TR UAV/UCAV Programs | Anka - series | Kızılelma | TB - series

[Brokengineer]

I really Wonder how high this drone can operate with something like 4 mam l bombs. If it reaches around 30 to 35kft, then it is very well done with the Tei engine.
Probably current pd170 is in use due to ongoing developments in pd222 which has much higher take of power which would allow tb3 to take off from tcg Anadolu with some payload perhaps.

 

[Huelague]

lol that thing is learning to fly yesterday...

No.

 

[Zafer]

I really Wonder how high this drone can operate with something like 4 mam l bombs. If it reaches around 30 to 35kft, then it is very well done with the Tei engine.
Probably current pd170 is in use due to ongoing developments in pd222 which has much higher take of power which would allow tb3 to take off from tcg Anadolu with some payload perhaps.

We have no clue how much power the TB3 needs to take off from the Anadolu but if it lacks power some cable tug assist will work wonders. A more powerful engine if the TB3 ever needs one will rid the assist cables but is not absolutely necessary.

 

[Rodeo]

We have no clue how much power the TB3 needs to take off from the Anadolu but if it lacks power some cable tug assist will work wonders. A more powerful engine if the TB3 ever needs one will rid the assist cables but is not absolutely necessary.

Mojave's MTOW is 3000 kg(2 times the TB3's) and its engine produces 450 hp(2 times the power output of PD222, 2x225hp). If we assume the requirements are changing linearly for small differences then PD222 makes more sense. It's oversimplified but gives the ballpark.

 

[Zafer]

The TB3 is expected to join the Navy ranks in a month but is it like the TB3 will be deployed earlier then expected, I don't think so. It still needs to learn to land on Anadolu nicely before it can be fully operational on the ship. But the earlier the delivery the earlier the Navy will familiarize itself with the plane and be prepared for deployment. I think the TB3 can be used for ISR duties initially and after that it can be launched from the ship but would land on land based airstrips. In this way when you can deploy 10 TB3 on the ship you get a chance of 10 sorties to targets with full payload during an expedition. This will give the navy a taste of what TB3 will bring before it is fully deployed on the ship.

 

[Anmdt]

Mojave's MTOW is 3000 kg(2 times the TB3's) and its engine produces 450 hp(2 times the power output of PD222, 2x225hp). If we assume the requirements are changing linearly for small differences then PD222 makes more sense. It's oversimplified but gives the ballpark.

We may also check Mojave's operational range chart. (Given with respect to payload and take off distance-limiting fuel payload). In the STOL mode it gets 4 to 6 hours of ISR capability, unarmed.

It was going to be PD180 but likely they (Navy) noticed it doesn't worth the +8HP continous and -4 kg for -15HP @30k feet. PD180 is a nice engine but didn't fit this, has a great export potential nonetheless.

Same applies for PD222ST, +1kg, -15HP @30k feet but +50HP @ take off and +30HP @ continous @ 20k feet. Suits for STOL but not high altitude operations.

(Numbers given with respect to PD170DT's specs).

Looks like PD180 was omitted with the given weight figures and it was found more logical to apply pressure on Baykar to reduce weight of the platform (which they did, greater than what PD180 has provided).

I am assured there will be PD222ST variant on TB3 and there will be two kinds of TB3 on Anadolu. One for ISR @30k, another for strike at @20-25k feet. If there happens to be a PD222/5DT then these two platforms may be commonized. But TEI is busy with projects and may not be able to spare enough time for the certification processes of all programs. So i assume in mid term we will have mix of PD170/222, starting with PD170.

Based on Navy's habit of commonization we may also see TB-2 being handed over to another operator, or a friendly country and all replaced with Land based TB3.

 

[cr33pt3d]

what about the PD300 ? what platform is it for ?

 

[Zafer]

what about the PD300 ? what platform is it for ?

View attachment 63141

PD300 is a little on the weak side for Akıncı and on the strong side for Aksungur. There seems to be no existing platform that this new engine is made to perfectly match. It is more of a project to take the PD170 to the extremes I guess. There is not really any information about it. However a new platform should be made to make use of this engine's full capability. If it is light enough which seems to be so it can even be used for VTOL aircarft. Like helicopters and compound helicopters that have both helicopter and plane features. Also civilian sector should catch up to use such engines. Some companies had seaplane development work in the past.

EDIT: I have just noticed that the PD300's full name is TEI-PD300H, with the H designation in the end a helicopter platform seems to be what is in mind. A 1500kg MTOW helicopter can fly with one of these engines which means 6 seats including one for a pilot. Wonderful !

EDIT: This also means that this engine is tuned for low altitude like 20k ft max rather than a high 30k ft.

 

[boredaf]

Based on Navy's habit of commonization we may also see TB-2 being handed over to another operator, or a friendly country and all replaced with Land based TB3.

TB3 would make more sense for Navy even if used from land with its heavier payload capacity.

 

[BaburKhan]

Satelite Comunication is a big Advantage of TB-3 over TB-2, also to mention higher Payload Capacity.

 

[UkroTurk]

Launching UAV

We have no clue how much power the TB3 needs to take off from the Anadolu but if it lacks power some cable tug assist will work wonders. A more powerful engine if the TB3 ever needs one will rid the assist cables but is not absolutely necessary.

I think take off and landing of piston engine powered aircrafts ( also TB-2/3 have long wings for low stalling speed) immensely bounded to weather conditions, wind speed thus Naval Operational use of TB-3 could be limited.

However we don't know the limitations could effect on ordinary missions of Turkish Navy.

TB-3 is not a jet powered heavy aircraft like F-18.

 

[Zafer]

Launching UAV
I think take off and landing of piston engine powered aircrafts ( also TB-2/3 have long wings for low stalling speed) immensely bounded to weather conditions, wind speed thus Naval Operational use of TB-3 could be limited.

However we don't know the limitations could effect on ordinary missions of Turkish Navy.

TB-3 is not a jet powered heavy aircraft like F-18.

What we know for sure is TB3 has flown in 130 kmh winds taking off from land. Off course landing back on the ship will be challenging, still some machine learning and AI will probably assist in such a feat. I have seen videos of smll drones flying in stormy weather, but it will take a lot of tuning to get there. With 1450kg take of weight TB3 has quite a bit of heft to stand some wind, I would say.

 

[UkroTurk]

What we know for sure is TB3 has flown in 130 kmh winds taking off from land. Off course landing back on the ship will be challenging, still some machine learning and AI will probably assist in such a feat. I have seen videos of smll drones flying in stormy weather, but it will take a lot of tuning to get there. With 1450kg take of weight TB3 has quite a bit of heft to stand some wind, I would say.

TEI can produce compact jet engines.
Would not be better and safer such jet powered Naval UAV?
I don't think it is expensive.

 

[Zafer]

TEI can produce compact jet engines.
Would not be better and safer such jet powered Naval UAV?
I don't think it is expensive.
View attachment 63145
View attachment 63146
View attachment 63147

Small turbine engines are good for fast planes or missiles, for cargo or weapons load carrying propellers are more efficient. A small, rather high bypass turbofan engine could be used to strike a good balance between speed and efficiency but there is next to no such turbofan in production. Turbine engines are rather inefficient when they are small.

 

[UkroTurk]

Small turbine engines are good for fast planes or missiles, for cargo or weapons load carrying propellers are more efficient. A small, rather high bypass turbofan engine could be used to strike a good balance between speed and efficiency but there is next to no such turbofan in production. Turbine engines are rather inefficient when they are small.

I meant for naval use. For launch from AC. Let's solve the problem which doesn't exist
Along with the propeller one or two microturbunes could increase take off speed. Kinda additional JATO (Jet assisted take off) When stalling UAV uses just propeller.

 

[Zafer]

I meant for naval use. For launch from AC. Let's solve the problem which doesn't exist
Along with the propeller one or two microturbunes could increase take off speed. Kinda additional JATO (Jet assisted take off) When stalling UAV uses just propeller.

There maybe use cases where efficiency comes last like when boostering a plane in take off but still there are other solutions to the problem like catapulting or tuging with cable which are more convenient.

 

[UkroTurk]

https://www.tei.com.tr/en/products/tei-tp38-turboprop-engine

Wait! For carriers they could use micro Turboprop instead of piston driven engine.
Piston Driven TD-170 weights 170kg gives 170hp( at 20k altitude. At 30k altitude gives 130hp)

Turboprop weights 120kg gives 200hp even at high altitudes.

Against bad weather and sea conditions Naval TB-3 must be more powerful as flying over seas is a big challenge so I would use micro Turboprop. Anyway i quit because They know better than me.

 

[UkroTurk]

Good article

Royal Navy Tests Operating Fixed-Wing UAVs From Ships | TURDEF

Royal Navy has recently tested a fixed-wing UAV’s capability to land and take off from the deck of a British aircraft carrier.

www.turdef.com

 

[YeşilVatan]

What do you guys think about rocket assisted takeoffs?

 

[Boykaz]

Bayraktar TB3 took off from 110 meters, wow.
also Tcg Anadolu 232 meters