TF-X Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircraft Projects

[-SINAN-]

Turbojet --- easiest, small ones very easy; TFX size, high perfomance, supercruise ones; very hard
Turboshaft, turboprop --- harder than turbojet, easier than turbofan; same level of difficulty between themselves
Turbofan --- hardest; civilian high bypass, fuel efficient ones hardest; low bypass, drone size ones easier.

TEI TJ35, TJ90 >>> micro turbojets
TEI TP38 >>> micro turboprop; 41SHP
Kale Kale-3500 >>> mini turbojet 810 newton max ; optionally mini turboprop 900SHP

Mate, let me elaborate.

Turbojet, Main use in cruise-missiles.
Turboshaft: Helicopter motors. Like T-129's engine LHTEC T800 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turboprop: Turbine engine that powers a propeller. Like A-400M's engine. Europrop TP400 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turbofan.. Is the engine type used by modern Jet fighters.

@xxxKULxxx 's question is;

Whether it should be high powered single engine configuration like Pratt & Whitney F135 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or it should be like twin engine configuration like Pratt & Whitney F119 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engine is going to be a Turbofan make no mistake here.

 

[FutureMe]

Mate, let me elaborate.

Turbojet, Main use in cruise-missiles.
Turboshaft: Helicopter motors. Like T-129's engine
Turboprop: Turbine engine that powers a propeller. Like A-400M's engine.
Turbofan.. Is the engine type used by modern Jet fighters.

@xxxKULxxx 's question is;

Whether it should be high powered single engine configuration like
Or it should be like twin engine configuration like

Engine is going to be a Turbofan make no mistake here.

The engine will be a low bypass; probably a 0.8-1:1 ratio turbofan if it is to be an uptodate engine. But jet fighters originally used turbojet engines. They would be called fanfighters otherwise; woudn't they.

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Whether it should be high powered single engine configuration like Pratt & Whitney F135 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or it should be like twin engine configuration like Pratt & Whitney F119 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engine is going to be a Turbofan make no mistake here.

Yes i know they are both turbofan but i asked it in the meaning of size of the & power of the & fuel efficiency of the engine(s)...

 

[Hakan]

The problem with not having indigenous engines is that you are vulnerable to sanctions from the country where your engines came from. You can have 90% ingenious parts/systems but if the last 10% isn't available the other 90% doesn't mean much when your at war and under sanctions from the engine supplier.

The 90% indigenous parts/systems are important for overall scientific development in a country and they limit the amount of countries that can sanction you because you are importing less parts. In this case only the country that is supplying the engines can effect you with sanctions.

This is essentially the condition of most maybe even all Turkish Defence industry products.

Just because you cant produce the last 10% indigenously doesn't mean you shouldn't produce the other 90% indigenously. All efforts should be made to reach 100%, if you get to 90% its still better than 0%.

 

[-SINAN-]

Yes i know they are both turbofan but i asked it in the meaning of size of the & power of the & fuel efficiency of the engine(s)...

Mate, it's not very much related...It's about how new your technology is.

For instance;

F-16's engine (single engine) F100 has a tw ratio of: 7.8 : 1
Eurofighter's engine (dual engine) EJ200 has a tw ratio of 9.3 : 1
F-35's engine (single engine) F135 has a tw ratio of 11.467 : 1

The newer your technlogy the better your engine. Also it will differ related to your aircraft weight and design.

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Mate, it's not very much related...It's about how new your technology is.

For instance;

F-16's engine (single engine) F100 has a tw ratio of: 7.8 : 1
Eurofighter's engine (dual engine) EJ200 has a tw ratio of 9.3 : 1
F-35's engine (single engine) F135 has a tw ratio of 11.467 : 1

The newer your technlogy the better your engine. Also it will differ related to your aircraft weight and design.

Thx dude...

 

[FutureMe]

Mate, it's not very much related...It's about how new your technology is.

For instance;

F-16's engine (single engine) F100 has a tw ratio of: 7.8 : 1
Eurofighter's engine (dual engine) EJ200 has a tw ratio of 9.3 : 1
F-35's engine (single engine) F135 has a tw ratio of 11.467 : 1

The newer your technlogy the better your engine. Also it will differ related to your aircraft weight and design.

And then there is the issue of how stressed and engine is and how tolerant to failure and how reliable and durable. And how adaptable to certain flight regimes efficiently; read performance limits.

 

[-SINAN-]

The engine will be a low bypass; probably a 0.8-1:1 ratio turbofan if it is to be an uptodate engine.

Mate, you posted this.

Turbojet --- easiest, small ones very easy; TFX size, high perfomance, supercruise ones; very hard
Turboshaft, turboprop --- harder than turbojet, easier than turbofan; same level of difficulty between themselves
Turbofan --- hardest; civilian high bypass, fuel efficient ones hardest; low bypass, drone size ones easier.

Now you are trying to talk about bypass ratios... and you are wrong again.

0:8-1.1 is not a low bypass rate for a jet fighter but it is good for a 1970's Airliners.....

Your modern turbo-fanned engine should have at least 0.3 bypass ratio.

Read about it. Bypass ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But jet fighters originally used turbojet engines. They would be called fanfighters otherwise; woudn't they.

And soldiers used swords in the past, What is your point ?

And then there is the issue of how stressed and engine is and how tolerant to failure and how reliable and durable. And how adaptable to certain flight regimes efficiently; read performance limits.

How it is related tw ratio ? Can you elaborate ?

 

[FutureMe]

Mate, you posted this.



Now you are trying to talk about bypass ratios... and you are wrong again.

0:8-1.1 is not a low bypass rate for a jet fighter but it is good for a 1970's Airliners.....

Your modern turbo-fanned engine should have at least 0.3 bypass ratio.

Read about it




And soldiers used swords in the past, What is your point ?



How it is related tw ratio ? Can you elaborate ?

Dude, you are really extraordinary; seems like you are multitasking making quick searches on the net to give hasty answers. And you are rude and think that the world is turning around you. The numbers you copied from my post don't match the original post. And you are saying at least 0.3 bypass ratio where this number is lower that what I have given. And my answers are not given to counter your arguments but to complement them. TW; the larger the TW the more stressed the engine presumably gets; you ask better performance from a smaller package.

 

[-SINAN-]

Dude, you are really extraordinary; seems like you are multitasking making quick searches on the net to give hasty answers. And you are rude and think that the world is turning around you. The numbers you copied from my post don't match the original post. And you are saying at least 0.3 bypass ratio where this number is lower that what I have given. And my answers are not given to counter your arguments but to complement them. TW; the larger the TW the more stressed the engine presumably gets; you ask better performance from a smaller package.

Yeah, yeah.... i thinkered with your post...

The engine will be a low bypass; probably a 0.8-1:1 ratio turbofan if it is to be an uptodate engine. But jet fighters originally used turbojet engines. They would be called fanfighters otherwise; woudn't they.

Anyways....you are still talking non-sense. Go bother someone else.

 

[xxxKULxxx]

@Sinan @FutureMe

Come on guys... Calm down... This is meaningless... No need for such an arguement...

 

[FutureMe]

Yeah, yeah.... i thinkered with your post...




View attachment 149118

Anyways....you are still talking non-sense. Go bother someone else.

Non-sense?; you are simply worthless. Over and out.

 

[-SINAN-]

I didn't see this.

TW; the larger the TW the more stressed the engine presumably gets; you ask better performance from a smaller package.

Wrong again.

Think about;

1970 Ford Taunus with 2000 cc motor, producing 90 HP.
2014 Golf TSI with 1400 cc motor, producing 170 HP.

Durability of the engine is much more better than the old taurus engine and gives less malfunction. It's not related with size or power to weight ratio.

It's directly related with production techniques , technology etc..

 

[FutureMe]

Dude, you have no manners. I won't be teaching you anything.

 

[-SINAN-]

Dude, you have no manners. I won't be teaching you anything.

Talk about having no manners.