3 ms·

1800C° or 1800K° I wonder. As far as I know, 1800C° turbine inlet temperature sounds completely unrealistic.

trhway 5y ago
> 1800C° turbine inlet temperature sounds completely unrealistic the current max is 1600C with cooled monocrystal blades. The 1800C seems to be a worthy goal post in this situation. More advanced cooling and/or say some tungsten composite for example. Even if they end up with "just" 1700C it would still be great. Wrt. 6th gen in general - it looks what everybody is doing is just targeting the goal posts just a bit behind the 5th (some are even basically skipping the 5th). That actually would give us the 5+th gen. The true 6th will have totally new capabilities plus of course all this advanced 5+th tech as a base. Currently it seems to me that autonomous/AI will be that new capability (on top of much improved engines, radar/sensors, stealth body). This will also as usually differentiate top players possessing the next gen capabilities from the rest wannabes.
credit_guy 5y ago
They say 3272 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1800 degrees Celsius. This does appear to be achievable using the ceramic matrix composite (CMC) technology, more precisely the continuous fiber reinforced ceramic matrix composite [1]. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/678/1/012043/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/678/1/0...
dogma1138 5y ago
1800K is still 1.6Kc so that isn’t realistic for intake temperature either. At Mach3 the SR-71 airframe got to just under 500c at the hotspots. The reentry temperature of the space shuttle peaked at around 1600c. 1.6-1.7K is the temperature of modern afterburners so if 1800c/k is a figure of anything it would be that. That said the turbine entry temperature for modern jet engines is about 800c so maybe the 1 was a typo.
- baybal2 5y ago
  These are very different things. An sacrificial ablative coating which survives 1800C° is different from a turbine spinning 25000RPM doing the same for thousands of hours.
NathanielK 5y ago
It's not degree-Kelvin, it's just Kelvin. The article's been updated to clarify, but if it only said 1,800 degrees, it'd likely be referring to degree Celsius.

> 1800C° turbine inlet temperature sounds completely unrealistic the current max is 1600C with cooled monocrystal blades. The 1800C seems to be a worthy goal post in this situation. More advanced cooling and/or say some tungsten composite for example. Even if they end up with "just" 1700C it would still be great. Wrt. 6th gen in general - it looks what everybody is doing is just targeting the goal posts just a bit behind the 5th (some are even basically skipping the 5th). That actually would give us the 5+th gen. The true 6th will have totally new capabilities plus of course all this advanced 5+th tech as a base. Currently it seems to me that autonomous/AI will be that new capability (on top of much improved engines, radar/sensors, stealth body). This will also as usually differentiate top players possessing the next gen capabilities from the rest wannabes.

credit_guy 5y ago

They say 3272 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1800 degrees Celsius. This does appear to be achievable using the ceramic matrix composite (CMC) technology, more precisely the continuous fiber reinforced ceramic matrix composite [1]. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/678/1/012043/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/678/1/0...

dogma1138 5y ago

1800K is still 1.6Kc so that isn’t realistic for intake temperature either. At Mach3 the SR-71 airframe got to just under 500c at the hotspots. The reentry temperature of the space shuttle peaked at around 1600c. 1.6-1.7K is the temperature of modern afterburners so if 1800c/k is a figure of anything it would be that. That said the turbine entry temperature for modern jet engines is about 800c so maybe the 1 was a typo.

baybal2 5y ago
These are very different things. An sacrificial ablative coating which survives 1800C° is different from a turbine spinning 25000RPM doing the same for thousands of hours.

NathanielK 5y ago

It's not degree-Kelvin, it's just Kelvin. The article's been updated to clarify, but if it only said 1,800 degrees, it'd likely be referring to degree Celsius.