TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[boredaf]

Does anyone know if the vertical stabilizers design will change with the new prototype in 2025?
View attachment 71817
Why does it sit on top of the engine section, and not on the sides?
They leave a big gap for some reason??
View attachment 71818

Is there any part of Kaan that you don't find bad? Every other week you make a post to say another part of the plane is terribly made. What is your problem with Kaan and what are you qualifications to complain about the whole plane as you have done so far?

 

[boredaf]

If you want to read only good things go to another site. Plenty of other places you can go for the nationalist echo chamber you’re looking for.

And I never said it was terrible, I’m criticising certain aspects. If you can’t take it, go somewhere else.

LMFAO calling me a nationalist, thanks for making my day. I never said I only wanted to read good things, but there is a massive difference in that and trying to understand why someone constantly shits on Kaan with almost all of their posts, pointing out this point or that point and calling it was made wrong etc. Seriously, what are your qualifications to say that? What do you know that engineers at TAI don't?

 

[Kitra]

If you want to read only good things go to another site. Plenty of other places you can go for the nationalist echo chamber you’re looking for.

And I never said it was terrible, I’m criticising certain aspects. If you can’t take it, go somewhere else.

What you did was similar to complaining that a car is blue instead of red. It does not make any sense.

You, like most of us including me have zero experiance in designing stealth aircrafts but for some reason you felt like complaining about a thing you have no knowledge about. In order to criticize, you need to know that a certain aspect is bad. In this case, you have no knowledge at all if it is good or bad in order to expect if they will change it or not.

 

[CAN_TR]

And I never said it was terrible, I’m criticising certain aspects. If you can’t take it, go somewhere else.

Your criticism is based on what? Does the looks bother you or do you think the aerospace engineers who tested that aircraft probably hundreds of times with computer simulations and in the wind tunnel facility made a mistake?

 

[Strong AI]

Guys! Let’s not get carried away please.
Instead of getting personal, focus on the subject in hand.
Not everybody will be of the same opinion as you. Taking that in to account, please discuss yor views civilly without being nasty to each other.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Quote:
advantage of having twin vertical stabilizers is that the location of vertical tails helps in having control authority at high alpha(where the fuselage/wing can blank a single vertical stabilizer). In modern stealth aircraft, having a twin tail enables them to be canted, helping in reducing RCS.
Having twin vertical stabilizers reduces their size, resulting in reduced stress at stabilizer root and reduction in weight.
In case of twin engined aircraft with engines spaced wide apart, having twin rudders helps in getting sufficient rudder authority in case of an engine failure.
Unquote.

They are also there to mask engine exhaust.

So they are not there to please our eyes. But serve a purpose.

 

[Saithan]

Why isn't it Pink 🫣

 

[IC3M@N FX]

What about the next prototypes?
It's not as if you have to send us and half the world a report, but now there's absolutely nothing more to say, even if it's a military project, I'm more worried that there might be serious problems.
There should be new information by now, right?

 

[Zoth]

You can joke but the position of the vertical stabilizers makes the fighter jet very unconventional and ugly.
This probably creates problems with RCS and heat signature, too, as the purpose is to hide the engine with stealth jets.
No other 5th gen fighter jet has this weird placement of vertical stabilizers, in the earlier designs of the Kaan it was normal, I don't know what results they got in the wind tunnels, but now it's changed..
View attachment 71889

My friend, although your intentions are good and you have some good points, you are trying to fix a ground prototype that wasn't even supposed to fly.

Wait for the actual fly prototypes that will be built in 2025, you are comparing a ground and first prototype to already finished and flying jets or serial production prototypes. Remember how fugly first prototype of F22 used to look.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I don’t understand this fixation of a plane looking ugly or beautiful.
Who cares how ugly a plane looks?
These are machines to kill.
If it does what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t matter an iota even if it looks beautiful or not.

Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is The picture of Russian Queen Katherine I. Peter the great and Merzifonlu Pasha may have thought quite differently of her looks!

 

[Spitfire9]

I don’t understand this fixation of a plane looking ugly or beautiful.
Who cares how ugly a plane looks?
These are machines to kill.
If it does what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t matter an iota even if it looks beautiful or not.

Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is The picture of Russian Queen Katherine I. Peter the great and Merzifonlu Pasha may have thought quite differently of her looks!
View attachment 71896

Can't fault her lipstick!

 

[TR_123456]

Quote:
advantage of having twin vertical stabilizers is that the location of vertical tails helps in having control authority at high alpha(where the fuselage/wing can blank a single vertical stabilizer). In modern stealth aircraft, having a twin tail enables them to be canted, helping in reducing RCS.
Having twin vertical stabilizers reduces their size, resulting in reduced stress at stabilizer root and reduction in weight.
In case of twin engined aircraft with engines spaced wide apart, having twin rudders helps in getting sufficient rudder authority in case of an engine failure.
Unquote.

They are also there to mask engine exhaust.

So they are not there to please our eyes. But serve a purpose.

Thats not what he meant,he asked a good question,why are they on the engines?
Its about the placing,

 

[TR_123456]

I don’t understand this fixation of a plane looking ugly or beautiful.
Who cares how ugly a plane looks?
These are machines to kill.
If it does what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t matter an iota even if it looks beautiful or not.

Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is The picture of Russian Queen Katherine I. Peter the great and Merzifonlu Pasha may have thought quite differently of her looks!
View attachment 71896

I see,you like them big huh???

 

[ChadThunder74]

This is what he expected, I don't blame.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Thats not what he meant,he asked a good question,why are they on the engines?
Its about the placing,

Actually the answer is hidden in my post.
With planes where engines are far apart, the twin rudders give better control over the rudder in case of an engine failure. But there is an optimum place where these rudders are placed and how apart and large they need to be. To optimise RCS and rudder control characteristics , plane is subjected to various wind tunnel tests. I presume our plane’s optimum rudder placement position happened to be on the engine casings.

F 16 has a single rudder and it is right on top of the engine casing.
F18 in below picture has it’s rudders right on top of the engine casing too. (Mind you there is nowhere else to put them on the F18)

 

[TR_123456]

Actually the answer is hidden in my post.
With planes where engines are far apart, the twin rudders give better control over the rudder in case of an engine failure. But there is an optimum place where these rudders are placed and how apart and large they need to be. To optimise RCS and rudder control characteristics , plane is subjected to various wind tunnel tests. I presume our plane’s optimum rudder placement position happened to be on the engine casings.

F 16 has a single rudder and it is right on top of the engine casing.
F18 in below picture has it’s rudders right on top of the engine casing too. (Mind you there is nowhere else to put them on the F18)
View attachment 71897

@Baklava Consumer here is your answer.

 

[Huelague]

I don’t understand this fixation of a plane looking ugly or beautiful.
Who cares how ugly a plane looks?
These are machines to kill.
If it does what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t matter an iota even if it looks beautiful or not.

Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is The picture of Russian Queen Katherine I. Peter the great and Merzifonlu Pasha may have thought quite differently of her looks!
View attachment 71896

Have you ever noticed, that „best“ weapons-/systems, are in the same way the most handsomes? From handguns over tanks, to the fighter jets. ‚Form follows Funktion‘.

 

[boredaf]

Of course, the function is more important, but this jet is more than a fighter jet, it's a propaganda tool and it builds the reputation of the country and its people. Whether you like it or not, it should look like it performs, the exterior does matter. Why do so many people try to tear up the F-35 or F-22? Because it's a glaring example of American power.

Look at the SU-57, they brought it to China, and everyone laughed at them.
SU-57 is a low stealth, low-quality mess, showing how backward Russian workmanship/engineering is and therefore Russia is.
View attachment 71905
View attachment 71902
View attachment 71903 View attachment 71904
View attachment 71906

Comparing apples to oranges here. TAI's first prototype was built better than this SU-57, placement of rudders are completely irrelevant to that. And it is beyond ridiculous to dig your heels on "OmG It ShOuLd LoOk BeAuTiFuL" when all that matters is its performance. No one will give two fucks if it wins a 5th gen jet fighter beauty contest while performing like shit. Engineers at TAI might change the positioning or they might not, but they sure as fuck won't make that decision based on its looks.

 

[TR_123456]

Of course, the function is more important, but this jet is more than a fighter jet, it's a propaganda tool and it builds the reputation of the country and its people. Whether you like it or not, it should look like it performs, the exterior does matter. Why do so many people try to tear up the F-35 or F-22? Because it's a glaring example of American power.

Look at the SU-57, they brought it to China, and everyone laughed at them.
SU-57 is a low stealth, low-quality mess, showing how backward Russian workmanship/engineering is and therefore Russia is.
View attachment 71905
View attachment 71902
View attachment 71903 View attachment 71904
View attachment 71906

That is a bit of an overreaction by your side.
We are not Russians,all our weapon systems produced by our companies are in perfect shape.
You should compare the Russian systems to that of Iran.
So,stop worrying!

 

[blackjack]

Of course, the function is more important, but this jet is more than a fighter jet, it's a propaganda tool and it builds the reputation of the country and its people. Whether you like it or not, it should look like it performs, the exterior does matter. Why do so many people try to tear up the F-35 or F-22? Because it's a glaring example of American power.

Look at the SU-57, they brought it to China, and everyone laughed at them.
SU-57 is a low stealth, low-quality mess, showing how backward Russian workmanship/engineering is and therefore Russia is.
View attachment 71905
View attachment 71902
View attachment 71903 View attachment 71904
View attachment 71906

To be fair they brought prototype instead of the serial produced su-57 to that airshow. I think next year the Su-75 will be showcased at airshows

"The first flight of the Checkmate will take place in 2024, Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said in a [March 2023] interview with Interfax."