It's not, COMAC signed for RR engines already, it's probably going to a option directly from launch though.
Without any derated variant, CJ2000 at 35.2 ton-force of thrust is too powerful for super-heavy airlifters of the C-5/An-124 category.
fyi, aircraft makers going for dual engine options is standard and probably preferable.
Isn't it too powerful for that? I believe the WS-20 is around 14-15 tons, this is more than twice of that for a single engine.
Without any derated variant, CJ2000 at 35.2 ton-force of thrust is too powerful for super-heavy airlifters of the C-5/An-124 category.
you can go with dual engine for Y-20C. These ultra large/powerful turbofan engines are considered more economical.
Structural change is only one thing. The other is the balance of all engines envolved. The possible thrust range of the engine being tested is limited by the other three. For example, when taking off one must anticipate the testing engine failure causing the aircraft to loose 35t thrust, so the other engine on the same side has to be powerful enough to boost up to compansate to prevent an out of control spin. I think in crusing test compansation is also difficult if the other engine is much less powerful. So the testbed's other engine has to be close in thrust as CJ-2000.
1 side, you can just have the 1 CJ2000 (2nd engine, turn it off) and the other side you have 2 WS-20. They are close enough.
It was a historical weakpoint because of weak materials and weak precision manufacturing. The same technical competences that go into advanced turbofans also apply to gearboxes. They’re all mech E capabilities that involve the same performance determining factors.
lol, they were historically weak in everything. I'm puzzled why some people are focused on just this one part.
CJ-2000 is superior to GEnx.
GEnx BPR is only 9.0 and CJ-2000 has significantly higher BPR.
GEnx also doesn't have CMC blades. apart from CMC HPT blades CJ-2000 LPT blades are 3D printed too.
hmm, without fuel efficiency figures, you really can't say that.
