TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,382
Solutions
1
Reactions
16 3,804
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Raising RCS and heat signature by putting vertical stabilizers on top of the engines has nothing to do with "my feelings". Stealth is more important than other requirements. That is why other countries did not make this MISTAKE. Not even Russia.
I'll ask you once again, what makes you the expert on the subject? What credentials and knowledge do you have to talk as if you know more than hundreds and hundreds of people worked on this for years? How do you know what they did rises rcs, do you have access to information on the design?
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
397
Reactions
6 421
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
I was talking about the last 2 models (mockup & animation) not the decade old ones. This protoype however looks more like
bulky F-35 (fat Amy) and alot less like a sleek 2.5 Mach F22 air superiority fighter. With that nonaerodynamic cockpit it has zero chance of reaching those speeds.

well, the jet seems to be using the original designs.

Angles. Cockpit is too high, that is one of the reasons plane looks "off". But only from this new angle you can see how severe it is. Just my opinion.

it could be that the cockpit was mainly high to give more space for the engineers to work on the plain as this is only a prototype, not the end product.

Raising RCS and heat signature by putting vertical stabilizers on top of the engines has nothing to do with "my feelings". Stealth is more important than other requirements. That is why other countries did not make this MISTAKE. Not even Russia.

5b0eb31c1ae66238008b4bb6

It seems strange, but I am sure they will change vertical stabilizers once they begin to get back more data from the plan. It seems to me that they were too afraid to go against the original designs, but over time once they get data, they will make changes.

I think you are going too far with the claim that the cockpit is not nonaerodynamic.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 522
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Bro, you sound too sure. Besides, It didn't pass CDR yet.
I think it is better to wait and see.

For example, How FC-31 has gradually evolved into J-35.
No it is not better to wait and see. It is better to notice the mistakes BEFORE spending billions of dollars going the wrong way like China did. That is why USA uses supercomputer simulations to design perfect features for optimal stealth, speed etc, not the try and fail then try to fix it 10 times more approach like China does...
 

Baryshx

Contributor
Messages
969
Reactions
8 2,070
Website
www.twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Good luck, I hope we see it fly. These photos look like a bootleg from promotional video shoot.

By the way, really, why is that cockpit so high? Is it because of the shooting angle?
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
397
Reactions
6 421
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
No it is not better to wait and see. It is better to notice the mistakes BEFORE spending billions of dollars going the wrong way like China did. That is why USA uses supercomputer simulations to design perfect features for optimal stealth, speed etc, not the try and fail then try to fix it 10 times more approach like China does...
does supercomputers need a hell of a lot of data and the only way to get that is by try and fail just like what the US did and what China is doing now.
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
397
Reactions
6 421
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Good luck, I hope we see it fly. These photos look like a bootleg from promotional video shoot.

By the way, really, why is that cockpit so high? Is it because of the shooting angle?

Could it be to give the engineers more space to work with the prototypes?
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,382
Solutions
1
Reactions
16 3,804
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
No it is not better to wait and see. It is better to notice the mistakes BEFORE spending billions of dollars going the wrong way like China did. That is why USA uses supercomputer simulations to design perfect features for optimal stealth, speed etc, not the try and fail then try to fix it 10 times more approach like China does...
Since you don't answer questions and keep talking as if you're the protagonist in a Hollywood movie about a shunned scientist that warned everyone before a disaster let me try to bring you down to earth in a more direct manner:

Pipe down the "I know the best" attitude a bit because you're judging mock-ups and cgi design against the first prototype of jet fighter that has gone through god knows how many tests and reviews. And you're doing all this talking out of your ass from a photo, taken with a low angle and so pixelated that it might be from my first cellphone with a camera.

Again, pipe down and show some respect to people who gave their years to a project that big and special.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
397
Reactions
6 421
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Lad, since you don't answer questions and keep talking as if you're the protagonist in a Hollywood movie about a shunned scientist that warned everyone before a disaster let me try to bring you down to earth in a more direct manner:

Pipe down the "I know the best" attitude a bit because you're judging mock-ups and cgi design against the first prototype of jet fighter that has gone through god knows how many tests and reviews. And you're doing all this talking out of your ass from a photo, taken with a low angle and so pixelated that it might be from my first cellphone with a camera.

Again, pipe the fuck down and show some respect to people who gave their years to a project that big and special.

I disagree with you that he needs to shut up, especially since no one but I has actually attempted to give any sort of counterarguments to his observations.
 

Fairon

Well-known member
Messages
405
Reactions
6 992
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I guess we can all agree that we choose one of the worst possible picture to publish for the taxi tests. Not just the cockpit, intakes also looks very weird.

We should wait for a video or a picture with a better quailty and angle. But in the end looks doesn't mean anything. If the aircraft itself performs well I don't really care about how it is looks.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,304
Reactions
79 10,479
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I guess we can all agree that we choose one of the worst possible picture to publish for the taxi tests. Not just the cockpit, intakes also looks very weird.

We should wait for a video or a picture with a better quailty and angle. But in the end looks doesn't mean anything. If the aircraft itself performs well I don't really care about how it is looks.
And people ask why Baykar is better at PR. For one, Baykar would never allow leaks or allowed leaks to be published.

I'd take seeing the first photo tomorrow at March 18 with more than 360p quality over this. First time our most ambitious project touches the tarmac and these are the 2 photos we have. So amateur. Folks at TAI's PR department should match the level of their engineers.
 

YeşilVatan

Contributor
Messages
660
Reactions
16 1,657
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I guess we can all agree that we choose one of the worst possible picture to publish for the taxi tests. Not just the cockpit, intakes also looks very weird.

We should wait for a video or a picture with a better quailty and angle. But in the end looks doesn't mean anything. If the aircraft itself performs well I don't really care about how it is looks.
Yup. TAI sould take a page out of BAYKAR's PR handbook.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,260
Reactions
91 11,653
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Nose to canopy silhouette of the aircraft is indeed a bit unorthodox. But this is not without any advantage. I think we may be underestimating TAI's design capabilities it has reached and innovative approaches to combatant aviation.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,260
Reactions
91 11,653
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is making observations and then disregarding the work of experts as "mistakes" based on a comparison between mock-ups/cgi models and this prototype based on 2 photos that look like they were taken with a potato from terrible angles.
+1

FrZvgJrWIAQFK64

FraSPdkWIAAkIvG.jpeg
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,218
Reactions
31 7,989
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
Nose to canopy silhouette of the aircraft is indeed a bit unorthodox. But this is not without any advantage. I think we may be underestimating TAI's design capabilities it has reached and innovative approaches to combatant aviation.
I'll be making a general comment. I've seen a lot of "they did this, they did that" nonsense on the internet today. There is no right or wrong in this sense. There are advantages and disadvantages related to every design. TAI, with the consulting they got from BAE Systems, has come up with a DESIGN. I guarantee every TAI employee who is currently reading our "design debates" are laughing their asses off. Here is the thing, you can't question a complex aircraft's aerodynamics without proper CFD analysis. You can't question its LO characteristics either. You don't have the same tools as they do. So let's all be done with it. I would also like to remind our fellow forum members that we are still looking at the same aircraft we saw on the final assembly line a couple of months ago. This went on for wayyy too long.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,260
Reactions
91 11,653
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I'll be making a general comment. I've seen a lot of "they did this, they did that" nonsense on the internet today. There is no right or wrong in this sense. There are advantages and disadvantages related to every design. TAI, with the consulting they got from BAE Systems, has come up with a DESIGN. I guarantee every TAI employee who is currently reading our "design debates" are laughing their asses off. Here is the thing, you can't question a complex aircraft's aerodynamics without proper CFD analysis. You can't question its LO characteristics either. You don't have the same tools as they do. So let's all be done with it. I would also like to remind our fellow forum members that we are still looking at the same aircraft we saw on the final assembly line a couple of months ago. This went on for wayyy too long.
You are absolutely right. And these analyses can be simulated realistically on supercomputers with highly sophisticated algorithms. It's hard to understand why people treat this as if it were a sketch drawn by a designer on paper. I'm sure that some of these detail design differences will be something we'll talk about in more detail in the days to come. For example, above is a photo of two fighter aircraft, which pilot can leave the plane at a higher speed?
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom