Who knows. The fact that they tested a CMC blisk at small scale tells you how mature their work on the material is but you still need to validate that the material properties hold at larger scale before you’re ready to stick it inside a large scale engine.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
CJ-1000 will be expand like a family. based on core machine there will be new engines so initial variant don't have CMC blisk as engine is almost ready.
its already 8 months since they tested CMC at small scale. progress is so damn fast so it wont take much time.
edit - i forgot one exclusive update. CJ-500 design has completed. it will be derived from CJ-1000's core machine. total thrust will be 8 tons. it is for ARJ-21. complete process won't take much time. as per source engine will be ready within 2 years. i mean full prototype. so can we say that CJ-500 will have CMC blisk ?
Last edited:
Sure, but every time you develop a newer version or iteration you’re going to need to go back to the test bench. And for a commercial product you’ll probably want to maintain a more rigorous R&D process for component changes before you move into product integration. If you don’t want to run into unanticipated product integration problems and corresponding design revision processes you’ll want to do full scale validation of the part *plus* validation of production *plus* validation of design integration before you move ahead with committing this level of change to the product design. If you want the CJ-1000 to come out sooner you can’t be replacing components and modifying designs in the middle of product readiness testing. You have to branch off and push those changes into a separate timeline for a different version. Maybe it’s worthwhile to delay the engine to get more advanced technology into it, but that’s a tradeoff in your product development that you have to look at closely, and I think with the CJ-1000 specifically you probably don’t want to do that since having a domestic commercial turbofan sooner rather than later is more important for the domestic industry right now.
It's more realistic to think small first. We know the first flight for China's CMC blisk took place in Zhuzhou. Zhuzhou specializes in smaller engines, so it's natural to test there. It's also natural to first use the new CMC blisk in a smaller engine.
Official info from last year's Zhuhai airshow states that AES100, China's next-gen 1,000 kW class civil turboshaft, is capable of 1,100 kW of maximal output, but can reach 1,200 kW with a more powerful compressor. The upgraded Z-10 needs all those 1,200 kW, so the military variant of AES100 seems like the perfect place to try the new CMC blisk technology.
Official info from last year's Zhuhai airshow states that AES100, China's next-gen 1,000 kW class civil turboshaft, is capable of 1,100 kW of maximal output, but can reach 1,200 kW with a more powerful compressor. The upgraded Z-10 needs all those 1,200 kW, so the military variant of AES100 seems like the perfect place to try the new CMC blisk technology.
Yes, working small scale will reduce risk and give you room to improve production process before you put the technology into something bigger and more important and harder to fix if things go wrong.
A very interesting writeup about Sino Engine, a private small jet engine manufacturer founded by Safran and GE veterans
Earlier in this thread there's a post about their HQ500G, a 5kN class low-cost geared turbofan with very impressive fuel efficiency. Here's some news on a 7kN class turbofan from the same company
"华擎公司还应国内某无人机龙头企业的需求，针对其高空长航时无人机某型号定制开发了700公斤推力级涡扇发动机。预计2024年6月完成试飞定型。"
"At the request of a leading domestic UAV manufacturer, Sino Engine is designing a 700kgf class turbofan for a high altitude long endurance UAV. Expected to complete flight testing by June 2024. "
So who this "leading domestic UAV manufacturer" might be? And what is this HALE UVA model? Maybe CASC CH-6? CH-6 at the moment uses twin 500kgf AEF50E, it can benefit from a couple of high efficiency 700kgf turbofans. Wing Loong 10 is in a similar situation with twin AEF50E , but is AVIC still too tied to AECC to order custom engine from a private company? CASIC has their own jet engine division offering competing turbofans so I very much doubt they would fund a custom engine from an outsider.
Earlier in this thread there's a post about their HQ500G, a 5kN class low-cost geared turbofan with very impressive fuel efficiency. Here's some news on a 7kN class turbofan from the same company
"华擎公司还应国内某无人机龙头企业的需求，针对其高空长航时无人机某型号定制开发了700公斤推力级涡扇发动机。预计2024年6月完成试飞定型。"
"At the request of a leading domestic UAV manufacturer, Sino Engine is designing a 700kgf class turbofan for a high altitude long endurance UAV. Expected to complete flight testing by June 2024. "
So who this "leading domestic UAV manufacturer" might be? And what is this HALE UVA model? Maybe CASC CH-6? CH-6 at the moment uses twin 500kgf AEF50E, it can benefit from a couple of high efficiency 700kgf turbofans. Wing Loong 10 is in a similar situation with twin AEF50E , but is AVIC still too tied to AECC to order custom engine from a private company? CASIC has their own jet engine division offering competing turbofans so I very much doubt they would fund a custom engine from an outsider.
News from last month
CAAC started civil certification processes for AECC's AES20 and AEP100 engines.
This is the first time I heard the AEP100 designation. We knew AEP80 - a turboprop sharing the same core with AES100 turboshaft and 10% more fuel efficient than international competitors in service (most likely referring to PWC PT6 series). We also knew that AEP80 series have power ratings ranging from 800kW to 1,200kW. However, they only ever showed the 800kW class AEP80 at airshows yet there was no news about AEP80's civil certification process (AES100's civil certification process has been going for a while now). So AEP100 is going to be the first in the series to be certified.
Why is the 1,000kW class being prioritized? Wing Loong II at the moment uses AEP50E. Jumping from 500kW to 1,000kW seems too drastic. AECC also has the 600 kW class AEP60E under development. Maybe, just maybe, China is developing a new trainer powered by a 1,000kW class turboprop?
If AEP100's certification process goes smoothly the should finish just a couple years after GE Catalyst. Catalyst is supposed to be 20% more fuel efficient than PT6 series. So AEP100 is still less advanced, but I think turboprop is going to be the area where the West's lead over China is the smallest. Well, until they develop a T901-based turboprop.
CAAC started civil certification processes for AECC's AES20 and AEP100 engines.
This is the first time I heard the AEP100 designation. We knew AEP80 - a turboprop sharing the same core with AES100 turboshaft and 10% more fuel efficient than international competitors in service (most likely referring to PWC PT6 series). We also knew that AEP80 series have power ratings ranging from 800kW to 1,200kW. However, they only ever showed the 800kW class AEP80 at airshows yet there was no news about AEP80's civil certification process (AES100's civil certification process has been going for a while now). So AEP100 is going to be the first in the series to be certified.
Why is the 1,000kW class being prioritized? Wing Loong II at the moment uses AEP50E. Jumping from 500kW to 1,000kW seems too drastic. AECC also has the 600 kW class AEP60E under development. Maybe, just maybe, China is developing a new trainer powered by a 1,000kW class turboprop?
If AEP100's certification process goes smoothly the should finish just a couple years after GE Catalyst. Catalyst is supposed to be 20% more fuel efficient than PT6 series. So AEP100 is still less advanced, but I think turboprop is going to be the area where the West's lead over China is the smallest. Well, until they develop a T901-based turboprop.
lcloo
Captain
From East Pendulum
"Selon un communiqué de Xi'an Aerospace Propulsion Institut, un nouveau modèle de statoréacteur à combustion supersonique (scramjet) a été testé dans cette filiale du groupe CASC récemment. Le réacteur a été allumé 7 fois en une journée et le test le plus long a duré 1000s."
Translated from French
"According to a press release from Xi'an Aerospace Propulsion Institute, a new model of supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) was tested in this subsidiary of the CASC group recently. The reactor was fired 7 times in one day and the longest test lasted 1000s."
"Selon un communiqué de Xi'an Aerospace Propulsion Institut, un nouveau modèle de statoréacteur à combustion supersonique (scramjet) a été testé dans cette filiale du groupe CASC récemment. Le réacteur a été allumé 7 fois en une journée et le test le plus long a duré 1000s."
Translated from French
"According to a press release from Xi'an Aerospace Propulsion Institute, a new model of supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) was tested in this subsidiary of the CASC group recently. The reactor was fired 7 times in one day and the longest test lasted 1000s."
China is probably able to make faster progress with scram jet compared to conventional turbofans since there are way less moveable parts in the former.
They are also far less mature compared to turbines. Very few people worked on them between 1991 and 2015. And even before then, American investment in supersonic cruise missiles was practically non-existent. China has proven multiple times that it can compete with and sometimes even surpass the developed world if there is no advantage of a headstart on the other side. 50+ years of relentless optimization is hard to beat. But an immature field is a fair game.