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

[dustdevil]

So let's compare.
Clean config Akıncı 4550kg MTOW 1600kg fuel 24hour endurance
Clean config MQ-9 3400kg MTOW 1700kg fuel 27 hours endurance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully loaded MQ-9 4760kg MTOW 1700kg 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.

MQ-9 empty weight could be 2223 kg based on some af.mil source.

2223 + 1700 = 3923 kg
I could not find Akıncı’s empty weight.

 

[Anmdt]

So let's compare.
Clean config Akıncı 4550kg MTOW 1600kg fuel 24hour endurance
Clean config MQ-9 3400kg MTOW 1700kg fuel 27 hours endurance

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

Wikipedia tells:
Reaper;
900 HP engine, 4500 kg MTOW referencing US Army factsheet.
1700 kg payload, 50k feet in certain configurations.

Akinci;
1500 HP Engine 5500 kg MTOW.
1500 kg payload.40k feet as reported as of now.

Reaper specsheet by ga-asi

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

Akinci specsheet by baykar

BAYKAR Teknoloji

Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR

www.baykarsavunma.com

No need to use fifth sense here, Reaper is more efficient. Akinci has higher maximum and loitering speed. And probably was not designed to be efficient but agile.

Akinci was not designed to be efficient, but its design could definitely be more efficient by 10% roughly, it was designed to be fast, being able to do long runs, carrying aesa in nose and doing multi spectral tracking, targeting.

 

[Test7]

Wikipedia tells:
Reaper;
900 HP engine, 4500 kg MTOW referencing US Army factsheet.
1700 kg payload, 50k feet in certain configurations.

Akinci;
1500 HP Engine 5500 kg MTOW.
1500 kg payload.40k feet as reported as of now.

Reaper specsheet by ga-asi

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

Akinci specsheet by baykar

BAYKAR Teknoloji

Türkiye'nin ilk Milli S/İHA'larını geliştiren teknoloji şirketi BAYKAR

www.baykarsavunma.com

No need to use fifth sense here, Reaper is more efficient. Akinci has higher maximum and loitering speed. And probably was not designed to be efficient but agile.

Akinci was not designed to be efficient, but its design could definitely be more efficient by 10% roughly, it was designed to be fast, being able to do long runs, carrying aesa in nose and doing multi spectral tracking, targeting.

I also think it might be helpful to point this out.. Customers'll be aware that they can buy almost 3 Akinci for the price of 1 MQ-9

 

[TheInsider]

Above, I posted engineering hp/altitude charts of the 2 engines as pdf. Reaper engine produces 950hp at 10000feet while Ukrainian engine produces 544hp at 10000feet. The sources I posted are more reliable than the wiki as they are real engineering charts.

I solved the mystery
Baykar Akıncı can carry 1600kg fuel at full load. (5500kg, Empty weight of Akıncı is 2550kg).
MQ-9 can only carry 819/1179kg of fuel(depending on internal payload) when it is fully loaded at 4763kg.

So MQ-9 sacrifices fuel capacity to carry more.

MTOW of MQ-9 4763kg
Empty weight of MQ-9 2223kg
Internal Payload 360kg
Max External Payload 1361kg
Max fuel capacity 1769kg


MTOW-Empty weight=2540kg (fuel+internal+extarnal load capacity)
2540= fuel+360kg+1361kg
Fuel=819kg

Reposting
MQ-9 engine specs

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

Akıncı Engine specs

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

 

[Anmdt]

I also think it might be helpful to point this out.. Customers'll be aware that they can buy almost 3 Akinci for the price of 1 MQ-9

And also Akinci can carry a multi purpose AESA radar, has higher maximum speed. I am not telling it is worse, my point was it was neither meant to more efficient than reaper because design point has not been that.
I just implied it could have been more efficient from engineering point of view with a simpler design satisfying the same requirements

This is the reason why i am proud of our UAV programs regardless of who designs it, those are tailored for TAF needs from scratch and there is sufficient ability to further tailor them. Unlike some other countries who tries to copy someone else's uav which doesn't fit to their purpose, Turkey can freely design UAVs.

 

[TheInsider]

This also explains PD-222 engines as an engine alternative for the surveillance/observation version of Akıncı

2550kg empty weight+800kg half fuel load or even lower(fuel efficient diesel engines)+150kg internal payload for surveillance=3500kg 2xPD-222(222hp take off power, 200hp continuous power, 180hp@ 20000feet) can be able to easily lift this. IMHO it might be fine up to 4000kg (for reference Anka MTOW with PD-155 155hp modified Thielert Centurion is 1700kg )

This is also consistent with the 24-hour endurance capability of Akıncı. At clean config, Akıncı has 24 hours of endurance with 1600kg of fuel. At full load, Akıncı has lower endurance as endurance falls with increased weight and aerodynamic drag caused by external payload.

Case closed.

 

[Anmdt]

This also explains PD-222 engines as an engine alternative for the surveillance/observation version of Akıncı

2550kg empty weight+800kg half fuel load or even lower(fuel efficient diesel engines)+150kg internal payload for surveillance=3500kg 2xPD-222(222hp take off power, 200hp continuous power, 180hp@ 20000feet) can be able to lift this. (for reference Anka MTOW with PD-170 is 1700kg )

This is also consistent with the 24-hour endurance capability of Akıncı. At clean config, Akıncı has 24 hours of endurance with 1600kg of fuel. At full load, Akıncı has lower endurance as endurance falls with increased weight and aerodynamic drag caused by external payload.

Case closed.

Still aksungur is more efficient with PD222.

The specs are taken from ga-asi, manufacturer of the Reaper, which is the same as the specs in wikipedia.

Reaper flies faster in cruise mode and maximum speed (yet i was wrong i assume akinci to be faster which i still hope those speed specs either belongs to 450 or 220 HP engines) ,with less installed power, less fuel consumption at the same altitude.

Akinci burns 266 kg per hour , 190 knots maximum speed.
Reaper burns 205 kg per hour at 250 knots.

Reaper has higher payload to MTOW ratio.

What is your personal efficieny definition, let us know so we wont discuss to infinity.
Is it loitering time / fuel carried
Is it distance travelled/fuel carried
Is it fuel carried/MTOW ratio?
In 5 comparison i have written down it seems like Akinci seems more efficient only in one.

A single pusher engine is more efficient than 2 split puller engine, common expectation.

Western engine is more efficient than eastern engines, common expectation.

A sleek and simpler form and wings is more efficient than curved body and curved wings, common expectation.

What am i missing here? Magic?

Again, the discussion about which one is more efficient is totally obsolote and pointles also waste of time while it is obvious which one is.
Akinci had scored better in design matrix and thus it was chosen, it did fit into our needs and reaches better than Reaper so such a design configuration was chosen instead of the Reaper's.

My rant is not about the chosen configuration, but the strange beluga like curves on body and curves at the wings that has no benefit for aerodynamics (wings may have some benefits) or design engineering that i sense at least costs 10 percent or more in efficiency.

 

[Anmdt]

This also explains PD-222 engines as an engine alternative for the surveillance/observation version of Akıncı

2550kg empty weight+800kg half fuel load or even lower(fuel efficient diesel engines)+150kg internal payload for surveillance=3500kg 2xPD-222(222hp take off power, 200hp continuous power, 180hp@ 20000feet) can be able to lift this. (for reference Anka MTOW with PD-155 155hp modified Thielert Centurion is 1700kg )

This is also consistent with the 24-hour endurance capability of Akıncı. At clean config, Akıncı has 24 hours of endurance with 1600kg of fuel. At full load, Akıncı has lower endurance as endurance falls with increased weight and aerodynamic drag caused by external payload.

Case closed.

I don't really know what are you talking about. Yet the number you have given shows Akinci is less efficient than Aksungur or Anka. But anyway.
The entire comparison was about 2x750 HP Akinci vs Reaper.
If we are comparing with PD-222 ,common sense we know aksungur is more efficient compared to both.
This is why TN and TAF eyes Aksungur for MP ,ISR &COMINT, it is more efficient.

 

[TheInsider]

Akinci burns 266 kg per hour , 190 knots maximum speed.
Reaper burns 205 kg per hour at 250 knots

This is wrong. Akıncı carries 1600kg of fuel with an hourly burn rate of 266kg it can stay 6 hours in the air.

Reaper has higher payload to MTOW ratio.

Wrong again it sacrifices fuel capacity to carry more.
Akıncı doesn't sacrifice its fuel capacity. Akıncı can carry way more than MQ-9 if it sacrifices fuel capacity. Akıncı has a better aerodynamical efficiency it can create more lift.

I have already compared 2x750hp Akıncı with Reaper above. I wrote every spec in detail. Empyy weight, maximum take off weight, internal payload, external payload, and fuel capacity. Read them again. I also calculated how much fuel Reaper sacrifices to carry a total payload of 1700+kg.

Reaper sacrifices fuel capacity to carry that 1700+kg huge payload.
Akıncı carries 1350kg without sacrificing fuel capacity.
If Akıncı sacrifices as much fuel capacity as Reaper it can carry 2200kg.

Akıncı and Reaper has probably similar engine power output around 15000-20000 feet. Above 20000feet Reapers engine is probably better. Akıncı is also heavier which means Akıncı creates more lift=It is aerodynamically a better design.

 

[TheInsider]

What is your personal efficieny definition, let us know so we wont discuss to infinity.
Is it loitering time / fuel carried
Is it distance travelled/fuel carried
Is it fuel carried/MTOW ratio?
In 5 comparison i have written down it seems like Akinci seems more efficient only in one.

None of them. Reaper either carries weapons or fuel. It cant do both. If it carries weapons its endurance is decreased to 14 hours. If maximized for endurance it won't be able to use weapons even though it has a better engine than the two engines of Akıncı.
Akıncı can carry both weapons and fuel very effectively. It doesn't have to sacrifice half of its endurance to carry weapons. even though its engines are worse than the American engine and it is heavier than the reaper.

 

[Anmdt]

This is wrong


Wrong again it sacrifices fuel capacity to carry more.
Akıncı doesn't sacrifice its fuel capacity. Akıncı can carry way more than MQ-9 if it sacrifices fuel capacity. Akıncı has a better aerodynamical efficiency it can create more lift.

I have already compared 2x750hp Akıncı with Reaper above. I wrote every spec in detail. Empyy weight, maximum take off weight, internal payload, external payload, and fuel capacity. Read them again. I also calculated how much fuel Reaper sacrifices to carry a total payload of 1700+kg.

Reaper sacrifices fuel capacity to carry that 1700+kg huge payload.
Akıncı carries 1350kg without sacrificing fuel capacity.
If Akıncı sacrifices as much fuel capacity as Reaper it can carry 2250kg.

Akıncı and Reaper has probably similar engine power output around 15000-20000 feet. Above 20000feet Reapers engine is probably better. Akıncı is also heavier which means Akıncı creates more lift=It is aerodynamically a better design.

​

Maximum cruise power:
Flight speed, km/h	250			407
Power,h.p	285	285	300	544
Specific fuel consumption, kg/h.p.•h	0.325	0.325	0.320	0.246

From motorsich the most left column is for the 750 HP variant.

0.246 x 544 at 10k feet at 407km/h (yet Akıncı's max speed is 190 ~ 350 km/h) knots which means to be available with maximum continuous power) = 133 kg x 2 = 266 kg, applied correction factor from Honeywells graph due to the less airspeed, less continous power, by %3-5 : 250 kg

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

from honeywell, reading from graph: at 10k feet, 250 knots 450 lb per hour = 203 kg.

Put aside the platforms i compare the engines 1 to 1:
honeywell TP per HP per hour at 10k feet @220 knots: 0.226 kg
motorsich TP per HP per hour at 10k feet @220 knots: 0.246 kg
the difference is nearly %10 percent for the engine.
Total engine weight:
2x150kg ~ for Akıncı
1x175kg for Reaper

Corrected fuel consumption per-100 miles:
Akıncı: 131 kg ( 250 kg per hour @190 knots)
Reaper: 93 kg ( 203 kg per hour @220 knots, actually maximum speed was given as 250 kts but i have taken the value from engine manufacturer which implies 900 HP output at 220 kts at 10k feet)

Can Reaper carry more payload when needed? yes,
You have earlier stated Akıncı can not carry all that 2500+ kg payload, which actually you were wrong,it can carry that as long as the MTOW is satisfied just like TB2 has been carrying CATS and 4 Mam-l by sacrificing fuel and satisfying MTOW.

Is Reaper still more efficient from common point of view, yes.
Really no point in discussing this.

 

[Philips]

What the Akinci has in advantage is seemingly its lifting body profile and special wingtips to reduce drag. But I don't know how much endurance they add.

 

[Philips]

You have earlier stated Akıncı can not carry all that 2500+ kg payload, which actually you were wrong,it can carry that as long as the MTOW is satisfied just like TB2 has been carrying CATS and 4 Mam-l by sacrificing fuel and satisfying MTOW.

What about structural strength? Can the Akinci carry that much under its wings?

These discussions are meaningless as long as we lack the proper information for a true comparison. There is a reason why not everything is out there in the open.

AFAIK, the Baykar documentary provides certain info for the Akinci pertaining its weight and certain figures related to its aerodynamics.

 

[Anmdt]

​

Maximum cruise power:
Flight speed, km/h	250			407
Power,h.p	285	285	300	544
Specific fuel consumption, kg/h.p.•h	0.325	0.325	0.320	0.246

From motorsich the most left column is for the 750 HP variant.

0.246 x 544 at 10k feet at 407km/h (yet Akıncı's max speed is 190 ~ 350 km/h) knots which means to be available with maximum continuous power) = 133 kg x 2 = 266 kg, applied correction factor from Honeywells graph due to the less airspeed, less continous power, by %3-5 : 250 kg

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

from honeywell, reading from graph: at 10k feet, 250 knots 450 lb per hour = 203 kg.

Put aside the platforms i compare the engines 1 to 1:
honeywell TP per HP per hour at 10k feet @220 knots: 0.226 kg
motorsich TP per HP per hour at 10k feet @220 knots: 0.246 kg
the difference is nearly %10 percent for the engine.
Total engine weight:
2x150kg ~ for Akıncı
1x175kg for Reaper

Corrected fuel consumption per-100 miles:
Akıncı: 131 kg ( 250 kg per hour @190 knots)
Reaper: 93 kg ( 203 kg per hour @220 knots, actually maximum speed was given as 250 kts but i have taken the value from engine manufacturer which implies 900 HP output at 220 kts at 10k feet)

Can Reaper carry more payload when needed? yes,
You have earlier stated Akıncı can not carry all that 2500+ kg payload, which actually you were wrong,it can carry that as long as the MTOW is satisfied just like TB2 has been carrying CATS and 4 Mam-l by sacrificing fuel and satisfying MTOW.

Is Reaper still more efficient from common point of view, yes.
Really no point in discussing this.

What about structural strength? Can the Akinci carry that much under its wings?

These discussions are meaningless as long as we lack the proper information for a true comparison. There is a reason why not everything is out there in the open.

AFAIK, the Baykar documentary provides certain info for the Akinci pertaining its weight and certain figures related to its aerodynamics.

Once and for last, i am not fan of 1 to 1 comparison of single independent features because it tells a little about the platform and doctrine of the army using it (which can be seen in my earlier messages too). And my point was to speak about efficiency in terms of the design,obviously Akıncı could have had a more efficient form like "Reaper", simple and sleek. But it rather has an aesthetic one.

I have told twice before as well, i have more reasons to like Akıncı -customized to our needs, tailored for TAF and optimized for TAF's doctrine- , but if we go down to 1 to 1 actual comparison the result is as naturally expected.
Also pricewise, it is 1/3rd as claimed by @Test7, moreover it is "ours" and freely leased to TAF unlike Reaper with a 0 chance of being leased or sold. In these terms it is obviously is more efficient and the only solution.

 

[TheInsider]

You have calculated fuel consumption figures for the maximum power-rpm. %90 of the time max power is not used to conserve fuel otherwise you will last only 6 hours with an Akıncı and even less with Reaper. Theoretical maximum consumption and mean consumption of a mission differ a lot.

Akıncı carries its body 2550kg+1600kg fuel+450kg internal payload+900kg external payload for a total weight of 5500kg all together at the same time. If you sacrifice fuel you can carry even more weapons(inner pylons carry 600kg, mid carry 300kg, outer pylons carry 150kg). Akıncı has a load capacity of 2950kg

Reaper carriers its body 2223kg+ a combination of fuel+internal+ external payloads for a total weight of 4763kg. If you want to carry the advertised maximum weapons load you have to sacrifice fuel capacity which means sacrificing endurance. If you want to achieve advertised maximum endurance you have to sacrifice weapons load. Reaper has a load capacity of 2540kg.


Akıncı has 410kg more load capacity compared to Reaper with an arguably worse engine setup. That is a lot if you compare MTOW values 4763vs5500.

A 24-hour endurance Reaper will carry nothing. Akıncı will carry a sizeable weapons load.

You are writing as if going faster is a good thing for an endurance UAV. On the contrary, you have to be able to create enough lift at lower speeds to conserve fuel and carry more. If it is fast it means that it has to go faster to create more lift. The faster it goes the more fuel it consumes. The faster it goes the more lift it creates. If it can create a lot of lift at lower speeds(as expected of an endurance UAV) it means that it is aerodynamically more efficient than the faster one. It doesn't need to go fast to create a lot of lift and it doesn't need to consume a lot of fuel to go fast. That is why most of the UAVs have huge wings. It is done to create more lift.

 

[Anmdt]

You have calculated fuel consumption figures for the maximum power-rpm. %90 of the time max power is not used to conserve fuel otherwise you will last only 6 hours with an Akıncı and even less with Reaper. Theoretical maximum consumption and mean consumption of a mission differ a lot.

Akıncı carries its body 2550kg+1600kg fuel+450kg internal payload+900kg external payload for a total weight of 5500kg all together at the same time. If you sacrifice fuel you can carry even more weapons(inner pylons carry 600kg, mid carry 300kg, outer pylons carry 150kg). Akıncı has a load capacity of 2950kg

Reaper carriers its body 2223kg+ a combination of fuel+internal+ external payloads for a total weight of 4763kg. If you want to carry the advertised maximum weapons load you have to sacrifice fuel capacity which means sacrificing endurance. If you want to achieve advertised maximum endurance you have to sacrifice weapons load. Reaper has a load capacity of 2540kg.


Akıncı has 410kg more load capacity compared to Reaper with an arguably worse engine setup. That is a lot if you compare MTOW values 4763vs5500.

A 24-hour endurance Reaper will carry nothing. Akıncı will carry a sizeable weapons load.

You are writing as if going faster is a good thing for an endurance UAV. On the contrary, you have to be able to create enough lift at lower speeds to conserve fuel and carry more. If it is fast it means that it has to go faster to create more lift. The faster it goes the more fuel it consumes. The faster it goes the more lift it creates. If it can create a lot of lift at lower speeds(as expected of an endurance UAV) it means that it is aerodynamically more efficient than the faster one. It doesn't need to go fast to create a lot of lift and it doesn't need to consume a lot of fuel to go fast. That is why most of the UAVs have huge wings. It is done to create more lift.

Maximum speed does tell something about form and engine efficiency.
Numbers are out there in links, for both engines as well, i have objectively taken those numbers and done necessary calculations.
I have done calculations for the given maximum speed, for cruise speed again the ratio does not change much.
But anyway, my posts are above whomever intested in numbers can read those.
Maybe you can try to click reply or tag me next time so that i know my post was replied.

 

[Kaan Azman]

Selçuk Bayraktar indirectly stated in a tweet that Akıncı could fly at 500+ km/h

Also Akıncı doesn't have much issue with flying at 32k feet, at some hundereds of kilometers per hour, from a footage released by Selçuk bayraktar himself

Akıncı's shape is based on providing more lift, which is another reason Akıncı has somewhat better service ceiling. If you take a look at birds' wings you can see another similarity based on the same principle. Birds can fly around with minimal power thanks to their wings and even bodies based on providing more lift.

it might be less efficent than Reaper, when you look at the onboard avionics and sensors you can see why Akıncı is heavier when it is empty

ISR version with 5000 km range is most likely AKINCI-C with PD222 turbodiesels, allowing it to loiter for a longer time. If we consider the fact that it will be mainly for ISR and have less weight overall, we can assume that weapons and some of the onboard stuff might be cut down in favor of endurance and ISR payloads.

I believe that when TEI makes a turboprop engine with the experiences and technology gained from TS1400, we can see the engine efficenct problem solved.

 

[dustdevil]

It seems MQ-9A Block 5 has a bigger MTOW. And it gives a hint why it was 4763 kg... the limit was structural... not aerodynamics related.

Trailing Arm Design Expected to Improve MQ-9 Reliability and Performance Significantly

SAN DIEGO – 9 January 2012 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and electro-optic surveillance systems, today announced the availability of a new trailing arm design for the existing main landing gear on its Predator® B/MQ-9 Reaper UAS.

"Our engineers and suppliers have worked hard to develop a landing gear design that will enhance and extend the utility of this multi-purpose aircraft for our customers," said David Alexander, vice president of engineering, Aircraft Systems Group, GA-ASI. "The new landing gear is just one of many value-added features that will be included in Block 5 Predator Bs."

The enhanced landing gear is available as a field retrofit to all Predator B/MQ-9 customers upon request and is expected to improve the reliability and performance of the aircraft significantly as it offers the following benefits:

• 30%+ increase in landing weight capacity, at the full Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) descent rate of 10 ft per second
• Growth path to increase gross takeoff weight by approximately 12% (10,500 lb vs. 11,700 lb)
• Maintenance-free shock absorber, nitrogen pressurization not required
• Full rejected takeoff brake system at growth maximum weight of 11,700 lb
• Includes provisions for automatic takeoff and landing capability and Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) field upgrades

The new landing gear successfully underwent full qualification, fatigue testing, and flight testing in January 2011. The flight test program included fully instrumented loads validation, taxi testing, landings at a variety of weights and sink rates, and in-flight gear-swings. Only one minor revision to the original design was required following testing, which was a tribute to the success of the initial design effort.

GA-ASI Introduces New Design on Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper Landing Gear

NULL

www.ga-asi.com

The old landing gear:

( https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/ )
Modified one:

( https://aminoapps.com/c/warfare-rol...predator-b/Xlgo_W1cXIjobPYgEKLXm6KZZVDvB0r3xk )

( https://www.uasvision.com/2012/01/1...design-on-predator-bmq-9-reaper-landing-gear/ )

"Growth path to increase gross takeoff weight by approximately 12% (10,500 lb vs. 11,700 lb)"
10500lb=4763kg
11700lb= 5307kg

As for Akıncı & Aksungur let's wait and see how they perform, I'm sure we'll see improvements after they enter service.

 

[Zafer]

Akıncı was probably also developed with the purpose of taking some of fighter jets' bomber roles therefore it came with wider chord wings which lends itself to heavier lifting for a given wingspan whereas Reaper didn't have such a design purpose and comes with slender wings which lends itself to faster speed. Also you don't want to copy the looks of someone else's plane, it is not good if you want to make a name of your own. China is an exception to this as they copy anything one to one but they are getting blamed for it.

 

[Turko]

Once and for last, i am not fan of 1 to 1 comparison of single independent features because it tells a little about the platform and doctrine of the army using it (which can be seen in my earlier messages too). And my point was to speak about efficiency in terms of the design,obviously Akıncı could have had a more efficient form like "Reaper", simple and sleek. But it rather has an aesthetic one.

I have told twice before as well, i have more reasons to like Akıncı -customized to our needs, tailored for TAF and optimized for TAF's doctrine- , but if we go down to 1 to 1 actual comparison the result is as naturally expected.
Also pricewise, it is 1/3rd as claimed by @Test7, moreover it is "ours" and freely leased to TAF unlike Reaper with a 0 chance of being leased or sold. In these terms it is obviously is more efficient and the only solution.

Dear what would you say if i offered designing Aksungur platform with 3 or 4 APG-68 radars? Due to TurAF replacesment of new AESE radars with APG-68 we will have undeployed app 250 radars. Why not using Aksungur as UAV AWACS ? Frontal, right , left and rear looking 4 APG-68 fighter radars could search deliberately any aerospace.

* İ've further crazy idea: adding 8 AMRAAM on it, you would get flying, mobile, unmanned, Air defence / SAM system


Edit: here is the double engined OV-1 D Mohawk with side looking radar.