Mr Akşit:"We used the 3rd generation of national single crystal turbine blades in the TS1400. We are now developing a more advanced single crystal blade technology"
Where do you get these from?Mr Akşit:"We used the 3rd generation of national single crystal turbine blades in the TS1400. We are now developing a newer generation of single crystal blade technology"
Turkiye won't be developing a third-generation single crystal technology for the TFX engine and will be switching to CMC composite blades in the (far) future. The studies are concentrated on cooling holes/canals, advanced thermal barriers, and advanced production processes like additive manufacturing.
What do you mean ?scalp missiles needs 5.3 KN for around 800-1000 km range,but gezgin will go less than 4kN.It is only possible with reduced warhead and more composite usage on the missile body,
Its 1600 newton means 1.6 kN,unfortunatelyOn the other hand, TEI has TJ1600 (1600 lbf) turbo jet engine project. Nearly 7 KN
Tei doesnt use Newton for coding of TJ engines. They use lbf.ıts 1600 newton means 1.6 kN,unfortunately
tomahawk engine is turbofan its another league.Let us see when gezgin introduced we will learn the exact specs,other than that we can only guess about it,and I hope I was wrong,however long range cruise missiles are very stratejik wepons,so basily more important than the detailed specifications of itsWhat do you mean ?
Even heavy missile like Tomahawk can do just fine with 2.7/3.1kn engine!
scalp missiles needs 5.3 KN for around 800-1000 km range,but gezgin will go less than 4kN.It is only possible with reduced warhead and more composite usage on the missile body,so far our missiles families are more heavy than counterparts,with the exception of SOM J variant,the other way is not to use fuel as a oil for lubrication,but it also adds some weight,overall it depends the range of cruise missile,for example if 600 km is enough and warhead weight reduced thats ok,but this config disappont me.
But jassm had turbojet with 2.7kn thrust only.tomahawk engine is turbofan its another league
No I wasn't mixing up. I was just comparing the thrust to weight ratio of engine and the missile itself.Please do not mix apples and pears.
Tomahawk missile has a turbofan engine.
Kale and Safran engines that propel SOM and Scalp missiles are TurboJet engines.
Turbofan engines are more efficient. Use less fuel and have longer ranges. They are also ideal for flying through denser atmospheric layers. But they are expensive.
TurboJet engines, on the other hand, are cheaper but thirstier with fuel consumption and are really more suited to rarified atmospheric layers.
But when it comes to shorter ranges (less than 1000-1200 km) , inspite of their deficiencies, TurboJet engines are chosen due to their lower price.
I check it out the missiles that there are two type of scalp missiles both are the almost same weight the older one is uses more powerful turbojet and less operational range than the new one(MDCN),so I thought myself that”what the hell is going on“,but reailised that older one is 0.95 mach while the new one ls 0.65 mach,so its a question of preference more range or less time to heat target,if you do not want to sacriface weight of warhead.In my opinion for our country 560 km range with more fast cruise is superior than the 1000 km range with slower missile,because our most important enemy targets are within the 600 km range so fast missile would be the more effective,in terms of first strike to catch up fighter jets on the ground,so we need more powerful turbojet and this approach with the supportive of typhoon SRBM will be irresistable to every anti missile defence systems.High thrust does not guarantee range. The fuel consumption, weight, lubrication mechanism and operating life of the engine reveal the range of the missile. As far as I know The French MDCN missile uses the TR50 engine, which provides a maximum thrust of 3.4kN.
Start with capital letters please.Scalp missiles needs 5.3 KN for around 800-1000 km range,but gezgin will go less than 4kN.It is only possible with reduced warhead and more composite usage on the missile body,so far our missiles families are more heavy than counterparts,with the exception of SOM J variant,the other way is not to use fuel as a oil for lubrication,but it also adds some weight,overall it depends the range of cruise missile,for example if 600 km is enough and warhead weight reduced thats ok,but this config disappont me.
does it mean it can fly up to 17 hours?Nice infographic about KTJ-3200 & KTJ-1750.
View attachment 49770
Yep.does it mean it can fly up to 17 hours?
does it mean it can fly up to 17 hours?
No it can not. But it can operate for 17 hours without breaking. An air vehicle that is powered by one of these engines can not possibly carry enough fuel to fuel it for more than a couple hours let alone 17.Yes, KTJ-3200 can fly up to 17 hours.