TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[Stimpy75]

trust me bro would be his answer

 

[No Name]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Siper>MMU]

How many prototypes have been produced so far?

Second prototype (Block-10) will enter production line soon.

 

[No Name]

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]

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.

 

[No Name]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[boredaf]

his observations

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.

 

[dBSPL]

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

 

[MADDOG]

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.

 

[Cenkcnk]

are landing gears temporary? they look like toy

 

[dBSPL]

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?

 

[MADDOG]

are landing gears temporary? they look like toy

They are not. They are retractable too. Their designs may change depending on the changes they make on the aircraft.

 

[boredaf]

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.

thank you!