Some interesting details on chinese aircraft engine

[badguy2000]

the engine for J10 is ws10a.its design was finalized last year and should be being mass-produced now.but first batch of J10 adopt russian al37.
PLA ordered 300 russian engines al37.but some guys brag that over 100 J10(about 3 or 4 regiments) has entered into service.if true,those russian engine should almost be used up( one j10 sould have two engines,one used and another backup).

the engine for fc-1 for time being is russian rd93.but ws13 should be its final engine.

as for ws13,it is very interesting.

the core engine of ws13 is in fact the core engine of project of 'TIANSHAN 21".

the project of TIANSHAN 21 is one of the competitors for chinese next engine after ws10a.
its T/W ratio is set to 10,while that of al37 and ws10 is just less 8.so,if surviving,TIANSHAN21 would be more advanced than ws10 and russuian al37,maybe par with recent model m88 on refale.
but the project of TianShan21 was given up by PLA after its core engine rolled out,because some more attractive projects were raised up.

so the institute concerned was very frustrated and depressed at the decision of PLA and felt it very pitiful to put the core engine of Tianshan21 aside after investing so many $.

at the time,the project of FC-1/jf-17 started and are looking for a new engine instead of unreliable russian rd93.
so the institute in charge of TianShan21 decided to cooperate with CAC and develope a new engine at the base of abandoned core engine of TIANSHAN21.that is ws13.

it is reported that
ENGINE WS13 = the CORE ENGINE OF TIANSHAN21 + THE APPENDIX AND SHELL OF RD93

the developement of a new engine usually takes at least one decades.but if its sub-sys are mature,the time for developement of course can be shortened.so is ws13.
that is why CAC and pakistanian are so confident that the project of fc-1 won't be delayed by engine problem or the embargo from russian

 

[wp2000]

You mixed up many things.

e.g., J10 currently uses AL31FN, not AL37.
WS10's design was finalised long time ago. At the end of last year, it finished its 300hr long duration test, which is the last test to before being certified. Now it's entering the mass production phase, but it's for J11B first.

And WS13 is a long story but I don't think you make it clear to us.

 

[badguy2000]

some interesting details about the developement of chinese aero engine

in fact ,the real problem of PLAF is still the engine.

thrust/ weight ratio is the main indication of performance of engine.

generally speaking,the more T/W ratio is ,the better a engine is.

the most advance engine is the toy of f22.its t/w ratio is 11.the toy of ef2000 and refale has a t/w ratio of 9-10. those engines are usually called the 4rd generation engine.(of course,the engine of refale and ef2000 is just quasi 4rd G engine, strictly speaking).with powerful engine,f22 can easily have a supersonic cruise.

the engine of su27 variants has a T/W ratio of less 8.it is usually called the 3rd generation engine.the engine of mirage2000 has a T/W ratio of 6.5,the poorest engine adopted by 3rd aircrafts.

now,american,britishmen and frenchmen has accompished their 4rd G engine and put it on f22,ef2000 and refale.they are developing the 5rd engine with a T/W ration of 15 or so.

russia is still living on soviet fat and their new engine al41 is nowhere.

china just finished its 3rd engine,ws10 with a t/w ratio of 8,last year.but thanks for God.before ws10 was finished,chinese had started developed 4rd engine for nearly a decade.
so,although ws 10 has started being massproducted just now,the core engine of chinese 4rd engine has rolled out.

but as a whole,chinese research of engine is still a generation behind american and european.maybe when chinese 4rd G engine rolls out,the europeans' and americans' 5rd engine will also rolled out.it is a hard race for chinese.
------------------------------------------------------
here is some introduction of aero engine.

modern aero engine mainly divided into 3 kinds:turbojet,turbofan and turboprop.
turboprop mainly used for carrier and tranporter;turbojet for interceptors and old fighters,and now turbojet is usually thought to be outdated.
now most modern fighter,bombers and strikers all use turbofan engine.

3 kinds of engine all consists of 2 main parts:core engine and shell&appendix.
so , a engine = the core engine + the shell&appendix

3 kinds of aero engine in fact has almost the same configuration and structure.if you can develope a core engine and develope 3 shell/appendix,you can integerate them and roll out a turbofan engine,and turbojet engine and turboprop engine based the same core engine.

in fact,most engine developer do so ,to reduce the cost of developement.
for example,the engine of BOEI 707,The engine of F15 enjoy the same core engine cmf56.
it is reported that the core engine of chiense ws10 is also reverse engineer version of the engine cmf56

 

[tphuang]

do you really have to spam us with two threads on the same topic. If I see you create another thread, these are all going to be closed.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Just comparing two engines (specially military A/C) on the basis of just T/W ratio does not give the full picture,while one might have tweaked an engine 'A' and might claim to have achieved a higher T/W ratio at the same time the Engine life and reliability are reduced.I think complete picture can be had keeping all the above specs in mind.

 

[badguy2000]

Just comparing two engines (specially military A/C) on the basis of just T/W ratio does not give the full picture,while one might have tweaked an engine 'A' and might claim to have achieved a higher T/W ratio at the same time the Engine life and reliability are reduced.I think complete picture can be had keeping all the above specs in mind.

agree entirely.
western engines are always more reliable than russians'.
russian engines has lots of problems of lifespan and reliability.

 

[Ths]

Well there is one very interesting information:
The single engined fighter needs a spare engine. Apart from being expensive, it does not auger well for the availablity. This problem is not unique to China, as the F-15 at one point in their carrier had their share of "hangar queens".

Taken together with the large fuel capacity, I have my doubts about specific fuel consumption.
If thrust weight ratio is the most important characteristics of an engine, why not use a rocket?
With F-100 engine and the RB199 the real progress was these engine have both a good thrust/weight ratio AND a good specific fuel consumption. Giving the F-15 and Tornado their insane range.
During the cold war it meant that that Nato had the ability to strike deep into enemy territory, while at the same time keep the fighterbases out of direct harms way, while at the same time giving the planes the ability to look after themselves, thus reducing the need for escort AND pressing the Russians into very cumbersome airdefence arrangements around their divisions - how well these arragements would have worked in battle fortunately remains conjecture.

Using the same core for different engines is a cost saving measure - yes; but making a good engine - in particular core - is so difficult, that when you got one you stick to it. It is not unknown that mediocre engines are produces in fair numbers: The engines for the F-111 and F-14 were somewhat less than spectacular. Characteristially enough both planes had to use every trick the aerodynamicist had in their vast volumes, to bring performance into the acceptable range.