TR UAV/UCAV Programs | Anka - series | Kızılelma | TB - series

[Anmdt]

I always wondered the why the EO unit is retracktable. This is why. To protect the EO unit while firing SOM.

I think it won't be necessary to use fuselage pylon for SOM, since SOM-J is lighter and can be used on the most inner pylon.
It makes more sense to use pure bombing and pure cruise missile carrier configuration seperately.

 

[dustdevil]

I always wondered the why the EO unit is retracktable. This is why. To protect the EO unit while firing SOM.

Drag reduction and protection of the sensor during take-off and landing must be the main reason as it’s behind the main landing gear. Also during rotation it will be closer to the ground because of the angle.

Can it also help with pylon/weapon station issues? Possible…

one example system:

Retractable Camera Mount Systems (RCMS) - Trine Aerospace

Retractable Camera Mount Systems (RCMS) Trine Aerospace’s Retractable Camera Mount System (RCMS) revolutionizes the way EO/IR sensors are mounted to mission aircraft. Mounting your sensor with a Trine RCMS reduces […]

www.trineaerospace.com

 

[Yasar_TR]

Akinci (top power) :
length : 12.5.m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 2 x 750HP
MTOW : 5500kg
payload : 1350kg
service ceiling : 12192m
range : 5000km

Reaper MQ9 :
length : 11m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 1 x 900 HP
MTOW : 4760kg
payload : 1700kg
service ceiling : 15420m
range : 1900km

Unless some serious calculation mistake has been made, or Akinci is optimised for long endurance specifically, these two UAV’s payload figures don’t add up, with respect to straight logic. Akinci’s performance should be better than Reaper’s.

 

[Zafer]

Akinci (top power) :
length : 12.5.m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 2 x 750HP
MTOW : 5500kg
payload : 1350kg
service ceiling : 12192m
range : 5000km

Reaper MQ9 :
length : 11m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 1 x 900 HP
MTOW : 4760kg
payload : 1700kg
service ceiling : 15420m
range : 1900km

Akıncı has a range 2.6 times as much as the Reaper, obviously Akıncı is using more of its payload capacity for fuel resulting in more endurance/range. Akıncı can possibly trade some of its fuel allowance for ammunition.

 

[Philips]

engine : 2 x 750HP

I think Baykar has given the specs about the Akinci using the Ukrainian 450hp engines. The PT6A-135A engines are under evaluation, or were under evaluation at Baykar with each of them delivering 750hp.

 

[Era_shield]

Akinci (top power) :
length : 12.5.m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 2 x 750HP
MTOW : 5500kg
payload : 1350kg
service ceiling : 12192m
range : 5000km

Reaper MQ9 :
length : 11m
wingspan : 20m
engine : 1 x 900 HP
MTOW : 4760kg
payload : 1700kg
service ceiling : 15420m
range : 1900km

Unless some serious calculation mistake has been made, or Akinci is optimised for long endurance specifically, these two UAV’s payload figures don’t add up, with respect to straight logic. Akinci’s performance should be better than Reaper’s.

View attachment 23072

View attachment 23071

Source for Akinci specs? Specifically that it's for the 2x750hp engines.

 

[TheInsider]

Akıncı and Reaper are two different UAVs. Akıncı is designed to operate around 30000 feet with 900kg external and 450kg internal payload for a total payload weight of 1350kg. Reaper usually conducts operations around 25k feet with a total payload weight of 1700kg. Akıncı has 2x engines which means 2x fuel pumps, 2x starters, etc while reaper has one engine, Akıncı has triple-redundant systems, more fuel capacity all of those add extra weight. Single American engine weighs 175kg and can give around 940hp @10000 feet and around 600hp@ 25k feet. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian engine loses performance quickly at high altitudes and weighs 140kg. Akıncı has more endurance and fuel capacity. You can always sacrifice operational altitude and endurance to carry more payload but it isn't the use case it is designed for. You can probably carry 2000kg @20000 feet with half the fuel load but it will be a stretch.


750hp Ukrainian engine can only give 544hp at 10000 feet(that is huge power loss) while American engine can give 940hp@10000feet. Reaper is 800kg lighter than akıncı at full load (4700kg vs 5500kg) which means that 940hp@10000 feet will carry much less compared to 1088hp@10000 feet. It will be even worse at higher altitudes. At some point, a single American engine will produce more power than 2x750hp Ukrainian engines because of the altitude scaling.

https://ivchenko-progress.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/ai450s2.pdf

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/content/dam/aero/en-us/documents/learn/products/engines/brochures/N61-1491-000-000-TPE331-10TurbopropEngine-bro.pdf

 

[kimov]

Source for Akinci specs? Specifically that it's for the 2x750hp engines.

General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Baykar Bayraktar Akıncı - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dustdevil]

There are so many different numbers for MQ-9 but if you believe this source MQ-9A has 27 hours of endurance and has more internal fuel (1769kg) than Akıncı (24+ hours, ~1600kg)

source:

MQ-9A Reaper (Predator B)

MQ-9A has an endurance of over 27 hours, speeds of 240 KTAS, can operate up to 50,000 feet, and has a 3,850 pound (1746 kilogram) payload capacity that includes 3,000 pounds (1361 kilograms) of external stores.

www.ga-asi.com

The range figure of 1900 km could be mission radius with some time over target, or it could be with heavier mission loads.

Using single engine (more fuel efficient) and having less drag (probably, less drag area due to single engine mounted on fuselage ) it will consume less fuel for the same range or distance, not specifically but generally of course…

I expect MQ-9A and baseline Akıncı to have similar figures and if Akıncı adds more internal fuel capacity or external fuel it will be same with MQ-9 ER /MQ-9B versions. Once H. Bayraktar told Akıncı has 5000 km mission (ISR) radius, maybe the specs are not current or will be improved with more fuel tanks.

 

[TheInsider]

As far as i know MQ-9 has 27 hours of endurance with external fuel tanks(it can carry external fuel tanks) and MQ-9A doesn't carry weapons(~1300kg less MTOW). If we compare internal fuel capacity Akıncı has more. It cant have 24 hours endurance with 2 engines(certainly consume more than a single engine), a heavier MTOW, and less fuel than MQ-9

Akıncı has 5000km range in electronic intelligence setup. That means a 2500km mission radius without or minimal(like pods) external load.


I expect Akıncı to carry at least 2000kg fuel and probably more. A very basic calculation
2000+kg fuel
500kg electronic payload
2000kg body, engines, landing gears, all flight subsystems etc.
950kg weapons payload.

 

[dustdevil]

If we compare internal fuel capacity Akıncı has more.

Did they change it? In Akıncı documentary 2000+ litres were visible on one of the screens and it translates to ~1600kg of Jet A1 or equivalent.

edit: Can’t find info whether MQ-9A fuel figure contains external fuel tanks or not. Mentions of external fuel direct to improved versions like ER but its endurance is more than 40 hours.

 

[TheInsider]

I might be mistaken 2000 liters vs 2000kg. I need to check it.

 

[Anmdt]

There are so many different numbers for MQ-9 but if you believe this source MQ-9A has 27 hours of endurance and has more internal fuel (1769kg) than Akıncı (24+ hours, ~1600kg)

source:

MQ-9A Reaper (Predator B)

MQ-9A has an endurance of over 27 hours, speeds of 240 KTAS, can operate up to 50,000 feet, and has a 3,850 pound (1746 kilogram) payload capacity that includes 3,000 pounds (1361 kilograms) of external stores.

www.ga-asi.com

The range figure of 1900 km could be mission radius with some time over target, or it could be with heavier mission loads.

Using single engine (more fuel efficient) and having less drag (probably, less drag area due to single engine mounted on fuselage ) it will consume less fuel for the same range or distance, not specifically but generally of course…

I expect MQ-9A and baseline Akıncı to have similar figures and if Akıncı adds more internal fuel capacity or external fuel it will be same with MQ-9 ER /MQ-9B versions. Once H. Bayraktar told Akıncı has 5000 km mission (ISR) radius, maybe the specs are not current or will be improved with more fuel tanks.

Which again made me remember how aerodynamically inefficient design Akinci has.
If i remember correctly haluk bayraktar has sketched it, and they fulfilled his sketches.
Which again i really wonder how much is the gain for Akinci in percentage would be if it was designed with more efficient form and engine placement.(such as moving engines to the tail using flat fuselage, straight wings.

 

[TheInsider]

Which again made me remember how aerodynamically inefficient design Akinci has.
If i remember correctly haluk bayraktar has sketched it, and they fulfilled his sketches.
Which again i really wonder how much is the gain for Akinci in percentage would be if it was designed with more efficient form and engine placement.(such as moving engines to the tail using flat fuselage, straight wings.

Sorry, but If Akıncı manages to stay in the air for 24 hours with 2 engines, more MTOW(compared to MQ-9), and with less fuel than MQ-9 this means it has an insane aerodynamic efficiency.

 

[Abdelaziz]

Which again made me remember how aerodynamically inefficient design Akinci has.
If i remember correctly haluk bayraktar has sketched it, and they fulfilled his sketches.
Which again i really wonder how much is the gain for Akinci in percentage would be if it was designed with more efficient form and engine placement.(such as moving engines to the tail using flat fuselage, straight wings.

Sketched and fulfilled the sketches ?! Really ... This is u thoughts about it !!

 

[dustdevil]

Which again made me remember how aerodynamically inefficient design Akinci has.
If i remember correctly haluk bayraktar has sketched it, and they fulfilled his sketches.
Which again i really wonder how much is the gain for Akinci in percentage would be if it was designed with more efficient form and engine placement.(such as moving engines to the tail using flat fuselage, straight wings.

Could be true and common sense but like Aksungur they continue to amaze me with new records. Still I wish a powerful single engine on an Anka like design…

 

[dustdevil]

Sorry, but If Akıncı manages to stay in the air for 24 hours with 2 engines, more MTOW(compared to MQ-9), and with less fuel than MQ-9 this means it has an insane aerodynamic efficiency.

Just one thing to add to discussion. I think, like the Aksungur specs, max endurance specs (if nothing else is mentioned) are not based on MTOW.

Probably based on clean aircraft for minimum required power with full fuel tanks.

 

[TheInsider]

So let's compare.
Clean config Akıncı 4550kg MTOW 1600kg fuel 24hour endurance
Clean config MQ-9 3400kg MTOW 1800kg fuel 27 hours endurance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully loaded MQ-9 4760kg MTOW 1800kg fuel 14 hours endurance

General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Akıncı wins this comparison with flying colors. It seems like aerodynamic efficiency of Akıncı is unbelievably high.

 

[Zafer]

I didn't know Haluk Bayraktar has design knowledge but Selçuk Bayraktar possibly has.

Akıncı has two engines which makes it arguably more resilient and survivable as there is a second engine if one engine is lost. An engine can either fail itself or get damaged from hostile fire. A US engine is arguably more resilient to self failure but it is equally vulnerable to hostile fire. On the whole a two engine plane is more survivable.

 

[TheInsider]

I didn't know Haluk Bayraktar has design knowledge but Selçuk Bayraktar possibly has.

Akıncı has two engines which makes it arguably more resilient and survivable as there is a second engine if one engine is lost. An engine can either fail itself or get damaged from hostile fire. A US engine is arguably more resilient to self failure but it is equally vulnerable to hostile fire. On the whole a two engine plane is more survivable.

If a UAV is receiving hostile fire it won't survive. It doesn't matter if it has single or dual engines.