Hang on, Williams was a military provider of drone engines for decades before they got civilian certification. That was their way in. Had they not gone that way who knows if they'd ever been able to certify the FJ44. To this day they're shielded behind military veil and that's the very reason they can avoid publishing engine overhaul data etc.

If you're coming in cold today, trying to certify a turbine and you're not one of the ODA's, I think it's virtually impossible. We have not seen any new turbine certifications from unknown entities in 50 years (perhaps with the exception of Honda, but that was a collaboration with GE, I think). And it took 20 years.

Maybe it is time for that to change.

The length of time for Honda is probably due in large part to being a completely new design. A clone engine would have a head start.

I don't think certifying a new engine design is impossible, just laborious and time consuming. I think it could be done, but it would have to be a very serious project.

Our onerous regulations will drive aviation innovation away from the USA. A company in China could easily become the next small engine provider given the funding they can get and the political will they have in advancing aviation.

Mike C.

Advocating for China thievery of US IP to knock off a military born design and skirt US regs in order to produce a cheap(er) product kinda sums up everything that's gone wrong in this country over the last few decades.

Exactly what “political will advancing aviation” are you talking about? Or rather where exactly are the Chinese “advancing aviation”

It already has. Almost every FAA certified aircraft today gets it done via EASA and then backdoors it into FAA by the reciprocity agreement. All these Tecnam, Pipistrel, TBM things getting to market quick is purely because they do it in EASA land.

It's a sad state when an anti-GA aviation authority like EASA manages to certify things ten times quicker than the FAA. Should be a wake-up call.

Reverse engineering isn’t new, and the reason to do it in China isn’t cheap labor. As Tim Cook has said, the reason Apple products are made in China is there is no manufacturing expertise here to even make them.

I’m not sure what way you’re swinging with this comment.

As a Williams owner they have us over a barrel. Mike’s comments and observations are correct.

Competition is generally a good thing. China is the only place that has the skill and the risk policies to compete. It’s a shame that’s the case but it’s a fact.

Andrew

I think there’s a difference between “advocating” and recognizing the way it could go down.

China has bought a lot of US general aviation assets, it seems they have some political will in buying aviation assets. Continental, Cirrus, Mooney, Diamond… Why would they not have interest in building some kind of turbine engine?

It’s a reasonable guess to make.

Maybe it is time for that to change.

The length of time for Honda is probably due in large part to being a completely new design. A clone engine would have a head start.

I don't think certifying a new engine design is impossible, just laborious and time consuming. I think it could be done, but it would have to be a very serious project.

Our onerous regulations will drive aviation innovation away from the USA. A company in China could easily become the next small engine provider given the funding they can get and the political will they have in advancing aviation.

Mike C.

They already are. China has made copies of all the major Rotax engines.

Note that the manuals are in perfect English.


http://www.zsengine.eu/Manuals/C100-F%2 ... Manual.pdf

That's a completely incorrect view of aircraft certification. It's not easier to "backdoor" it from EASA cert to FAA. It's just as hard going either direction, and the cert requirements are extremely well harmonized between FAA, TC, and EASA.

Tecnam, Pipistrel, Daher certify their aircraft EASA because that is where they are based, not because it is easier.

Outside of patents, there is no protection against copying a mechanical device. Patents have limited lifetimes.

Indeed, the PRIMARY purpose of a patent is to describe an invention so OTHERS can use it. The initial granted monopoly is the incentive to get the invention patented. That is why the standard for a patent description is that someone else OTHER than the patent holder can duplicate the invention, a "person skilled in the art".

Companies have been "stealing" from each other all the time. Look how similar cars are in features. One company finds something useful, others copy it.

Given Williams engines are now reaching well past patent lifetimes, copying one is perfectly legal. An appropriately funded effort could copy the FJ44 and take it through certification. There are really no secrets in the engine. Given you can start with a working engine, you can copy each part in sequence and test them individually, which is a huge bonus. Further, you don't have to do any complex design effort, you have a working example.

Note that copyrights are very different, but they don't apply to mechanical devices.

The Chinese have bought a large number of aviation companies because they see this as a desirable technology to have control over.

Here is how the owner of Epic and Cirrus is described:

"China Aviation Industry General Aircraft (CAIGA) is a Chinese aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Zhuhai, Guangdong. It was established as a division of the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in July 2009."

The purchase of aviation assets is very clearly a state driven activity. They create quasi "private" companies that then buy the asset.

I'm actually kind of surprised there isn't some Chinese effort to manufacture light jet engines. Yet.

Well, there is this, the JiuZhai engine:

https://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/201 ... huhai.html

2200 lbf engine designed for UAVs. That makes it the same thrust as the FJ44-2A. It would not take very much to make that into a viable light jet engine.

The USA is becoming bogged down in our regulations and bureaucracy to the point it is negative safety (like the impediment of new autopilots) and loss of leadership (like China starting to make airliners).

Mike C.

Merry Christmas everyone. This is why I fly a 501. It’s the Safest way to fly my family across the country to grandma’s house. I love these old machines.

That’s the most important part of the whole equation the little guy sitting in the right seat ! Merry Christmas .