Latest Thread
Except they pretty much are. STOL UAVs. They will be competitors along with Sea Protector STOL. One being a much lighter model doesn't mean they wont compete.They are not in the same class.
While the tests of the TB-3 on the TCG Anadolu continue, I'm guessing a new family member of Bayraktar will be shared with the press, around end of 2025 or 26. A STOL naval aircraft with a take-off power of about 450+ shp. Baykar may start under-license production of this engine by then. So a sort of single-engine AKINCI. However, the airframe will probably similar to tactical blocks instead of AKINCI. 2 years ago, an illustration was published in the Ukrainian press, it could be something similar. Maybe Baykar will use the experience gained from the KE to do innovative work on maximum RCS optimization in turboprop MALE class.Except they pretty much are. STOL UAVs. They will be competitors along with Sea Protector STOL. One being a much lighter model doesn't mean they wont compete.
I really wish Baykar came up with a turboprop TB2 or a single engine Akıncı.
You are writing things here that you have no idea about, although I have already written some terms explanatory. they still confuse terms. There is no combat load. See = page 626 No. 12513.No, the Combat load of naval TB3( Empty UAV+fuel+280kg payload=1450kg) is lighter than the useful payload capacity(1542kg) of Mojave UAV. Aerodynamic design of TB3 is far superior to Mohave. They are not in the same class. TB3 has a take-off /stall speed of ~70knots 20knots of which will be provided by TCG Anadolu itself. PD-222 will also be available for TB3. Anyway, you will see it with your own eyes soon.
The body of the Mohave doesn't produce lift, body of the TB3 produces lift. Mohave is an inferior design to TB3 because it is take-off/stall speed is higher compared to TB3 that is also why it needs a longer air strip to take off.You are writing things here that you have no idea about, although I have already written some terms explanatory. they still confuse terms. There is no combat load. See = page 626 No. 12513.
Correction step by step :
1) The term combatload does not exist.
2) empty flying object (here UAV) is also non-existent term. There isn't. Every flying object has an unusable amount of fuel. This fuel always stays in. If you start consuming this fuel, you risk Materilan and humans. So there is no empty plane, UAV etc... Apart from other liquids on the aircraft
3) Carrier ship does not help the flying object at its own speed. to be able to take planes off the deck more easily, driving faster means nothing. What counts is the wind speed and the amount that is taken under the wings. That's why the carrier ships turn against the wind. with their own speed, wind volume and wind speed are increased. Do you think Anadolu is a slingshot????
4) TB3 is aerodynamically very very behind the Mojave. Mohave wings are enlarged and equipped with "high-lift devices", including slats on the leading edge, double-slotted flaps and suspended ailerons.
im general: I have been observing wing constructions by Turkish engineers for a long time. my firm opinion is that their work is below standard. Very often they move in grey areas and this leads to faulty constructions like ANKA, HÜRKUS, AKSUNGUR and TB3. Thank God they have enough adhesive tape.
I have no negative rating on the wing design and construction of the AKINCI and TB2. Akinci wings in particular are well done
The body of the Mohave doesn't produce lift, body of the TB3 produces lift. Mohave is an inferior design to TB3 because it is take-off/stall speed is higher compared to TB3 that is also why it needs a longer air strip to take off.
Empty weight and fuel load is a thing in aerospace. Learn your facts.
Speed of TCG Anadolu helps take-off learn Newtons laws.
They are fulfilling the original purpose they were bought for. In addition to that, they humiliated Russian air defense systems, likely causing billions of dollars in export deals to fall through. Quite a treat for a small price of 4 million dollars.tb2 still active duty in Ukraine, it being used for targeting and ISR missions. Much important then hitting tanks.
Using canards as airbrakes is pretty normal. It's a bit more aggressive here because they didn't want it to get airborne any longer than it didn't need to.Is that good or bad, that the cannards are being used to force the front landing gear down ?
Or is it being done just for this occasion ?
Pods are fine and all but as said, its a third party solution to a greater issue. We'll still need a tailor made UAV for the role. And indeed, SAR pods seem too specialized and not enough in service.
Diverterless Supersonic Inlet with its ugly bump is an ingenious invention of an Italian scientist, Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. However it could not be exploited to the full then, due to the lack of computer power to implement it fully, through Computational Fluid Dynamics.Since Türkiye's twin-engine UCAVs (in development) will hit supersonic speeds, would it make sense to implement Divertless Supersonic inlet (DSI)?