Chinese engines anyone?

[hoss183]

It makes sense for the Chinese to produce their own engines, but in a field where the big players have been doing so for decades with all the involved improvement and quality enhancements, i can see a new player have a steep learning curve.
China launches own aircraft engine-maker to rival the West - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37212009)

[Una Due Tfc]

I hope GE, Rolls etc have good cyber security

[theAP]

I hope GE, Rolls etc have good cyber security
I was about to say this! Chinese are like copy paste type.

[G-CPTN]

Are any Western manufacturers licence-building aero engines in China?

Several commercial vehicle and component manufacturers have gone down the route of licence-building only to have the local factories create their own designs.

[notapilot15]

Travel, company laptop/phone and one night stands with cute girls never good corporate security. $Billions on cyber security cannot overcome human weaknesses.

Jet engine is nothing but bunch of cases, discs, blades and tubes of different materials and sizes. 3D imaging and metallurgy analysis is good enough to reverse engineer the hardware. Girls will get the control module software.

[Heathrow Harry]

Well the Russians have tried to compete on engines for years and have always stuggled - the sort of stuff you can copy IS important but not as important as the quality of the supply chain for every item on the engine - and that you can't copy

[onetrack]

I hope GE, Rolls etc have good cyber securityNothing to worry about there - the Chinese will have already had all the GE & RR plans for the last 20 years. Guess what a Chinese jet engine will look exactly like? :E

[caiman27]

The problem is not just the the designs. It is the actual materials that are used in the engines. Does China make enough of the really high quality alloys, seals and so on? I imagine that reverse engineering to get the correct metallurgy of some of those parts would be a challenge.

[plhought]

The Chinese have been license producing Russian engines for military use for decades, often featuring some very exotic metals to avoid the complexity of internally cooled rotors/stators, adaptive tip clearances etc etc.

I think they'll figure it out.

[tdracer]

The Chinese have been license producing Russian engines for military use for decades, often featuring some very exotic metals to avoid the complexity of internally cooled rotors/stators, adaptive tip clearances etc etc.

I think they'll figure it out.
The Russians haven't (yet). Western engines are clearly far better than their Russian counterparts - better fuel burn, more reliable, less maintenance - and it's due in large part to the metallurgy.

[Canute]

Western engines are clearly far better than their Russian counterparts - better fuel burn, more reliable, less maintenance - and it's due in large part to the metallurgy.

Perhaps some of it is just different mindset?

Cheap throwaway engines seem to have always worked for them. Not too sure about less maintenance.

[barit1]

It's more than metallurgy and aero design.

Manufacturing processes are hard to understand, let alone replicate, when you're on the outside looking in. 3+ decades ago Brand A was building an engine on a gov't contract, so the gov't owned the drawings. The gov't decided to second-source the engine, and turned drawings over to Brand B.

A vs B Parts looked alike, measured alike, but B's parts failed endurance tests. They differed at the intergranular level, which B was unable to achieve. :uhoh:

[zubairways]

I hope GE, Rolls etc have good cyber security
I work for Rolls-Royce in the UK and from what I hear we get over 40 cyber attacks from the far east everyday.

[barit1]

Don't sell the Russian technology short. After the Soviet Union collapse, we learned a whole new library of airfoil design from Rybinsk engineers!

[notapilot15]

That is true if Chinese has no knowledge about aerospace metallurgy. When you don't have the fundamental research cost, you have lot of money to play with final product. Most likely these engines will be adapted for military where there is no risk of bad publicity.

Or they can always pull a proven Loral trick. Bid so cheap to lure one western engine maker to move production to China, build sloppy engines which keep failing, pressure builds up, they get tired and copy original drawings and specs. Oops, too late.

[Flapping_Madly]

Typical BBC accuracy. So China gets engines from GE and P&W do they. No mention of RR then.
Rolls-Royce wins $1.5bn Trent 700 order from China Eastern Airlines ? Rolls-Royce (http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2016/24-08-2016-rolls-royce-wins-trent-700-order-from-china-eastern-airlines.aspx)

[Lonewolf_50]

3D imaging and metallurgy analysis is good enough to reverse engineer the hardware. Girls will get the control module software. Once gotten ahold of, the girls usually referred to the control module as firmware. :E

[esa-aardvark]

Suggest you guys look at Chinese achievements & intentions in Space before
writing off their engine efforts.
John

[twochai]

Suggest you guys look at Chinese achievements & intentions in Space before writing off their engine efforts.

Absolutely right: dismiss Chinese efforts at your peril.

Better to assume they'll get there through hard work, investment in technology and some subterfuge (much of which will only confuse their issues, we hope).

[pax britanica]

The Chinese have been very very succesful in Optical networking technology , very advanced optical engineeerign probablyas complex as the metalurgy for Jet engines but, a big BUT a much more benign failure environment , ie send a guy ina van to chaneg some cards not deal with an engine exploding at V!.

However the point is they do have very high tech processes allied to their shall we say 'design ingenuity.

A huge amount of the UK network is built on this equipment , rather foolishly in my opinion since our US ciousins have effectively banned the deployment of the same equipment on US telecoms networks after a modest percentage of contract wins buy the Chinese .

Also the idea of co production.licences. JVs are just a slippery slope to unintentional technology transfer with China , I ahve had 30 plus years dealing with them and because they take along term view on everything they usually come out on top of these activities.

So Messrs GE/RR/PW keep as much production and Rand D in your traditional homes and keep that materials technology well hidden

[Miles Magister]

Just take a look at how many Chinese people are on UK and US aeronautical engineering courses at Universities.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Back in 1937, everyone knew that the Japanese could only produce inferior copies of Western technology.... Just sayin'.

[notapilot15]

Suggest you guys look at Chinese achievements & intentions in Space before
writing off their engine efforts.
John

Their space technology leap frogged with Hughes and Loral Aerospace screwup.

[Lonewolf_50]

Most people who use iphones may not appreciate how hard some folks in China work to produce parts of them.

[Wageslave]

Jet engine is nothing but bunch of cases, discs, blades and tubes of different materials and sizes. 3D imaging and metallurgy analysis is good enough to reverse engineer the hardware. Girls will get the control module software.

Notanengineer either.

[turboshaft]

Typical BBC accuracy. So China gets engines from GE and P&W do they. No mention of RR then.
From the context of the article, they were talking about where engines for China's current indigenous commercial aircraft are sourced from. Hence GE for the ARJ21 and P&WC for the MA60/600/700. RR would be relevant in the context of military aircraft (JH-7), though the less said about a certain Chinese warehouse visit to inspect ex-Phantom Spey engines the better. :ouch:

Re: metallurgy, they've no doubt embraced the proud tradition of dumpster diving for metal shavings. (This approach even worked for the U.S. Navy when they were working to confirm the hull design of the Project 705/Alfa SSN.)

[vapilot2004]

Back in 1937, everyone knew that the Japanese could only produce inferior copies of Western technology.... Just sayin'.

After the war and into the 1960s and 70s, anything made in Japan was considered junk. Today, that's where the good stuff comes from, particularly electronics. Now that perception paints China with the same reputation - except in many cases, it holds merit.

[rotor-rooter]

Couple of interesting stories regarding hacking into Safran and the former Turbomeca.

Hackers break into French defence industry ? TechEye (http://www.techeye.net/security/hackers-break-into-french-defence-industry)

Exclusive: France's Snecma targeted by hackers - researcher | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hacking-snecma-idUSBREA1H1Z320140218)

There have been numerous stories circulating in the industry about breaches of Computer systems from other manufacturers as well.

[Una Due Tfc]

After the war and into the 1960s and 70s, anything made in Japan was considered junk. Today, that's where the good stuff comes from, particularly electronics. Now that perception paints China with the same reputation - except in many cases, it holds merit.

Even 10 years ago we all laughed at Korean cars. Now look.

[Turbine D]

The Russian jet engine designers have very good aerodynamic knowledge that is applied to their fan, compressor and turbine airfoil parts. What is significantly lacking is the capability to manufacture the parts to the design requirements. When the Soviet government owned and ran the jet engine businesses, everything was a paper transaction. The more engines produced, the better, full employment forever. What the parts cost, let alone total engines was a mystery. Maybe that is changing now, but it will take awhile.

Meanwhile, the story in China is different. They have very acceptable manufacturing knowhow and capabilities.What they have been lacking is good design knowhow and design experience. They are gaining that knowhow rapidly by one means or another. IMHO, they will be a major jet engine player quickly.

[up_down_n_out]

Well the Russians have tried to compete on engines for years and have always stuggled - the sort of stuff you can copy IS important but not as important as the quality of the supply chain for every item on the engine - and that you can't copy
As usual I have no idea where you get this nonsense from.
The airline industry is NOT a level playing field which is how Airbus and Boeing got where they are.

Care to take a look at Perm engines?
They're pumping the gas you use to cook your boiled eggs.
Perm Engine Company (http://www.pmz.ru/eng/contact/pec/)

Idem, are Antonov struggling?
Motor sich?
About - Motor Sich (http://www.motorsich.com/eng/profile/)

Talking ignorant twaddle is inexcusable in a day and age of instant access to info!
:rolleyes:

[Tech Guy]

Even 10 years ago we all laughed at Korean cars. Now look.

They are pretty much at the top of the tree with shipbuilding now.
Small specialist vessels excluded.

[Turbine D]

up down n out,
As usual I have no idea where you get this nonsense from.
The airline industry is NOT a level playing field which is how Airbus and Boeing got where they are.
There are two industries, the aircraft industry and the aircraft engine industry. The playing fields for both (in the Western world) were level. The players today in both industries represent the "cream that rose to the top" as the saying goes. The players got there by ingenuity and timing, e.g., having the right product at the right time with the right quality and at the right price. Those that didn't have these attributes didn't survive. Government owned and run businesses generally fail to meet one or more of the attributes. They might survive, but they aren't the "cream of the crop".

[oldchina]

It's not only about technology.

When a customer spends hundreds of millions on airframes and engines it enters a 20 year marriage with the manufacturer. In response it expects impeccable support.
Unless the airlines believe the manufacturer gets the best possible person to develop and run support services the project will fail. In this regard the Russians have the same problem as the Chinese. No customer wants to discover the hard way that the responsive support chief has fallen foul of politics / corruption and has been replaced by a government croney.

[Turbine D]

notapiilot,
Jet engine is nothing but bunch of cases, discs, blades and tubes of different materials and sizes. 3D imaging and metallurgy analysis is good enough to reverse engineer the hardware. Girls will get the control module software.
So how do you reverse engineer the materials that go into a jet engine? How do you reverse engineer the specification composition limits? How do you reverse engineer the processes used to produce the materials? How do you reverse engineer the quality inspection methods and requirements?

I think you are in over your head with your jet engine quote.

[notapilot15]

Turbine D,

That is because you are thinking like a product engineer who depends on fundamental research for solutions, and proud for any innovation. They always think, it is so unique no one can reproduce. All a copier need is something performs similar to the genuine product.

Have you noticed the soft spoken, innocent intern in the corner cubicle working seriously.

[Heathrow Harry]

"As usual I have no idea where you get this nonsense from"

There is a very big difference in putting a big compressor on a fixed site on a gas pipeline and having an engine stuck on an aeroplane go from 0-40,000 ft for +20,000 hours

Some Russian military engines have been competitive in terms of performance but really poor in terms of reliability

Russian airframers have, in general, been much more competitive and in military terms they were often ahead

[Turbine D]

notapilot,
That is because you are thinking like a product engineer who depends on fundamental research for solutions, and proud for any innovation. They always think, it is so unique no one can reproduce.
Jet engines have been around for years, name a couple that have been reversed engineered. You should be able to answer the four questions I previously asked you if you were at all knowledgeable about jet engines... How I think isn't important. What I know you don't know is important.

[up_down_n_out]

notapilot,
Jet engines have been around for years, name a couple that have been reversed engineered.
You should be able to answer the four questions I previously asked you if you were at all knowledgeable about jet engines....

Learning curves are tough things.
I remember Yamaha's pathetic attempts to prove they could make a F1 engine.

I can think of a certain leading aerospace country that unsuccessfully tried to reverse engineer Concorde making it considerably larger, heavier and with a different construction.
It was a recipe for failure, which of course that was what it became.

The rest is history.
BA concorde would still be flying today if hadn't been for french sabotage.
The TU144 scarcely ever flew successfully and kept breaking down or up. :D

Putin's KGB didn't need sabotage, the wound was self inflicted from the start.

Talking of which the only thing they can so far be proud of, for supersonic freighters is the TU160, and that's was monumentally unreliable to begin with.

Dropping bombs on people leads to remarkably rapid progress usually. :ok:

[Turbine D]

Some Russian military engines have been competitive in terms of performance but really poor in terms of reliability
Same can be said for their commercial engines, at least under the Soviet system of operating. The way it worked, taking a four engine airliner like a Boeing 707, was this: The State run airline ordered a new airliner and one of the engine producers got an order for 16 engines. Then once the new aircraft began flying, 12 of the engines rotated into the engine inventory. Meantime, four engines were enroute back to the engine source for repair, four repaired engines were enroute to the airline engine depot and four engines were awaiting installation on an aircraft. On wing life was awful. This was related to me by Soviet aircraft engine officials during visits to various engine plants including Perm who I did think was the best of the bunch on the commercial side of the business. In all of this, no actual money was involved in the transactions, just paper orders from Central Planning.

[GrahamO]

A huge amount of the UK network is built on this equipment

Actually its built on UK designed, Uk built, Uk maintained equipment. the Chinese only bought the company after it was all installed and they had absolutely nothing to do with its design.

[notapilot15]

notapilot,

Jet engines have been around for years, name a couple that have been reversed engineered. You should be able to answer the four questions I previously asked you if you were at all knowledgeable about jet engines... How I think isn't important. What I know you don't know is important.
There may not be any so far, doesn't mean there won't be any in future. They may not build exact engine down to specs, but they will acquire necessary knowledge to have a functional engine by any means.

Long March development and Hughes/Loral contribution is a perfect example.

[barit1]

Turbine D:There are two industries, the aircraft industry and the aircraft engine industry. The playing fields for both (in the Western world) were level. The players today in both industries represent the "cream that rose to the top" as the saying goes. . .

It's surprising to me how many people do not recognize the IMMENSE value of competition in the marketplace. Remember when "portable" phones were labeled BRICKS? Not so long ago! The same applies in the aerospace industry - each player seeks to outdo the guy from Long Beach or Montreal. The result is the faster, lighter, cheaper product for the customer. When government comes along to bail out the underperformer, there's no real benefit to the consumer, NOR to his taxes payable next April!

[up_down_n_out]

Same can be said for their commercial engines, at least under the Soviet system of operating.

I hope you're not talking about rocket engines.
That proves your entire "Soviet system" premise completely false.

The one thing that can be said about a Russian ICBM is that it's pretty much guaranteed to work out of the box, which is why the USA buy motors.

Buks seem to work pretty reliably too.. :uhoh:

The various failures of Bulava, ProtonM (another Perm thing!) etc, happened well after the dissappearance of the USSR, even last year.

You might just get my point here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_LBOVGLglU :ooh:

[onetrack]

It's not only about technology.

When a customer spends hundreds of millions on airframes and engines it enters a 20 year marriage with the manufacturer. In response it expects impeccable support.
Unless the airlines believe the manufacturer gets the best possible person to develop and run support services the project will fail. In this regard the Russians have the same problem as the Chinese. No customer wants to discover the hard way that the responsive support chief has fallen foul of politics / corruption and has been replaced by a government croney.Never were truer words spoken - and this is an area where China repeatedly falls down badly. They fail to understand the vitally important principles of "product backup", of the value of "name brands", and the superior response (by purchasers) to a name brand, that has repeatedly produced a quality product over a long period of time.

You would get your aircraft engine from China, produced from Glorious Golden Treasure Aircraft Engine Factory Number One, and wearing the Fan Lei brand - but your buddy would get his engine from The Glorious East Is Red Aircraft Engine Factory Number Three - and wearing the Long March brand.

Neither engine would consist of any compatible parts, nor would they have comprehensive manuals written in clear and competent English - and the following month, you'd find the managers and a range of suppliers to Glorious Golden Treasure Aircraft Engine Factory Number One have all been jailed on corruption charges, and you'd find parts for your most excellent Chinese aircraft engine are not available, due to the major factory disruption. :(

[notapilot15]

Neither engine would consist of any compatible parts, nor would they have comprehensive manuals written in clear and competent English - and the following month, you'd find the managers and a range of suppliers to Glorious Golden Treasure Aircraft Engine Factory Number One have all been jailed on corruption charges, and you'd find parts for your most excellent Chinese aircraft engine are not available, due to the major factory disruption. :(

This argument would not hold water, because we are sending our planes for heavy mx by non-certified, zero English knowledge mechanics. Most mechanics working on our planes cannot read/write English.

A complete overhaul of GE90 in a week at a third world MRO facility is considered a greatest achievement.

[Turbine D]

notapilot,
This argument would not hold water, because we are sending our planes for heavy mx by non-certified, zero English knowledge mechanics. Most mechanics working on our planes cannot read/write English.

A complete overhaul of GE90 in a week at a third world MRO facility is considered a greatest achievement.

I highly doubt any of what you have written here is factual...

[notapilot15]

notapilot,


I highly doubt any of what you have written here is factual...
Flying Cheaper - Video | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/)
http://amfa32.com/Legislative/CRS%20Report%20-%20Offshoring%20Airline%20Maintenance.pdf

[tartare]

Agree with previous posters - Japan couldn't manufacture with notable quality 40-50 years ago - Korea more recently.
Now look at them.
A few people are trying to say aerospace and aerospace propulsion are an order of magnitude more complex than building transistors, cars or ships?
True, but I think with China - only a matter of time.
They'll never master the complexities of supply chains, cutting edge (bad pun) metallurgy and customer support?
That's a big call and I think it's foolish to underestimate them.
Put yourself in China's shoes.
Would suggest that in Beijing there's a tremendous appetite to gain and master sophisticated aerospace technology by whatever means, return to your historical position of greatness, gain face and re-assume what you see as your true place in the world.
I look at the people cleaning my office each night and often think to myself "...for all this time we treat them like ****, one day there's going to be payback."

[onetrack]

tartare - There are subtle differences between the Chinese and Japanese attitudes, and national characteristics - and the differences are, the Japanese had extensive exposure to American construction styles and repair techniques at the end of WW2 - whereas the Chinese didn't.

The Americans realised the Japanese desperately needed jobs right after the end of WW2, so they engaged them to recondition all their military equipment.
The Japanese aren't slow learners, and they rapidly picked up on the American way of doing things, as regards engineering design and practices, metallurgy, workshop skills, training methods, and a host of other useful manufacturing tips, as well.
In addition, the Japanese are perfectionists and anal about many things - qualities that bode well for rapid industrial gains.
The simple reason the Japanese produced rubbish in the 1950's was that no Western country was prepared to give them the quality iron ore and other raw and exotic materials needed to improve the end-quality of their products.
Once the West relaxed in the late 1950's, and allowed Japan to acquire the superior quality raw materials they needed, Japanese product quality rose rapidly.

The Chinese on the other hand, have never been exposed to a technologically superior conquering Western force, that then allowed the conquered to acquire the conquerers technologies.
In addition, the Chinese overall have a tendency to be quite gung-ho, and they often have a tendency to lack attention to detail.
There would no doubt be more than a few sizable Chinese engineering disasters that we haven't heard about.

The current industrial revolution in China is being driven by Chinese who have spent extensive time in the West, and who have been tertiary-educated in prominent Western education centres.
These people are highly competent in English and all the sciences, and they understand Western methods of technology and production processes.
However, this group are still a considerable minority in China, and it won't be until China acquires a greater number of these people, will the Chinese then be able to match the highest technological achievements of the West.

[tartare]

Have no doubt you're right onetrack.
But I get the feeling it may happen faster than we all think...

[up_down_n_out]

The Chinese on the other hand, have never been exposed to a technologically superior conquering Western force, that then allowed the conquered to acquire the conquerers technologies.

The current industrial revolution in China is being driven by Chinese who have spent extensive time in the West, and who have been tertiary-educated in prominent Western education centres.

Have you ever travelled much in China?
They don't need to be exposed to superior technology, countries like France have been bending over backwards to give it to them on a plate for the last 20 years!

Have you ever been on a Chinese TGV?

It's light years better than anything from France or Germany, and invariably more secure... (heard of some nut pulling out a Kalashnikov from a toilet on a Chinese train have we?).

You might criticise what you like in Russia or China (BRICS EH?) but from what I can see on PP it's 99% hearsay. :ugh:

[Heathrow Harry]

"Japan couldn't manufacture with notable quality 40-50 years ago - Korea more recently.
Now look at them."

Agreed - but they still don't make aircraft engines. I really believe most people who fly the things daily have absolutey no idea of the degree of scientific work, design and production expertise required to build a modern, commercial jet engine.

[onetrack]

up_down_n_out - Unfortunately, the Chinese rail industry has not yet been able to convince any other country that it has the skills, knowledge, and abilities to build a safe, secure, and fault-free high speed rail network for them.

Part of the problem may be - that the Chinese rail accident/fatality rate is a closely guarded State secret - which does not engender confidence in the people they are trying to sell their rail networks to?

https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/caixin-media/why-china-doesnt-publish-fatal-train-crash-data

I have little doubt about the tightness of security within the country, seeing as the PLA oversee anything and everything even remotely associated with the CCP - and they carry out the CCP's requirement to keep strict and tight control of Chinas populace, and the countrys projects, with great efficiency.

In addition to a paucity of rail accidents/fatalities information from China, is a similar paucity of information regarding industrial accident rates in China.
However, these unimportant details matter little within a country well known for glossing over its industrial failures.
Worship of its Communist dictator founder has to assume primary importance over the loss of a few lives and a few billion yuan, within their great industries.

[Turbine D]

notapilot,
A complete overhaul of GE90 in a week at a third world MRO facility is considered a greatest achievement.
I am an engine guy not an aircraft guy. So after looking at and reading the links you sent, where is evidence supporting your above statement? GE maintains engine overhaul facilities around the world for airlines that don't have overhaul capability. What do you expect? For instance, there are over 20,000 CFM56 engines in operation around the world. Do you expect them to all be returned to the US for overhaul? The Frontline show is six years old. If you want to dig back further in time, when most major US airlines did their own engine overhauls in-house, if approved to do so, you would find similar stories. For example more than one major used forklift trucks to remove and install engines from the wings, instead of precision tooling designed for this task. The Chicago O'Hare crash proved the forklift short cut didn't work so well. I consider the Frontline story to be mostly sour grapes by disgruntled former employees. I have seen other programs like this on 60Minutes. You only know that if you know a great deal about the topic being presented.

[up_down_n_out]

up_down_n_out - Unfortunately, the Chinese rail industry has not yet been able to convince any other country that it has the skills, knowledge, and abilities to build a safe, secure, and fault-free high speed rail network for them.

In addition to a paucity of rail accidents/fatalities information from China, is a similar paucity of information regarding industrial accident rates in China.

Oh grief! That "whataboutism" is really a staggeringly stupid statement.

Some people have short memories.
You remember Paddington?
Potters bar 2002?
Hatfield 2000?
French TGV accident with fatalities on a NEW section of line - November 2015.

As for industrial accidents, they are dwarfed and always have been by coal mining, so as coal mining deaths declined in advanced countries leading to increased imports, deaths increased in those countries that expanded mining... India, China...

"On November 25, 2006, the worst mining disaster occurred in modern Polish history, 23 miners lost their lives...

In recent years the Turkish coal mining industry has been found to have the very worst safety record in the world, in terms of fatal accidents per million tons of coal produced...

I don't really think anyone on PP (or in the west for that matter) has the least right to point a finger at China. :(

I have been on the Chinese "TGV" several times.
It's impressive and it runs to time, which is more than can be said for Eurostar.

[Turbine D]

up down n out,
Motor sich?
About - Motor Sich

Talking ignorant twaddle is inexcusable in a day and age of instant access to info!
Just to bring you up to date, Motor Sich isn't in Russia, it is located in the Ukraine, the city of Zaporizhia (Ukrainian spelling) along the Dnieper River. Motor Sich did build D-18 turbofan engines for the An-225 heavy lift freighters. The freighter was used by GE to haul GE90 engine fan modules as it was the only commercially available freighter to handle that large a diameter piece of hardware. In case you are wondering the D-18 engine was inherited from the Soviet Union (Russia) before the collapse. I saw the engine running in a test cell at Motor Sich and saw all the parts laid out on tables. The D-18 engine design was a three spool engine knock off of the early RB-211 engine, borrowed or stolen Western world technology. It took some time to become reliable as there were a lot of technical problems to overcome in getting it to work properly.

Interestingly, the Motor Sich people drove me to the hydro-electric dam on the river to show the GE turbines and generators that were part of the Dnipro-HES 1927-1932 project. Some were destroyed during WWII by the Germans, but the remaining units I saw still produce electricity on a daily basis.

[FlightlessParrot]

As I understand it, in the PRC you can get any grade of manufacturing you want, from horrible rubbish to exquisitely precise.

The problem seems to be that there is not yet a widespread culture in which people do their jobs honestly and competently just because that's the right thing to do (and the important jobs here are managerial ones). Doing business on a small scale with Chinese people can be highly satisfactory, but it's a societal issue. Western companies have got bitten by assuming, for instance, that dairy providers won't contaminate their milk with melanin to boost the protein count, because it's a terrible poison; or by assuming that Chinese certification of steel means what it says. On the other hand, people who do rigorous QC can get very high quality products (like Foxcon), and I assume the PRC government gets the quality it wants and expects on the goods it cares about (I've read somewhere that Chinese copies of at least some Soviet aircraft were better built than the originals).

The question with aeroengines would then be whether they need such a complex system of supply and assembly that you have to rely on people doing the Right Thing, or whether you can keep tight controls over every stage of the process.

If you need a culture of doing it right, then it's probably too early for good engines from the PRC; on the other hand, modern management methods in the West tend to erode that culture (drive out costs; plan for success; manage by targets; don't let the professionals capture the process).

[notapilot15]

GE maintains engine overhaul facilities around the world for airlines that don't have overhaul capability.
I think you are mixing GEBS facilities with GE facilities. Taikoo Engine Services (a HAECO company) is a GE authorized GE90 facility. Company's key capabilities include performance restoration, quick turn shop visits, as well as module and component repair services.

Even now DL has large in-house engine overhaul facility obviously with engine manufacturer cooperation JV/Authorized Service.

When Lufthansa issues RFP for engine overhaul, LHT Gmbh has to compete with LHT Manila and Ameco Beijing (LHT 25% owned).

Airline management are not looking for quality, they are looking for lowest bidder with minimum off wing time.

So facility with large number of cheap work force wins. If you tag and bag every turbine blade it will take months. No airline likes that even if it is the Engine manufacturer's recommendation.

IAG chief is on record saying he wants to grind down efficiencies in maintenance.

IMHO, most cabin smoke, hydraulic leak incidents are happening right after aircraft return to service after maintenance at these cheap facilities. As long as statistics and cost are in their favor, bean counters wouldn't care who did the work.

[WingNut60]

Turbine D:

............. When government comes along to bail out the underperformer, there's no real benefit to the consumer, NOR to his taxes payable next April!
Do you mean like when the US government bailed out GM, et al - 2008's style?

[lomapaseo]

notapilot15

Airline management are not looking for quality, they are looking for lowest bidder with minimum off wing time.

I realize that you only posting "your" opinion

but just to counter here's mine

Airline management is looking for FAA approved workup and maximum on wing time that falls within schedules. That's where the real money savings is.

Manufacturer reps visit these shops to assist them in meeting customer requirements. That way we can all sleep easy that Joe Blow is not taking out turbine blades with a hammer and chisel.

[up_down_n_out]

Just to bring you up to date, Motor Sich isn't in Russia, it is located in the Ukraine, the city of Zaporizhia.
I am perfectly aware where this town is.
I have even driven through it twice.

The (failed) argument here was about soviet methods, & competency.
At the time when most of the industrial base of Eastern Ukraine was laid, it was part of the USSR.
The old capital was Kharkhiv,- a city still producing serious amounts of aerospace, defence & nuclear hardware to this day.
Contrary to the opinion expressed, not all of this is "knocked off" western technology.

(OT slightly)
It's reasonably well documented, "humanitarian convoys" into the DNR conflict zone have scarcely been noticed for more than a year, looting whole factories relocating them back inside Russia.
They were assumed to be :mad: empty.
You can do quite a lot of moving with 2500 x 30T truckloads of stuff.

So much for "level playing fields". :hmm:

I'm sure China doesn't need to steal technology.
The west will just give it to them. :rolleyes:

[Heathrow Harry]

"I'm sure China doesn't need to steal technology.
The west will just give it to them. :rolleyes:"

sell, please, sell.........

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" - V I Lenin............

[notapilot15]

notapilot15



I realize that you only posting "your" opinion

but just to counter here's mine

Airline management is looking for FAA approved workup and maximum on wing time that falls within schedules. That's where the real money savings is.

Manufacturer reps visit these shops to assist them in meeting customer requirements. That way we can all sleep easy that Joe Blow is not taking out turbine blades with a hammer and chisel.
Of course it is my opinion, just like every single sentence on entire social media.

Annual FAA audit and four shop visits by rep doesn't guarantee anything.

There is no incentive to do a good job like keep mx in-house by hiring engineers/diploma holders train and get them certified. Now time is money. Just hire the meanest contract negotiator, rest will fall in place.

Lets look at the three financial/operational models with engines
1) Buy/finance and does every bit of mx in-house
2) Lease and outsource entire mx
3) Power by the hour

Compare previous engines like GE90/Trent 900/CFM56 with current generation GEnX/Trent 1000/PW GTF/LEAP

In old days #1 would be smart/intelligent and proud choice, now actually #3 is better option because of design issues, onslaught of ADs/EDs, PIPs and everything in-between.

Airlines even including clauses not to pay frame lease when engine is not available.

Mfg authorized service center doesn't guarantee only couple of highly qualified/certified aircraft maintenance engineers working on the engine. It could use 20 low skilled workforce to take an engine apart in one day.