What I'm actually saying is that the aforementioned engine is not the WS-15 itself. In fact, if said engine is related to the WS-15, then it's way more like what you've suggested here.
Last edited:
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
What I'm actually saying is that the aforementioned engine is not the WS-15 itself. In fact, if said engine is related to the WS-15, then it's way more like what you've suggested here.
Do you have any figures on what MTBO for these turbofans look like?
For decades, Chinese turbofans lagged behind Western counterparts in terms of service life, but one would assume China has caught up to some, if not a significant degree.
I imagine available figures might be guesswork too, but curious where things stand, even ballpark figures will be appreciated!
Oh yeah definitely. The WS-15 isn't a STOVL engine, and the 0.55 BPR suggests a F135-PW-600'ed WS-15 instead of the WS-15 itself.
I dunno, "lifespan" as a metric is tricky to measure in actual "hours." You're better off using TAC like the USAF. But I've seen purported figures like 4-5000 hours "lifespan" though, dunno if it's hot or cold sections or an average, that's why I said it's tricky to tell.
Last edited:
According to a recent podcast by Yankeesama even different batches of Taihang used for J-16 can have magnitudes of difference in terms of MTBO and lifespan.
WS-10 latest variants MTBO/service life is close to its western counterparts.
Nah, there was nothing on LPC PR. The "Fan PR" there I highly suspect is referring to the lift fan.
Really? I read it as if the fan itself gives a PR of 5.22 which is extremely high and could indicate some unique design like contrarotating fans. Another note is that the supersonic cruise efficiency for the fan is very high for a low bypass ratio turbofan.
For the first chart which is supposedly for cruise condition they mentioned the fan itself having 5.22 PR, its unlikely this was referring to the liftfan IMO. But for VTOL condition they mentioned 2.36 PR for the lift fan which is much higher than what I can find for RR's liftfan.
This seems like a very puzzling spec sheet
Another thing to note would be combined thrust of this new unknown SVTOL engine compared to the F135-PW-600, at least per publicly-available information:
New unknown SVTOL engine | F135-PW-600 | |
| Vectoring exhaust nozzle thrust | 78.10 kN | 83.1 kN or 89.0 kN |
| Lift fan thrust | 81.10 kN | 83.1 kN or 80.0 kN |
| Wing nozzles thrust | 17.88 kN | 14.6 kN or 17.0 kN |
| Combined total thrust | 177.08 kN | 180.0 kN or 186.0 kN |
From the table (and again, assuming that the figures are accurate), it can be noted that the new unknown SVTOL engine is about 2.92 kN to 8.2 kN of thrust short of the F135-PW-600, depending on which sources is taken (Pratt-&-Whitney for the former and Rolls Royce for the latter).
Though, this difference may have little or more impacts on the actual performances of the aircraft that it powers, depending on the needs and requirements of said aircraft.
Last edited:
Hmm, wouldn't 3-6-1-1 make more sense?