even if they have a similar engine core it wouldnt mean that they have the exact same thrust curves either
just look at the F100 and the F110
and even if you were to make a copy of the F100 but arent able to get the materials right it will also affect the thrust curves
ontop of that the earlier WS-10s have the weird 2 part nozzle that will also affect the overall thrust compared to the F100
yeah and the base WS-10 doesnt even matter as we only have WS-10A+ ingame
It is precisely because I am very clear about this that I took the three different models of the first-generation engines for comparison. Moreover, it is known that Chinaβs adoption of an aggressive strategy allows for greater air intake at high speeds and altitudes, so its high-altitude performance is inevitably superior to that of the F110 series.
Optimizing the short annular combustion chamber, since it is relatively short, dividing it into two sections can allow it to burn more evenly.
any real proof? its a far less advanced engine
Then what evidence do you have to prove that the F110 is more advanced than the WS-10?
monocrystal construction much earlier on, with decades to refine and improve the material technology as well as other components in the engine
You got to be trolling at this point all youβve done is said these two engines look similar to each other therefore the WS-10 Should be massively outperforming the F110 series. No sources no backup and from reading these post it doesnβt even seem youβre correct on the basic statement of them being similar engines designed from the same thing.
What are you hoping to achieve here?
Do you understand what the ram effect is? The F110 engine emphasizes subsonic speeds, while the WS-10 emphasizes high-altitude high speeds. You simply do not understand why I would make such a statement.
And am I talking about technological leadership? These are two different paths, do you understand?
how come i see no mention of supercruise for J-10C or J-16 then. even mach 1.8 supercruise for J-20 is probably for WS-15
So according to your statement, where are the U.S. militaryβs AIM-174 and AM260 currently in service? Why have only a few units been mass-produced? Your PL-15 in China has been widely deployed, yet itβs unclear whether the production of the AIM-174 and AM260 even reaches a fraction of the PL-15. As for the F-47 multirole aircraft, you mean to say it is certainly not as advanced as the aircraft that recently appeared in China, correct?
Just because you havenβt seen it doesnβt mean it doesnβt exist. Your current behavior is no different from that of a spy.
couple year difference vs genuine generational gap in technology.
do you think the F110 wasnt improved at all past the GE-100?
a claim made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence
Are you saying that the WS-10 cannot be improved?
it can be improved, but you are comparing old F110 performance to brand new WS-10 performance
Have you seen that this article was originally issued in its unclassified form between 2003 and 2005? Do you think you can access a maintenance paper on the turbofan 10C or turbofan 10B?
You are correct, but among the aircraft you mentioned, except for the F-15, none of the U.S. militaryβs fourth-generation planes can cruise at supersonic speeds.
F110 upgrades to 35000lb+ thrust have been known of since 1995
How much did you say? Then I will say that the WS-10 has a thrust of 3,000 kN.
3,000KN of thrust? As in over the amount of Thrust a NASA RS-25 is producing?