FC-1 (JF-17) powered by WS-13 engine carries Taxi Trials

[Abu Zolfiqar]

off-topic and i'm sorry; but i think one of those sukhoi crashes was attributed to a (major) pilot error

 

[graphican]

the RD-93 being currently used is a modified derivative of the RD-33 used by the Migs

Found something interesting over here.

Description: Klimov RD-33 is a family of aircraft engine developed to power the Mig-29 multi-role fighter and delivering between 18,000 and 20,000 pounds of thrust. Despite the Soviet Union's collapse, RD-33 engine family has evolved encompassing cutting technologies such as thrust vectoring control (TVC) which provides superior aircraft maneuverability compared with fixed nozzles engines.

Each RD-33 aircraft engine provides 18,300 pounds of thrust and has a life cycle of 2,000 flight hours. Mig-29A air defense fighter and Mig-29UB twin-seat training aircraft are powered by two RD-33 engines.

RD-33 - Contracts, Orders & Sales

2005 China contract with Russia placed in 2005 for 100 RD-93 turbofan engines to power the FC-1 fighter aircraft. The contract was valued at $267 million and the Russian contractors were Klimov and Chernyshev. Engine deliveries were due to begin in 2006.
Items: 100

http://www.deagel.com/news/Russia-and-India-Sign-RD-33-Production-License-Agreement_n000001365.aspx

 

[Sinnerman108]

You wanna contest my post....may i suggest do so in a civilized manner with something to back your claim up as there is nothing offensive in my post.Coming back to your post The highlighted part is pure nonsense on your part and i will suggest to you is to go learn a few bits about modular designs and how JF-17 is benefiting from it before coming out and posting just for the sake of increasing posts. JF-17 would hardly need any modification to change from RD-93 to WS-13 why because PAF knew it could not continue with a Russian power plant for long because of the unreliability of the spares and has to replace it with a domestic version and JF-17 is designed keeping that in view. You are welcome to go through the JF-17 thread last couple of pages and you will see what i am talking about.

PS i am not mentioned anything related to the quality of the WS-13 so whether it has matured enough to be used on JF-17 or not has nothing to do with the fact that it can be installed on JF-17 without or little modifications.

Did u see the part about "jokes apart"
come on man, i thought YOU could take that joke !
anyway, here goes.

As far as modular design is concerned, things are hunky dory as far as design is concerned, but when it comes to putting the pieces together we have a problem called "integration".

Let me give you an example.

Assume that current JF-17 is using the russian engine.
The flight stabilization controls, engine mounts, fuel controls, etc etc are optimized for the same.

Now assume, taking those specs of the paper another engine is made, WS-13.
now firstly, it is next to impossible to make another engine with 100% same dimensional specs as the first one.
it is impossible to make another engine without causing structural modification in the fuselage.

even if the above are met,
The engines are same size, same weight,same bla bla bla,
it is impossible to have the engines of the same CG, also put in consideration what I said about lacking the fabrication skills and lacking metallurgical skills.

the posts in the thread, may lead the reader to assume that
in modular design, one can design this, and another can design that, and they will come together.

This is total rubbish, and readers should understand integration is achieved only after compromises.

I am career professional engineer, and do just this.

I back my arguments with field experience, not URLs.

 

[ANG]

Dear Salman108, I appreciate your comments, as they are very insightful. I am a statistician/mathematician and I comprehend the issues and limitations. I understand that you simply cannot slap another engine and say voila! The South African Cheetah had issues with center of gravity shift when the RD-33 was added to it.

However, I had point to mention. The F-16 is designed to be able to accomodate 2 different engines, one by GE and the other by PW. The F-16 was designed to accomodate either engine. Is that not feasible for the JF-17? My understanding is that the WS-13 was designed using the RD-93 as a baseline and meant to fit in the JF-17 from the start of design. Thanks!

 

[IceCold]

Did u see the part about "jokes apart"
come on man, i thought YOU could take that joke !
anyway, here goes.

As far as modular design is concerned, things are hunky dory as far as design is concerned, but when it comes to putting the pieces together we have a problem called "integration".

Let me give you an example.

Assume that current JF-17 is using the russian engine.
The flight stabilization controls, engine mounts, fuel controls, etc etc are optimized for the same.

Now assume, taking those specs of the paper another engine is made, WS-13.
now firstly, it is next to impossible to make another engine with 100% same dimensional specs as the first one.
it is impossible to make another engine without causing structural modification in the fuselage.

even if the above are met,
The engines are same size, same weight,same bla bla bla,
it is impossible to have the engines of the same CG, also put in consideration what I said about lacking the fabrication skills and lacking metallurgical skills.

the posts in the thread, may lead the reader to assume that
in modular design, one can design this, and another can design that, and they will come together.

This is total rubbish, and readers should understand integration is achieved only after compromises.

I am career professional engineer, and do just this.

I back my arguments with field experience, not URLs.

From your post i am getting this impression that it is almost next to impossible or not without some heavy modifications to accommodate a new engine. Am i correct in my understanding? if so:

I have a question for you......how much of a modifications are we talking about in this case specially if we take this fact into consideration that WS-13 is not completely different from RD-93 other then its domestic built and PAF always wanted a domestic engine for the reasons i have already stated in my previous posts, they were just waiting for it to mature up to be used in a single engine jet.

 

[Sinnerman108]

However, I had point to mention. The F-16 is designed to be able to accomodate 2 different engines, one by GE and the other by PW. The F-16 was designed to accomodate either engine. Is that not feasible for the JF-17? My understanding is that the WS-13 was designed using the RD-93 as a baseline and meant to fit in the JF-17 from the start of design. Thanks!

Boss,
that is the point,
the F-16 was DESIGNED to carry both, JF-17 was not.
Once the aircraft is designed to carry both engines
you can imagine that the engine developers had kept that in their mind and ensure that the engine can be replaced by the other one.

in this case we have a problem putting the Russian engine, we are running after the Ws-13 engine, which is not even fully mature, and over time it will have modifications before it is bullet proof and water tight.

Even if the WS-13 was intended to be RD-93's replica.
I can guarantee you,
even if you have the precise schematics of the RD-93,
even if the russians give you the alloy secrets
even if you have the same fabrication facilities
with all the even ifs
manufacture the same engine in China, and the product will be different from the original.

and integrating and debugging that is an even bigger pain in the @r$3.

so how can PAF/PAC bank on being able to just slapping it in ?


Now for IceCold:

See it this way
What do you call major modification ?
is it a structural change ?
is it concerned with moving equipment within the bay, to accommodate the new engine ?
do you refer changes to the fuselage design ?

All of the above are major changes in their own right, for the sake of the argument as imagine that these are all not the problem.
Just the re-work required in the control systems is bigger task than any one of the above changes.

I am not saying that it is impossible to put another engine in the air craft.
However I am saying it is difficult.
It will require a lot of changes and modifications.
and even when these changes are made, end of the day you will find out self to have made more compromises than any thing else.

Imagine this,
you have to move the mount point of the engine 6" for the new engine.
That is all, only 6 ", weight distribution is the same, every little detail is the same.
Now to make a new mount point, you will first remove the first one,
on the new mount point position, you will have to make the following:

1. Structural impact whereby you will have to study the stresses placed on the supporting fuselage. You will have to analyze take of, landing, super sonic, turns etc in account and simulate as much as possible to avoid experimentation.

2. Metal fatigue analysis: you will re-do all your calculations to analyze the ALL metal fatigue variables to make sure that this change will not cause an out of bound change any where else.

3. Vibration stabilization: This is EXTREMELY critical and it is self explanatory.

4. You will have to re-calibrate all your control systems to ensure your FBWs and rest work as they should.

the above 4 are just the some major tasks,
Now imagine you will have to do the above several times over to pass the quality cycles.

That is engineering for you ! and this is how meticulously a war machine is produced.

 

[Super Falcon]

welll why not get thrust vectorian tech from russia via china than mass produce them in china and paf get them inside JF 17 i know it is bit weired and very next to impossible but it can be done and chinese are more capable and professional they can produce own their own thrust vestorian engines

 

[Sinnerman108]

Wonderful !

Then they complain about me being harsh ...

Just makes me curse the system, it produces dreamers on industrial proportions.

 

[ANG]

Hi, Salman108 has very valid points and concerns. Unless the engine has not been specifically designed and tailored to replace a specific engine and fit in a previous fuselage, integrating it will take modifications and time.

India is experiencing that with the engines choices they have for the LCA. There was an article a few months ago mentioning that both the F414 and EJ200 engines were available for the LCA with transfer of technology. If India selected the EJ200 it would add a year+ on redesigning the fuselage and integrating the engine into it, as it currently was tailored for the F404 turbofan. Thanks!

 

[ANG]

Hi, I had one of my Mandarin speaking friends translate this article. I posted this on another discussion thread a while back. I am wondering if the WS-12 is actually the WS-13. Thanks!

ÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ - èÉÁú¡±Õ½»ú¹ú²úÐÂÐÄÔྐྵÓÐÃÀ¹úѪͳ£¿Í¼ z

The prototype of domestic-made engine WS12, which will be used in FC-1 (a.k.a. J-10), is reported to simulate US-made F404 instead of Russia-made RD93. After years of exploration, the thrust of this new engine can easily reach 95KN. It is also said that, with new materials used in FC-1, the thrust-ratio can achieve 1.05, which is comparative to the medium-sized battle planes of western countries. FC-1 with new engine can take off after 400 meters (roughly 1/4 miles) taxiing. The estimate of WS12 market is optimistic. Pakistani engineers have been involved in the entire process of manufacture improvement.

 

[Sanchez]

Hi, I had one of my Mandarin speaking friends translate this article. I posted this on another discussion thread a while back. I am wondering if the WS-12 is actually the WS-13. Thanks!

ÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ - èÉÁú¡±Õ½»ú¹ú²úÐÂÐÄÔྐྵÓÐÃÀ¹úѪͳ£¿Í¼ z

The prototype of domestic-made engine WS12, which will be used in FC-1 (a.k.a. J-10), is reported to simulate US-made F404 instead of Russia-made RD93. After years of exploration, the thrust of this new engine can easily reach 95KN. It is also said that, with new materials used in FC-1, the thrust-ratio can achieve 1.05, which is comparative to the medium-sized battle planes of western countries. FC-1 with new engine can take off after 400 meters (roughly 1/4 miles) taxiing. The estimate of WS12 market is optimistic. Pakistani engineers have been involved in the entire process of manufacture improvement.

WS-12 has a long way to go before ready.

 

[araz]

Did u see the part about "jokes apart"
come on man, i thought YOU could take that joke !
anyway, here goes.

As far as modular design is concerned, things are hunky dory as far as design is concerned, but when it comes to putting the pieces together we have a problem called "integration".

Let me give you an example.

Assume that current JF-17 is using the russian engine.
The flight stabilization controls, engine mounts, fuel controls, etc etc are optimized for the same.

Now assume, taking those specs of the paper another engine is made, WS-13.
now firstly, it is next to impossible to make another engine with 100% same dimensional specs as the first one.
it is impossible to make another engine without causing structural modification in the fuselage.

even if the above are met,
The engines are same size, same weight,same bla bla bla,
it is impossible to have the engines of the same CG, also put in consideration what I said about lacking the fabrication skills and lacking metallurgical skills.

the posts in the thread, may lead the reader to assume that
in modular design, one can design this, and another can design that, and they will come together.

This is total rubbish, and readers should understand integration is achieved only after compromises.

I am career professional engineer, and do just this.

I back my arguments with field experience, not URLs.

Salman
Thank you for your input. It is sometimes difficult for armchair Experts like me to understand the difficulties in such a change. However, if you let old fogies like me down gently, it would be appreciated
WaSalam
Araz

 

[graphican]

Boss,
that is the point,
the F-16 was DESIGNED to carry both, JF-17 was not.
Once the aircraft is designed to carry both engines
you can imagine that the engine developers had kept that in their mind and ensure that the engine can be replaced by the other one.

in this case we have a problem putting the Russian engine, we are running after the Ws-13 engine, which is not even fully mature, and over time it will have modifications before it is bullet proof and water tight.

Even if the WS-13 was intended to be RD-93's replica.
I can guarantee you,
even if you have the precise schematics of the RD-93,
even if the russians give you the alloy secrets
even if you have the same fabrication facilities
with all the even ifs
manufacture the same engine in China, and the product will be different from the original.

and integrating and debugging that is an even bigger pain in the @r$3.

so how can PAF/PAC bank on being able to just slapping it in ?


Now for IceCold:

See it this way
What do you call major modification ?
is it a structural change ?
is it concerned with moving equipment within the bay, to accommodate the new engine ?
do you refer changes to the fuselage design ?

All of the above are major changes in their own right, for the sake of the argument as imagine that these are all not the problem.
Just the re-work required in the control systems is bigger task than any one of the above changes.

I am not saying that it is impossible to put another engine in the air craft.
However I am saying it is difficult.
It will require a lot of changes and modifications.
and even when these changes are made, end of the day you will find out self to have made more compromises than any thing else.

Imagine this,
you have to move the mount point of the engine 6" for the new engine.
That is all, only 6 ", weight distribution is the same, every little detail is the same.
Now to make a new mount point, you will first remove the first one,
on the new mount point position, you will have to make the following:

1. Structural impact whereby you will have to study the stresses placed on the supporting fuselage. You will have to analyze take of, landing, super sonic, turns etc in account and simulate as much as possible to avoid experimentation.

2. Metal fatigue analysis: you will re-do all your calculations to analyze the ALL metal fatigue variables to make sure that this change will not cause an out of bound change any where else.

3. Vibration stabilization: This is EXTREMELY critical and it is self explanatory.

4. You will have to re-calibrate all your control systems to ensure your FBWs and rest work as they should.

the above 4 are just the some major tasks,
Now imagine you will have to do the above several times over to pass the quality cycles.

That is engineering for you ! and this is how meticulously a war machine is produced.

Hello Salman,

I am also Salman so its nice to talk to my namesake.

You have made very thoughtful and technical points and I am NOT in position to argue on 1% of that. But what I see is that you are over-looking the other side to a degree that this shift was on the table the moment these planes were initially being layed out. What you are saying is correct but people who design aircrafts would be equally aware of these problems. China is undergoing this change prior to us as it is equipping its J-10s and J-11Bs with its own engine replacing the Russian ones. As China will play a major role for the same Change in FC-1, you can expect many of the problems which you mentioned would've been taken care of. But still its hope and derivative analysis and not an analytical conclusion.

 

[MastanKhan]

Salman108,

I would like to commend you on your post. Most young and older pakistanis think that reverse engineering is a child game----you can build it back just like that---these people are clueless to what they are talking----by=ut the most tragic part is that they are not ready to learn.

They assume and they start believing in what china and pakistan can do and once they start making themselves believe---they make it sound like that is the ultimate truth.

In order to reverse engineer a product you ought ot have the thinging, the brains and the technology to stand behind yoru work.

Why do you need to reverse engineer something---that is the first question---you do it because you were not capable of designing it in the first place---.

Now if you were not capable of designing it in the first place---then your end product will not meet the performance level of what you are copying----this is design engineering in its simplest form.

So---you are correct about the chinese engine---there is a good chance thatt the engine might not be an easy fit---unless the russians helped them----.


Again we assume that the designers were also aware of this problem---they were in a way and they were not in another way---their first and foremost priority is manufacturing a flyable plane---what happens after 5 years is a consideration---the current design keeps in mind some of the modification for the future but not all of them.

The ws 13 will succeed over the period of time---but when---that is the catch phrase.

There is a wonderful article I read about what pakistanis and indians fweel about TOT---how they assume what is not---.

I will try to find that article and would like a=every member who talks about TOT and the provess of the chinese to paste that article on their bedroom walls---so they can read it all the time and understand the term better.

 

[dingyibvs]

Actually the report says:



That means, it has 10% more than the actual RD 93 and by the specs that farhan_9909 posted for RD93, it would be 89,43kN afterburner thrust now.



You can't only include the higher thrust, but also have to add the 80Kg more weight of the WS 13 compared to RD93. Be it for more speed, or more payload, it must be a combination of less weight and more thrust.

Actually, since the engine will be powering the whole plane rather than just the engine itself, the whole plane's weight instead of just the engine's weight needs to be considered. In that case, the weight increase will only be about 1%, while the thrust increase will be about 10%.