"Chinese jet engines" Topic

A topic of their own given some statements made by posters.

Apparently Chinese WS10 doesn't get more than 30 hours Time Between Overhauls (TBO) and Russian AL31 is 400 hours TBO (this is based on 2009 information).

According to Janes AL31 has been increased to 1500 hours TBO by 2010 (indeed modern versions had reached 900 hours TOB before that). This was done by both Russians and Chinese indepdendently of each other. Since then Russians have apparently improved to 2000 hours TBO (still only a fraction of what Western engines do).

Currently there seems to be two different claims regarding Chinese WS10 and it's derivatives:

1. No good in terms of reliability.

2. Acceptable enough for service entry.

There has also been different allegations as to service entry. Some articles state that is in regimental service with units equipped with J-11 (indeed 100 J-11Bs have been built with WS10A and at least some have been shown in photographic evidence).

It doesn't help a lot of sources are in Chinese. A lot of pages ala Strategy Page or the Aviationist are extremely biased and overly nationalistic and often wrong. I'm sure Chinese pages are the same.

The Chinese do licence produce engines including turbofan RR Speys. Independently modifying AL31s to get extra life out of them implies some level of expertise. And then allegations that WS10 was always accepted by Chinese as a learning tool and not a definitive turbofan engine.

But in the end we are clueless as to actual state of affairs, other than 5 years ago they had problems with baseline WS10.

All we know is that they are behind Western and Russians but by how much they're behind is questionable. We also know the Chinese can occassionally surprise us with their development capabilities (e.g. J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters).

In addition to WS10, two other new jet engines are in development

WS13 – military engine. Has been test flown in a JF-17 fighter and could be used for new J-31 (roughly F-35 equivalent)

WS15 – military (J-10/J-20)and civilian applications.

Finally we forget that most countries are unable to design jet engines even if they are building their own aircraft. The Swedes use US engines, the Indians have been struggling for 20 years to get Kaveri operational (and have been using US engines). Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese have used US engines for F-2, F/A-50 and F-CK-1 (even though Japan has designed and produced lower performing engines).

Germany, Italy, Uk and Spain had to buddy up for Eurofighter engine. And most likely all of them plus France won't ever design another jet fighter again.

I heard that the Chinese engines go. Wooooooooooooooooo!
Cheers

The PRC engines aren't any worse than the Soviet ones of the '50s and '60s, which seemed okay for service to the Soviets of the time.

They'd never pass muster in the West, but they are more or less "good enough" for PRC purposes.

Presumably, they will continue to improve.
-Kle.

And as I mentioned when I made the comments in the first place, when the Chinese-made engines can last, then I will be more worried. But even if the engines can last, their slower spooling time is fatal for a fighter.

It's really dang expensive to pull engines every 400 hours and replace them. If your birds are flying a lot (say, 2000 hours per year), you're pulling engines every other month or so. It then takes a couple days just to do the inspections, and another day or two to replace parts when you have the parts on hand. So you're talking about a week's worth of work for each engine. When the WS10s only lasted 30 hours, each bird needed 3x the engines. One fresh engine ready to put in, one engine in the shop getting overhauled, and the third engine in the airframe.

It's really dang expensive to pull engines every 400 hours and replace them. If your birds are flying a lot (say, 2000 hours per year), you're pulling engines every other month or so.

Not even NATO jets are pulling 2000 hours a year! If that was the case, the entire NATO fleet would've expired some 20 years ago (average age of NATO jet fighters).

An F-16 or F/A-18 might have 8000 – 12000 flying hours incorporated into it's life. So at 2000 hours per annum that's a fighter used up in 4-6 years! Certainly not the case.

For example recent stats for a bunch of grounded USAF F-16Ds showed:

27 year old aircraft: 6,455 actual flight hours (AFH) and 7,016 equivalent flight hours (EFH)*.

Equates to 239 AFH per annum and 241 EFH

21 year old aircraft: 5,934 AFH and 4,867 EFH

Equates to 282 AFH per annum and 232 EFH

*Equivalent flight hours are the actual accounting of structural degradation that is determined from damage index data stored in the individual aircraft-tracking database, which is part of the aircraft structural integrity program.

NATO standard flying time per fighrer pilot is 200 hours a year, but many don't get that. For example average French fighter flying hours is 120-150 hours and Eastern Europeans get even less (as low as 50-60 hours for some of the poorer NATO states).

I agree that having to overhaul engines every 400 hours is inefficient. It's why a lot of former Warpac states (that are now NATO) have been unable to maintain any level of readiness or pilot capability.

However they still find it cheaper to fly a MiG-21 than a MiG-23/-29 or F-16/-18. Hence most are still flying old crates.

An F-16 or F/A-18 is also stupidly expensive to maintain – hence Hungary and Czech Republic (and now Slovakia) have opted for the JAS-39 Gripen which was designed to have Western performance combined with Eastern simplicity and cost effectiveness.

It then takes a couple days just to do the inspections, and another day or two to replace parts when you have the parts on hand. So you're talking about a week's worth of work for each engine. When the WS10s only lasted 30 hours, each bird needed 3x the engines. One fresh engine ready to put in, one engine in the shop getting overhauled, and the third engine in the airframe.

I totally agree. I don't know if WS10 was in regimental frontline service in 2009. The numbers aren't there.

Since 2009 at least 100 J-11Bs with WS10As have been introduced.

It has been deemed insufficient for new carrier J-15, but then carrier aircraft usually require a lot more "oomph" and reliability than ones for landbased jets.

~240 flight hours a year? Jeez, what a waste of taxpayer dollars! Pilots need a lot more than that!

the Airlines get a lot more hours per year, which is just not right on so many levels.