You are trying to distort what I am actually saying to create an argumentative case. If you are an engineer you will undrestand what I mean.
If the bottom and top limit is between 1400K and 1800K, then usually the mean temperature is where the engine works at optimum conditions. When you are an engineer you produce a part that will operate at higher specs than needed to give consistency and longer life to that part. That turbine blade may withstand 1800Kelvin. But at that temperature it’s life will be shorter. You test the part you have produced and set a spec for optimum usage.
They must have checked this and found that to achieve a long life with the turbine blades at top power level, 1400Degrees Celcius (which is 1573Kelvin) gives the 1600HP this engine delivers. Hence, they have been quoting the top 1400degrees Celsius as turbine temperature level to the media. When the engine coasts at cruising speeds under minimum load and power output, the turbine temperatures would be much lower. Ask any pilot how much life they take out of an engine’s life each time they do a somersault. This is when they push the blades way beyond their limits.
Essentially its normal distribution in play.
Folks are still using temperatures implying some kind of binary ability/non-ability that you "reach" like some milestone with SX + cooling.
An X temperature proven mean does not suddenly stop working at higher (X+Y) temperature (unless its well past say ~ 70% of melting point seen by the SX superalloy material).
Rather you will just start to take an operational penalty (and it can be overall costly one for the larger system downtime frequency + availability that is bounded to its propulsion package).
The distribution (creep intensity condition 1 vs intensity 2 with same base "quality") will shift somewhat similar to comparing two different "qualities" of gas turbine (with say same creep intensity profile applied) as I presented ad-hoc earlier in this other thread:
TEI is providing parts to the main engine manufacturers for 50 different types of military and commercial engine programs. So yes there is nothing preventing us from cooperating with Ukraine. All I am telling is, the negotiations with GE marine has changed the structure of potanial cooperation...
defencehub.live
(along with the other replies/context in that thread)
There is then a further integral (depending on expected times spent at various temps + conditions) to get an overall "expected" (its why some gas turbines and jet engines dont need this much rigour and cost)
Minimizing that shift is not a trivial task as it is not linear issue (as I gave with the ant vs human analogy earlier) when you increase the size of the engine.
In fact it is mostly a summation of non-linear issues. This is why cooling strategies become commensurately more difficult whatever SX tier you have at the blade core itself.
Soundbites are not substitutes for the comprehensive approach needed. Latter can only be proven in hindsight.
There is no "there will be more real estate on the blade" so its "easier".
In fact I can go through each issue somewhat one by one later, if there is interest and time and scope for it in this thread.
Not just creep and cooling needs cascading.... but also other low cycle and high cycle fatigue feedback loops (on the blade becoming more complicated and also a vital + expensive aircraft that needs to be entirely downtimed if the engine is down).
The sensitivity analysis of various failure modes as it relates to operational MRO and thus the long term cost/viability (why a tip failure can be fixed a number of times without needing entire blade replacement....whereas shank failure needs replacement).
Corrosion, coating failure propensity, repair methods available.... you name it (for the overall cost and viability scope compared to smaller blade of smaller engine).
There is a reason we are at an apex generally speaking with jet engines ) in general (i.e why can't we just keep scaling them up to larger and larger sizes, since we can surely just keep cooling more and adding TBC more to a larger and larger SX blade surely?...to deal with the higher and higher Turb inlet temp et al.).
We are at the physical limit of this tech more or less given the basic physics thresholds of the materials involved themselves.
Every advancement is not linear like before, its highly non-linear investment to gain less (diminishing returns) of whats left in brayton cycle.
