Engineer not, but turbofan engines were part of my studies

in any case, I can only talk about data I’m given. I haven’t access to classified data on the WS-13 but considering what we’ve been given (wiki, for what it’s worth) one can draw some logical conclusions.

Now, if wiki is wrong, the conclusions may be wrong as well… it all depends what’s not right and to what degree… it can be better than stated, or worse..

another source of information was an interview by a snecma engineer who explained that, even more than 20 years after having started copying them, the chinese copies of CFM-56 had much lesser mtbf than the french-built ones because of the lack of technology for hot parts (it is all about specific materials chemical treatments that you can’t just guess by looking at a finished part). For having worked in a company who did it for both Snecma and General Electric parts for Air France’s maintainance, I can tell you it’s not something that you can just improvise with, so what he said sounded quite right and that would also support the fact that even today, a high performance engine like a fighter one may be lacking in that specific domain

Thank you for that answer, I must say from the little aerodynamics I have studied it is definitely not that simple, given that neither you or I are technically qualified to comment, perhaps we can wait until:

1. We have more definite information available.
2. We have more qualified “analysts” available

Wikipedia is definitely not what we want to go by. If I recall SOC, he said something to the effect that anyone who uses wiki for data here (I’m paraphrasing) deserved to be banned (or something to that effect).

Now, as for the opinions and speculations of the SNECMA employee, I must say that while I am sure he is competent at his job and about the engines he works on, he has as little clue about what is going on in China as you or I and his assessment cannot be taken seriously.

JF-17s engine seems on topic to me 😀

as for

I gave you the answer, the wider it is, the higher air throughput capability is has. The whole purpose of an engine is to provide thrust; not to be nice looking or anything like that. The more thrust you get, the better. and if you can do so while occupying a smaller volume, even better (usually allows either for more space in the fuselage for other useful stuff, like fuel for example or allows you to make a more slender fuselage, having less drag) while also reducing the fuel consumption (as you need a similar proportion of fuel per volume of air, the less air you use for a given thrust, the less fuel you burn as well)

One could imagine an A-10 with two RR Trent 1000 engines on top of it (would be a mess to center, but it’s another issue 😀 ) and, if we only look at performance numbers, you’d get the most formidable ground attack aircraft, capable of crazy evolutions (for example, come in low and pull up, fully laden, accelerating to max speed in vertical climb, with something like 70t of static thrust.

However, from aerodynamical and operational PoV, it would be “slightly unpractical”.

One has to understand that the knowledge doesn’t come instantly. it takes time to learn, and the chinese, while progressing fast (they also can use a good part of developments others havbe done in the past to go faster than when that knowledge had to be acquired for the first time), they still have a long way to go to catch up with western powers who went through all that long ago.

Firstly, if you don’t mind and just so that I know who I am speaking with, are you an engineer who has worked on or at least formally studied turbofan engines?

Secondly, how are you so sure about the diameter/performance/techincal details of the WS-13? Are you privy to any official info that I am not? Because as far as I know, details of the WS-13 are at this point urban legends. We are not even certain it will power the JF-17.

A picture of the OV-10 gun

http://www.aero-web.org/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=10052

Some thoughts:

1. the mid mounting seems a more stable location than further forward.
2. does the gun turret turn 360 degrees? Or is it just vertically adjustable?
3. A 20mm gun in that configuration would be devastating for close in work

Except the technology of the J-20 itself is suspect so unless we know the level of advancement in the J-20 we will never know.
And also Stealthy Airframe = F-414 class Engines is a hilarious statement.

Actually the hilarious bit is how much conceit it takes to deny China’s industrial and technological leap forward.

This is an image of the JF-17 HMD:

and this is the Denel system:

One commonality will be that they will both have a swashplate AESA.

The Gripen NG will have a considerably more powerful engine. I don’t think the WS-13 (if it is ready by Block II) will have that range of power. However, presently the RD-93 gets 98 kN (see here)

while the RM-12 only gets 80.5 kN (?)

I give Gripen’s HUD the edge over JF-17’s, though this year JF-17 gets the new F-22 style HUD this is being fitted to J-10 and J-20.

Gripen HUD http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg229/scaled.php?server=229&filename=cockpitgripen.jpg&res=medium

JF-17 HUD http://pafwallpapers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/jf-17_thunder_understanding-_cockpit.jpg

Nice cockpit pictures! I must say the Gripen HUD definitely looks cooler.

A basic comparison of the two aircraft in question:

Thunder:

Length: 14.93 m (49 ft])
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft, including 2 wingtip missiles)
Height: 4.72 m (15 ft 6 inches)
Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,586 kg (14,520 lb)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8

Gripen:

Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg (12,600 lb)
Maximum Speed: Mach 2