Chinese Engine Development

I wonder said:

The leap engine designed by GE for the comac 919 is 30000 pounds of thrust which is about 13.5 tons of thrust which is very close to the reported 14 tons of thrust of the ws-20.
Based on this the ws-20 should be very suitable for a military version of the c919.

Click to expand...

It's not just about thrust.

latenlazy said:

It's not just about thrust.

Click to expand...

What else could it be about?

I wonder said:

What else could it be about?

Click to expand...

Efficiency, for one. Noise. Performance at different altitudes, at different thrust levels, in different flight conditions.

latenlazy said:

Efficiency, for one. Noise. Performance at different altitudes, at different thrust levels, in different flight conditions.

Click to expand...

Yes thats right.
So can you give reasons why the ws-20 might be suitable or not suitable for a military version of the C919?

latenlazy said:

Efficiency, for one. Noise. Performance at different altitudes, at different thrust levels, in different flight conditions.

Click to expand...

Those characteristics affect civilian operation much more than military ones, the Nimrod being a good point of comparison to the commercial Comet for instance.

I wonder said:

Yes thats right.
So can you give reasons why the ws-20 might be suitable or not suitable for a military version of the C919?

Click to expand...

Beside noise,the ones pointed out all factors into fuel efficiency which determines range which is critical for any type of aircraft whether it be military or not.

SamuraiBlue said:

Beside noise,the ones pointed out all factors into fuel efficiency which determines range which is critical for any type of aircraft whether it be military or not.

Click to expand...

Range is important for fighters but I can think of lots of planes in the US airforce flying obsolete fuel inefficient engines. Examples are the B52,KC135,C5
Note that the US airforce is buying new 767 tankers even though these aircraft are obsolete and are being phased out by airlines.

SamuraiBlue said:

Beside noise,the ones pointed out all factors into fuel efficiency which determines range which is critical for any type of aircraft whether it be military or not.

Click to expand...

Still much more efficient than Il-76+D30.

The US can afford to have less fuel efficient planes. They have more bases. Keep in mind as well that the C919 has a smaller body, which means less fuel.

SamuraiBlue said:

Beside noise,the ones pointed out all factors into fuel efficiency which determines range which is critical for any type of aircraft whether it be military or not.

Click to expand...

Really?
Taking all these factors into account, then the WS-20 isn't suitable for the Y-20 either.