The problem with the A-31 is reliability.
"Jahesh-700", Iran's first turbofan engine
- Thread starter mohsen
- Start date
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
What?
AL-31 has 500 TBO and 1,500 hours life and in AL-41 that has been increased 1000 TBO and 4,000 hours.
It obviously is a reliable engine if China is basing its next gen aircraft on the same design.
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
This is incorrect. The WS-10 already employs the second generation DD6 single crystal superalloys. In the early 2010s, the Chinese had manufacturing yields of roughly 70% ... now it should be much higher. It has been reported that Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology has a single crystal yield rate of over 90%, on par with Western engine producers.
Chinese engines still lack the TBO and lifespans of leading Western engines as well as Russian engines.
yavar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
We already have but the Russian better us,
Still under test, I can add we have passed China technology but Russian they still head it would take us some time to over come that .
When comes to Reverse engineering we have come very far even the M-4C engine is already done that why they show the Jahesh-700
Not if the engine is an old one
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
AL-31 stats I quoted is early gen versions. Again Please don’t spread rumors without evidence.
AL family is some of the most successful engines used around the world and powers Russia’s highly successful SU-30,SU-22, SU-35, SU-27 fighters.
In fact Western engines are more notorious for their maintenance requirement than Russian engines.
Figaro
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2017
- Messages
- 5,684
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
The latest stats we have are from 2014, during an interview with one of the senior WS-10 designers. It is 2020 now so the situation should be substantially better.
Interview with Mr. Dong, a exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute on production of WS-10 engine :
Taihang engine really capable? Standing next to Taihang turbofan engine WS-10 Mr. Dong said that WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured.
WS-10 engine is Chinese Aviation Research Institute 606's product, Mr.Dong is exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute, these days every day he stood in the hall, elaborate WS-10 engine story to professional and non professional visitors. Mr.Dong said, he graduated from Nanjing University majoring in Aeronautics & Astronautics and started to participate in the development of WS-10 engine since his graduation.
WS10 pre-study started from year 1978, project set up in year 1987. Mr.Dong said, WS10 had been massively mounted on the J-10 B and J-11B fighters.
Online some articles reveal, Taihang engine outer culvert box, using the composite, which greatly reduce the weight, also improves the strength and the ability of resistance to high temperature. Mr. Dong with a reporter standing besides Taihang engine, pointing to the black pitch appearance of the engine that said: ‘this is our unique characteristics, previously used here is steel or titanium alloy. Now with this newly developed composite material, which is much lighter/higher temperature resistance/higher strength’.
Mr.Dong said WS-10 thrust to weight ratio at about 8 (the ratio of thrust to weight refers to the Trust power per unitary weight). The fourth generation engines, are all around 8 TW ratio. He also revealed, several China aviation research insitutes now are jointly developing the 5th generation fighter turbofan engine with TW ratio 10. The Chinese military fans called it the WS-15 峨眉 ,which features stealthy layout.
The J-10B as a lightweight fighter capable of carrying nearly 8 tons of weapons and excellent mobility performance, all credit to having a strong China 'heart' of WS-10 series.
Following is the Dialogue details about WS-10 indigenous engine with Mr.Dong:
Sino US engine gap less than 10 years
Reporter: 120kn-140kn what is the meaning?
Mr. Dong: Taihang developed many kinds of DERIVATIVES, the newest WS-10 series engine has reached 140 KN thrust. (Su-35 engine thrust of 145 KN)
Reporter: Achieve this thrust, that is to say the Taihang engine and Su-35's 117s engine thrust being roughly equivalent?
Mr. Dong: Yes, and we are still moving forward, the past few years has been to improve and develop. This is the new WS-10 engine, which have shaped up.
Reporter: It has started MASS production?
Mr. Dong: Mass service on the J-10B, J 11B.
Reporter: why the J-10, such as PLAAF eight one aerobatic team still with Russian engines?
Mr.Dong: China had bought so many Russian engine, We still utilize those engine until the life span expired.
Reporter: Can you please shed some light on the life sapn of WS10 compared with Russian and United States fouth generation engine?
Mr. Dong: We are slightly inferior in that part,while we have a larger room for progress. Such as some of the material shows good performance data in scientific research test, but in practical application, is still not satisfactory. It is the difficult part of aero engine development, It takes decades to improve its stability and even so with USA, not including the conceptual phase of the engine.
Reporter: Online question said that WS10 ENGINE has less than 300 hours life hours, whether this is true?
Mr.Dong: This is wrong, WS10's life is over 1500 hours, completely in accordance with the design requirements. 300 hours is the span between each regular maintenance .
Reporter: Our engine gap with the US is there for 10 years?
Mr.Dong: Less than 10 years.
http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/11/zhuhai-air-show-2014-ws-10-engine-is.html#.Vrz1wFLNza0
* Note regular maintenance does not mean MTBO.
Mata Elang
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2022
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Why has the Iranian aerospace industry not yet made passenger aircraft such as the Cirrus Vision SF50 with the Jahesh-700 turbofan engine
Cirrus Vision SF50 General characteristics
Crew: oneCapacity: six passengers
Length: 30 ft 11 in (9.42 m)Wingspan: 38 ft 8 in (11.79 m)Height: 10 ft 11 in (3.32 m)
Empty weight: 3.550 lb (1.610 kg)Gross weight: 6,000 lb ( 2,722 kg)Fuel capacity: 2,000 pounds (910 kg) Cabin Width×Height: 5.1×4.1 ft (1.56×1.24 m)Max payload: 1,328 lb (602 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Williams FJ33-5A turbofan, 1,846 lbf (8.21 kN) thrust
Performance
Maximum speed: 311 kn (358 mph, 576 km/h)
maximum cruise speed Cruise speed: 305 kn (351 mph, 565 km/h)
Stall speed: 67 kn (77 mph, 124 km/h) with flapsRange: 600 nmi ( 690 mi, 1,100 km) with 1,200 lb (544 kg) payload at max cruise to 1,200 nmi (2,222 km; 1,381 mi) with 200 lb (91 kg) payload at economical cruise
Service ceiling: 31,000 ft (9,400 m) Mach Maximum Operating: Mach 0.53
Fuel consumption: 462 lb (210 kg)/h at maximum cruise, 315 lb (143 kg)/h at economical cruise
Takeoff: 621 meters (2,036 ft) roll, 973 metres (3,192 ft) over 15 m (50 ft)
obstacleLanding: 496 meters (1,628 ft) ground roll
Avionics
Garmin G3000 based Cirrus Perspective Touch
I'm sure Iran will be able to make this because previously Iran has been able to make small piston engine aircraft like the one below.
Cirrus Vision SF50 General characteristics
Crew: oneCapacity: six passengers
Length: 30 ft 11 in (9.42 m)Wingspan: 38 ft 8 in (11.79 m)Height: 10 ft 11 in (3.32 m)
Empty weight: 3.550 lb (1.610 kg)Gross weight: 6,000 lb ( 2,722 kg)Fuel capacity: 2,000 pounds (910 kg) Cabin Width×Height: 5.1×4.1 ft (1.56×1.24 m)Max payload: 1,328 lb (602 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Williams FJ33-5A turbofan, 1,846 lbf (8.21 kN) thrust
Performance
Maximum speed: 311 kn (358 mph, 576 km/h)
maximum cruise speed Cruise speed: 305 kn (351 mph, 565 km/h)
Stall speed: 67 kn (77 mph, 124 km/h) with flapsRange: 600 nmi ( 690 mi, 1,100 km) with 1,200 lb (544 kg) payload at max cruise to 1,200 nmi (2,222 km; 1,381 mi) with 200 lb (91 kg) payload at economical cruise
Service ceiling: 31,000 ft (9,400 m) Mach Maximum Operating: Mach 0.53
Fuel consumption: 462 lb (210 kg)/h at maximum cruise, 315 lb (143 kg)/h at economical cruise
Takeoff: 621 meters (2,036 ft) roll, 973 metres (3,192 ft) over 15 m (50 ft)
obstacleLanding: 496 meters (1,628 ft) ground roll
Avionics
Garmin G3000 based Cirrus Perspective Touch
I'm sure Iran will be able to make this because previously Iran has been able to make small piston engine aircraft like the one below.
Mata Elang
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2022
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
it will be even more interesting to see Iran using 2 Jahesh 700 turbofan engines on Iran's large version of the Cirrus vision SF50.
Hack-Hook
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,448
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
the answer is demand, we bult that engine for our drones (Shahed ad probably next version of Karrar and...) for using in civilian sectors and for passenger planes , we need bigger version of the engine and it probably must become more reliable (well I don't knew after how many hours of flight in need maintenance ) but still it remain there is little demand for jets like Cirrus Vision SF50 in Iran . big companies want bigger plane , flight enthusiast want more affordable ones and we are not going to be able to export them anytime soon
Last edited:
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
No offense but this is propaganda from the maker of the engine. Hand over the engine for 3rd party analysis. Until then China can say anything it wants. I even take most Iranian claims with a grain of salt. US and Russia too. No countries tell the truth these days, it’s all 1984 propaganda.
At least in the past they gave some info, now all countries do is make up whatever they want. Look at Ukraine right now, it claims it killed tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
I’m curious if China has a single military commander with war experience? Korea war was last major Chinese involvement was it not?
US has been perpetual war since WW2
Russia some minor wars outside of Chechenya and we see how that came to bite them.
Iran has been in and out of conflict since 1980’s so it’s used to war.
China has a largely untested military. But it has some pretty impressive toys that could do serious damage on both small powers like Taiwan and big superpower like USA.
Although it spends 100B+ a year on military spending and in Chinese currency that is more like 300B+ due to low costs of production compared to USA.
Compare that to Russia at 60B. And you can see why China has so many shiny toys.
End of the day I’m going to remain skeptical of any Chinese claims on aerospace developments until a 3rd party (not Pakistan) comes out with an analysis of their products.
Given the way the world is headed, I’m sure we will soon get the opportunity to see Chinese arms.
applesauce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
if you're talking about engines, there are no official published numbers on chinese engines. neither thrust nor engine life. Only indirect or rumors more or less.
just like you'll never have the US release real F-22 performance numbers while its in service and probably not a long time after it leaves service.
however, actions do speak louder than words.
the fact that china stopped ordering AL-31 and is now using the WS-10B/C on all its new jets including its premier j-20, ocean going flanker variants and its j-10 including those recently exported to pakistan.
and its not like they were shy about using al-31 if its better than what they have because that's what they did when the ws-10 sucked.
as for experience. its true that china has not been at war for many decades and thus can be considered less experience than the us.
however, experience isnt the deciding factor. you could have the wrong experience for instance, the us is openly concerned that decades of fighting counter-insurgency warfare leaves it unprepared for peer combat. plus when it comes to near-peer war, the us is almost as unprepared as china.
additionally, experience can be gained very quickly if war breaks out, so long as your nation isnt defeated in like 6 weeks (cough, france, cough), its one way the us quickly became much better than the japanese in ww2 despite japan having been much more experience at war.
that said, total war isn't likely because nukes then everyone dies.
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
It may not be the deciding factor, but it’s a substantial factor. Look at the “amateur” mistakes that Russian military is making. We aren’t even talking about understandable mistakes that happen in the fog of war. We are talking about the BASICS any military should be trained on (proper of mech armour, proper logistics supply, basic battlefield tactics by soldiers, etc).
How is Chinese war doctrine structured? Is it based on Soviet Doctrines?
As we see in Ukraine, smaller mobile teams with local command and officers who have substantial leeway to make decisions are outperforming archaic Russian units stilly relying heavily on top down command.
Iran adopted this methodology a long time ago with anticipation that during war comms maybe very difficult and their will be hunting of Command and Control (Central Command) by the USA. Thus localized units needed to be able to make decisions and not become paralyzed waiting for command.
While I think China-USA conflict is unlikely (possible skirmishes or a proxy war). I do think that China-Taiwan kinetic conflict will likely emerge in the next 10 years.
applesauce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
russia is unprepared for Ukraine, i agree. but funny enough as a counterpoint to you, russia has similar experience to the US but on a smaller scale. They fought lesser opponents in syria against similar type of arab opponents that the us fought, they had mercenaries in many middle east conflicts including american fought ones, they fought Georgia, they fought the chechens...twice. and as you clearly agree, all that experience did not translate into quick victory over Ukraine(though they are winning still).
chinese war doctrine was never the same as the soviets/russians. the original PRC doctrine was Mao's "people's war" which is still studied around the world especially by partisans and guerillas, it emphasized local support and maneuver and infiltration warfare by relatively lightly armed units on foot and composed of small groups that could organically reform/merge as need if casualties are taken. China never had the extent of heavy top down approach that the soviets deployed. plus china could not follow soviet doctrine even if they wanted because china did not have the military industry that the soviets had. this people's war doctrine was roughly followed until the mid-70s, when china began to be able to add a notable airforce and mechanized components to its armies and started looking at more than just defence and at smaller objectives than total war. the real change came in 1991 with the gulf war. which really began the chinese move to true combined arms combat and a emphasis on upgrading technology instead of just quantity, this meant improved communications, sensors and a leaner but meaner military. Modern chinese doctrine under Hu then really picking up pace under Xi, places very heavy emphasis on mobility and information warfare in domains such as the cyber and space in addition to range advantage whether that is seeing or shooting, a lot of it is based on what they saw america do, with their own added flavors of course.
china-taiwan conflict is possible, but i don't see american boot on the ground or any active american participation at all, we're seeing this now in Ukraine, and saw this when russia annexed crimea and when it fought georgia. there is no defense treaty with taiwan and being an island, they can't be supplied like the Ukrainians are, or how the mujahideen was. additionally, Taiwan is way smaller than Ukraine, if we take russia as a yardstick in the amount of land they took in the first week. if the PLA lands on taiwan, and performed as bad as russia, china would still take the entire country in like 3 days minus a few major cities which would all be surrounded. furthermore a taiwan scenario in which the US does intervene would almost entirely be a naval and air war, if you take naval and air supremacy and land on the island, its game over for the defenders.
Well support, adequate training and well funded army are the key factors and not stupid war experience irrelevant for conventional warfare.
As proven by Russian struggling war against Ukraine.
