Chinese Engine Development

latenlazy

Brigadier
As I said I was trying to make a guessitimate on WS-15 based on public information without relying on supposed insiders or academic papers that are open to multiple interpretations. Things like fan blades construction on WS-20 display models at air shows are public information, where not much information about WS-15 itself are public except nozzles and such.

In this case I think it's reasonable to extrapolate from what we know about WS-20 to the overall progress of the industry and then extrapolate again to WS-15. It's not good but it's the best we have if we want to rely only on public information. If I am to use a Bayesian model I'm going to set my prior to something like 70% likely it's slightly worse than F-119 and update from that using supposed insider information or journal article based on credence I assign to the sources.
Uh if you want to make assessments based on public information look at parts being shown in trade shows and read publicly published papers on engine components and materials. What you’re proposing is like trying to judge a country’s semiconductors based on its smartphone models rather than its fab capabilities.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
As I said I was trying to make a guessitimate on WS-15 based on public information without relying on supposed insiders or academic papers that are open to multiple interpretations. Things like fan blades construction on WS-20 display models at air shows are public information, where not much information about WS-15 itself are public except nozzles and such.

In this case I think it's reasonable to extrapolate from what we know about WS-20 to the overall progress of the industry and then extrapolate again to WS-15. It's not good but it's the best we have if we want to rely only on public information. If I am to use a Bayesian model I'm going to set my prior to something like 70% likely it's slightly worse than F-119 and update from that using supposed insider information or journal article based on credence I assign to the sources.
Your methodology is problematic at best.
 

rcrmj

New Member
Registered Member
From what I understand, the reason for which it is years behind schedule is that the WS-10 later variants proved to be superior than what had been originally planned, to the point where they would nearly overlap with the initially projected design and power of the WS-15. This caused the WS-15 to undergo redesign into a more powerful engine in order for it to be substantially better than the WS-10 and this redesign is the reason it is years behind the initial projection. If it's true, then it's basically the best reason for it to be behind, perhaps even better than being on time.
I dont know who came up with such funny "excuse"`````lol

The delay of 15 was technical, had nothing to do with WS10's development
 

OppositeDay

Senior Member
Registered Member
CCTV-7 just ran a juicy 8 minute segment on the certification process of AES-100 turboshaft engine

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Starts at about 9:00. Shows the fragments containment test, a vibration test, and the 3,000 hours TBO test.

The fragments containment test, which involved cutting off the power shaft when the engine was running at maximal load, was quite spectacular to look at.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I dont know who came up with such funny "excuse"`````lol
Can anyone here provide this fellow with the source of the claim that WS-15 was delayed due to improvements afforded to it by the unexpected high performance of the WS-10 later variants so his mind can finally be freed from the instinct of immediately gravitating towards the simplest and most common answer? Seeing as how I got 19 likes on it, I'm convinced that my memory serves me properly and didn't fabricate it or remember it incorrectly.

@siegecrossbow @Blitzo @Deino @latenlazy Anybody remember the source?
The delay of 15 was technical, had nothing to do with WS10's development.
optimizing bypass chambers and composite materials
And you know this because?
What's up with the randomly strewn about backticks everywhere?
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
optimizing bypass chambers and composite materials``````
...
Can anyone here provide this fellow with the source of the claim that WS-15 was delayed due to improvements afforded to it by the unexpected high performance of the WS-10 later variants so his mind can finally be freed from the instinct of immediately gravitating towards the simplest and most common answer? Seeing as how I got 19 likes on it, I'm convinced that my memory serves me properly and didn't fabricate it or remember it incorrectly.

@siegecrossbow @Blitzo @Deino @latenlazy Anybody remember the source?


And you know this because?

What's up with the randomly strewn about backticks everywhere?
Think it was one of those stray Shilao or Yankee comments lol. Will be hard to track down. But the irony of what rcrmj thinks the actual reason is is that it does not contradict the claim that the engine got delayed because they decided to continue improving the tech rather than get a product out sooner lol.
 
Last edited:

Zihan

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Regarding performance of WS-15. We can guessitimate where Chinese military turbofan industry is at by looking at WS-20, which is on a similar schedule (first flight on Y-20 in 2022 vs first flight on J-20 in 2023 for WS-15) but has more public information available. The consensus seems to be WS-20 is comparable to early-mid 1990s CFM-56 variants. I wouldn't be surprised if WS-15 has worse performance parameters than F-119 which first flew in late 1990s.
Is this claim correct or known by all here that ws-20 is equivalent to 1990s engines. or is there a catch? if this statement is true without caveats than, there is reason to worry I think.
 
Top