TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[Heartbang]

The placement of vertical stabilizers are nothing to do with RCS. They must be angled for low visibility, not 90 degree like we see on f15 or MIGs. I think the placements are more related with flight performance

As far as I'm aware, there's no reason the location of those stabilisers should adversely affect RCS. Their location has little to do with the engines or RCS, they are placed where they are due to aerodynamic factors like vortex flow from the nose-inlet junctions. Because Kaan's engines are further apart than the F-22's to make space for the rear facing radar/electronics complex, the stabilisers end up being on top of them.

AFAIK When designing stealth platforms one must avoid 90 degree angles in the geometry whenever possible, wherever it can. And those stabilizers do look like they mounted with an angle of 90 degrees on top of those engine humps.

Ill wait for the 2nd prototype to appear, and comment accordingly

 

[Afif]

And those stabilizers do look like they mounted with an angle of 90 degrees on top of those engine humps.

How so? It looks to me they are at 75 degrees angle w.r.t wings and horizontal stabilizers.

 

[Xenon54]

AFAIK When designing stealth platforms one must avoid 90 degree angles in the geometry whenever possible, wherever it can. And those stabilizers do look like they mounted with an angle of 90 degrees on top of those engine humps.

Ill wait for the 2nd prototype to appear, and comment accordingly

Can you show on this picture where you see 90°?

 

[Era_shield]

AFAIK When designing stealth platforms one must avoid 90 degree angles in the geometry whenever possible, wherever it can. And those stabilizers do look like they mounted with an angle of 90 degrees on top of those engine humps.

Ill wait for the 2nd prototype to appear, and comment accordingly

Due to the fact that the base surface is circular, not flat, a 90 degree reflector could only form near the very base of the stabilisers - which, if you look closely, aren't at a 90 degree angle, and are no doubt designed to avoid being radar reflective.

Generally speaking these types of amateurish mistakes are not evident in the TFX. If you look closely, all over the plane there are examples of the TFX being carefully analysed and designed for minimum RCS. For example, these notches on the sides of the engine nacelles:

 

[Fx-gun]

I was refering to the fact of vertical stabilizers being directly on the engine humps.

Notice the F-22's vertical stabilizers' position. They are not mounted on the engine humps, just right next to it.

And this is KAAN for comparison:

The reason for the location difference is the engines' location. At F22, between engines there is no gap, but at TFX there is a serious dimension between engines. Because of that stabilizers are on engines

 

[Zafer]

There is even more distance between engines on SU57 but still the rudders are far outside the engines. Kaan must be keeping the rudders in to minimize rudder visibility among other reasons and achieve engine heat shielding by other means.

 

[Nilgiri]

We already talked about all this stuff before:

F-16 Özgür | Hürkuş - Fighter Trainer Aircraft Projects

That will never happen,Greece is to close(territory) to have air dominance. What airdefence does Greece have and what kind of missiles do we have? Dont forget ''561 km''. Yeah, i was only speculating for the sake of speculation.

defencehub.live

F-16 Özgür | Hürkuş - Fighter Trainer Aircraft Projects

That will never happen,Greece is to close(territory) to have air dominance. What airdefence does Greece have and what kind of missiles do we have? Dont forget ''561 km''. Yeah, i was only speculating for the sake of speculation.

defencehub.live

 

[Era_shield]

There is even more distance between engines on SU57 but still the rudders are far outside the engines. Kaan must be keeping the rudders in to minimize rudder visibility and achieve engine heat shielding by other means.

The Su-57 is a different shape, the vortices generated by its wings are spaced further apart, and the stabilisers are placed according to that (and other aerodynamic factors). It has nothing to do with stealth.

Next time someone thinks they found a flaw in the TFX's design, I'm just going to ask them to post their aerospace engineering degree.

 

[Zafer]

The Su-57 is a different shape, the vortexes generated by its wings are spaced further apart, and the stabilisers are placed according to that (and other aerodynamic factors). It has nothing to do with stealth.
View attachment 58554

Next time someone thinks they found a flaw in the TFX's design, I'm just going to ask them to post their aerospace engineering degree.

Would they place the rudders inside the engines if the wortexes fell inside the engines then, are you saying this. Would they then not take care of engines being exposed to side views at all ? What are you saying.

 

[Era_shield]

Apparently the galaxy brains who think vertical stabilisers are there to conceal the engine's heat have never seen a jet from below:

 

[Zafer]

Apparently the galaxy brains who think vertical stabilisers are there to conceal the engine's heat have never seen a jet from below:
View attachment 58556

Sensors look at a plane from different angles and the underside is usually not one of them if you are not already dead. Rudders provide additional shielding when looked from the sides at 2 o'clock position.

 

[MADDOG]

As per Temel Kotil, there are currently two KAAN prototypes in production. I'm guessing one of them being P1 (flying prototype), and the other one being the P2 (static prototype). Or vice-versa. We should soon learn more about them in due course.

 

[fushkee]

They will be 3 in total. I guess, one of them will be the flying proto and remains will stay for ground tests.

 

[Avionot]

I am happy to see people's interest on TF-X KAAN. I would like to introduce another image.

First of all, don't forget that it is a prototype. The KAAN crew is working hard. But here is an image from the bottom for those who needs.

 

[MADDOG]

I am happy to see people's interest on TF-X KAAN. I would like to introduce another image.

First of all, don't forget that it is a prototype. The KAAN crew is working hard. But here is an image from the bottom for those who needs. View attachment 58563

Welcome to the forum.

 

[MADDOG]

Seems to be a good interview. An hour long video covering projects from ATAK-II to KAAN. Worth watching perhaps. Grab some popcorn.

 

[MADDOG]

Prepping for assembly

 

[Fighter_35]

As per Temel Kotil, there are currently two KAAN prototypes in production. I'm guessing one of them being P1 (flying prototype), and the other one being the P2 (static prototype). Or vice-versa. We should soon learn more about them in due course.

CDR has not been completed as o know why they started building these prototypes?

 

[MADDOG]

CDR has not been completed as o know why they started building these prototypes?

CDR is a formal process. There isn't a golden rule that dictates that you should absolutely, under all circumstances, complete design activities beforehand. It is also worth mentioning that TAI took an experimental approach with this aircraft (which isn't surprising). An identical developmental approach to Hürjet is not the case.

 

[Aqerdf]

If i remember correctly, CDR of "this" plane was done. But CDR of Block 10 plane, i.e. 2025 config. plane, was not done yet.

I couldn't remember the source. But it was not a bogus source afaik, that's what i could remember...