Deleted! Thanks for the correction.@huitong … you need to delete this at your blog, it’s not the H-20, but a USAF F-111.

View attachment 101686

View attachment 101683View attachment 101684

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Deino
- Start date

Deleted! Thanks for the correction.@huitong … you need to delete this at your blog, it’s not the H-20, but a USAF F-111.

View attachment 101686

View attachment 101683View attachment 101684

What are the expected optimal and maximum payloads for the H-20, respectively?

Well, the B-2 bomber has four F118 engines with 77 kN power, while the WS-10B engine has 89.17 kN power (dry thrust). And it is widely expected the H-20 will also have four engines likely with WS-10 engine core. So:

89.17/77 = 1.158 i.e. 15.8% more thrust.

So I would expect an H-20 to have 15.8% more payload than a B-2. Which is a flying wing type with similar configuration. B-2 supposedly has a limit of 18t payload with max of 23t. So scale that up 18*1.158 and 23*1.158 that gives out ~21t and ~27t respectively.

Of course without knowing the weight of the airframe it is impossible to know these numbers for real. But I would estimate them to be accurate. I doubt China will make a worse airframe like what 30 years later. Back then people did not even use carbon composites in civil aviation. The B-2 carbon composites are probably first generation ones with crappy performance. Probably used for the skin with CFRP or metal for the rest. And I expect China to use each and every single trick they have to keep the weight down and maximize range. So if anything my numbers are estimates on the low side. It depends on if China uses more modern carbon composites in the airframe and WS-15 engines or not.

89.17/77 = 1.158 i.e. 15.8% more thrust.

So I would expect an H-20 to have 15.8% more payload than a B-2. Which is a flying wing type with similar configuration. B-2 supposedly has a limit of 18t payload with max of 23t. So scale that up 18*1.158 and 23*1.158 that gives out ~21t and ~27t respectively.

Of course without knowing the weight of the airframe it is impossible to know these numbers for real. But I would estimate them to be accurate. I doubt China will make a worse airframe like what 30 years later. Back then people did not even use carbon composites in civil aviation. The B-2 carbon composites are probably first generation ones with crappy performance. Probably used for the skin with CFRP or metal for the rest. And I expect China to use each and every single trick they have to keep the weight down and maximize range. So if anything my numbers are estimates on the low side. It depends on if China uses more modern carbon composites in the airframe and WS-15 engines or not.

Last edited:

Where did you get 89 kN dry thrust?Well, the B-2 bomber has four F118 engines with 77 kN power, while the WS-10B engine has 89.17 kN power (dry thrust). And it is widely expected the H-20 will also have four engines likely with WS-10 engine core. So:

89.17/77 = 1.158 i.e. 15.8% more thrust.

So I would expect an H-20 to have 15.8% more payload than a B-2. Which is a flying wing type with similar configuration. B-2 supposedly has a limit of 18t payload with max of 23t. So scale that up 18*1.158 and 23*1.158 that gives out ~21t and ~27t respectively.

Of course without knowing the weight of the airframe it is impossible to know these numbers for real. But I would estimate them to be accurate. I doubt China will make a worse airframe like what 30 years later. Back then people did not even use carbon composites in civil aviation. The B-2 carbon composites are probably first generation ones with crappy performance. Probably used for the skin with CFRP or metal for the rest. And I expect China to use each and every single trick they have to keep the weight down and maximize range. So if anything my numbers are estimates on the low side. It depends on if China uses more modern carbon composites in the airframe and WS-15 engines or not.

I want to see a bomber with 4 WS-15s that are modified to have a higher bypass ratio (around 1 instead of 0.3). 9000 km unrefueled combat range with 25 tons of payload... With a good cruise missile, that would allow China to strike anywhere on the planet.

89.17/77 = 1.158 i.e. 15.8% more thrust.

So I would expect an H-20 to have 15.8% more payload than a B-2. Which is a flying wing type with similar configuration. B-2 supposedly has a limit of 18t payload with max of 23t. So scale that up 18*1.158 and 23*1.158 that gives out ~21t and ~27t respectively.

Of course without knowing the weight of the airframe it is impossible to know these numbers for real. But I would estimate them to be accurate. I doubt China will make a worse airframe like what 30 years later. Back then people did not even use carbon composites in civil aviation. The B-2 carbon composites are probably first generation ones with crappy performance. Probably used for the skin with CFRP or metal for the rest. And I expect China to use each and every single trick they have to keep the weight down and maximize range. So if anything my numbers are estimates on the low side. It depends on if China uses more modern carbon composites in the airframe and WS-15 engines or not.

Wikipedia. But they themselves got it from CCTV. I think a link to the video was posted here somewhere either on J-10 or engine thread.Where did you get 89 kN dry thrust?

So it is about as official as it can get. And it is not like China would earn anything from hiding the numbers. They are likely out now that the J-10CE is an export product. Russian Al-41F1S is 86.30 kN dry thrust just for reference and that is like over a decade old. Chinese have better metallurgy than that by this time I think.