Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[gelgoog]

That would mean that you have to join the two halves by welding perhaps. It is difficult to weld titanium, the quality of the weld is also an extra risk of stress and material fatigue. I doubt there is a point to use 3D printing plus welding than purely forging.

I'd say that either one use 3D printing for the whole piece, or forging, there is no compromised clever alternative. To be honest, US is one of the earlier (than China) runner in the field, Turkey is not. If US still can't do it now and China only did it very recently, there is no chance that Turkey could jump over all these leaders, it is the same thing in engine work, enough time has to be spent before achieving something.

I suspect a larger printer would cost insanely more to acquire because of limited sales. They likely are using this to characterize the production process, test it for viability, and once it is given the go ahead for production and more funding they would buy a larger printer. Since this piece is probably symmetric the full piece shouldn't have much different characteristics. I guess.

Forging is damned expensive so I doubt they have the facilities.

I do not know how viable machining a large block into this shape would be. I know they do it for rocket propellant tanks. You just get a huge slab and drill and grind it down to get to shape. It takes a lot of time and wastes a lot of material though.

This is an isogrid tank wall for a rocket launcher for example. They start from a slab, grind it down by making holes in it, then bend it to shape.

3D printing is the way forward for structures like this.

 

[sequ]

That would mean that you have to join the two halves by welding perhaps. It is difficult to weld titanium, the quality of the weld is also an extra risk of stress and material fatigue. I doubt there is a point to use 3D printing plus welding than purely forging.

I'd say that either one use 3D printing for the whole piece, or forging, there is no compromised clever alternative. To be honest, US is one of the earlier (than China) runner in the field, Turkey is not. If US still can't do it now and China only did it very recently, there is no chance that Turkey could jump over all these leaders, it is the same thing in engine work, enough time has to be spent before achieving something.

I suspect a larger printer would cost insanely more to acquire because of limited sales. They likely are using this to characterize the production process, test it for viability, and once it is given the go ahead for production and more funding they would buy a larger printer. Since this piece is probably symmetric the full piece shouldn't have much different characteristics. I guess.

Forging is damned expensive so I doubt they have the facilities.

I do not know how viable machining a large block into this shape would be. I know they do it for rocket propellant tanks. You just get a huge slab and drill and grind it down to get to shape. It takes a lot of time and wastes a lot of material though.

This is an isogrid tank wall for a rocket launcher for example. They start from a slab, grind it down by making holes in it, then bend it to shape.

3D printing is the way forward for structures like this.

The CEO of TAI said this about it more than a year ago: "The MMU has bigger engine than the two F16 engines. We use a lot of titanium for this. It is necessary to press a titanium piece of five meters by seven meters. A few countries in the world have this press, but they do not press it for us. We will do it with a three-dimensional printer, under vacuum. (...) We are currently purchasing 3D printer titanium technology. Innovation is needed for work that we have cannot do. We cannot go down this (MMU) road without innovation.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[gelgoog]

Yeah I agree. That is what makes most sense for them in the current environment.
Use 3D printing with titanium powder and make it that way. The whole aerospace industry is moving in that direction.
It has the added advantage with the same tooling you can make a quick change to a design and the same tool will still be able to make. It will also use less titanium (an expensive metal) than a subtractive method would.

 

[Deino]

The CEO of TAI said this about it more than a year ago: "The MMU has bigger engine than the two F16 engines. We use a lot of titanium for this. It is necessary to press a titanium piece of five meters by seven meters. A few countries in the world have this press, but they do not press it for us. We will do it with a three-dimensional printer, under vacuum. (...) We are currently purchasing 3D printer titanium technology. Innovation is needed for work that we have cannot do. We cannot go down this (MMU) road without innovation.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Again, you surely will rate this as an offence again, but if the MMU "has bigger engine than the two F16 engines" and it still relies on F110 for the initial phase, it means it will require an even more dramatic re-design than lets say the J-10, J-11 and J-20 switching from AL-31 to WS-10. As such it will take even more time to enter service ... is this so difficult to understand and to accept, that the whole published schedule is impossible to accomplish?

 

[sequ]

but if the MMU "has bigger engine than the two F16 engines" and it still relies on F110 for the initial phase, it means it will require an even more dramatic re-design than lets say the J-10, J-11 and J-20 switching from AL-31 to WS-10.

How are you so sure about this? I don't now of any official weight specs about the WS-10. But by the looks of it and the consistent rumors that it is developed of the same engine core (CFM-56), it is closer in size and weight to the F110 than the Al-31F, which weighs 17-18% less. The indigenous MMU turbofan engine weighs approximately

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the weight difference between it and the F110-GE-129 which will be used in the prototypes and LRIP is ~10-11%.

As such it will take even more time to enter service ... is this so difficult to understand and to accept, that the whole published schedule is impossible to accomplish?

And again, I've proven you wrong. You seem to like it, don't you?

Again, you surely will rate this as an offence again

Nah, not offensive, but ignorant.



On top of that, there have been various thrust figures given for the indigenous turbofan engine. With a weight of 2 tons and a thrust of 30000lb, it'll have a TWR of mere 6.82. At 33000lb, 7.5 and at 35000lb 7.95.

The high engine weight of 2 tons will give the Turkish designers more room to play with which will increase the chance that they will succeed in this endeavor.

Overall I'm more optimistic.

 

[Deino]

How are you so sure about this? I don't now of any official weight specs about the WS-10. But by the looks of it and the consistent rumors that it is developed of the same engine core (CFM-56), it is closer in size and weight to the F110 than the Al-31F, which weighs 17-18% less. The indigenous MMU turbofan engine weighs approximately

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the weight difference between it and the F110-GE-129 which will be used in the prototypes and LRIP is ~10-11%.


And again, I've proven you wrong. You seem to like it, don't you?



Nah, not offensive, but ignorant.



On top of that, there have been various thrust figures given for the indigenous turbofan engine. With a weight of 2 tons and a thrust of 30000lb, it'll have a TWR of mere 6.82. At 33000lb, 7.5 and at 35000lb 7.95.

The high engine weight of 2 tons will give the Turkish designers more room to play with which will increase the chance that they will succeed in this endeavor.

Overall I'm more optimistic.

I think there is eventually a misunderstanding: The question is, does "has bigger engine than the two F16 engines" mean in fact "an engine with a dramatically higher thrust but around the same dimensions" then you are correct, but if it means indeed "has bigger engine in terms of diameter, length and so on than the two F16 engines", then it surely means there is a redesign from prototypes (using F110 engines) to serial varian (using "bigger engine than the two F16 engines") Or am I wrong.

As such, overall I'm less optimistic.

Concerning the WS-10/AL-31FN comparison, you are correct, but I'm sure when the WS-10 was developed, it was the clear intention to build it around the same specifications to easily make it interchangeable.

 

[james smith esq]

I think there is eventually a misunderstanding: The question is, does "has bigger engine than the two F16 engines" mean in fact "an engine with a dramatically higher thrust but around the same dimensions" then you are correct, but if it means indeed "has bigger engine in terms of diameter, length and so on than the two F16 engines", then it surely means there is a redesign from prototypes (using F110 engines) to serial varian (using "bigger engine than the two F16 engines") Or am I wrong.

As such, overall I'm less optimistic.

Concerning the WS-10/AL-31FN comparison, you are correct, but I'm sure when the WS-10 was developed, it was the clear intention to build it around the same specifications to easily make it interchangeable.

Maybe, by reducing interest rates, they’ll also reduce engine dimensions; it works for inflation, right!

 

[sequ]

but if it means indeed "has bigger engine in terms of diameter, length and so on than the two F16 engines", then it surely means there is a redesign from prototypes (using F110 engines) to serial varian (using "bigger engine than the two F16 engines")

So what? It's already been stated that the engine and plane development is going parallel: "According to the information obtained from the TR Motor Power Systems official, with whom we had the opportunity to meet at the company stand during Teknofest Istanbul 2019 September 17-22, 2019, the Conceptual Design Phase for the MMU/TF-X Engine was ongoing, and the engine development/design work was being carried out in parallel (rubber to rubber) and in coordination with the aircraft development."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Concerning the WS-10/AL-31FN comparison, you are correct, but I'm sure when the WS-10 was developed, it was the clear intention to build it around the same specifications to easily make it interchangeable.

Not according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

: "A full-scale

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was built in 1991. The first prototype was set to fly in 1996, powered by a newly developed WS-10A turbofan based on the CFM56 engine core technology. However the development of this indigenous engine suffered serious difficulties and thus the rear fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned in order to accommodate an alternative AL-31FN engine imported from Russia."

Either lurk more or ask questions in a less 'fest' way. I'll happily try to answer genuine questions at my best ability.

 

[Deino]

So what? It's already been stated that the engine and plane development is going parallel: "According to the information obtained from the TR Motor Power Systems official, with whom we had the opportunity to meet at the company stand during Teknofest Istanbul 2019 September 17-22, 2019, the Conceptual Design Phase for the MMU/TF-X Engine was ongoing, and the engine development/design work was being carried out in parallel (rubber to rubber) and in coordination with the aircraft development."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

: "A full-scale

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was built in 1991. The first prototype was set to fly in 1996, powered by a newly developed WS-10A turbofan based on the CFM56 engine core technology. However the development of this indigenous engine suffered serious difficulties and thus the rear fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned in order to accommodate an alternative AL-31FN engine imported from Russia."

Either lurk more or ask questions in a less 'fest' way. I'll happily try to answer genuine questions at my best ability.

Why do you always rate ANYTHING you could rate in a "fest way" as an insult?? You yourself claimed it will have a bigger engine and as such a question, that this requires a redesign that in the end will lengthen the development and certification process is a most logical one.

In return you are again divert to the AL-31 & WS-10 issue which is irrelevant and surely there were some redesigns necessary, no-one denies this and well known since you need to adjust the intake for airflow, different mass and whatever. But anyway and this you cannot deny, both engines share more or less the same dimensions in order to make them interchangeable. So eventually You see, even with a dimensional-wise similar engine, there are still issues to be solved than may cause problems.

However you still want to portray again that Turkey, that hasn't developed or built neither an engine nor a fighter will build a prototype using a smaller engine, develop this "larger than ..." engine in parallel, fit this larger engine into the same airframe without major airframe changes and still get all this done without any issues and delays in less time any other country before?

Wake up man.... but surely this again is rated an offence.

 

[Deino]

Mother of all shifting the goalposts+strawman...

Arguing and discussing is not your strong point?

You yourself said "bigger engine than F-16" ... so why is this an unjustified question?