, and the F110 on the F-16 Block 60 (not sure about 70) is around 144 kN.
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sorry.

Asked Weasel about it, and got this link:


接近30吨.

Almost 30 tons, so if we use 143 kN, we'd get about 29.1 tons with two engines. So it's not a confirmation that they've hit 147 kN yet.
I don't quite understand where your calculation comes from.

From my understanding, The guy was talking about the reliability problem with WS-10. Something about the compressor blade breaking (I think it's the first stage HP compressor), and then he gave an offhand estimate that the force would be like almost 30 tons hitting the engine casing.

Note: The guy is Li Hongxin (李宏新). According to the documentary, at that time he's Deputy Director of Shenyang Engine Design Institute (Google translate FTW!).
 

Inst

Senior Member
I don't quite understand where your calculation comes from.

From my understanding, The guy was talking about the reliability problem with WS-10. Something about the compressor blade breaking (I think it's the first stage HP compressor), and then he gave an offhand estimate that the force would be like almost 30 tons hitting the engine casing.

Note: The guy is Li Hongxin (李宏新). According to the documentary, at that time he's Deputy Director of Shenyang Engine Design Institute (Google translate FTW!).
The very same correction you made was posted on CDF.

Sigh.
 

gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
The only way for China to have significantly better foreign relations is to be poor. If 1.4 billion people get rich, or they become even moderately well-off, that would automatically scare a lot of countries. So China would have to stay poor. Is that what you want?
Is the U.S. poor? Why can the U.S. be both rich and have good foreign relations but China can't? Only a Western shill would say this.
 

KYli

Junior Member
Is the U.S. poor? Why can the U.S. be both rich and have good foreign relations but China can't? Only a Western shill would say this.
Asked Obama, he said that it would be a disaster for the world if China became a developed nation.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if China has a good relationship with the West or not. China needs to develop its engine industry as it is the crown jewel of high tech. Saying that China doesn't need to develop its engine industry is like saying China should be poor and low tech forever.
 
Last edited:

Figaro

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is the U.S. poor? Why can the U.S. be both rich and have good foreign relations but China can't? Only a Western shill would say this.
consumsi
Because The US and Allies do not want China to be even half rich due to the influence riches can yield. A poor China will forever be at the mercy of others. China poor foreign relationships with some countries are the result of intense Western efforts/propaganda. Such intense efforts are also having a negative effects on ethnic Chinese ( who are not China citizens) in their own and other countries.
Guys this is the Chinese engine development thread ... can we please take this discussion elsewhere?
 

sheogorath

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Greetings all.

I have a quick question, though I'm sure it has been asked before.

Why chinese engines, like the WS-10, do seem to have a more fixed external exhaust nozzle for the afterburner compared to those in american engines and some russian engines?.
 

by78

Brigadier
Some Chinese research into both 3D and 2D thrust vectoring.

The first paper is out of Chengdu and looks at 3D vector thrust:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Abstract: Thrust vectoring can significantly expand the operational envelope of fighter aircraft and improve their flight safety and combat capabilities. A key technology in aerospace study and one of the typical features of advanced fighter aircraft, thrust vectoring involves multiple fields such as aerodynamics, air intake/exhaust, engines, and flight control. The integrated implementation of thrust vectoring is an interdisciplinary, closely-coupled and high-risk systematic project. This paper reviews the development of fighter aircraft thrust vectoring with an analysis of its key technologies. Based on the engineering practice of the first axial-symmetric thrust vectoring demonstrator in China, this paper elaborates the research on high angle of attack aerodynamic design for internal and external airflow, thrust vectoring engines, integrated flight and propulsion control and post-stall maneuvering flight test verification of fighter aircraft and other related key technologies. Finally, the contribution of thrust vectoring technology to the combat effectiveness of fighter aircraft is summarized and its future applications predicted.



The second paper is out of 606 Institute and concludes that 2D is the way to go for 4th-gen fighters due to its simpler structure, superior stealth and IR suppression, lower drag, etc. Unfortunately, I only have some screenshots of the paper:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



 

Top