Oh was that the source lol. Well I suppose despite all the reasons I laid out for why it’s not necessary to trade engine life for thrust improvement if it comes from more than just some casual internet speculation the claim is more believable.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
I am nothing against Orca tbh but he repeatedly make wild claim and sometimes wrong estimation on ICBM, which I spent a lot of time doing digging work then realize he didn't even read official news regularly.
He lives in Chengdu and regularly goes on ground to check how the factory is doing and it gives him some insider news and production rate estimation based on how many planes are flying out from CAC every week.
Other than that, I am quite cautious with his claim on project still in development.
Was digging around for something else and this post by Trident ironically tells us how the WS-10C might be able to supercruise lol.
I'm just as pleased to see the Y-20 testbed as I am to see the engines being tested on it -- maybe more so. It's yet another sign that China is coming to possess the "full stack" of aero engine design, development, and manufacturing. And it's yet another example of China's methodical progression. IIRC, China initially had to send the WS-10 to Russia for on-wing testing. Then China converted one of its own IL-76s into an engine testbed. And now China has a testbed with an indigenous airframe. The next step, of course, will be to re-engine the Y-20 testbed with domestic high-bypass turbofans.
I'm not sure T/W ratio = 15 is as important as having an engine that's more fuel efficient. I mean the requirements of 6th generation aircraft is one where range matters a lot more. That's why VCE is so widely discussed.
Higher T/W ratio lets you do a lot more. You can run the engine at the same thrust range as a previous generation for greater fuel efficiency or go with a bigger plane that can carry more fuel or do both, etc. Greater thrust margin just gives you a bigger design budget to improve any number of parameters you want. VCE is *one* way to get more range but it's not the only way. And it's not mutually exclusive from higher T:W.
Last edited:
Depending on the engine, the efficiency gain for lower thrust is something that's harder to measure, but we do know that if you originally design the engine prioritizing fuel efficiency over additional thrust, then you should achieve higher fuel efficiency at the lower thrust
I never said VCE is the only way to get more range. Do you want to show the part of my comment that indicated as such?
China is at the point now where it no longer needs to sacrifice fuel efficiency or service life requirements just to reach certain thrust rating for an engine. That's something Russians had to do with AL-31 & RD-33. As such, I think it will determine what thrust it would need for its future aircraft and then build the most efficient engine possible with that much power.
I'm not saying that you said VCE was the only way. I'm just saying that it's not the only way.
The point of pushing higher thrust to weight ratio is not inherently about overall thrust but about lower weight and higher power margins for the same fuel inputs. Your engine could be lighter and smaller for the same thrust for example.
I just want to take a moment and reflect that this thread has become as active as the flagship fighter threads.
We haven't had this kind of activity (Zhuhai excluded) in *years*.