J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Deino]

well, they say "Newly produced J-11B jets will be powered by the WS-10C, but engines on the current 120 J-11Bs won't be totally replaced due to the high cost, Xu Yongling said."
if the article and the tv show it is quoting is actually made by competent people, it would suggest that newly produced J-11Bs are using WS-10C; whereas older J-11Bs would of course have been using WS-10A.


In any case, I don't think J-11Bs produced since the mid/late 2000s were using WS-10C considering that designation/variant has only come into play recently.

ok ... can anyone summarise the last conclusions?

WS-10 = early test specimed tested in that J-11A testbed
WS-10A = first serial variant for J-11B and BS from batch 02 on ... with each a subtype (different gearbox) for Flankers and the few J-10B
WS-10B = reportedly for the J-16 ??
WS-10C = uprated version for later production J-11B/BS (not sure from which batch on?)
WS-10X = variant with LOAN nozzle for J-20A
WS-10Y = AVEN/LOAN type tested on J-10B and J-20

Or am I wrong?

 

[Blitzo]

ok ... can anyone summarise the last conclusions?

WS-10 = early test specimed tested in that J-11A testbed
WS-10A = first serial variant for J-11B and BS from batch 02 on ... with each a subtype (different gearbox) for Flankers and the few J-10B
WS-10B = reportedly for the J-16 ??
WS-10C = uprated version for later production J-11B/BS (not sure from which batch on?)
WS-10X = variant with LOAN nozzle for J-20A
WS-10Y = AVEN/LOAN type tested on J-10B and J-20

Or am I wrong?

tbh I've given up on trying to identify the variants at this stage, I'm of no help for that, I just call them individually as "WS-10 family/variant"

 

[jobjed]

ok ... can anyone summarise the last conclusions?

WS-10 = early test specimed tested in that J-11A testbed
WS-10A = first serial variant for J-11B and BS from batch 02 on ... with each a subtype (different gearbox) for Flankers and the few J-10B
WS-10B = reportedly for the J-16 ??
WS-10C = uprated version for later production J-11B/BS (not sure from which batch on?)
WS-10X = variant with LOAN nozzle for J-20A
WS-10Y = AVEN/LOAN type tested on J-10B and J-20

Or am I wrong?

Is this the old system or the new post-2016 system? AVIC reorganised their designations around 2016 so everything is different now.

 

[antiterror13]

Is this the old system or the new post-2016 system? AVIC reorganised their designations around 2016 so everything is different now.

so, please tell us what the designations now?

 

[latenlazy]

ok ... can anyone summarise the last conclusions?

WS-10 = early test specimed tested in that J-11A testbed
WS-10A = first serial variant for J-11B and BS from batch 02 on ... with each a subtype (different gearbox) for Flankers and the few J-10B
WS-10B = reportedly for the J-16 ??
WS-10C = uprated version for later production J-11B/BS (not sure from which batch on?)
WS-10X = variant with LOAN nozzle for J-20A
WS-10Y = AVEN/LOAN type tested on J-10B and J-20

Or am I wrong?

Is this the old system or the new post-2016 system? AVIC reorganised their designations around 2016 so everything is different now.

If AVIC did reorganize designations (not that I don't believe you, but it might be good to have a source on this) it might make sense if the WS-10C is actually the one we recognized as the 132-137 kN WS-10B. Maybe the original WS-10 with all the problems is now the WS-10A, and the 127 kN WS-10A that eventually managed to go into production has become the WS-10B. The WS-10X doesn't seem to be a real designation, but one invented by the bbs community to delineate the WS-10s with sawtooth black nozzles from regular WS-10s. As I recall, the reason they went with X was because X is a stand-in for the fact that no one knows what variant of WS-10 is being used. Similarly, we may not have a designation for the WS-10 testing TVC until (or if) that engine goes into production. I believe it was Gongke who said something about sawtooth nozzles and TVC not being no big deal and that they could be added pretty readily in a forum Q&A, which might imply that engines equipped with them aren't deemed to be significantly different enough to receive their own call signs.

EDIT: Another possibility is that the early test variant is still the WS-10, while the WS-10A now refers to an early production model with downrated thrust as makeshift solution, perhaps the one that was associated with the 122 kN thrust figure we used to see around, and WS-10B now refers to a version that resolved most of the problems with the early A, which might be the "black" Taihang and also the variant associated with the 127 kN thrust figure.

 

[Totoro]

Coincidentally, if I'm remembering right that might be around the same time as we noticed those new "shorter" Taihangs.

I remember that as the other way around. Initial ws10 were easy to tell apart from Al31 because they seemed noticably shorter on j11b. But then at some point the longer variant started appearing. (Nozzle petals we're of same length but it was the ring in front of the
Petals that was wider.)

 

[latenlazy]

I remember that as the other way around. Initial ws10 were easy to tell apart from Al31 because they seemed noticably shorter on j11b. But then at some point the longer variant started appearing. (Nozzle petals we're of same length but it was the ring in front of the
Petals that was wider.)

I'll have to dig through the CDF archives for verification (I seem to recall there was a comparison pointing out the change), but at least it's not just me remembering that some change in length was involved.

The WS-10s have always been easy to tell apart not just because of the length difference, but because the nozzle petals were wider and only single layered, while the AL-31s had overlapping petals.

 

[latenlazy]

I remember that as the other way around. Initial ws10 were easy to tell apart from Al31 because they seemed noticably shorter on j11b. But then at some point the longer variant started appearing. (Nozzle petals we're of same length but it was the ring in front of the
Petals that was wider.)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your memory was on the mark. It was supposed to be longer, not shorter. Also, we noticed these changes in 2013, not 2011. You know you've been at this hobby for too long when old dates start to compress.

 

[Klon]

Some previous posts about WS-10 (1, 2).

 

[manqiangrexue]

The idea that China will always rise again, as I've mentioned, is no longer a truism as China has fallen below 20% of the world's population for the second time after the Song, and will drop to around 10% of the world's population by the end of the century.

What the hell are you talking about? Who's talking about population?? You couldn't have thought I meant China would dominate the world by out-populating everyone else, could you? That China is rising quickly has never been truer than it is now, hence the panic in the West with the trade wars, etc...

I'll also mention that during the Second World War, the Chinese resistance was so inept that in Henan, the Chinese actually rose up to depose KMT troops in favor of the Japanese invaders.

I think you have the entire concept of rise and slumber cycles confused with uninterrupted dominance. That's a reading comprehension issue for you.

The J-20, in its present design, is likely not going to be as stealthy as other 5th gens, given the combination of the canards, the ventral strakes, and the tailfins. Put another way, if you look at the F-22 or Su-57, the latter two aircraft have 3 separate planes, composed of the main wing, and the tailfins. The J-20, in contrast, has either 4 or 6 separate planes, depending on how you count the ventral strakes and tailfins. By removing the tailfins and ventral strakes, however, you go from 4-6 to only 2 planes, made up of a wing and its opposite canard.

That's the first time I've heard people say J-20 likely has worse stealth than Su-57 LOL. The canard BS again?? Go read all about it in the old threads. Nobody wants to resurrect zombie topics with you.