J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
i think this is why they introduced WS-10C2. a brand new iteration with lots of changes. but anyways WS-15 entered in full scale production. so WS-10 series should stick with 4th gen fighters and CCAs.
It is very dumb. Thrust curves (and what affects them; BPR, PR, theta break), TSFC, lifespan and reliability, these are all infinitely more indicative of how "good" an engine is than just thrust at SL M0.
(If you are genuinely hellbent on the concept of thrust, even specific thrust per unit area is a more useful thing to focus on)
The translation is kinda wrong. It's actually "electrical generation specs on top of technical specs" instead of "especially electrical generation specs." The takeaway here should be Ayi is saying the WS-15 actually has some pretty impressive technical specs and demanding electrical generation specs.
As for Orca's Zhihu post... I mean, he's not exactly wrong, but it's not longer the 1990s or even 2000s. Technology in general has improved quite a bit since then.
Yes, absolute thrust at SL M0 (i.e. very high pressure ratios and lower theta break) is a somewhat contradictory performance metric to supersonic performance (in a conventional cycle engine at least), but they've gotten less mutually exclusive now. You can't still "max out" both areas simultaneously per se, but now you can push both sides further together. Whether that be using better materials to push the theta break higher, better computationally optimised compressor designs, limited variable geometries (VGVs inbetween rotors), the list goes on.
Yes, the WS-15 is very much supersonically optimised. But that doesn't mean its thrust at SL M0 would still stagnate at 1990s level.
Yes to Russia and France. It's a maybe/mostly for UK. After all, the EJ200 is an incredible piece of work. It's best-in-class for a damn good reason...
People often focus on the fact that UK/RR doesn't have high-thrust class military afterburning turbofans like the F119/WS-15/10/etc. but that's more because they have *nothing* that would need an engine like that.
Last edited:
Let me bold that particular phrase first to avoid misunderstandings.
Also, it must be noted that the following answers are with the exclusion of the US in mind, which are no doubt the SOTA leader in the aircraft engine department.
The answer largely depends on which fields of engines that we're talking about.
1. Low-bypass turbofan engines - Equivalent (with Russia) and Better (than everyone else mentioned above).
2. High-bypass turbofan engines - Far from it, especially for engines with thrust that are above 160-180 kN, which are very much still a blank space for China's case (i.e. not in physical, working pieces that are in service).
3. Turboprop engines - Almost equal. With the exception of the TP400 and NK-12, we're just waiting for the AEP400, AEP500 and WJ-10 to become ready for widespread service.
4. Turboshaft engines - Nearing equal. We're basically waiting for the AHL helicopter's first flight.
Last edited:
Think you mean a couple weeks ago, particularly a serial freak-outer whose name goes with Jerry.
low bypass category -
in material and manufacturing techniques like 3D printing and additive process we are really close to USA and comfortably ahead from any other competitor.
High bypass category -
in this sector, UK/USA have huge lead over any other country coz of Airbus and Boeing. its basically duopoly. but hopefully with CJ-1000/CJ-2000 we can enter in this exclusive club as a reliable manufacturer of high bypass turbofan engines. that is enough for us.
Does Russia have anything similar to the WS-15 currently in service? I was thinking that if China's WS-15 made it to mass production then it basically mops the floor with Russia in this space.
He claims fuel consumption/efficiency (and range?) is slightly *worse* for 15 than 10C in comments though? That seems questionable..
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It would tie in with the claimed vastly superior electrical power generation capacity. There isn’t such a thing as a free lunch in engineering. To get a benefit, you need to pay a price. The upshot is that if the engines can provide all the electrical power the fighter needs, then savings could potentially be made if the plane needed auxiliary electricity generators previously.