Hi folks. I wonder if anyone of you could answer my inquiries of Turkey's upcoming Advanced Trainer Jet, TAI Hurjet.
1) Wing Area
What I have found it interesting is that Wing Area of Hurjet that is stated on TAI's website is different to what's stated on TAI's official information broucher for Hurjet.
On the TAI's website, It claims that Hurjet will have Wing Area of 35 m2
View attachment 46049
HÜRJET
www.tusas.com
Meanwhile on the official information broucher
View attachment 46050
It says Wing Area of Hurjet is 25 m2.
So which one is right?
2) Range
View attachment 46051
Again, I am citing TAI's official information document, the estimated range for Hurjet is 1200nm or 2222km. Is this claimed figure actually a ferry range with a drop tank or the actual range that could be achieved with internal fuel? I've found this specs odd because Advanced Jet Trainers with GE F404 such as KAI T-50 and Boeing-Saab T-7A (though T-7A's specs have not been published and it is just a rumour) are said to have about the same range of 1852 km (1000 nautical miles) with internal fuel and I believe HAL Tejas MkI has about the same range of 1852km too with internal fuel since the aircraft shares the same engine, GE F404.
Of course, all of those aircaft, except T-7A since no information is available, are confirmed to be fitted with a fuel drop tank and Ferry Range is much longer. Eg) KAI FA-50 with a drop fuel tank could fly up to 2,592 km in distance and HAL Tejas Mk.I with two drop fuel tanks could travel the distance up to 3,200 km.
This is why I suspect the stated range is actually Ferry Range and I'd love some clarification from some of you guys who have probably more information.
3) Payload
Again, I'm using TAI's official document as a reference
View attachment 46052
The last curious specs (for now) of TAI Hurjet from the information broucher by TAI is that estimated payload capacity(?) is about 2721kg (6000lbs). It is already given that TAI Hurjet won't carry much load as a full fledged fighter aircraft with the same turbofan engine, GE F404 such as Gripen C/D or Tejas Mk.I which could carry much as 5,300kg (11,700 lb) of external load. However, I expected TAI Hurjet was designed to lift much as another ATJ equipped with the same American engine, KAI T-50 (FA-50) which could theoritically carry about 4,500kg (10,000 lb), but realistically could carry 3,740kg (8,250 lb) of payload with the provisional configuration.
This means KAI T-50 (FA-50) could carry about 38% more payload than TAI Hurjet could.
Yes, Boeing-Saab T-7A is rumoured to have payload of 5000lb (2,200kg), but It is just unconfirmed information and It is said that Boeing has cut corners to reduce the cost of AJT and win the T-X competition and the company has admitted that they will be forced to spend more money for structual upgrade & etc to satisfy requirement set by USAF for the aggressor role-playing aircraft.
However, I don't see why Turkey would do the same with TAI Hurjet as the country is reported to develop a serious light-combat aircraft based on Hurjet and even considers a Naval version of the jet.
I mean there is no magic in Aerospace Engineering. I don't expect an aircraft of a similar size fitted with the same engine and expected to serve almost an identical purpose is drastically different to existing jets. Of course, small improvement could be made through technological advancement and the manufacturer could downgrade the specs with cheaper materials to reduce the cost of aircraft. However, I struggle to come up with a reason why Turkey would design their AJT/LCA to carry about 38% less payload than a comparable AJT/LCA such as KAI T-50 (FA-50). There is practically no reason. I'd love some well-sourced & cited response from you gentlemen.
((( they even exported pars series to Indonesia.
