TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,424
Solutions
1
Reactions
16 3,969
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
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.
thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,300
Reactions
96 11,860
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
If they leak a higher resolution image, I promise not to remove the watermark of the savunmasanayist next time. :D

mmu2transformed.jpg
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
398
Reactions
6 422
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Would moving the vertical stabilizer off the engines in the future be difficult, or would the jet be redesigned?
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,300
Reactions
96 11,860
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
That arc embedded into the canopy glass is THIS close to disappearing. I bet we won't see that in the final product. It will be a bubble canopy just like F-16.
I have a guess: In the pilot ejection sequence, and during the canopy removal stage, the part behind the belt explodes only. Due to the concave line of the aircraft's aerodynamics from the top of the nose to the front canopy, the sequencer can safely fire the STAPAC even if the ejection system pitots give a higher airspeed measurement.
 

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,360
Reactions
81 45,455
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.

The design of the aircraft including cockpit section was the same at the last IDEF fair but mock-up in the showroom had nothing to do with reality. That's why P0 prototype you see seem "weird" to you. however, there is nothing bad about aircraft in terms of aerodynamic analysis and technologies. The aircraft itself developed in the computer environment as a result of aviation software and RCS simulations and later tested in wind tunnels. The Block-10 prototype will be slightly different from this prototype because development of aircraft will continue so it is not appropriate choice to make such negative comments that are not based on any mathematical or scientific data by looking at low-resolution photos.
mmu2transformed.jpg

Screenshot_20230317_195457_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20230317_195411_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20230317_200032_YouTube.jpg
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
Would moving the vertical stabilizer off the engines in the future be difficult, or would the jet be redesigned?
Everything needs to be in harmony aerodynamically. Moving the vertical stabs is a big challenge and probably isn't worth the time and effort. I also believe there is a reason why TAI put them there to begin with.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,504
Solutions
2
Reactions
118 24,907
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.
Pretty much what is the issue is about. The angle, the lens, fov and quality of the image. It looks much better to naked eye and will look much better from a farther position with a proper lens.

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.
Without a proper CFD analysis unless you are into supersonic fluid dynamics for a certain term as mininum.
Asked a friend, out of curiosity after seeing people's rage, whom i trust with and who has had 15+ years experience with fluid dynamics in academis this was his response;
"Bro i have not studied supersonic or compressible flows and i may not answer this question."

Meanwhile others;
"I don't know conversation of momentum but anyway the shape looks off and intrinstictively i am telling it is a bad design."

We are living in an era which everyone knows everything better than anyone aka; trump syndrome.
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
Pretty much what is the issue is about. The angle, the lens, fov and quality of the image. It looks much better to naked eye and will look much better from a farther position with a proper lens.


Without a proper CFD analysis unless you are into supersonic fluid dynamics for a certain term as mininum.
Asked a friend, out of curiosity after seeing people's rage, whom i trust with and who has had 15+ years experience with fluid dynamics in academis this was his response;
"Bro i have not studied supersonic or compressible flows and i may not answer this question."

Meanwhile others;
"I don't know conversation of momentum but anyway the shape looks off and intrinstictively i am telling it is a bad design."

We are living in an era which everyone knows everything better than anyone aka; trump syndrome.
I've encountered way too many "eXpErTs" today. Unfortunately this is how low the damn bar is.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom