Now seeing this and the fact that Baykar is going to produce these engines inhouse, the TF6000/10000 should've never been designed. Instead an F404 equivalent is much more useful for the Turkish defence industry.
A Turkish F404 equivalent should've been build with 3 major thrust options with or without afterburner:
1. Variant with 12000/18000lbf thrust for trainers such as Hurjet
2. Variant with 13000/20000lbf thrust for fighters and UCAV's
3. same as 2 but with F414 thrust levels, 14000/220000 lbf
Designing the engine in such a way that they all have the same outer and inner dimensions and using the same materials.
The difference in thrust should be met by designing the compressor blades in such a way that they have the corresponding pressure ratio and efficiency for their thrust levels. Also a corresponding rise in combustion temperature. All three variants using the same TB material they should aim for engine #1 having no TBO during the engine lifespan for the hot-parts, having 1 overhaul for engine #2 and 2 overhauls for #3.
These three variants could also be converted easily into a higher or lower thrust variant by swapping out the fan and compressor section for a more or less efficient one and to update the FADEC for an increase or decrease in combustion temperature.
The downside is they would've to engineer the engine with the thrust of #3 in mind, meaning a slightly over-engineered engine for thrust levels #1 and #2, e.g. a higher weight. At 1100kg/2420lbs standard weight, engine #1 has a TWR of 7.4, engine #2 TWR of 8.2 and engine #3 a TWR of 9.
If the F404 grew from 16000lbf to 22000lbf in the same outer dimension, they could develop the above with this growth in mind from the onset.
A Turkish F404 equivalent should've been build with 3 major thrust options with or without afterburner:
1. Variant with 12000/18000lbf thrust for trainers such as Hurjet
2. Variant with 13000/20000lbf thrust for fighters and UCAV's
3. same as 2 but with F414 thrust levels, 14000/220000 lbf
Designing the engine in such a way that they all have the same outer and inner dimensions and using the same materials.
The difference in thrust should be met by designing the compressor blades in such a way that they have the corresponding pressure ratio and efficiency for their thrust levels. Also a corresponding rise in combustion temperature. All three variants using the same TB material they should aim for engine #1 having no TBO during the engine lifespan for the hot-parts, having 1 overhaul for engine #2 and 2 overhauls for #3.
These three variants could also be converted easily into a higher or lower thrust variant by swapping out the fan and compressor section for a more or less efficient one and to update the FADEC for an increase or decrease in combustion temperature.
The downside is they would've to engineer the engine with the thrust of #3 in mind, meaning a slightly over-engineered engine for thrust levels #1 and #2, e.g. a higher weight. At 1100kg/2420lbs standard weight, engine #1 has a TWR of 7.4, engine #2 TWR of 8.2 and engine #3 a TWR of 9.
If the F404 grew from 16000lbf to 22000lbf in the same outer dimension, they could develop the above with this growth in mind from the onset.
Last edited:
