What's new

TF-X Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircraft Projects

. .
I wonder that this engine is the chosen one just because we have in our inventory or they think that USA would sell it.


F110 is relatively older in core tech and bigger diameter (almost same with F119 engine F22 uses) compared to F404 and F414 engines. It lacks supercruise capability but generates much bigger thrust in all aspect. The selection of F110 is actually determined about dimension figures of national turbofan engines to be produced in Turkiye. Twin F110 is the reason TF-X reached a length around 19m.
 
. . .
f110 is enough as first start cant we copy it?

It is possible but the most important thing is the metallurgy on turbine blades. In this field, It is almost impossible to copy so The nations have a huge tech and reliability differences on their turbine engines. The process which starts from the engine right through to shutting it off is known as one cycle, and over the engine’s lifetime there are finite number of cycles before something cracks or breaks. The conventional methodology for measuring this lifespan is known as the TAC (Total Accumulated Cycles).

France
Safran M88-4E: 4000 TAC

US
F110GE129E: 6000 TAC
F35 engine (F135): 9400 TAC

Russia
Al-222-25 Russian YAK engine: 600 oberhaul-1200h full lifespan, later upgraded to 1200 to 3000h.
Al-31F Russian Su-30/35engine: 1000h for overhaul and 3000h for full lifespan.

These figures will give you an idea Who is the boss in metallurgy on gas turbine engines.

Turkey reached 2500 TAC figures on TS-1400 engine and studies continue to reach 5000TAC figure with extra cooling and nickel coating technologies.
 
. .
It is possible but the most important thing is the metallurgy on turbine blades. In this field, It is almost impossible to copy so The nations have a huge tech and reliability differences on their turbine engines. The process which starts from the engine right through to shutting it off is known as one cycle, and over the engine’s lifetime there are finite number of cycles before something cracks or breaks. The conventional methodology for measuring this lifespan is known as the TAC (Total Accumulated Cycles).

France
Safran M88-4E: 4000 TAC

US
F110GE129E: 6000 TAC
F35 engine (F135): 9400 TAC

Russia
Al-222-25 Russian YAK engine: 600 oberhaul-1200h full lifespan, later upgraded to 1200 to 3000h.
Al-31F Russian Su-30/35engine: 1000h for overhaul and 3000h for full lifespan.

These figures will give you an idea Who is the boss in metallurgy on gas turbine engines.

Turkey reached 2500 TAC figures on TS-1400 engine and studies continue to reach 5000TAC figure with extra cooling and nickel coating technologies.
2500 TAC is enough if it is cheap and easy to replace:) 9500 Tac engine must be cost 4 times expensive than 2500's one:) by the way i,have learned new term "TAC",THX.
Having learned TAC , i couldn't find any TAC info about russian engines. russians appear not to use TAC, they use TBO.
TAC in Turkish would be kontak ac kapa.
Here is a research about rd33. Yugoslavians found that every 60 TAC mig29 needs service:)
IMG_20200224_004252.jpg


Screenshot_20200224-010134.jpg

IMG_20200224_010449.jpg

The diagram shows that
- in order to secure the maintenance of one F-16C/D aircraft, in the span of 30 years, it
is enough to possess one engine, which will undergo two overhauls;
- in order to secure the maintenance of one Mig-29 aircraft, in the span of 30 years, it is
enough to possess six engines, which will undergo eighteen overhauls.
 

Attachments

  • On-Condition_Maintenance_for_Nonmodular_Jet_Engine.pdf
    453.2 KB · Views: 24
  • 002.pdf
    902.2 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
.
Ah yes, and if anyone from Gulen say, the sky is blue this is wrong or the sky has to be green since Gulen says so?! Anyway, that does not delete any of the mentioned concerns.

At least, it should not be adopt indubitable. I dont talk about intention.
 
.
I admire all your positive thinking, but as long as the engine issue is not solved, there won't be a prototype in 2023, period.

Just take a look when design for the once comparable Korean KF-X - critical design review has been completed in early 2019, prototype is already under construction with the plan to rollout this one in the first half of 2021 and performing a first flight in the first half of 2022 - when they at least decided on an engine quite early in order to define the design. Here there are still discussions about F110 powered prototypes and later one two more different engines. ... if You don't decide what engines, how would you conclude the critical design review?

Engine is already choosen. F110 is choosed and 5 engines already ordered.

Ah yes, and if anyone from Gulen say, the sky is blue this is wrong or the sky has to be green since Gulen says so?! Anyway, that does not delete any of the mentioned concerns.
yes sky is blue but at daytime. What if its sunset? When sun goes down sky is red. What if its night? At night sky is black. Thats the difference between you and a person who uses his brain. You always assume its daytime. You assume sky is always blue
 
.
...yes sky is blue but at daytime. What if its sunset? When sun goes down sky is red. What if its night? At night sky is black. Thats the difference between you and a person who uses his brain. You always assume its daytime. You assume sky is always blue

What a lame argument, since I do surely not. But it seems as if some in the Turkish government, society and also here always simply see "red" when something negative is written and often enough the arguments are not discussed but simply turned down with arguments "that is anti-government, this is from Gulen". So for you each argument against the TFX is proof for the "Sun is always red only"!

Anyway, regardless who said or analysed that the timeline is unrealistic and the overall prospects for the TFX are slim at best, physics, engineering and so on do not care about your biased opinion. They depend on facts, even if you don't like them.

And I promise You, Justin Bronk from RUSI who made this assessment is surely not connected to Gulen.
 
.
Yes TFX program schedule is too optimistic, there are lots of work to done. it is almost impossible to make fleet of TFX in 2030 with full features. First batch(s) of aircraft will sacrifice some features(like T129) but no one would care. The aircraft will fly and we will certainly finish the job.
 
.
What a lame argument, since I do surely not. But it seems as if some in the Turkish government, society and also here always simply see "red" when something negative is written and often enough the arguments are not discussed but simply turned down with arguments "that is anti-government, this is from Gulen". So for you each argument against the TFX is proof for the "Sun is always red only"!

Anyway, regardless who said or analysed that the timeline is unrealistic and the overall prospects for the TFX are slim at best, physics, engineering and so on do not care about your biased opinion. They depend on facts, even if you don't like them.

And I promise You, Justin Bronk from RUSI who made this assessment is surely not connected to Gulen.

I couldn't find anything new by Justin Bronk . Last time he wrote he said, it was fantasy. And it was a bit fantasy in 2017. Program was going very slowly for a long time and it was underfunded. More importantly it was needed after f35 deliveries ended. So there was no hurry since f35 delicious deliverius would go on for a decade. Can you share latest article by him about tfx?
 
.
I couldn't find anything new by Justin Bronk . Last time he wrote he said, it was fantasy. And it was a bit fantasy in 2017. Program was going very slowly for a long time and it was underfunded. More importantly it was needed after f35 deliveries ended. So there was no hurry since f35 delicious deliverius would go on for a decade. Can you share latest article by him about tfx?

Oh yes, again you avoid a decent discussion based on arguments and instead you try to downrate him since he did not publish anything on the TFX's progress ... surely a valid argument, that he must be unreliable!

Another option might simply be that there is NO progress on the TFX since then and he was right with his conclusion?


BY the way, in late March, there is a conference at RUSI concerning "Competing Visions for the Future of Combat Air" and quite surprisingly the TF-X is in no way a topic of this conference. Anyway, I will ask him on any latest progress.
 
Last edited:
.
Oh yes, again you avoid a decent discussion based on arguments and instead you try to downrate him since he did not publish anything on the TFX's progress ... surely a valid argument, that he must be unreliable!

Another option might simply be that there is NO progress on the TFX since then and he was right with his conclusion?


BY the way, in late March, there is a conference at RUSI concerning "Competing Visions for the Future of Combat Air" and quite surprisingly the TF-X is in no way a topic of this conference. Anyway, I will ask him on any latest progress.
Because I want to make decent argument, I asked a serious and geniune question because of a claim/quotation you made. Instead of sharing sources you are keep making new claims. That is not how to make civil discussion.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom