Thought I clarified it?
Obviously overall mass flow includes core mass flow. But still, to my understanding, wouldn't the OMF figure be just a tad bit higher than CMF? How come the F119's OMF is significantly higher than the WS-15's rumored CMF?
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Obviously overall mass flow includes core mass flow. But still, to my understanding, wouldn't the OMF figure be just a tad bit higher than CMF? How come the F119's OMF is significantly higher than the WS-15's rumored CMF?
No lol.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Well, not bad really to achieve similar power to F414-GE-400
I would doubt the internet claims first, both claims on WS-15 and F119. According to a research paper on F-119 from AVIC, F-119's overall flow is between 110 and 122kg/s. The paper based on F-119's publicized performance and calculated the airflow from the known figures. Of course the public figures are not accurate and could be figures from different phases of the development, but the calculated flow should be close, afterall, AVIC's scientists knew the realistic ranges.
Something beteen 110 and 122kg is far from 77kg, too far for any input variations to explain. So I doubt 77kg, by the same reasoning 35kg of WS-15's core flow.
Problem with internet rumors are that they lack context and people pass them on whithout knowing what they really mean.
Last edited:
The 35kg from the WS-15’s core flow is from a paper on future core designs from the early 2000s which include specs for what’s believed to be the core design used for the WS-15 (yw something something).
But in general total mass flow is *not* only a marginal increase from core flow in a jet engine, even one of low bypass. HPCs are designed to compress air, not gather air, so they have small diameters and thus can’t collect as much volume. The *point* of the LPC and fan is to collect greater air volumes and thus mass flow. The basic assumption being used to gauge these numbers is wrong.
Last edited:
That's only the demonstrator too. Let's wait and see if the production variant will actually achieve 127 kN.
It seems like the WS-10 family just got a tad bit more complicated. Or clarified, depending on how you look at it.
Supposedly, from 齐天的孙猴子 and 寒霜傲雪2021:
Another interesting tidbits I heard. Supposedly the following engine variants do exist and are for the J-20:
It is unclear that if they J-20 would even use them at all other than for prototyping purposes, but they apparently do exist.
Here, I would also like to clear up a misconception. I was partially wrong. Just because the nozzles on a Sino-Flanker is relatively longer do not mean that they're 100% AL-31Fs. WS-10s can be installed in a fashion where the nozzles will extend further than the tails, see a graphic Deino made:
WS-10s can have nozzle lengths that protrudes beyond the horizontal stabs, similar to the AL-31. But that's not every airframe. Therefore, a long nozzle isn't necessarily AL-31Fs, they could be WS-10s. However, all nozzles that do not protrude beyond the tails are WS-10s, not AL-31s.
Supposedly, from 齐天的孙猴子 and 寒霜傲雪2021:
The most surefire way to determine whether or not the engine is a part of the Taihang (WS-10) family is by observing the nozzle closely. Not by the length of the turkey feathers (exhaust petals), but by the presence of small “slits” just a tad bit before the petals:
As far as I know, as of right now this feature is exclusive to the WS-10 family and are not present on AL-31. The slits are for cold air to seep in as a sheath for the outer layer of the hot exhaust gas to reduce its IR signature. Known variants of the WS-10 family are:
WS-10A (fig. 1): Equipped on J-11B/J-11BS/some J-16 batches. Max thrust of around 132 kN and comparable to the F110-GE-129. Notable features: relatively short exhaust petals.
WS-10B (fig. 2): Equipped only on J-10s. The engine gearbox is located on the underside of the engine, therefore not compatible with any Sino-Flankers. Notable features: relatively short exhaust petals similar to the WS-10A, different gearbox location.
WS-10C (fig. 4): Equipped only on J-20s.
WS-10D (fig. 3): Equipped on J-11B/BS/BG/some J-16 batches/all J-16Ds. Max thrust of around 144 kN and comparable to the F110-GE-132. Notable features: relatively long exhaust petals (almost approaching the length of AL-31Fs but still appear shorter due to the section before the petals are longer and narrower in the AL-31, see fig. 1. The actual petal lengths of both engines are quite similar).
Naval WS-10 (unsure if the designation is actually H): Rumors differ. Some say it's the WS-10A with modifications to withstand the environments on a carrier with thrust increase, some say it's a WS-10D adapted to naval operations.
Another interesting tidbits I heard. Supposedly the following engine variants do exist and are for the J-20:
It is unclear that if they J-20 would even use them at all other than for prototyping purposes, but they apparently do exist.
Here, I would also like to clear up a misconception. I was partially wrong. Just because the nozzles on a Sino-Flanker is relatively longer do not mean that they're 100% AL-31Fs. WS-10s can be installed in a fashion where the nozzles will extend further than the tails, see a graphic Deino made:
WS-10s can have nozzle lengths that protrudes beyond the horizontal stabs, similar to the AL-31. But that's not every airframe. Therefore, a long nozzle isn't necessarily AL-31Fs, they could be WS-10s. However, all nozzles that do not protrude beyond the tails are WS-10s, not AL-31s.
Last edited:
Just to add on what was said:
WS-10A nozzles, doesn't protrude beyond the tails:
WS-10D nozzles, doesn't protrude beyond the tails:
WS-10A and D nozzles, do protrude beyond the tails:
AL-31Fs for reference:
This is what I meant. The coloured in section was the section before the petals I was referring to. Top is WS-10A, bottom is AL-31F. WS-10D is basically 10A with even longer petals.
WS-10A nozzles, doesn't protrude beyond the tails:
WS-10D nozzles, doesn't protrude beyond the tails:
WS-10A and D nozzles, do protrude beyond the tails:
AL-31Fs for reference:
Changing the engine position would alter center of gravity quite a bit so it's certainly more about a nozzle thing.
Could be a change in the afterburner parts of the engine ??
