Ok I am devastated that you don't believe I read anything credible on altered specs for WS-15
Your opinions also matter little to me. You can go look through the SDF engine thread and the various CJDBY threads surrounding the WS-15's development if you want to have a further look. But honestly speaking, I could care less if you have questions about what I post. As I said before, there is a simple ignore button you can click that would make whatever stuff you're whining about go away. The fact that you have not already done so really makes it look like you are consistently itching for an argument, which I'm perfectly fine with participating in
.
Your opinions also matter little to me. You can go look through the SDF engine thread and the various CJDBY threads surrounding the WS-15's development if you want to have a further look. But honestly speaking, I could care less if you have questions about what I post. As I said before, there is a simple ignore button you can click that would make whatever stuff you're whining about go away. The fact that you have not already done so really makes it look like you are consistently itching for an argument, which I'm perfectly fine with participating in
I think Figaro is referring to Gongke’s story of how the engine core was handed off from the 624th institute to the 606th for further development after prototype testing but was thought by 606th to be inadequate, leading to their introduction of a second core design for the WS-15. It wasn’t clear to me that the specs themselves were altered so much as 606th thought they couldn’t reach the target requirements with the core design from 624th. It’s seems the two institutes then had a back and forth about the adequacy of 624th’s core design for further development but its unclear to me (and I think to Gongke) what happened with the engine afterwards.
It’s hard to say, and may depend on what we mean by “upward revision”. The original specs for the YWH-30-27 engine core stipulated anywhere between 130 and 175 kN of wet thrust and 100 to 110 kN of dry thrust. I think this was all theoretical based on a target mass flow though. Whatever core design they came up with in 2008 or 2014 may or may not have been able to hit those thrust targets, and it may simply be a situation where the targets started more modest (say around 160 kN) but as development continued the envelope for potential thrust targets kept growing as component technologies improved over the years. We do have that one off hand rumour from maybe two years back that work is already being done on an improved WS-15 even as the current design undergoes production testing and certification, so that would suggest some amount of improvement as development work went along has been happening, which might explain why we saw a jump in rumoured thrust. I agree there’s nothing definitive though to know for sure. I‘m sure someone will do a more thorough expose on the whole story once the engine is out and about though...In other words, Figaro didn't know what he was talking about, and/or he didn't understand what he had read if indeed he had read what you think he had read, and/or with his characteristic penchant for exaggeration he decided to misrepresent what he had actually read in order to fit a narrative he is fond of peddling.
Gotcha!
In other words, there is NO credible, definitive information pointing to an upward specs revision for WS-15. None, nada, zilch.
In other words, Figaro didn't understand what he was talking about, and/or he didn't grasp what he had read if indeed he had read what you think he had read, and/or he didn't understand what he had read and furthermore, didn't understand that he didn't understand what he had read, and/or with his characteristic penchant for exaggeration he decided to misrepresent what he had actually read in order to fit a narrative he is fond of peddling, despite not understanding what you think he may have read.
That is to say, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information Figaro communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
Gotcha!
In conclusion, contrary to Figaro's claim there is NO credible, definitive information pointing to an (upward) specs revision for WS-15. None, nada, zilch.
Btw do you know where the source for the 16 tonne taihang variant was? I was digging through pupu’s Weibo and couldn’t find anything about it.