Been told in the past that MTBO for some of these mini turbojets is as low as 25 hours, which is perfectly adequate for one time use applications. Not to say that is the case for the turbojets pictured, but it would explain the cost effectiveness.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Been told in the past that MTBO for some of these mini turbojets is as low as 25 hours, which is perfectly adequate for one time use applications. Not to say that is the case for the turbojets pictured, but it would explain the cost effectiveness.
Yeah this seems to be the only good policy. The thing is PLA is way more opaque than say US. They just don't really talk about long term acquisition/R&D strategy and timelines. This results in us relying on rumors/guesswork and when things like WS-15 or H-20 requirements change happen we don't really find out for a while and are still going on the old timeline which then looks foolish. Of course the US has a lot of delays and such but at least we kind of know what the general goal and proposed timelines are. With PLAAF we just have to accept that we can only take developments as they come and predictions must have a large margin of error.
This is a good rule if you’re trying to be dramatic and protect your own feelings. It’s not really anchored to any real factors though. Not very useful for informed discussion.
I remember J-11Bs had this issue with the WS-10 engines when both first entered service in 2009. That was why the first block of J-11Bs still used AL-31F until WS-10's quality assurance issue was resolved. Correct me if I were wrong.
At the same time, would you say that the WS-10Cs and other variants are already sufficient in generating enough power for J-20A and J-20S? I suppose that if the PLAAF believes that WS-10 derivatives were already sufficient in powering the J-20s, there would be not point using a new unproven engine. Also, could there be any possibility that WS-15 is much more fuel inefficient compared to WS-10 variants; thus, reducing the combat radius of the J-20A despite generating more power and thrust?
It's said that the very low bypass ratios of the ws-15 is not optimal for loitering. Supercruising speed and range are greatly increased but ferry ranges are slightly lower compared to ws10 variants.
The TIT is dependent on the materials not engine cycle design. At least in theory you can make a WS-10 with the same TITs. It might still be less performant, but TIT is not an exclusive differentiator.
I think the heavy emphases on drag reduction and expanding fuel volume in the A upgrades actually offset that.
Actually, why does WS-15 have such a low bypass ratio?
Better for supercruise and high altitude performance.