Chinese Engine Development


Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
What is the purpose of buying MC-21? It is the same type of aircraft as C-919. China have no problem purchasing such type like A320. The sole purpose of C-919 is to be able to make it. How does a "good will" help to realize that purpose?

If Chinese airlines purchase MS-21s it should be on merit, not industrial or "good will" considerations, I agree. That said, if it delivers on its promise, there is considerable scope for this to happen - while the engine is the same, the airframe is a generation ahead of the A320neo. Customers will want to wait for it to prove its reliability in real-world operation though, so that's not a short-term alternative.

PD-14 is the same class as CJ-1000. Once again what is the point of buying PD-14 which itself is also under development? It may be a little bit ahead of CJ-1000 on the way, but the whole thing engine or aircraft is about building competence than assembling.

First PD-14 core on bench in 2010, first complete engine ground run in 2012, flight test campaign commences in 2015, Russian certification awarded in 2018. EASA approval is pending, but the base version (as opposed to derivatives) certainly isn't under development anymore. Define "a little bit", according to the above dates it is running some 5-6 years ahead of the CJ-1000A!

As for foreign content in the CJ-1000A which might be subject to sanctions, here's a chance find I came across recently:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is, of course, a European (UK) company, but CAATSA is cleverly designed to incentivize compliance by non-US businesses. It explicitly threatens to deny US market access to any company which trades with entities on the sanctions list and since for most aerospace suppliers the US remains a bigger source of income than China, most will be forced to cut ties. The resins and fibers that became unavailable to Irkut for the MS-21 wing due to CAATSA were sourced from Belgian and Japanese companies, respectively.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
It is my understanding that CJ-1000 has Chinese suppliers and alternatives for any foreign component?

Hollow turbine blades is something China has accomplished and technology it has although I do not think this applies to ceramic types yet?
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is my understanding that CJ-1000 has Chinese suppliers and alternatives for any foreign component?

Hollow turbine blades is something China has accomplished and technology it has although I do not think this applies to ceramic types yet?

The ceramics referred to are not part of the finished blade, they are needed for the casting process. To form the hollow interior geometry (cooling air passages and associated fins/pins), a "negative" insert must be placed inside the mould that can withstand the heat of the molten alloy without deformation. Ceramic with its excellent high-temperature stability is ideal, once the blade has solidified the insert is then dissolved with a chemical that does not attack the metal and flushed out to leave the interior empty.

No idea whether there is a domestic fall-back, but in this particular instance I half expect one can be substituted in fairly short order. I can't see WS-10 & -15 blade production relying on a Western supplier!
 
Last edited:

longmarch

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is, of course, a European (UK) company, but CAATSA is cleverly designed to incentivize compliance by non-US businesses. It explicitly threatens to deny US market access to any company which trades with entities on the sanctions list and since for most aerospace suppliers the US remains a bigger source of income than China, most will be forced to cut ties.
That's a factory in China though. If push comes to shove, China could disregard IP rights from any company that sanction against China.
I don't think it would come to that point as far as C919 is concerned.
 
D

Deleted member 15949

Guest
The ceramics referred to are not part of the finished blade, they are needed for the casting process. To form the hollow interior geometry (cooling air passages and associated fins/pins), a "negative" insert must be placed inside the mould that can withstand the heat of the molten alloy without deformation. Ceramic with its excellent high-temperature stability is ideal, once the blade has solidified the insert is then dissolved with a chemical that does not attack the metal and flushed out to leave the interior empty.

No idea whether there is a domestic fall-back, but in this particular instance I half expect one can be substituted in fairly short order. I can't see WS-10 & -15 blade production relying on a Western supplier!
Are you aware of any Chinese substitutes?
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
If Chinese airlines purchase MS-21s it should be on merit, not industrial or "good will" considerations, I agree. That said, if it delivers on its promise, there is considerable scope for this to happen - while the engine is the same, the airframe is a generation ahead of the A320neo. Customers will want to wait for it to prove its reliability in real-world operation though, so that's not a short-term alternative.
First PD-14 core on bench in 2010, first complete engine ground run in 2012, flight test campaign commences in 2015, Russian certification awarded in 2018. EASA approval is pending, but the base version (as opposed to derivatives) certainly isn't under development anymore. Define "a little bit", according to the above dates it is running some 5-6 years ahead of the CJ-1000A!
You missed my point although being right in some details. My argument was about "China's first and foremost purpose of C919 and its components is to develop domestic competence". For that, a guaranteed market share is a must, domestic market is the only one guaranteed. And China won't give that up without receiving major concessions regardless who that is.

Technical merit is not really the consideration, except when China has to give up that market share if C919 is significantly delayed and Chinese airliners have to replace their aging fleet.

The reason to favor A320neo is because China want to keep the EU market open for other Chinese goods in return. Russia does not have that size of market to return the favor. This is the only reason that I picked up the subject of "good will".

So it does not matter if MC-21's airframe is generation ahead of A320neo or PD-14 is 5-6 years or 1 year ahead of CJ-1000A.

As for foreign content in the CJ-1000A which might be subject to sanctions, here's a chance find I came across recently:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is, of course, a European (UK) company, but CAATSA is cleverly designed to incentivize compliance by non-US businesses. It explicitly threatens to deny US market access to any company which trades with entities on the sanctions list and since for most aerospace suppliers the US remains a bigger source of income than China, most will be forced to cut ties. The resins and fibers that became unavailable to Irkut for the MS-21 wing due to CAATSA were sourced from Belgian and Japanese companies, respectively.

The Chinese supplement of that blade has been made in January 2021 and to be tested in the full engine within 2021. My observation of China's approach in C919 is similar to J-20 (AL-31) where the foreign components are primarily for speeding up early tests, not for serial production. This why I said that the sanction's impact may not be as great as it sounds like.

The US may be the bigger market than China today. But China's market is growing, it could soon to be bigger than US. Any western company taking the side on US today would loose China's market forever when China substitute their product. It is a matter of choice for today or the future.
 
Last edited:

pipaster

Junior Member
Registered Member
You missed my point although being right in some details. My argument was about "China's first and foremost purpose of C919 and its components is to develop domestic competence". For that, a guaranteed market share is a must, domestic market is the only one guaranteed. And China won't give that up without receiving major concessions regardless who that is.

Technical merit is not really the consideration, except when China has to give up that market share if C919 is significantly delayed and Chinese airliners have to replace their aging fleet.

The reason to favor A320neo is because China want to keep the EU market open for other Chinese goods in return. Russia does not have that size of market to return the favor. This is the only reason that I picked up the subject of "good will".

So it does not matter if MC-21's airframe is generation ahead of A320neo or PD-14 is 5-6 years or 1 year ahead of CJ-1000A.



The Chinese supplement of that blade has been made in January 2021 and to be tested in the full engine within 2021. My observation of China's approach in C919 is similar to J-20 (AL-31) where the foreign components are primarily for speeding up early tests, not for serial production. This why I said that the sanction's impact may not be as great as it sounds like.

The US may be the bigger market than China today. But China's market is growing, it could soon to be bigger than US. Any western company taking the side on US today would loose China's market forever when China substitute their product. It is a matter of choice for today or the future.
Okay. My post was on the understanding that the NEO/Airbus would be the primary aircraft to buy. The MC-21 would be bought in small quantities with an airliner or two. China will be the only foreign purchaser at this time (I believe), and this small risk would be the free will/kill the monkey to scare the chickens.
 

by78

Lieutenant General
A helicopter integrated with pair of AES100 turboshaft engines have made its successful maiden flight, marking a milestone in the development of this civilian turboshaft (1000kw-class).

51343922529_e467be1778_b.jpg


51343444713_13d947c6c1_k.jpg

48894458508_322d10127b_o.jpg
 

Top