And unfortunately, they approached the problem from the wrong angle rather than as it should be. Even foreign manufacturers applied for technical support, although they stated that solving the problem was not possible, yet TAI considers this a sort of secret embargo and is spending thousands of engineering hours and resources to solve this issue. And this is wrong.
Even if one day TAI announces that these actuators are developed and produced locally, it won't fix this mistake. The mistake will still be there. Either they'll cut the parts that should be on the plane's horizontal stabilizers, or the plane will fly with a faulty design.
What is your source?
The source is definitely not a TUSAS employee.
The source is a foreign company that TUSAS was thinking of assigning to produce these actuators. But the company reported to TUSAS that this is technically impossible. There are two other foreign companies applied as well. The report they sent to TUSAS is along the same lines.
I can take one more step regarding the source, but nothing more.
What was the case with P0?
What is fundamentally different than of F22, F35, J35, SU57 stabilizers? How come do they have solution?
So you say shorten it? Or move the pivot point? Is it basically the thing is too long and a high power actuator will not fit the space available?
Throughout the history of modern Western aircraft design, there are two aircraft that feature oversized horizontal stabilizers—both of which are essentially bombers: the F-111 and the Tornado. Consequently, they are not pure air-superiority fighters like the KAAN. Furthermore, the KAAN also possesses oversized vertical stabilizers—comparable in scale to the wings of an F-16.
In the case of the F-111, the oversized horizontal stabilizers even led to the suspension of its operations. Following three losses in Vietnam—on March 28, 1968 (66–0022), March 30, 1968 (66–0017), and April 22, 1968 (22–0024)—the entire F-111 fleet was grounded for four years, until September 1972. That provides some brief context.
TUSAS encountered similar issues with the horizontal stabilizers on the KAAN. However, Western engineers—and subsequently Soviet/Russian engineers—successfully resolved this problem by incorporating a subtle yet essential cutout into the horizontal stabilizer. This design feature is present in all modern horizontal stabilizers, most notably starting with the F-16 and continuing through later MiG and Su series aircraft.
TUSAS, however, has chosen the wrong approach—a recurring pattern since the ANKA project—and continues down this same path with the HÜRKUS and HÜRJET. This persists even though the nose and cockpit configuration of the aircraft still require modification. The same applies to the horizontal stabilizers on the HÜRJET.
As a military procurement official, I would not purchase the HÜRKUS. Currently, the aircraft is being sold based on political influence and connections rather than merit. Although the HÜRKUS is equipped with one of the best Western-made engines, it does not come anywhere near the performance of the SUPER TUCANO or the T-6 TEXAN II. This is due entirely to its wing design. The modifications made to the wings—following various warnings—are both minimal and fundamentally flawed (the addition of winglets). Despite several attempts to revise this misguided approach, the design remains incorrect. Consequently, the HÜRKUS is of very limited utility for light attack operations; the aircraft simply lacks any meaningful payload capacity.
I will shortly share some good news regarding the actuator issue affecting the horizontal stabilizer of the KAAN. I leave it to you to judge whether this is the right or wrong approach.
Before you reach a conclusion, I suggest making a rough comparison between the horizontal stabilizers found on Western aircraft and those on Russian designs. The F-35 is an exception, as that aircraft operates under an entirely different mission profile.
In the case of the F-111, the oversized horizontal stabilizers even led to the suspension of its operations. Following three losses in Vietnam—on March 28, 1968 (66–0022), March 30, 1968 (66–0017), and April 22, 1968 (22–0024)—the entire F-111 fleet was grounded for four years, until September 1972. That provides some brief context.
TUSAS encountered similar issues with the horizontal stabilizers on the KAAN. However, Western engineers—and subsequently Soviet/Russian engineers—successfully resolved this problem by incorporating a subtle yet essential cutout into the horizontal stabilizer. This design feature is present in all modern horizontal stabilizers, most notably starting with the F-16 and continuing through later MiG and Su series aircraft.
TUSAS, however, has chosen the wrong approach—a recurring pattern since the ANKA project—and continues down this same path with the HÜRKUS and HÜRJET. This persists even though the nose and cockpit configuration of the aircraft still require modification. The same applies to the horizontal stabilizers on the HÜRJET.
As a military procurement official, I would not purchase the HÜRKUS. Currently, the aircraft is being sold based on political influence and connections rather than merit. Although the HÜRKUS is equipped with one of the best Western-made engines, it does not come anywhere near the performance of the SUPER TUCANO or the T-6 TEXAN II. This is due entirely to its wing design. The modifications made to the wings—following various warnings—are both minimal and fundamentally flawed (the addition of winglets). Despite several attempts to revise this misguided approach, the design remains incorrect. Consequently, the HÜRKUS is of very limited utility for light attack operations; the aircraft simply lacks any meaningful payload capacity.
I will shortly share some good news regarding the actuator issue affecting the horizontal stabilizer of the KAAN. I leave it to you to judge whether this is the right or wrong approach.
Before you reach a conclusion, I suggest making a rough comparison between the horizontal stabilizers found on Western aircraft and those on Russian designs. The F-35 is an exception, as that aircraft operates under an entirely different mission profile.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the statement of Mr. Altinay, Chairman of the Board of ALTINAY Technology Group, the tail actuators required for the KAAN Aircraft were developed locally, qualified, and delivered to TUSAS.
Mr. Altinay also confirms that foreign companies were assigned to this task and returned to TUSAS with a report saying it couldn’t be done.
As far as I know, one of these companies is American and the other is German. You can figure out which companies they are by inferring from the previous message.
Now, is it right to insist on a solution that will lead to the wrong result, spending thousands of engineering hours, just to stick to a side list? Or is it better to go for a simple design change that has already proven itself? Other manufacturers chose the second way.
Mr. Altinay also confirms that foreign companies were assigned to this task and returned to TUSAS with a report saying it couldn’t be done.
As far as I know, one of these companies is American and the other is German. You can figure out which companies they are by inferring from the previous message.
Now, is it right to insist on a solution that will lead to the wrong result, spending thousands of engineering hours, just to stick to a side list? Or is it better to go for a simple design change that has already proven itself? Other manufacturers chose the second way.
I am not an expert on the subject and technical details of vertical stabilizer. But in all images and schematics KAAN does not seem to have different sized ones than of the ones on f22 su57 or f35. What is fundamentally wrong on KAAN? Eeven if it is wrong, why do you think TAI chooses this way? Do they expect better results?
At the end of the day, everyone called Japanese scientist mad man for what he offered for chip production and they said it is impossible. Today it is possible and what made the difference.
Şok Tedavisi
Active member
- Messages
- 116
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It comes as no surprise that this happened, given the push for rapid production and the political pressures involved—let’s see what other kinds of manufacturing defects will surface... they had rushed the program too fast, I called P0 a flying concept they lynched me here because of that now the design problems are coming out.
Şok Tedavisi
Active member
- Messages
- 116
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
So looks like Kaan is not going to shotdown any F35s like you were saying for years zafer
- Messages
- 166
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
What secrets would those be?
So,whats secret about this?
Nothing changed,same shit.
Does this mean only morons decide what to do,you tell me?
Lets call it flappy flap instead of KAAN.
Last edited:
