Latest Thread
Selçuk Bayraktar explains TB3 very well from 1:40:00 to 1:44:00TB3 Take-off Landing simulations from TCG Anadolu have been conducted thousands of times
![]()
Milli Teknoloji Projeleri'nde Milli Savunma Sanayisi'nin geleceği konuşuluyor...
Haberturk TV YouTube Kanalına Abone Ol ➤ http://hbr.tk/QNhqSswww.youtube.com
TB3 Take-off Landing simulations from TCG Anadolu have been conducted thousands of times
![]()
Milli Teknoloji Projeleri'nde Milli Savunma Sanayisi'nin geleceği konuşuluyor...
Haberturk TV YouTube Kanalına Abone Ol ➤ http://hbr.tk/QNhqSswww.youtube.com
Also, there are advantages of turbocharging in piston engines, as you go higher, it is possible to crank up the boost, avoid power losses while it is not possible with turboprop engines. At 30kft O2 density of air is %32 of the sea level. Still, a pd170 can generate 130hp at crank. This is an advantage if you need to carry relatively light payloads at high altitude for longer duration which is main point of aksungur.It was not my point. It is possible to mount PT-6 instead of PD-170 especially after TAI starts using stronger wings on Anka-Aksungur. 550hp version of PT-6 might be a better fit. Aksungur is a big UAV and will be able to carry enough payload to high altitudes with PT-6 engines. PT-6 also produces enough electricity to power on-board systems and possible payloads but still, there might be other requirements we don't know like maybe it can't carry a specific payload for whatever reason maybe it is too slow (maybe it is required to be as fast as 350knots at sea level) due to its big wings etc. In the end, there are decisions and trade-offs to make.
I have told it before several pages back, they have modeled the possible landing area of Anadolu, as a fixed plane, in the software they used to train the auto-landing on land strips, with some wind profile suitable but not enough to attain characteristics of winds at sea, nor including island wake of the ship at different angles.
I don't know but i have never seen taking off as an issue there, it is mostly about the landing which was always the challenging part in naval aviation. We need a training - test environment with digital twin of aircraft - ship - environmental conditions to practice design, avionics and pilots - automated landing software. It is upon shoulders of Havelsan to coordinate with respectable companies & institutes to enable this.
So far, and as far as i know, both Baykar and TAI treats landing strip as a fixed - translating object with no island wake or environmental conditions ( wind profile - wave profile ) taken into account. The training should take within a common software environment where whomever is the customer might be able to model their own aircraft.
Milgem and Atak are some of the most important projects getting us where we are, with the sub components made for them by foundation companies. What would happen to Baykar if we didn't have CATS in the works after the embargo?There is some exaggeration and completely ignoring achievements of the other companies.
Baykar would come up with their own product.Milgem and Atak are some of the most important projects getting us where we are, with the sub components made for them by foundation companies. What would happen to Baykar if we didn't have CATS in the works after the embargo?
Sorry but these need expertise and I am not sure Baykar has that capacity and time for that. Aselsan working on electro-optic systems for years and yet they struggled hard with the CATS. It's not easy as you said.Baykar would come up with their own product.
If there were no other solution they would simply start from scratch and do the right things to get to a product unlike what Aselsan did. They could perhaps even move faster than Aselsan. You don't need all that much optics expertise, it is simply a telescope after all, even ameteurs make telescopes.Sorry but these need expertise and I am not sure Baykar has that capacity and time for that. Aselsan working on electro-optic systems for years and yet they struggled hard with the CATS. It's not easy as you said.
If there were no other solution they would simply start from scratch and do the right things to get to a product unlike what Aselsan did. They could perhaps even move faster than Aselsan. You don't need all that much optics expertise, it is simply a telescope after all, even ameteurs make telescopes.
How do you know about my scope of knowledge? You naturally don't.You are going beyond your scope of knowledge.
Everything sounds so easy from your mouth, can you explain to me why they didnt do it until now if its that easy?If there were no other solution they would simply start from scratch and do the right things to get to a product unlike what Aselsan did. They could perhaps even move faster than Aselsan. You don't need all that much optics expertise, it is simply a telescope after all, even ameteurs make telescopes.