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 have been two aircraft with oversized horizontal stabilisers – 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 has oversized horizontal stabilisers – comparable in size to the wings of an F-16.
In the case of the F-111, the oversized vertical stabilisers even led to the aircraft being taken out of service. Following three losses in Vietnam – on 28 March 1968 (66–0022), 30 March 1968 (66–0017) and 22 April 1968 (22–0024) – the entire F-111 fleet was grounded for four years, until September 1972. This provides a brief context.
TUSAS encountered similar problems with the KAAN’s horizontal stabilisers. Western engineers – and later Soviet/Russian engineers – successfully resolved this problem, however, by incorporating a subtle but necessary recess into the horizontal stabiliser. This design feature is present in all modern horizontal stabilisers, particularly from the F-16 onwards and continued in later MiG and Su aircraft.
TUSAS, however, has taken the wrong approach – a recurring pattern since the ANKA project – and is continuing down the same path with the HÜRKUS and HÜRJET. This remains the case even though the aircraft’s nose and cockpit configuration still require modifications. The same applies to the HÜRJET’s horizontal stabilisers.
As a military procurement officer, I would not purchase the HÜRKUS. At present, the aircraft is being sold more on the basis of political influence and connections than on the basis of performance. Although the HÜRKUS is fitted with one of the best Western engines, it falls far short of the performance of the SUPER TUCANO or the T-6 TEXAN II. This is entirely due to its wing design. The modifications made to the wings – following various warnings – are both minimal and fundamentally flawed (the addition of wings). Despite several attempts to revise this misguided approach, the design remains flawed. Consequently, the HÜRKUS is of very limited use for light attack operations; the aircraft simply lacks any significant payload capacity.
I shall shortly be sharing some good news regarding the actuator problem affecting the KAAN’s horizontal stabiliser. I shall 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 stabilisers of Western aircraft and those of Russian designs. The F-35 is an exception, as this aircraft operates under a completely different mission profile
In the case of the F-111, the oversized vertical stabilisers even led to the aircraft being taken out of service. Following three losses in Vietnam – on 28 March 1968 (66–0022), 30 March 1968 (66–0017) and 22 April 1968 (22–0024) – the entire F-111 fleet was grounded for four years, until September 1972. This provides a brief context.
TUSAS encountered similar problems with the KAAN’s horizontal stabilisers. Western engineers – and later Soviet/Russian engineers – successfully resolved this problem, however, by incorporating a subtle but necessary recess into the horizontal stabiliser. This design feature is present in all modern horizontal stabilisers, particularly from the F-16 onwards and continued in later MiG and Su aircraft.
TUSAS, however, has taken the wrong approach – a recurring pattern since the ANKA project – and is continuing down the same path with the HÜRKUS and HÜRJET. This remains the case even though the aircraft’s nose and cockpit configuration still require modifications. The same applies to the HÜRJET’s horizontal stabilisers.
As a military procurement officer, I would not purchase the HÜRKUS. At present, the aircraft is being sold more on the basis of political influence and connections than on the basis of performance. Although the HÜRKUS is fitted with one of the best Western engines, it falls far short of the performance of the SUPER TUCANO or the T-6 TEXAN II. This is entirely due to its wing design. The modifications made to the wings – following various warnings – are both minimal and fundamentally flawed (the addition of wings). Despite several attempts to revise this misguided approach, the design remains flawed. Consequently, the HÜRKUS is of very limited use for light attack operations; the aircraft simply lacks any significant payload capacity.
I shall shortly be sharing some good news regarding the actuator problem affecting the KAAN’s horizontal stabiliser. I shall 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 stabilisers of Western aircraft and those of Russian designs. The F-35 is an exception, as this aircraft operates under a completely different mission profile
Last edited:
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
- 130
- 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
- 130
- 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
- 167
- 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:
Until they show any technical difference between F35 F22 SU57 J35 and KAAN stabilizer size differences, any claim is nothşng more than speculation and bad intent.
- Messages
- 167
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
What bad intent could i have here?
Why come up with lame excuses?
The whole world can see the dumb mistakes,even after being warned many times they did nothing.
Would you rather like it when the KAAN becomes a laughing stock,''the Turks with their decades in aviation couldnt produce a working fighter jet,made a rookie mistake''.
if we dont argue about it who will?
They need to fix it ASAP or be ridiculed.
- Messages
- 2,806
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It is funny have some people have faith in a german source who nobody nows as thrustworthy 
, he will solve the problem with texting on the internet.
Remember the news about that titanium, everybody have jumped and was accusing Kotil.
, he will solve the problem with texting on the internet.Remember the news about that titanium, everybody have jumped and was accusing Kotil.
No. It's not. In the second picture, TUSAS improved the tailplanes, but it's not enough. More needs to be cut off.
That's exactly the problem we always have with the Turkish defense industry. Critics are immediately talked down to, and people act as if they know everything better while the others know nothing. Critics get everything from the internet. But they actually can't know anything.It is funny have some people have faith in a german source who nobody nows as thrustworthy
Remember the news about that titanium, everybody have jumped and was accusing Kotil.
Your condescending way of speaking shows exactly where the problem lies.
Dear people, the aviation industry has been accompanied by failures from the very beginning. That's just the nature of this field. Ultimately, humans are trying something they weren't made for: FLYING.
Of course, the Turkish aviation industry will also have failures. It's a MUST. But industry players also need to have an open ear for critics, for improvement suggestions, for tips. If you don't do that, you pay with human lives. Leading to the ruin of this industry. There have been a lot of examples of this too. Arrogance can lead to very painful results. Several companies went bankrupt because of it.
Above, I especially gave the example of the F111. Apparently, the people who think they know everything and can do everything but can't understand what they read. That's also a problem.
Sometimes you notice the construction problems years after the product has gone into service. Many fighter jets are among them. Like the F-15, F-16, F-4, JAS 39 Gripen, JAGUAR, HARRIER, and so on... All of these planes were later improved and refined. And there's no shame in that. Even the F-15 had its wing tips cut slanted backward and the vertical stabilizers got a shark-tooth shape.
I advise you to refrain from doing that. Otherwise, thousands of TEKNOFESTs won't fulfill their purpose as long as the industry is controlled by dinosaurs who know everything.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,806
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Againg who the hell are you? Who is this german guy?
The problem with internet is everybody nows the best, so who are you?
Why is your critic valid and TUSAS is not valid?
do you have data?
