TEI said that PD222 will be ready next year, so probably they will install it by 2022 in production line in case there is an order... but i think Turkey doesnt need it as it has Aksungur.
I believe you mean piston engine.
hahah i actually wanted to say diesel engine.. as male class mostly use it, or as you mentioned it could also be piston, simply, it has to be a jet engine to have the speed to fire air to air missiles. otherwise, you need to put booster to those missiles that increase the cost of it..
Can you show your actual calculations?
Of course....
www.baykarsavunma.com
We need various air vehicles to cover the whole range of speed capabilities.Of course....
My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.
For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.
BAYKAR Teknoloji
Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR
For engines, I thought it was for 750hp X 2 version as they use it in the prototypes.
We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.
In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because its cubed.
It can also be seen in this graph:
After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.
So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.
450*2=900
750*2=1500
1500/900= 1.66... cube root is 1.18
170x1.18= 200 knots
If the speed was 190 knots (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.
The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...
Okay, got it. We disregard everything, like air density, drag, propeller efficiency, weight differences between variants and just look at speed. and not even calculating the drag with in the function of speed. As long as we understand this has hugee tolerance in calculation, we are good.Of course....
My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.
For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.
BAYKAR Teknoloji
Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR
For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.
We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.
In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.
It can also be seen in this graph:
After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.
So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.
450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18
170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots
If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.
The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...
Edit:
Fixed this part:
"For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"
If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.
Actually drag x speed would equal to net required power (to be transmitted efficiently from propeller against the drag) , we do it in a such way for the ships and then calculate required installed power with assumption of loss and efficiency coefficients (propeller efficiency, propeller + hull efficiency, shaft +bearing +gearbox losses, engine losses etc). So from my point of view such calculations would be only accurate if assumes the net power,not the installed one.
. @NilgiriI was about to say that, You have Cl, lift and Cd drag in aircraft. So you are using a percent of the drag force for lift. Drag x speed won't be the required power. Cd would be the aerodynamical force against aircraft.Actually drag x speed would equal to net required power (to be transmitted efficiently from propeller against the drag) , we do it in a such way for the ships and then calculate required installed power with assumption of loss and efficiency coefficients (propeller efficiency, propeller + hull efficiency, shaft +bearing +gearbox losses, engine losses etc). So from my point of view such calculations would be only accurate if assumes the net power,not the installed one.
In a general way i think if equations right it would work for the estimations with safe loss estimations. I don't really know much about aircrafts since they also need a lift and prevent from stall,while ships doesn't
Of course....
My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.
For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.
BAYKAR Teknoloji
Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR
For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.
We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.
In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.
It can also be seen in this graph:
After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.
So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.
450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18
170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots
If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.
The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...
Edit:
Fixed this part:
"For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"
If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.
Hey, thanks for the compliment and additional explanations.
