What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

Hi,

Seems like you are not into engines-----there is a simple basic principal for internal combustion gasoline engines---if you have compression, a spark and fuel, the engine will fire---holds true fo diesel as well turbine engines as well---.

Sir thanks for reply, you said correctly, though I never claimed to be an expert on anything but let me remined you that we are discussing here WS-10 which happens to be a turbofan engine which have totally different design and engineering and also physics behind their designs than one used in internal combustion engine. For your reference just posting two schematics of both... please look at them and tell me how you can have such simplistic view about both :) and that too after pretending as being an expert.

Internal Combustion

Internal_combustion_engine.png


Turbofan

CF6-6_engine_cutaway.jpg


There is never ever a problem with an engine ever in design---because in cannot be produced with an improper design-----someone has to be an idiot to manufacture one---and there are no idiots in the world of engine design and manufacture---it is always the critical parts which are exposed to extremely high stresses and performance and the lack of experience and lack of knowledge of their production in the past, a lack of knowledge of material composition creates major problems that may haunt the project for years till the right combinations are met.

And what about what type of turbo fan engine we are going to make? Low bypass (used in military jets) or high bypass one (for commercial planes). You see, even before starting work on critical parts, there is a lot of design parameters which one has to incorporate. And this is just one example of it. There are many other factors as well which demand careful design and engineering during the design phase of a turbofan engine.

It is a breakdown of those critical parts that creates issues- Otherwise an engine is an engine is an engine---.

:) this reminds me of Lashkar Raisani's epic quote, "A degree is a degree, irrespective if it is from some authentic university or a vague one". LOLz. Do you really thing that manufacturing a car engine and a modern low bypass turbofan with 7-stage high pressure compressor, short annular combustor with air blast atomizer and air film cooling blade having single crystal nickel-based turbineblades to allow higher intake temperatures and greater engine thrust is the same task?

Now you can run this engine at 60 70 % of its power and you will never have any problem with it----but when you want to go to 100%, that is where the bullsh-it hits the fan-------.

I believe in one of my earlier posts I had mentioned about reverse engineering----you can only reverse engineer so much----for the critical parts---you need insider information----that is where deception comes into force---.

Yup! and that is exactly why there are very few countries who can make a turbofan engine. It is one hell of complicated thing dear. And you never put an engine in a plane with mere 60-70% performance. Simply, because it is not acceptable in military standards. Here comes the issue of ensuring top notch manufacturing plants and assembly lines. Quality control becomes the most critical factor as not only the life of the pilot but the nation which uses that engine in their military jet would depend on the reliability, durability and consistency factors of the engine which all related to the quality control in an assembly line.

Coming back to WS-10,it was suffering with same issue. Not all the engine manufactured in the WS-10 assembly line had issues with them. Some copies were working as per design parameters but other broke down just after 30 hours. Similarly, most of these engines were taking too long to produce desired thrust required for J-10, J-11 etc. All these issues were related to the quality control not engine engineering, which as explained above is not same as making a car engine.

The manufacturer knows that its tech maybe stolen---and reverse engineered----and the company doing it would need information about the make of the critical components---and persistance will payoff---someone will sell off the information----so they may create their own leak---like about the materials used in the compressor blades---.

As they are the designers---they have known that a certain composition will work for a limited number of hours at 100% power out put for say 400 hours engine life---but to have it go for 2000 hours, the composition was slightly changed by them during their research----.

In their best interest---they may leak out the composition of a poorer quality compressor---which may literally put the project back for another 2-3 years or more and sometimes it may totally fail---because of the cost overruns---. So, by intentionally leaking information, they have kept the process in check and under time control----.

:) interesting way to evade any attempt of industrial espionage by your opponent. But, certainly, if someone does that to you, you would not sit and relax, your engineers would eventually tell you what is the problem.

The problem over here is that these critical components---their design and composition looks perfect on the paper and computer.


Could there be a similiar deception in case of the kaveri engine or the diesel engine for the indian tank----. It is up for debate.:mod:

OR, it is just an issue of NOT being able to produce something even after having a design in your computer. One can only produce a complex machine if he has that kind of engineering skills involved and an assembly line equipped well enough with personnel who can apply that complex design. Designing a computer model and bringing it to life are also not same or simple matters. Making turbofan engine design software would require skills related to IA, Software engineering, programming, graphics etc. but making something physical out of that design is an other ball game. It involves mechanical, chemical, material, fluid dynamics, and lots of other sciences and high degree of skills in each of them.
 
.
Hi,

In order for you to create simplicity in explanation---the description needs to be simple as well----the concept of different engines being similiar is purely on the basis of air, fuel, compression, ignition----once the reader understands that there is similiarity in dissimiliar engine---it makes things easier to comprehend.

That is what you listen to on day one in auto engineering ENGINES 101 class lecture.

You put the piston engine and turbine engine picture in your post------and you don't see the similiarity in both of them---just the parts and form is different----but they are very similiar---air---compression---fuel---ingitnion---the transfer of energy in one is through a crankshaft and the other through the exhaust nozzle.

You reading beyond the message---you have put a lot of effort in your response---but I did not say any of it what you are trying to impose---. I am saying---engines are engines---different forms---different functions----but they are still internal combustion engines---.

You think gas or diesel engine is easy to make----to make a current day high performance engine---is like a billion dollar project---and still at the end of the day---you ask the question was it worth it or should we had bought it from our neighbour---.

Ask our indian colleagues----they have had this experience with both the aircraft engine 'kaveri' and a diesel engine for their tank---and they even had the legitimate blue prints---and no disrespect to my indian colleagues---( just want to share the difficulty of the task ).

You have taken too mucch liberty with what I am saying and putting a different spin on it---either you did not understand what I was saying or you just simply ignored it and put a spin on it.
 
. .
Hi,

In order for you to create simplicity in explanation---the description needs to be simple as well----the concept of different engines being similiar is purely on the basis of air, fuel, compression, ignition----once the reader understands that there is similiarity in dissimiliar engine---it makes things easier to comprehend.

That is what you listen to on day one in auto engineering ENGINES 101 class lecture.

Sir the original discussion was about WS-10 TURBOFAN engine and issues with its production quality. Why you are so keen to take the threat to turn into "what is an engine?" issue? You completely lost the orignal discussion which was about WS-10.

You put the piston engine and turbine engine picture in your post------and you don't see the similiarity in both of them---just the parts and form is different----but they are very similiar---air---compression---fuel---ingitnion---the transfer of energy in one is through a crankshaft and the other through the exhaust nozzle.

You reading beyond the message---you have put a lot of effort in your response---but I did not say any of it what you are trying to impose---. I am saying---engines are engines---different forms---different functions----but they are still internal combustion engines---.

Sir they belong to two different classes of engine. And not all the turbofan engines works on internal combustion. there are exceptions as well. BTW, turbofan is a internal airbreathing combustion engine belonging to reaction engine class.

You think gas or diesel engine is easy to make----to make a current day high performance engine---is like a billion dollar project---and still at the end of the day---you ask the question was it worth it or should we had bought it from our neighbour---.

Nopes, I dont think so. what i am saying is that turbofan engine is more complex than making a car engine. Indeed later is not an easier thing in itself. I neveer said that making car engine is easier but when we compare it with making a low bypass turbofan engine, indeed it is less complicated one.

Ask our indian colleagues----they have had this experience with both the aircraft engine 'kaveri' and a diesel engine for their tank---and they even had the legitimate blue prints---and no disrespect to my indian colleagues---( just want to share the difficulty of the task ).

This again compliment what i wrote. Indians were not able to produce these engines as they dont have required level of engineering skills and manufacturing maturity. Why Russians would play dirty with them. After all they are biggest Russian arm market in the world.

You have taken too mucch liberty with what I am saying and putting a different spin on it---either you did not understand what I was saying or you just simply ignored it and put a spin on it.

I am really sorry if you think that way. But please try to recall that it was your comment on post which triggerred this discussion in the first place. Then, instead of going into any kind of technical debate you are trying to pretend that i have twisted your post.

No sir, that is not me. I think this must end this debate now!

My apologies if I have offended you in any way... I am not replying unless we have some hardcore technical issue here. Dont want to detrack the entire threat.
 
. . . . . .

does the SU3X have a heart burn or just jealousy? The shotdown plane and its plane doesn’t explain what hit it. Its body is intact and the placement of the flame is strange too doest look like missile impact or cannons either
, the photoshoper was lazy is all I can think of.
 
.
does the SU3X have a heart burn or just jealousy? The shotdown plane and its plane doesn’t explain what hit it. Its body is intact and the placement of the flame is strange too doest look like missile impact or cannons either
, the photoshoper was lazy is all I can think of.

Unfortunately this pic is from the time(4+ yrs old if iam not mistaken:D) when i never thought of investing much time in AOA, altitude, weapon configuration and missile impact details etc...as in any work there is always room for improvement and such valuable feedback has helped me to create some good stuff too:no:
 
. . .
My apologies if I have offended you in any way... I am not replying unless we have some hardcore technical issue here. Dont want to detrack the entire threat.

Hi,

It is not a matter of being offended------anyway here is a definition of an internal combustion engine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine - Cached

the link can be pasted intot he search engine--- ( what kind of engine would that be---internal, external,up in the ether or what )

I am pretty sure you must have looked it up.

What you mentioned is possibly a sub category ----.
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom