Maybe in the 2030s. Right now they are still working on the CJ-2000. There are naval gas turbine engines of a similar power level to the GE9X though.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
this machine have different names and appearance over the time.. so it is extremely difficult to distinguish between models due to long period of development.. most likely both are the same model.
WS-20 latest improved variant AEP-1300 presented in 2022 Zhuhai air.. pic posted by @Tomboy ..
22 wide chord composite carbon fan blades.
the major reason to go with older clappered fan blades for WS-20 is, it is easy and cheap to mass produce in comparison with wide chord and composite..
WS-20 will produce in large numbers.
You don't always need large-sized plumbing pipe to get more water flow. It can be achieved by simply building a higher water tower. A jet engine works the same way. You can use a larger single-stage fan to achieve higher bypass ratio, or use 2 or more stages of smaller fan to create higher pressure and speed of air flow inside bypass duct to get the same result. Even if the fan's diameter and stages are same, higher rpm will result higher bypass ratio. GE F-110 engine for instance: The size/diameters of -100, -129 and -132 variants are almost the same, but they have different bypass ratios.
Increasing the speed of air flow of bypass duct will reduce the fuel efficiency and make the engine more noisier. This is why civilian jet engines prefer single-stage fans. But a military engine may use the method if the diameter of the engine matters the most.
Last edited:
you don't need super high thrust GE9X Engines for heavy military transport plane like C-5/AN-124
both C-5/AN-124 have single engine capable to produce 50,000 lbf thrust.
China most powerful Engine CJ-2000 has 78,000-80,000 lbf thrust. which is more than enough for any widebody commercial airliner.
here are some exclusive images of CJ-2000 core machine being assembled.
If anything - Military airlifters prioritize resiliance and redundancy (both of which are crucial parameters for wartime operations), meaning that airlifters that are at least Il-76-sized will have 4x high BPR turbofan engines, despite those engines being less powerful, less fuel-efficient and less economical to operate than their civilian counterparts.
For China's case - A very large strategic airlifter that is either somewhere between the size categories of the C-5M and An-124, or slightly larger than the An-124, where both options having particular focus on the cargo bay dimension would do. China doesn't really need An-225-sized airlifters (and even the An-225 was born out of special needs for the Buran space shuttle program, rather than actual airlift needs by the Soviet Air Force).
This means that the 350 kN-class CJ-2000 isn't going to be needed for such airlifters, let alone the 450-490 kN-class GE9X.
Therefore - Either a derated version of CJ-2000/AEF3500 or a new high BPR turbofan engine with max thrust of ~240-280 kN would do. Somewhat greater thrusts than the F138-100 and D-18T for greater payload capacity, alongside better operability at short runways/strips and at high altitudes should be sufficient for the airlifter's needs.
For China's case - A very large strategic airlifter that is either somewhere between the size categories of the C-5M and An-124, or slightly larger than the An-124, where both options having particular focus on the cargo bay dimension would do. China doesn't really need An-225-sized airlifters (and even the An-225 was born out of special needs for the Buran space shuttle program, rather than actual airlift needs by the Soviet Air Force).
This means that the 350 kN-class CJ-2000 isn't going to be needed for such airlifters, let alone the 450-490 kN-class GE9X.
Therefore - Either a derated version of CJ-2000/AEF3500 or a new high BPR turbofan engine with max thrust of ~240-280 kN would do. Somewhat greater thrusts than the F138-100 and D-18T for greater payload capacity, alongside better operability at short runways/strips and at high altitudes should be sufficient for the airlifter's needs.
Last edited:
Or China can try another trijet...
For military transport planes redundancy is prized. It will be 4 engines.
Which would be doing the exact opposite of prioritizing resilience and redundancy, given how the third engine mounted at the root of the vertical stabilizer could potentially disable the rudder and elevator controls outright if that engine gets damaged/destroyed. It'll be a repeat of United Airlines Flight 232 - But worse.
This is aside the fact where how the airflow around the root region of the vertical stabilizer would be affected by the high-wing configuration of the aircraft (which is the norm for airlifters worldwide). The tail-mounted engine may not get sufficient airflow due to the position of the wings in order to generate sufficient thrusts.
Last edited: