Rumoured Projects & Likelihood Thereof

Honestly, as long as the engine in question's technological level is good enough for modern day standards and not genuinely CF6-80C2 level then it should be fine. They really ought to stop milking the WS-10's core.

As long as those engines have wide chord fan blades, a modern compression cycle design, and none of that extended exhaust nacelle shroud BS that RR does then I'm happy.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Aren't CJ-1000A and CJ-2000 using different engine cores?

I am under the impression that your suggestion meant that the 25-tonf engine will be based on the WS-20/using the WS-20's core.

Click to expand...

No, I meant scaled up as in same general cycle design but larger everything.

A sino-CF-6-80C2 would certainly resolve the question of what would power the Sino-C-5M equivalent, given it's been widely discussed among us that CJ-2000 seemed both a bit much for it and also seemed like it would be a bit delayed in timeline for it as well.

Alfa_Particle said:

Honestly, as long as the engine in question's technological level is good enough for modern day standards and not genuinely CF6-80C2 level then it should be fine. They really ought to stop milking the WS-10's core.

As long as those engines have wide chord fan blades, a modern compression cycle design, and none of that extended exhaust nacelle shroud BS that RR does then I'm happy.

Click to expand...

It really doesn’t need to be an advanced design given that they’re not trying to squeeze out incremental efficiencies like commercial airliners. Quicker development speed, lower technical risk, and lower cost supply chain should be prioritized over technical novelty in this case. Insofar as there are specific performance parameters that should be prioritized, commercial high bypass turbofans are designed around efficiency at cruise but for military applications you probably want a different set of characteristics like faster throttle response and higher available power in a wider flight envelope.

latenlazy said:

It really doesn’t need to be an advance design given that they’re not trying to squeeze out incremental efficiencies like commercial airliners. Quicker development speed, lower technical risk, and lower cost supply chain should be prioritized over technical novelty in this case.

Click to expand...

By "modern" I included the CFM56-7 family. Surely their new 250 kN engine will be at least on the same tech level rather than CF6. I'm not even asking for GEnx-level.

Alfa_Particle said:

By "modern" I included the CFM56-7 family. Surely their new 250 kN engine will be at least on the same tech level rather than CF6. I'm not even asking for GEnx-level.

Click to expand...

Something like 10% higher efficiency at cruise doesn’t mean as much for a military use plane as a commercial airliner. More efficiency is always nice but the priority should be to get faster turnaround on development time. There’s more value to finishing development faster so you can begin to bring capability into the field ASAP than in adopting more development risk to squeeze out some fuel efficiency margins with a more technically advanced design. If you *really* want more efficiency you can always improve the engine options later.

latenlazy said:

Something like 10% higher efficiency at cruise doesn’t mean as much for a military use plane as a commercial airliner. More efficiency is always nice but the priority should be to get faster turnaround on development time. There’s more value to finishing development faster so you can begin to bring capability into the field ASAP than in adopting more development risk to squeeze out some fuel efficiency margins with a more technically advanced design. If you *really* want more efficiency you can always improve the engine options later.

Click to expand...

Yeah even a twin engine near 767 with CF6-80C2 capability engines would be fine for an early 2030s capability compared to what they we previously thought they would get in that timeframe -- aka nothing

If they're able to develop and test and get such an engine into production on a relevant timeline then that's pretty fine and tbh more than we previously expected from the totality of the PRC aeroengine industry in terms of total capacity.

Alfa_Particle said:

Honestly, as long as the engine in question's technological level is good enough for modern day standards and not genuinely CF6-80C2 level then it should be fine. They really ought to stop milking the WS-10's core.

As long as those engines have wide chord fan blades, a modern compression cycle design, and none of that extended exhaust nacelle shroud BS that RR does then I'm happy.

Click to expand...

all these sources constantly mentioned CF-6 Engine because WS-XX is going to be the same category class Machine. that doesn't mean they will copy paste CF-6 as it is.

most likely WS-XX is based on existing supply chain so development cycle and cost will significantly reduce. Materials are the key here like 3rd/4th generation single crystal alloys and lots of composite.

sunnymaxi said:

all these sources constantly mentioned CF-6 Engine because WS-XX is going to be the same category class Machine. that doesn't mean they will copy paste CF-6 as it is.

most likely WS-XX is based on existing supply chain so development cycle and cost will significantly reduce. Materials are the key here like 3rd/4th generation single crystal alloys and lots of composite.

Click to expand...

Not just. Engine cycle architecture will also be conservative if the goal is faster development time, hence why I suggested maybe an upscaled WS-20.

AFAIK, it seems the argument on the Chinese side is not really whether PLA will choose a new platform instead of relying on Y-9s (Most people seems to agree that the Y-9 turboprop platform is due to replacement) but actually whether there'll be a dedicated platform built instead of just waiting for C929/919.

Some argues that CXF is due within this decade while all of C929's critical systems are or have initial options to be domestic while also being able to take advantage of the logistics and repair network that is envisioned for COMAC aircraft further reducing cost hence pursuing a separate military only development is a waste of time and money.