by78
General
You may simply admit that you don't have any proof for your claim. Why is it so hard?
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
You may simply admit that you don't have any proof for your claim. Why is it so hard?
I think we are reaching the crux of the issue.
Look, two basic yes/no questions to answer for yourself and for @by78 and then i hope we can wrap this whole episode up or else I'm going to put my moderator hat on again.
1: Do we all agree the timeline for WS-15 that we have publicly been told from the mid 2000s, has been moved right over the years? (Call it a delay, or call it the revised development schedule whatever -- point is, it has shifted to the right).
2: Do you think your sources are sufficient for the community to seriously entertain the idea that WS-15 has seen some sort of enhanced performance revision and that it is related to WS-15's delay/revised schedule/etc? Keep in mind this question is asked in the context of IMO the desire for the PLA watching community to want to be cautious about optimistic/ambitious engine projections.
I believe if these two questions can be answered by the two of you then you can at least reach a state of agreeing to disagree and we can move on from this.
I literally addressed this in two previous posts and for some reason you are now just catching on? Why is it so hard?
No I wasn't. The WS-10 is a different engine than the WS-15 so why would I be mixing up those two? Please don't falsely speculate on my behalf. The of the WS-15, as described by a well known big shrimp "Maya" was an engine in the 150 kN class (along with using 2nd gen DD6 single crystal superalloy, FGH 96 P/M superalloy), roughly analogous to the F119. Then starting around the early 2010s, there were reports of the WS-15 being an instead and the WS-15 was even listed as an 180 kN engine in the AVIC organized "" Obviously, these figures are quite a step up from the original 150 kN class design goal as stated by Maya. Unfortunately, I could not find the specific CJDBY threads detailing this revision since it was quite some time ago but you're more than fine to go search for this yourself. If anything, I'm surprised as to why you find a WS-15 design revision to be shocking. Since then, 3rd generation DD9 and DD10 single crystal superalloys have come out, not to mention the FGH-98 P/M disk, all of which offer substantial material performance upgrade over the original WS-15 materials. It is very plausible for 606 to take advantage of this and alter the design to include these materials rather than coming out with a quarter century old F119 class engine, as the original specs entailed.
Regarding the delay, Maya said it would take about 10 years for the WS-15 to enter mass production after testing its core at high altitude in late 2009. I hope you can agree that the WS-15 is not nearly in mass production stage yet right? As I've said before, I highly recommend you read through the 545 page engine thread. Perhaps it can enlighten you a bit on the Chinese aeroengine development.
by78
General
I agree there has been "shifts to the right", compared to the very early and therefore tentative projections, but it's quite a stretch to say these are delays, IMO.
So yeah, shifts to the right is the right way of putting it, no pun intended.
Last edited:
by78
General
So you claim to have proof but you really don't. Is that what you are saying?
Can we and should we trust you that you have indeed read what you profess to have read?
Hey Figaro, it seems you’ve been doing your share of diving through a lot of academic articles. Do you have an collection of them that you can share? I think it might make sense to create an archive of these things so we have a clearer view on the state of research and development for a lot of these technologies.
Sure. I'll dig through some of the academic articles I've read on Chinese aeroengine development and if they're of significance, I'll post them in the engine thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, @by78 and @Figaro, I've deleted a number of your more recent posts from both of you.
Sometimes people can get worked up over disputes and debates over minor points of contention, but that is no reason to make personal attacks or to be unable to engage in good faith discussions.
This particular strain of discussion has gone on long enough, and I'm drawing a line here now.
Any further discussions or debates on this matter will be deleted in this thread, and I also expect that if there are any personal grudges that you may have had because of this particular exchange will not cause needless provocation and personal remarks in other threads as well.
Failure to abide to the above will result in formal warnings and eventually temporary bans as well.
===
I would also add that on SDF we do seek to avoid "fanboy" type posts -- and we do have some new members whose posts may be described as such.
However if there is someone you believe is exhibiting those behaviours, it is poor form to deride them as fanboys. There are more constructive and polite ways to inform them of those type of posts and to encourage change rather than using degrading remarks that could be construed as personal attacks.
Sometimes people can get worked up over disputes and debates over minor points of contention, but that is no reason to make personal attacks or to be unable to engage in good faith discussions.
This particular strain of discussion has gone on long enough, and I'm drawing a line here now.
Any further discussions or debates on this matter will be deleted in this thread, and I also expect that if there are any personal grudges that you may have had because of this particular exchange will not cause needless provocation and personal remarks in other threads as well.
Failure to abide to the above will result in formal warnings and eventually temporary bans as well.
===
I would also add that on SDF we do seek to avoid "fanboy" type posts -- and we do have some new members whose posts may be described as such.
However if there is someone you believe is exhibiting those behaviours, it is poor form to deride them as fanboys. There are more constructive and polite ways to inform them of those type of posts and to encourage change rather than using degrading remarks that could be construed as personal attacks.
Last edited:
- Status