Chinese Engine Development


Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Orthan said:
It seems to me that you also participated on this:
Click to expand...
You, as a reminder that the CJ-1000A is irrelevant. I won't rate this a "participation".

Annihilation98 said:
The engine is the core component of aircraft. Nothing wrong to discuss engine in this thread
Click to expand...
Oh come on ... and therefore you need to discuss C919 sales prospects, CJ-1000 development timeline and so on? The WS-15 is also an engine, so you like to discuss this too? :mad: I noted you should continue this discussion in the engine thread, but simply NOT in the tanker & transport thread since the CJ-1000A is NOT aimed for the Y-20.

foxmulder said:
Seriously.. often these admin warnings are just ruining very much fun discussions...
Click to expand...
Why, since it is fun for you to discuss off topic stuff? Again, I never said to STOP the discussion, only to continue in the engine thread. If you are too lazy to take care what to post where it is exactly my duty to remind you ... the same with this endless discussion on which 052 DDG entered service after what time in comparison to US DDGs in the Type 003 thread; it's irrelevant.


Again, it is not my intention to stop any meaningful and serious discussion, but to take care that we are not going too far off topic!
 
Last edited:
Xsizor

Xsizor

Senior Member
Registered Member
Are these details about WS-20 cross verified and accurate?

It consists of a 1-stage fan, a 3-stage supercharged compressor, a 7-stage high-pressure compressor, a short-ring combustion chamber, a 1-stage high-pressure turbine, and a 3-stage low-pressure turbine. Convergence nozzle and full authority digital control (FADEC) system.


I don't think it can be compared to CFM-56 series. Stages aren't adding up.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Agree, that doesn't seem right. An engine based on the WS-10 core should have 9 HPC stages, and the expected BPR (>4) would very likely require more than 3 LPT stages.

With cutting-edge technology (i.e. CJ-1000A or better) it might be possible to execute the CFM56 thermodynamic cycle with only 7 HPC and 3 LPT stages, but that doesn't seem to fit the timescale and claimed heritage of the WS-20.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Annihilation98 said:
This is the problem of the Chinese engineer. They are too afraid to take a risk and don't believe in their own capability. Always depends on western tech. Why not just put WS-20 engine in C919 and do more testing. DON'T be afraid of failure because USA also start with failure too. China government need to ban airbus and Boeing to bring more pressure to engineer. Hard work and pressure is needed for success. Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures.
Click to expand...

Dude, the C-919 is a civilian aircraft with a much higher requirement for engine reliability. WS-20 is not a passenger aircraft engine.
 
A

Annihilation98

New Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Dude, the C-919 is a civilian aircraft with a much higher requirement for engine reliability.
Click to expand...
The US also start with military engines first even it's not even reliable. Just put WS-20 engine into C919 first and do more tests in this desperate situation. It will become more reliable over time.
siegecrossbow said:
WS-20 is not a passenger aircraft engine.
Click to expand...
Army is not passenger? For me just do more tests. Don't afraid of failure:cool:
 
G

Godzilla

New Member
Registered Member
Annihilation98 said:
The US also start with military engines first even it's not even reliable. Just put WS-20 engine into C919 first and do more tests in this desperate situation. It will become more reliable over time.

Army is not passenger? For me just do more tests. Don't afraid of failure:cool:
Click to expand...
I am sorry but airliners are a business that needs to make profits. With fuel and maintenance the major components to their cost, you can't compete if your planes runs less efficient engines. Why should they put up with the higher cost, or risk the lives of their passengers to become the Guinea pig? It aint a game. with that attitude you might as well work for boeing since you fit right in with the 737 Max crew.....
 
O

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
Godzilla said:
I am sorry but airliners are a business that needs to make profits. With fuel and maintenance the major components to their cost, you can't compete if your planes runs less efficient engines. Why should they put up with the higher cost, or risk the lives of their passengers to become the Guinea pig? It aint a game. with that attitude you might as well work for boeing since you fit right in with the 737 Max crew.....
Click to expand...

This isn't about efficiency. China's own HB engine manufacturing tech has not even reached the level we can discuss competitive efficiency. It's a question of reliability and safety. How long the engines can run for x amount of cost and how well they can run with well quantified and observed performance relating to safe operation.

WS-20 is presumably not a great option in this regard because it is a military HP turbofan and so was not designed or planned to be mass manufactured with the same tolerance a commercial passenger one should be. It also places other qualities before economics and safety, qualities that certainly cater towards military purposes like a production more suited for planned Y-20 acquisition rates (they don't want WS-20 production to cap Y-20 especially since Y-20 is almost certainly going to be branched into EW, tanker, AWACS etc roles in future). I'm sure there are many other factors that separate it from an engine designed for commercial applications. While it's true that plenty of military engines are derived from commercial ones and vice version, those cases do not prove that WS-20 was designed to be this way. It could be but that's not the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top