TR Propulsion Systems

[Zafer]

With the TEI-TS1400 recording 1740 hp max power a 3 engine system is even more possible now. If a 3000 hp class domestic engine is not considered for the near term a 3 engine system is the solution.

 

[I_Love_F16]

With the TEI-TS1400 recording 1740 hp max power a 3 engine system is even more possible now. If a 3000 hp class domestic engine is not considered for the near term a 3 engine system is the solution.

Isn’t it when the engine is in emergency mode ? Limited to 30 seconds max or something like that.

 

[Zafer]

Isn’t it when the engine is in emergency mode ? Limited to 30 seconds max or something like that.

Yes it is but it also means that its regular power output may be increased too as the engine can take more pain and still stand. Its previous limit was 1665 hp, so if there is a 80 hp increase in the max power there maybe a commensurate increase in regular power. 3 x 80 = 240 hp total increase in max power probably translates to ~200 hp increase in regular output. Regardless of whether there is a power increase or not a 3 engine configuration maybe the only option for Türkiye in the short to medium term, so why wait when you can make it happen in a couple of years.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Isn’t it when the engine is in emergency mode ? Limited to 30 seconds max or something like that.

TS1400 is a 1400HP class turboshaft engine. Hence its specified safe continuous power delivery will be below 1400HP. But it’s safe 5 minute take off maximum power level will be around or may be slightly more than 1400HP.
These engines are subjected to extreme power demands during take off and in emergency landing situations whereby a single engine operation may be required. Therefore it is a necessary requirement that they should be able to deliver a great deal more power to help achieve safe landing on demand.

Below is the FAA paper on the subject of OEI 30 second and 2 minute max power operational condition.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/33-7A.pdf

Our TS1400 is already developing some 10% more continuous power than the LHTEC engine it is replacing which has a specified continuous take off power delivery of 1373HP.
But it has to be remembered that as an inherent situation with this size of radial flow turboshaft engine performance, the number of compressor stages are limited to two, and the output power delivery is thus limited. Continuous power delivery of these engines will not exceed around 1500HP.

Below is the table of LHTEC-CTS800-4N engine specified as a 1363HP maximum take off power engine and EASA certification test data sheet where the OEI and other power levels are given as :

OEI 30 sec. : 1620HP
OEI 2 min : 1486 HP
Continuous OIE : 1360 HP
Take-off 5 min : 1360 HP
Max continuous : 1281 HP

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7601/en

It is the same case where TEI is building under licence the T700 Blackhawk engines.
These engines are classified as 2000HP engines. But they continuously deliver 1716HP. Yet they have continuous max take off power of 1994HP.

https://www.tei.com.tr/en/projects/ait-mro/t700-tei-701d-2584

In short ; you can’t make a donkey behave like a horse.

 

[I_Love_F16]

TS1400 is a 1400HP class turboshaft engine. Hence its specified safe continuous power delivery will be below 1400HP. But it’s safe 5 minute take off maximum power level will be around or may be slightly more than 1400HP.
These engines are subjected to extreme power demands during take off and in emergency landing situations whereby a single engine operation may be required. Therefore it is a necessary requirement that they should be able to deliver a great deal more power to help achieve safe landing on demand.

Below is the FAA paper on the subject of OEI 30 second and 2 minute max power operational condition.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/33-7A.pdf

Our TS1400 is already developing some 10% more continuous power than the LHTEC engine it is replacing which has a specified continuous take off power delivery of 1373HP.
But it has to be remembered that as an inherent situation with this size of radial flow turboshaft engine performance, the number of compressor stages are limited to two, and the output power delivery is thus limited. Continuous power delivery of these engines will not exceed around 1500HP.

Below is the table of LHTEC-CTS800-4N engine specified as a 1363HP maximum take off power engine and EASA certification test data sheet where the OEI and other power levels are given as :

OEI 30 sec. : 1620HP
OEI 2 min : 1486 HP
Continuous OIE : 1360 HP
Take-off 5 min : 1360 HP
Max continuous : 1281 HP

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7601/en

It is the same case where TEI is building under licence the T700 Blackhawk engines.
These engines are classified as 2000HP engines. But they continuously deliver 1716HP. Yet they have continuous max take off power of 1994HP.

https://www.tei.com.tr/en/projects/ait-mro/t700-tei-701d-2584

Would be great if TEI decides to develop a 3000HP engine. But resources are limited, I guess. Turkey needs to be completely independent engines wise. It is one of our key weaknesses.

 

[Zafer]

Would be great if TEI decides to develop a 3000HP engine. But resources are limited, I guess. Turkey needs to be completely independent engines wise. It is one of our key weaknesses.

TEI have not finished taking their first engine through its paces yet. Once they are done with it by completing civilian certification and probably making a military version of it they will feel more comfortable starting development of a bigger engine.

 

[uçuyorum]

Once TEI starts selling serial production engines, especially TS1400 either on platform or by itself, particularly for export, and starts to solidify its revenue stream, I imagine it will have much easier time with projects.

 

[boredaf]

Once TEI starts selling serial production engines, especially TS1400 either on platform or by itself, particularly for export, and starts to solidify its revenue stream, I imagine it will have much easier time with projects.

With Gökbey, sure they'll find some buyers, but who is going to just buy the engine and doesn't have access to engines from the West or Russia or China?

 

[Saithan]

TS1400 is a 1400HP class turboshaft engine. Hence its specified safe continuous power delivery will be below 1400HP. But it’s safe 5 minute take off maximum power level will be around or may be slightly more than 1400HP.
These engines are subjected to extreme power demands during take off and in emergency landing situations whereby a single engine operation may be required. Therefore it is a necessary requirement that they should be able to deliver a great deal more power to help achieve safe landing on demand.

Below is the FAA paper on the subject of OEI 30 second and 2 minute max power operational condition.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/33-7A.pdf

Our TS1400 is already developing some 10% more continuous power than the LHTEC engine it is replacing which has a specified continuous take off power delivery of 1373HP.
But it has to be remembered that as an inherent situation with this size of radial flow turboshaft engine performance, the number of compressor stages are limited to two, and the output power delivery is thus limited. Continuous power delivery of these engines will not exceed around 1500HP.

Below is the table of LHTEC-CTS800-4N engine specified as a 1363HP maximum take off power engine and EASA certification test data sheet where the OEI and other power levels are given as :

OEI 30 sec. : 1620HP
OEI 2 min : 1486 HP
Continuous OIE : 1360 HP
Take-off 5 min : 1360 HP
Max continuous : 1281 HP

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7601/en

It is the same case where TEI is building under licence the T700 Blackhawk engines.
These engines are classified as 2000HP engines. But they continuously deliver 1716HP. Yet they have continuous max take off power of 1994HP.

https://www.tei.com.tr/en/projects/ait-mro/t700-tei-701d-2584

In short ; you can’t make a donkey behave like a horse.

If I understand correctly TS1400 delivers 1540hp in extreme conditions if those 10% extra are included, but if the tonnage of a helicopter are similar doesn’t that mean the LTECH is better since it delivers 15% more in extreme conditions.

what I want to know is if LTECH delivers more HP in extreme conditions doesn’t that mean the fall/descend of the helicopter is slower than TS1400 that only delivers 10% extra. It’s been a while since I had physics, but the kinetic energy of something falling faster vs something falling slower would be different, right ?

 

[uçuyorum]

With Gökbey, sure they'll find some buyers, but who is going to just buy the engine and doesn't have access to engines from the West or Russia or China?

I remember hearing Mahmut Akşit in some interview talking about interest

 

[Yasar_TR]

If I understand correctly TS1400 delivers 1540hp in extreme conditions if those 10% extra are included, but if the tonnage of a helicopter are similar doesn’t that mean the LTECH is better since it delivers 15% more in extreme conditions.

what I want to know is if LTECH delivers more HP in extreme conditions doesn’t that mean the fall/descend of the helicopter is slower than TS1400 that only delivers 10% extra. It’s been a while since I had physics, but the kinetic energy of something falling faster vs something falling slower would be different, right ?

We are doing guesswork here.
Including Dr Aksit many people give different values of power ratings for the TS1400.
But to have achieved an OEI 30 second power rating of 1740HP means that our TS1400 is actually developing more power than the LHTEC engine .
TEI, on their site gives an OEI 30sec power delivery of 1660HP. So evidently whilst being improved all the time they managed to get higher power output from that engine.

Dr Aksit himself had stated that our TS1400 was able to develop more than 100HP when compared to the US engine.
Most engine manufacturers state the 5min maximum take off power. If you take that in to consideration than 10% increase will mean 1496HP for TS1400.

One thing is clear ; Our engine is more powerful. The rest and the calculations are guesswork.

 

[Huelague]

We are doing guesswork here.
Including Dr Aksit many people give different values of power ratings for the TS1400.
But to have achieved an OEI 30 second power rating of 1740HP means that our TS1400 is actually developing more power than the LHTEC engine .
TEI, on their site gives an OEI 30sec power delivery of 1660HP. So evidently whilst being improved all the time they managed to get higher power output from that engine.

Dr Aksit himself had stated that our TS1400 was able to develop more than 100HP when compared to the US engine.
Most engine manufacturers state the 5min maximum take off power. If you take that in to consideration than 10% increase will mean 1496HP for TS1400 .

One thing is clear ; Our engine is more powerful. The rest and the calculations are guesswork.

...and less consumption of fuel.

 

[TheInsider]

It is really good to see EASA tests are progressing smoothly. Hopefully TS-1400 can pass all EASA tests this year (EASA should send experts for tests more frequently) and TS-1400 mass production can start in 2025.

 

[Joe mark]

TEI-TF6000

 

[Shtr]

Any information regarding progress?

 

[huseyin242]

Any information regarding progress?

They changed the tei website tf6000 now shows a different picture

 

[Samba]

They changed the tei website tf6000 now shows a different picture

The recent one looks more like from a production engine, more realistic, and a photo of the engine itself rather than a render or mockup.

This is good news...

 

[Yasar_TR]

It is difficult to understand what TEI is up to by following them from their site, and the news reports they publish or the interviews they give. But as @huseyin242 rightfully mentions the engines look more like the real prototypes now.
These are the two pictures they have of the tf6k and tf10k engines:

If we look at the specs of respective two engines :

The tf6k engine has a standard fixed convergent type nozzle.
The tf10k engine has a convergent/divergent class nozzle akin with a supersonic flight engine.

There however seems to be some confusing data here that clash with Dr Aksit’s own statements.
If we remind ourselves about his statement that the relation between engine diameter and thrust level being directly related, it is hard to think that this engine is going to develop only 6000lbf thrust.
The tf10k engine diameter is almost same as the GE-F404 engine diameter that can develop 11000lbf dry thrust.
We know that the GE-F404 engine‘s diameter is 89cm and it’s fan inlet diameter is 79cm. But we don’t know the fan inlet diameter of our TF6K. But looking at the over all engine diameters of the two, it is logical to presume they too are similar. The only differences between the two are in their lengths, whereby the f404 is 391cm in length, when our tf10k is 315cm. Yet F404GE-100D which is the non AB version, has a length of 226cm which is almost identical to tf6k’s. .

MotorSich’s AI322F engine’s fan inlet diameter is 62.4cm. It can develop 5500lbf thrust.

The bypass ratio of our engine is slightly higher. But if the fan diameters are similar, the thrust developed by our engine should be comparable to the F404’s. I really would like someone to direct this question to Dr Aksit’s way.

I would also like to know @Nilgiri ’s views on the subject.

Just to add as an extra information, in case of F414; the F404’s inlet fan diameter was slightly enlarged to increase airflow by 16%, giving the F414’s both dry and wet thrust levels an increase by approximately the same amount.

Edit
Just noticed the bypass ratio difference between the TF6K engine and the TF10K engine being 1:1.08 to 1:1 respectively.

 

[Nilgiri]

It is difficult to understand what TEI is up to by following them from their site, and the news reports they publish or the interviews they give. But as @huseyin242 rightfully mentions the engines look more like the real prototypes now.
These are the two pictures they have of the tf6k and tf10k engines:

View attachment 69365

View attachment 69366

If we look at the specs of respective two engines :

View attachment 69367

View attachment 69368

The tf6k engine has a standard fixed convergent type nozzle.
The tf10k engine has a convergent/divergent class nozzle akin with a supersonic flight engine.

There however seems to be some confusing data here that clash with Dr Aksit’s own statements.
If we remind ourselves about his statement that the relation between engine diameter and thrust level being directly related, it is hard to think that this engine is going to develop only 6000lbf thrust.
The tf10k engine diameter is almost same as the GE-F404 engine diameter that can develop 11000lbf dry thrust.
We know that the GE-F404 engine‘s diameter is 89cm and it’s fan inlet diameter is 79cm. But we don’t know the fan inlet diameter of our TF6K. But looking at the over all engine diameters of the two, it is logical to presume they too are similar. The only differences between the two are in their lengths, whereby the f404 is 391cm in length, when our tf10k is 315cm. Yet F404GE-100D which is the non AB version, has a length of 226cm which is almost identical to tf6k’s. .

MotorSich’s AI322F engine’s fan inlet diameter is 62.4cm. It can develop 5500lbf thrust.

The bypass ratio of our engine is slightly higher. But if the fan diameters are similar, the thrust developed by our engine should be comparable to the F404’s. I really would like someone to direct this question to Dr Aksit’s way.

I would also like to know @Nilgiri ’s views on the subject.

Just to add as an extra information, in case of F414; the F404’s inlet fan diameter was slightly enlarged to increase airflow by 16%, giving the F414’s both dry and wet thrust levels an increase by approximately the same amount.

If the dry variant models are pretty much similar physically from what we can tell so far, I wouldn't worry about the AB addition lengths all that much.

The GE 404 was design driven pretty singlehandedly by the F-18 "apex" versions/variants regarding this, so its AB is pretty long + robust as result for the apexes here (i.e "overdesigned" backward compatibility and redundancy for platforms with lower needs is easier and benefits economy of scale etc....rather than other way around where you commit time and resource for developing various AB variants each time....as basically F-18 is expected to rule the roost for number production and others, esp single engine platforms.... can just make do if its close enough regd basic mainstream parameters compared to AB thrust/performance driven by the biggest production guy).

Superhornet ofc had to be met with F414 as it had higher dry thrust requirements....so that was the whole need to evolve it from F404 like you describe.....but the F404 (and any engine really) is always designed from get go with this in mind (whats the maximum fan it can handle....for x y z penalties/costs imposed in the tradeoff).

If TF10k is largely design driven optimised to say Hurjet class for its first major application etc, a slightly smaller AB is indicative of this i.e you dont expect to operate the engine at full AB quite as long and thus dont need to saddle it with those requirements/penalties/costs.

i.e hurjet driven front and centre probably best approach for turkish Military industrial complex planning right now in this class of engine.... I mean it boils down to what the best TAF guys probably said as to what isnt really used with the current 404 on the hurjet....the pros and cons of its current afterburner and so on.

 

[Oublious]