水獭军一般兵 is Ayi in 察话会(a podcast by Shilao, Yankee and Ayi. 萌虎鲸 sometime join to their team as a consultant about aerospace.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
水獭军一般兵 is Ayi in 察话会(a podcast by Shilao, Yankee and Ayi. 萌虎鲸 sometime join to their team as a consultant about aerospace.
I find what Patchwork says to generally be accurate. I'm not going to restate this again.
So, first off, I think neither 萌虎鲸 or 水獭军一般兵 specify which parts of the listed specs they think are excessive, so it’s not clear what they’re critiquing. Even if they are critiquing the thrust figures, we don’t know if they think the thrust numbers are only a little off or way way off. What we do know for certain is that AVIC has been claiming for a few years now that the WS-10 series can now attain a thrust in the range of 14000 kg and perhaps higher, but they won’t specify a specific figure. But that said assuming they are at least in part referring to the thrust numbers I think there’s some room for both those skeptical opinions you shared and tphuang’s to be valid.
Max thrust figures aren’t always the same as meaningful thrust figures. Some of this is also based on how you choose to define the spec, like which conditions of operation and flight are you treating as valid or representative figures for performance. There’s also a possibility that Pakistan’s J-10s are using newer versions of the engine than the PLAAF’s J-10s, or using a version that’s been spec’ed differently for their needs/wants.
I think where I settle on this one is that I think the WS-10 series as it’s progressed today *should* be able to attain these levels of thrust, which is to say that the claim about the attainable thrust for this engine itself isn’t excessive or outlandish. Whether those thrust figures are meaningful to standard operation and whether it applies to the J-10CE is a separate question, and more ambiguous. Maybe the reported figures from Pakistani sources is a brochure number whereas the numbers 萌虎鲸 and 水獭军一般兵 have in mind are more reflective of standard operations. Overall I don’t think we can really know unless someone clarifies with more specific details about what these performance figures *should* be. But I don’t think it should be treated as outlandish or shocking that the WS-10 series could attain these kinds of figures given what we can pick up about both general progress in Chinese engine capabilities and also the improvements that have been iteratively made with the WS-10.
by78
General
This is an English language forum. Please provide a translation or a summary in English for any content or link that's in a foreign language.
Where is the image from? What does it say?
According to the staff's answer, the thrust of the latest model of WS-10 has reached 14000kg in 2014.
Indeed, thanks for your kind reply, but please help me a moment, who's "Patch"?
By the way - like my reply in that mentioned other forum - I think it is not underestimating them, but putting them within a realistic frame.
But again, I won't complain if I am wrong ...
So, in summary, what are these "realistic" thrust figures for the different variants?
WS-10 (original test specimen)
WS-10A (early serial model on J-11B/BS)
WS-10B (current serial model on J-10C/J-16)
WS-10C (current serial model on J-20A)
PS: I need to apologise... I opened indeed an old file but after checking the latest info I compiled to the new Flanker book I have the following likely / estimated performances:
View attachment 104058
Note: Due to the fact that different values are sometimes given for certain specifications, even by reputable sources, two values are listed in some cases.
If the WS-10C is at 145-147kN, then it would be comparable to the latest engines used in the Su-57?
I remember that claim. It appeared during one of the Zhuhai airshows, AFAIK. And was attributed to some AVIC (or other) official present at the airshow, who said that to some Zhuhai visitor, off the record.
Of course, that's the definition of hearsay so it's not much in terms of a proper source. But hey, it's something.
Of course, that's the definition of hearsay so it's not much in terms of a proper source. But hey, it's something.
Why is Patch given this much benefit of the doubt? When has he actually came close to proving his knowledge and background? Yeah I get that he's offered "insights" that pretty much agree with information that went from being speculated to leaked, verified by reputable individuals/groups, and then verified by one or both governments (US and China) eventually in public domain papers but anyone learned enough in this stuff can do that if they wished to be misleading about their credentials/background.
Honestly I think, take that all as you will but bringing Patch up as gospel is a bit silly.
Honestly I think, take that all as you will but bringing Patch up as gospel is a bit silly.
don't just consider the afterburner thrust. There is a lot of other considerations like fuel burn, availability, noise level, MTBO and things like that. WS-10C should be better than what su-57 currently uses, but maybe not the one under development. I think that WS-10B having top line performance of around 32k lb thrust shouldn't surprise people and WS-10C should have even higher than that. Whether they actually tune it up to that high in your routine training and patrol missions is a different story.