J-10 Thread IV

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
As I said to Deino in other forum, Patch confirmed this. Maybe the real number could be slightly more or less than that. But I think this figure is realistic and we should accept it as such.


Indeed, thanks for your kind reply, but please help me a moment, who's "Patch"?

By the way - like my reply in that mentioned other forum - I think it is not underestimating them, but putting them within a realistic frame.

But again, I won't complain if I am wrong ...

So, in summary, what are these "realistic" thrust figures for the different variants?

WS-10 (original test specimen)
WS-10A (early serial model on J-11B/BS)
WS-10B (current serial model on J-10C/J-16)
WS-10C (current serial model on J-20A)

PS: I need to apologise :confused: ... I opened indeed an old file but after checking the latest info I compiled to the new Flanker book I have the following likely / estimated performances:

1672330769203.png

Note: Due to the fact that different values are sometimes given for certain specifications, even by reputable sources, two values are listed in some cases.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Indeed, thanks for your kind reply, but please help me a moment, who's "Patch"?

By the way - like my reply in that mentioned other forum - I think it is not underestimating them, but putting them within a realistic frame.

But again, I won't complain if I am wrong ...

So, in summary, what are these "realistic" thrust figures for the different variants?

WS-10 (original test specimen)
WS-10A (early serial model on J-11B/BS)
WS-10B (current serial model on J-10C/J-16)
WS-10C (current serial model on J-20A)

PS: I need to apologise :confused: ... I opened indeed an old file but after checking the latest info I compiled to the new Flanker book I have the following likely / estimated performances:

View attachment 104058

Note: Due to the fact that different values are sometimes given for certain specifications, even by reputable sources, two values are listed in some cases.
sorry, Patch = Patchwork_Chimera. I was in your boat and considered WS-10B for J-10Cs to be around 137kN, but Patch said that WS-10B is a 145kN class engine right now and that WS-10C is almost at the level they originally wanted WS-15 to be. IIRC, the original WS-15 was expected to be around 150 kN. Hence, WS-15 development is taking a little longer time and will come out with higher capability.
 

Clark Gap

Junior Member
Registered Member
As I said to Deino in other forum, Patch confirmed this. Maybe the real number could be slightly more or less than that. But I think this figure is realistic and we should accept it as such.

But 萌虎鲸 and 水獭军一般兵 on weibo both think that 145kN is an unreliable data.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
But 萌虎鲸 and 水獭军一般兵 on weibo both think that 145kN is an unreliable data.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I don't really care who those people are. I think caution over what PAF posts is wise, but based on what I'm hearing, I'd think the number in this case to be reflective of actual performance.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm not sure if "powerful enough for J-20" - which was also valid for the AL-31FN, can be translated into "maximum thrust reached at 143kB".

As such I would be indeed interested, if @Blitzo confirms 143kN for the WS-10B and the J-10C!?

I don't have any exclusive knowledge on this matter.

But the number on the calendar looks reasonable to me.
 
Top