So you cite lack of new information as reason to uphold your claim, and then you proceed to cite random forum posters' claims about ws-10c running harder in the expense of MTBO which was not official.
You need to re-read my post. I took onboard the new info regarding maximum thrust but (correct me if I'm wrong...) no new data points regarding life/TBO came to light in this release. So my earlier rationale on this specific topic, as stated, remains unaffected because I don't see any additional evidence that tphuang's assertion quoted in the screenshot might be founded on. Or do you for once have something substantive to support it?
This whole things about ws-10c compromised badly on MTBO for increased thrust seems to be a product of confirmation bias than anything else.
Stating the WS-10C is "badly" compromised on MTBO is your words not mine.
All I did is to adopt for argument's sake the statements that it has a) a static thrust increase to 15tf and b) reduced BPR . To achieve both at the same time requires the WS-10C to be run even hotter compared to the -B than the difference between the 117/117S. I don't know whether either claim is true (though 15tf seems completely plausible, if the WS-10B is >14tf), but IF they are, that is just how the cookie crumbles. Unless the WS-10C is in fact a significantly different engine to the -B in terms of materials & cooling, this in turn means TBO will suffer a penalty.
Could the WS-10 in fact be a completely different engine? The possibility can't be entirely excluded I suppose, but to bring the WS-10B to >14tf without ruining TBO/life probably requires all the 5th gen tech insertions it can get already. As is the case in the very similar 117/117S or GE F110-GE-129/-132, the base engine is likely to be mostly the same, with the higher-thrust variant accepting somewhat lower durability. With WS-10 production having ramped up so dramatically to now equip the entire PLAAF fighter procurement volume, chances are very good that it follows the same template for economies of scale, if nothing else.
And again, whether that makes the WS-10C a "bad" compromise is not something I opined on at all. I was just making a comparison.
Also the WS-10c serrated nozzle with cooling vents indicated the design was meant to be VLO.
Err... yes? What makes you think anybody was doubting this? You can add the composite material used for the outer nozzle petals, BTW (likely reduces IR emissions).
I'm merely surprised it didn't adopt the con/di principle from the J-16 WS-10B, as the other changes (thrust hike, possibly reduced BPR) indicate supersonic dry thrust was a major goal, and a con/di nozzle would help this too. My hunch, as stated, is that LO requirements are precisely what may have prevented that, though likely IR rather than RCS, given that an ejector nozzle as used on the J-10 and J-20 has advantages in this respect..
Please read before ranting!
Last edited: