On the performance end the WS-10 isn't that special. It and the AL-31 are virtually substitutes for one another. It may even be the inferior by a slight margin (from what I've heard the WS-10 still has some performance hiccups).
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
On the performance end the WS-10 isn't that special. It and the AL-31 are virtually substitutes for one another. It may even be the inferior by a slight margin (from what I've heard the WS-10 still has some performance hiccups).
Equation
Lieutenant General
Prove it. If the performance on the WS-10 is supposedly equal to or less than the AL-31 than how there hundreds already in the PLAAF service on one of their best planes?
You made a claim as well, so before you ask me for proof, you may want to provide your own proof that the WS-10 is so superior. I'm merely going by what I can glean from internet sources (just like everyone else!). In terms of thrust class the two are obviously interchangeable, so there's not much to argue about there. However, I've heard that the WS-10A has had spooling problems at altitude and at AoA during military exercises. Slow spooling can result in performance penalties, since that determines how quickly your engine can generate the thrust you're asking from it (engine performance is not just max thrust!). Clearly these problems, if they exist, are not so bad that the engine is unusable or unreliable, so there's little reason not to put them in production and use them. After all, you can't troubleshoot and improve a design if you aren't able to collect performance data at scale and in real use conditions. For the PLAAF it's far more important to work out the kinks than to have some rarefied trophy. They're not foolish enough to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Last edited:
Ministry of defence of china commented about J-15 that it will have domestic engine with more superior thrust than Russian counterpart(Su-33). The only domestic engine for J-15 at the moment can only be WS-10A.
Spooling problem belongs to WS-10 and therefore WS-10A is introduced to remove this problem. The sprooling problem is reveal in a old CCTV interview video in 2009 by a PLAAF pilot. The sprooling problem has long solved.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
What you heard or read from the internet sources are all based on hearsay and opinions NOT facts. It's like I heard somewhere on the internet that Bigfoot is getting married soon, does that make it true? Where did I make a claim? The word "IF" use in a sentence does not mean claiming.
That would be a great argument...except everything we know about anything PLA related has been hearsay and "opinions". There's such a thing as standards of proof, and unfortunately if you want to raise the bar, you're going to have to invalidate most information we get on this forum. If you're really going to hold the standard of proof higher though it makes me curious where you're getting your information. As for me, so far whatever we've gotten from internet sources have proven to be more or less reliable, so I'm okay with being tentatively informed through them.
I'm not going to swear my life on whatever information I get from these sources, but that doesn't mean the information is wrong. In the case of the WS-10 and potential recurring problems the fact patterns seem consistent enough. We've heard it had spooling problems before it was even certified in 2006, so it wouldn't be unusual if some form of that problem persisted in the later WS-10A. We don't know if this is related to the original design problem, or if it's from the quality control problems we were hearing about in 2009, but that fact (or opinion, whatever you make of it) is out there.
What I can say safely is that your original assertion that the WS-10A's performance would put the AL-31 to shame is improbable at best. Maybe you meant the WS-10A has a longer service life (we've been hearing mixed news on that), because if you meant raw performance, you'd have your work cut out explaining why being in the same thrust class with comparable thrust numbers does not reflect overall performance, and I somehow doubt you'd have the evidence to back your assertion.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
But isn't engine life span is due to "raw" performances? If WS-10 has a better life span than AL -31 than that already makes it a better engine performance? Come on now you're contradicting your arguments.
"I'm not going to swear my life on whatever information I get from these sources, but that doesn't mean the information is wrong."
That doesn't mean the information is right either.
Last edited:
Back in 1984, the American burger chain "Wendy's" ran a commercial "Where's the Beef":
The commercial would seem corny today, but it's a good analogy to all the speculative reports you might read on the internet. Big on the fluffy bun, small on the beef patty. Think of it this way:
* Speculations are like big fluffy buns that almost always exaggerate beyond the normal size
* The big fluffy bun (speculations) tend to cover the beef patty (substance)
* Until the bun is lifted, we cannot verify the existence of the beef patty and its real size
* The over-sized fluffy bun also has the effect of elevating expectations to unrealistic levels (size of actual beef patty cannot match to unrealistic expectations)
The commercial would seem corny today, but it's a good analogy to all the speculative reports you might read on the internet. Big on the fluffy bun, small on the beef patty. Think of it this way:
* Speculations are like big fluffy buns that almost always exaggerate beyond the normal size
* The big fluffy bun (speculations) tend to cover the beef patty (substance)
* Until the bun is lifted, we cannot verify the existence of the beef patty and its real size
* The over-sized fluffy bun also has the effect of elevating expectations to unrealistic levels (size of actual beef patty cannot match to unrealistic expectations)
No. Performance as in what the engine can do. The ws-10 having better service life has absolutely nothing to do with how the engine performs in combat.
The point is I trust what information I encounter based on my own judgement, as everyone else in this forum has to. You can believe what you want but the original point is that you should provide evidence to back your own claims if you want to look credible demanding evidence from others.
I try to do my best to ignore the temptations of the bug fluffy bun
