Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: The truth behind the mysterious civil CHRDI Z-10...


Global Moderator

Posts: 1328
Date: Jul 10, 2015
The truth behind the mysterious civil CHRDI Z-10...
Permalink  
 


Im a bit surprised no one has discussed this yet, but I feel a topic is needed for those still behind on the situation with Pratt & Whitney Canada and AVIC II. Is anyone familiar with the so called CHRDI Z-10 that is still listed at the main site as a civil development? Still haven't uncovered the mystery behind it and why it carries the designation of an attack helicopter developed in parallel? Let me claer it up for you...

the Chinese Medium Helicopter (CMH) programe supposedly began in 1994 by the Chinese Helicopter Research and Development Institute (CHRDI) to develop a 5.5 tonne helicopter for both military and civil applications, or more specifically an attack helicopter and a utility helicopter based on the former's drivetrain. By 2000 Eurocopter, Agusta, and Pratt &Whitney Canada had joined the programme with PWC agreeing to sell 10 PT6C-67E engines for the civil design.

But here is where things got suspicious... the attack helicopter (known to be designated the Z-10 by 2001 or 2002) was always the first design to be planned for the CMH programme and PWC already knew about it. Suddenly around 1999 the civil counterpart would appear, causing PWC to be skeptical about its validity. PWC still agreed to supply their engines but insisted that they went to the civil design and on the condition that the attack helicopter would no longer be referenced publicly. PWC didnt even officially acknowledge the attack helicopter until years later. *facepalm* I'll bet you know where this is going...

So big surprise, the Chinese began secretly installing the PWC engines on the military Z-10 prototypes. in 2007 PWC acknowledged what happened claiming that they were tricked into thinking that they were supplying a civil programme. They knew it was illegal to assist in the development of Chinese military hardware due to the arms embargo that began in the late 80s yet they still supply China with engines despite the similar circumstances with military usage. *facedesk* However PWC's actions are not technically illegal, since it was China who basically tricked PWC with the guise of the civil usage.

The Americans were a bit more clever though because in 2004 they stopped supplying software and pulled out of the CMH programm because of an "export problem".

Ok so does anyone notice the holes in this story? I thought so.... it gets soooo much better.

Turns out PWC was lying (big surprise I know) and they not only knew about the Z-10 attack helicopter but intentionally supplied the engines to the military design thereby violating US export laws. The erason was all about the munnies.... they wanted to be the exclusive supplier for the Chinese civil heli market. PWC pleaded guilty for the illegal transaction in 2012 and agreed to pay over 75-million dollars to the American government in a state settlement. They were also partly stripped of their export rights.

Today we know the misleading civil "CHRDI Z-10" as the Eurocopter/Harbin Z-15.

Hope this helps... :)



__________________
Airwolf_logo.jpg


Administrator

Posts: 3381
Date: Jul 16, 2015
Permalink  
 

Been doing some lurking at SPF I see? I'll relay the same thoughts in the parallel thread: I think everyone by 2006 already knew about this controversy. Why bother resurrecting this now?

Also, the way you wrote this is a bit confusing and I suggest proofreading for clarity in the future.

Some notes:

  • The Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (HSC) subsidiary of the United Technologies Corporation (UTC) manufactures, among other advanced aviation products, engine control systems and special software for use with P&WC engines, thus making the transaction with China a bigger risk should the technology end up in military use.
     
  • While it is true that P&WC secretly participated in the attack helicopter program, it was the marketing and export department that expressed concern with the transaction, due to P&WC having known about the attack helicopter beforehand yet agreeing to supply engines as soon as a civil derivative was announced.

  • The second and most obvious red flag was raised when two P&WC engineers first saw the Z-10 prototype in 2003 and noticed the tandem-seat configuration and dummy weapon payload, while being powered by P&WC engines. When asked "where are the other ten seats?" the Chinese program chief replied to the engineer's question simply with a laugh. The engineers brought this matter to the attention of the marketing personnel, yet the UTC and HSC were still not notified and the engineers continued working on the project.

  • HSC learned of the export issue in 2004 and issued a stop-work order when they found out the engines were being installed on the military Z-10. In response to HSC backing out of the program, P&WC engineers modified the existing software in-house to avoid further issues.

  • Z-10C was the designation of the announced civil Z-10 derivative. It never saw actual development, thus making its validity even more questionable. Its relationship with the EC-175/Z-15 program is debatable.


__________________
Brony rotorhead
--------------------------
               ζ  
--------------------------


Veteran Member - Level 2

Posts: 117
Date: Jul 19, 2015
Permalink  
 

What came of the WZ-9 engine supposed to power the Z-10?



__________________

The nice thing about egotists is that they don't talk about other people.
======================================================
Count Hermann Keyserling once said truly that the greatest American superstition was the belief in facts.



Global Moderator

Posts: 1328
Date: Jul 19, 2015
Permalink  
 

Stingray wrote:

Been doing some lurking at SPF I see? I'll relay the same thoughts in the parallel thread: I think everyone by 2006 already knew about this controversy. Why bother resurrecting this now?


 Obviously some dont know yet and might find it interesting. You should really update your site too Stingy. :P

 

Stingray wrote:

Also, the way you wrote this is a bit confusing and I suggest proofreading for clarity in the future.


 I'll leave the pro writing to the pros.  x3

JK i'll be more careful next time.



__________________
Airwolf_logo.jpg


Global Moderator

Posts: 1328
Date: Jul 19, 2015
Permalink  
 

aschiro wrote:

What came of the WZ-9 engine supposed to power the Z-10?


 its been in minor production since 2009 but it was too underpowered for service esp on the Z-10, so Ukraine is helping China develop its own indigenous turboshaft to replace it.



-- Edited by Leela25 on Sunday 19th of July 2015 03:38:34 PM

__________________
Airwolf_logo.jpg


Administrator

Posts: 3381
Date: Aug 2, 2015
Permalink  
 

Leela25 wrote:
You should really update your site too Stingy. :P

 

You got me there. Life gets in the way sometimes, especially nowadays.



__________________
Brony rotorhead
--------------------------
               ζ  
--------------------------


Global Moderator

Posts: 1328
Date: Aug 7, 2015
Permalink  
 

I hear you :/



__________________
Airwolf_logo.jpg
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard