Of course....
My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.
For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.
Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR
www.baykarsavunma.com
For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.
We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.
In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.
It can also be seen in this graph:
13.2 Power Required
web.mit.edu
After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.
So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.
450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18
170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots
If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.
The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...
Edit:
Fixed this part:
"
For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"
If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.