What's new

Chinese Jet Crash: Incompatible Russian Engine or Industrial Deficiency?

Jhon Smith

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
187
Reaction score
-2
Country
United States
Location
United States
Chinese Fighter Jet Crash: Incompatible Russian Engine or Industrial Deficiency?


Chinese J-10 fighter jets fly on display over the Yangcun Air Force base of the People's Liberation Army Air Force in Tianjin on April 13, 2010. (FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)
When a Chinese-designed jet fighter crashed, local media found fault with the imported Russian engine while praising the injured pilot for his “outstanding soldier’s conviction” during the incident.

According to a report by the Beijing-based Sina Military Network, the Russian-built engine used in the J-10 is prone to malfunction, having caused multiple crashes in recent years.

On Sept. 19. a J-10 fighter jet from northeastern China’s Shenyang Military Region crashed during a nighttime patrol mission, state-run China Central Television (CCTV) reported. The Russian-built engine had lost power at over 11,000 feet, said pilot Li Tong, who ejected at 1,000 feet following an abortive 198-second attempt to glide the aircraft to a local airfield.

Li survived with neck and spine injuries. Because he had avoided lit, populated areas when maneuvering his damaged plane, CCTV lauded him as a hero, saying that he had made no less than five “weighty decisions” to “avoid the loss of property and life among the masses.”

A distinguished military pilot, Li Tong told CCTV that his first priority was to save the jet, which at the time of engine failure was carrying 200 rounds of aircraft ordnance and 2.5 tons of fuel. As Li struggled to restart the engine, the plane fell to about 5,000 feet.

Why a Russian Engine?
The J-10 is a single-engine light fighter aircraft that was developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation in the 1990s and put into service starting 2005. It is built around the powerful Russian AL-31 engine, which was originally intended for the two-engined Su-27 family of Soviet-designed fighter aircraft.

With its Western-inspired and locally-designed single-engine configuration, however, the J-10 suffers from severe compatibility issues in using the AL-31. At the same time, the Chinese-designed WS-10 aircraft engines have proven even less reliable than the Russian equipment.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/187...ible-russian-engine-or-industrial-deficiency/
 
. .
Yes coming from a New York based site what can you expect .If Chinese have said some thing similar it might have some impact ,One of crashes are part of equipment failure
 
.
b5fd6b032f88f570714acf7f4a051374db6f183e56b88769bd202959ffe5bcf4.jpg



it's not often a bird falls out of the sky. get back to me if they keep falling out of the sky
 
.
Isnt this news from last year? Meanwhile guess what crashed not just this year but this month?:lol: So much for the alien tech aka US tech.
A B-52H Stratofortress bomber has been destroyed in a fiery crash shortly after takeoff at a US air force base in Guam. All seven crew members survived and got away safely from the wreckage, military officials said.
Cix6Z68XAAAzl12.jpg:large

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/19/b-52-bomber-crashes-on-guam
 
.
From what technical clues does the article assume that the cause of the crash was due to a compatibility issue rather than the engine itself?
From these paragraphs...

Netizens found issue with the Chinese media reports and analysis of the September crash, saying that CCTV’s triumphant depiction of the pilot’s emergency actions drew attention away from the technical failings common to modern Chinese fighters.
One incident can be written off as anomalous. Two is when you begin investigating the incidents as possibly with common ties. But when people notice multiple incidents with little or no official statements as to what happened with all known incidents, either it is technically related or human related. Your pick.

A user in Guangdong Province contradicted the Sina analysis for its implication that the engine can simply be re-engineered, if only the Russians would help. “The engine is not like a graphics card that can be changed at will,” the post reads. “It is integrated with the entire airframe.”
He is correct.

Re-engineering is not simple. A laboratory attempt is always successful given enough time and resources. But for mass production, you need a supporting CULTURE. We are not talking about the social culture but about the technical and industrial ones.

For example...To produce an alloy, you need the raw ores that constitutes that alloy, then you need the technical capabilities and expertise to make that alloy, then you need the industrial might to produce that alloy in large scale. Behind everything are the human and financial resources to solve the almost unimaginable large and small problems that inevitably crops up. Everything make up this 'culture'.

The Russian engine could be working just fine -- as a standalone component. If the Russian engine was integrated into a foreign airframe as a standalone component, then how the aircraft performs in terms of performance, longevity, and durability rests on that integration process. Basically, you are trusting the engine to do its job as you feed it fuel, monitors its output as what kind of outputs are designed to be monitored, controls whatever the engine's design allows you to control, and never exceed the engine's design limits.

On the other hand, if you reverse engineered a foreign engine and built a new domestic engine from that foundation, you have much greater flexibility on the new engine. But now you are responsible for everything from an engine design that may contains inherent weaknesses and flaws to integration into an airframe.

Isnt this news from last year? Meanwhile guess what crashed not just this year but this month?:lol: So much for the alien tech aka US tech.
A B-52H Stratofortress bomber has been destroyed in a fiery crash shortly after takeoff at a US air force base in Guam. All seven crew members survived and got away safely from the wreckage, military officials said.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/19/b-52-bomber-crashes-on-guam
That B-52 is probably older than your father, buddy. Let US know when China have something domestic that is that durable. :enjoy:
 
. .
From these paragraphs...


One incident can be written off as anomalous. Two is when you begin investigating the incidents as possibly with common ties. But when people notice multiple incidents with little or no official statements as to what happened with all known incidents, either it is technically related or human related. Your pick.


He is correct.

Re-engineering is not simple. A laboratory attempt is always successful given enough time and resources. But for mass production, you need a supporting CULTURE. We are not talking about the social culture but about the technical and industrial ones.

For example...To produce an alloy, you need the raw ores that constitutes that alloy, then you need the technical capabilities and expertise to make that alloy, then you need the industrial might to produce that alloy in large scale. Behind everything are the human and financial resources to solve the almost unimaginable large and small problems that inevitably crops up. Everything make up this 'culture'.

The Russian engine could be working just fine -- as a standalone component. If the Russian engine was integrated into a foreign airframe as a standalone component, then how the aircraft performs in terms of performance, longevity, and durability rests on that integration process. Basically, you are trusting the engine to do its job as you feed it fuel, monitors its output as what kind of outputs are designed to be monitored, controls whatever the engine's design allows you to control, and never exceed the engine's design limits.

On the other hand, if you reverse engineered a foreign engine and built a new domestic engine from that foundation, you have much greater flexibility on the new engine. But now you are responsible for everything from an engine design that may contains inherent weaknesses and flaws to integration into an airframe.

I agree that the integration of the engine is critical to the collective functioning of a platform, but neither the article nor any other source provide sufficient information as to deduce where exactly the problem occurred. The fault could be with the pilot, airframe, engine, fuel, or more than one of the aforementioned.

The article is quick to jump the gun by implicating these incidents with so-called "compatibility issues" without any technical evidence to support that assertion.
 
. .
In that case it must be of your age :p:...........News Flash! This is 2016 and China has come a long way.

And as of 2016.

Chengdu J-10 powered by Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN

Shenyang J-11 powered by Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN

Xian JH-7 powered by Rolls-Royce Spey Mk 202

Shenyang J-8 powered by twin Chinese variant of Tumansky R-13-300 turbojet

Chengdu J-7 powered by Chinese variant of Tumansky R-13-300 turbojet

Xian H-6 powered by Mikulin AM-3

Hongdu JL8 powered by Garrett TFE731-2A-2A turbofan

Hongdu L-15 powered by 2 × Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F afterburning turbofans

Harbin Y-12 powered by 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-27 turboprop

Shaanxi Y-8 powered by 4 x License-built copy of the Turbomeca Turmo

Xian H-6 powered by 2 x Mikulin AM-3

J31 powered by 2 x Rd 33

J20 Powered by 2 x Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN
 
.
The Chinese cant crack the metallurgy of the modern turbofan and that is the end of the story with regards to them making a reliable engine.

Russian engines are good, but nowhere as good as any Pratt & whitney. Those suckers can take a bird and still keep going.
 
.
Hi,

When I lived in Ogden utah in the 80's---just a few miles from Hill air force base---I believe the largest F16 airbase in the U S at that time---the Ogden paper would have the news of an F16 crashing quite often.

That did not stop the F16 from being the best selling aircraft in the world.

As for the J10----my primary concern would be with the capability of this aircraft and that when the pilot ejects from the aircraft---he parachutes safely.

The chinese fighter aircraft industry has expanded at a lightening pace starting from the last 25 years.

You have to look at it this way---what did the chinese have 20 years ago---the J8 Finback---and F7's-that could barely compete with the 60's phantom---.

And what do they have now---aircraft that are 5--10 times more potent than those two.

I do not see any other example of a nation taking such massive leaps in technology advancement in the fighter aircraft division as the chinese have in such a short time.

The level of growth in this industry has been outstanding.

So---again---these issues are just mere glitches of a system that has grown extremely fast---.

And you guys know what---as a car salesman and with auto engr background---I can relate this to my industry very well.

When the electronic fuel injection system became popular and all the cars started coming with this system---the mechanics in the shops and at the dealerships were too far behind on the learning curve to what was coming out----.

It would take them years to master one system and the factory would come out with another system----and who gets screwed---the customer----. There would be issues that were not know and thus could not be tackled and those created problems---.

Ultimately the manufacturer brought stability to its design and focussed more on standardizing the system in similar model of cars.

Now you can go to any reputable repair shop and the tech would know what needed to be done.

So---it is the same growing pains for the chinese---the pilots are pushing the limits of the machines to see what they can do.

Give them 10 years and the J10 would be as reliable as the F16---.
 
.
Shit happens, main thing is finding out why it happened and correcting the mistake.
 
. .
And as of 2016.

Chengdu J-10 powered by Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN

Shenyang J-11 powered by Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN

Xian JH-7 powered by Rolls-Royce Spey Mk 202

Shenyang J-8 powered by twin Chinese variant of Tumansky R-13-300 turbojet

Chengdu J-7 powered by Chinese variant of Tumansky R-13-300 turbojet

Xian H-6 powered by Mikulin AM-3

Hongdu JL8 powered by Garrett TFE731-2A-2A turbofan

Hongdu L-15 powered by 2 × Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F afterburning turbofans

Harbin Y-12 powered by 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-27 turboprop

Shaanxi Y-8 powered by 4 x License-built copy of the Turbomeca Turmo

Xian H-6 powered by 2 x Mikulin AM-3

J31 powered by 2 x Rd 33

J20 Powered by 2 x Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN

Interesting, you reply to someone claiming it's 2016 with data from 2011. As of 2016, all J-11 variants except for the J-15 have been using the WS-10 variants for many years now. There were some production issues with the WS-10...like 10 years ago. It's long been resolved, and production capacity is being stepped up as we speak. In fact, the last few new J-10B/C's are now using a WS-10 variant, indicating both that the reliability has increased to the point that it's safe to use in a single-engine plane, and that the production capacity is large enough now to equip both the J-10 and the J11.

The production capacity of the WS-10 is increasing due to a second line being set up in Xi'an. It has increased so much that it's rumored the PLA is producing 40+ flanker variants per year starting this year. For comparison's sake, HAL is requesting an extension of their Su-30MKI contract because they won't be able to finish making the remaining 40 something in FOUR(4!!!) years to 2020.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom