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

[Zafer]

PD170 seems to be for testing purposes only or perhaps it was never used on Akıncı and only used on TB2/3 development. 450 hp is off the shelf with software modification and is a temporary solution while the 750hp engine will be its main engine with which Akıncı will shine. The engine seems to support speeds of up to 407 km/h.

 

[AzeriTank]

PD170 seems to be for testing purposes only or perhaps it was never used on Akıncı and only used on TB2/3 development. 450 hp is off the shelf with software modification and is a temporary solution while the 750hp engine will be its main engine with which Akıncı will shine. The engine seems to support speeds of up to 407 km/h.

TEI said that PD222 will be ready next year, so probably they will install it by 2022 in production line in case there is an order... but i think Turkey doesnt need it as it has Aksungur.
to be able to carry AESA radar and air to air missiles it needs speed and those turboprop engines... you can never get that speed with Turboprop engine.
there is only one thing in my mind. is 750hp engine chosen to make Akinci to fly from Anadolu? that would make Anadolu LHD like an Turkish drone AC..
Also, those 900kg outside carry capacity is mentioned with the fuel that enough to make it fly 24 hours which is most of the weight of the aircraft.. if it carry less fuel lets say to fly for 10 hours, i wonder what will be its real capabilities?

 

[Zafer]

TEI said that PD222 will be ready next year, so probably they will install it by 2022 in production line in case there is an order... but i think Turkey doesnt need it as it has Aksungur.
to be able to carry AESA radar and air to air missiles it needs speed and those turboprop engines... you can never get that speed with Turboprop engine.
there is only one thing in my mind. is 750hp engine chosen to make Akinci to fly from Anadolu? that would make Anadolu LHD like an Turkish drone AC..
Also, those 900kg outside carry capacity is mentioned with the fuel that enough to make it fly 24 hours which is most of the weight of the aircraft.. if it carry less fuel lets say to fly for 10 hours, i wonder what will be its real capabilities?

I believe you mean piston engine.

 

[dustdevil]

Previously I tried to calculate some estimates for the airspeed of Akıncı with different engines:

1- 100-120 knots *IAS For PD170x2
2- 170-190 knots *IAS For 450hpx2
3- 200-220 knots *IAS For 750hpx2

* replace with TAS

I think I made an error in speed type, if the published speeds are in TAS@Altitude for Akıncı UAV those speeds should be also TAS. Otherwise IAS to TAS conversion at high altitude gives so much speed.

 

[AzeriTank]

I believe you mean piston engine.

hahah i actually wanted to say diesel engine.. as male class mostly use it, or as you mentioned it could also be piston, simply, it has to be a jet engine to have the speed to fire air to air missiles. otherwise, you need to put booster to those missiles that increase the cost of it..

 

[Kartal1]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347076928184999936

 

[Sinan]

Previously I tried to calculate some estimates for the airspeed of Akıncı with different engines:

1- 100-120 knots *IAS For PD170x2
2- 170-190 knots *IAS For 450hpx2
3- 200-220 knots *IAS For 750hpx2

* replace with TAS

I think I made an error in speed type, if the published speeds are in TAS@Altitude for Akıncı UAV those speeds should be also TAS. Otherwise IAS to TAS conversion at high altitude gives so much speed.

Can you show your actual calculations?

 

[dustdevil]

Can you show your actual calculations?

Of course....

My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.

For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.

BAYKAR Teknoloji

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

www.baykarsavunma.com

For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.

We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.


In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.

It can also be seen in this graph:

13.2 Power Required

13.2 Power Required

web.mit.edu

After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.


So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.

450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18

170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots

If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.


The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...



Edit:

Fixed this part:

"For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"

If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.

 

[Zafer]

Of course....

My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.

For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.

BAYKAR Teknoloji

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

www.baykarsavunma.com

For engines, I thought it was for 750hp X 2 version as they use it in the prototypes.

We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.


In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because its cubed.

It can also be seen in this graph:

13.2 Power Required

13.2 Power Required

web.mit.edu

After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.


So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.

450*2=900
750*2=1500
1500/900= 1.66... cube root is 1.18

170x1.18= 200 knots

If the speed was 190 knots (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.


The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...

We need various air vehicles to cover the whole range of speed capabilities.
Higher speed requires airframes optimized for speed and a more powerful power plant.
A new airframe optimized for speed and a turboprop engine derived from the TS1400 core can do the job very well.

 

[Glass🚬]

When will they let the aksungur fly with 24 mam-l´s?

 

[Ryder]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347076928184999936

Somebody call Based Department!!!

 

[Sinan]

Of course....

My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.

For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.

BAYKAR Teknoloji

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

www.baykarsavunma.com

For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.

We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.


In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.

It can also be seen in this graph:

13.2 Power Required

13.2 Power Required

web.mit.edu

After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.


So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.

450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18

170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots

If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.


The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...



Edit:

Fixed this part:

"For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"

If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.

Okay, got it. We disregard everything, like air density, drag, propeller efficiency, weight differences between variants and just look at speed. and not even calculating the drag with in the function of speed. As long as we understand this has hugee tolerance in calculation, we are good.

P.S: I'm not even sure if we can calculate speed from power (work in). @anmdt

 

[Anmdt]

Okay, got it. We disregard everything, like air density, drag, propeller efficiency, weight differences between variants and just look at speed. and not even calculating the drag with in the function of speed. As long as we understand this has hugee tolerance in calculation, we are good.

P.S: I'm not even sure if we can calculate speed from power (work in). @anmdt

Actually drag x speed would equal to net required power (to be transmitted efficiently from propeller against the drag) , we do it in a such way for the ships and then calculate required installed power with assumption of loss and efficiency coefficients (propeller efficiency, propeller + hull efficiency, shaft +bearing +gearbox losses, engine losses etc). So from my point of view such calculations would be only accurate if assumes the net power,not the installed one.
In a general way i think if equations right it would work for the estimations with safe loss estimations. I don't really know much about aircrafts since they also need a lift and prevent from stall,while ships doesn't . @Nilgiri

 

[Sinan]

Actually drag x speed would equal to net required power (to be transmitted efficiently from propeller against the drag) , we do it in a such way for the ships and then calculate required installed power with assumption of loss and efficiency coefficients (propeller efficiency, propeller + hull efficiency, shaft +bearing +gearbox losses, engine losses etc). So from my point of view such calculations would be only accurate if assumes the net power,not the installed one.
In a general way i think if equations right it would work for the estimations with safe loss estimations. I don't really know much about aircrafts since they also need a lift and prevent from stall,while ships doesn't . @Nilgiri

I was about to say that, You have Cl, lift and Cd drag in aircraft. So you are using a percent of the drag force for lift. Drag x speed won't be the required power. Cd would be the aerodynamical force against aircraft.

 

[Zafer]

Airframers can calculate the performance of a new plane to 1% accuracy. But this requires a database of similar planes' performance. Practically you can only make precise calculations if you have actually built such a machine before. Several consulting companies provide such a service. They compare your design against their database and verify your performance.

 

[Nilgiri]

Of course....

My goal was to compare airframe performance (Akıncı, TB2, Aksungur, Anka) with different engine options. In the original post I told it was obviously in error so don't expect serious numbers.

For Akıncı we have 130-195 knots as cruise airspeed. Type of airspeed is not mentioned, but it's probably TAS for navigation/cruise purposes.

BAYKAR Teknoloji

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

www.baykarsavunma.com

For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes.

We only have engine power and airspeed now. Propeller efficiency, engine performance@altitude is disregarded but we can still work on those numbers.


In the power required formula there are too many variables. But the airspeed dominates because it's cubed.

It can also be seen in this graph:

13.2 Power Required

13.2 Power Required

web.mit.edu

After disregarding everything except airspeed we can assume for speed increase, power requirement is proportional to the cube of it.


So if 450x2HP gives you 170 knots (I think this was the number I used to be on the safe side)
750x2HP will give you x knots.

450 HP * 2 engines = 900HP total power for aircraft
750 HP * 2 engines = 1500HP total power for aircraft
1500/900 = 1.66... and its cube root is 1.18

170 knots x 1.18 = 200 knots

If the speed was 190 knots instead of 170 for the official number (for Akıncı only, because we disregarded everything and started with official numbers of Akıncı), the new speed would be around 220 knots.


The aim was to see huge power requirements for relatively small increases in speed, so if we need faster-killer UAV we must optimize the airframe for low drag instead. It makes more sense...



Edit:

Fixed this part:

"For engines, I thought it was for 450hp X 2 version (edit: fixed 750hp->450hp) as they use it in the prototypes"

If the 195 knots figure was for 750HPx2 equipped version the airspeed for 450HPx2 version would be around 165 knots. I believe 195 knots is for the 450HPx2 version though.

Great job with your sensitivity analysis. Takes me back nostalgically.

As a slight addition, if we reasonably assume the max cruise speed is close to the power minima (as it ideally should be for engine power selection i.e it is same as drag minima)

we can assume that the correlation is to 2*V^3 factor ...as 1/V = V^3 (factors wise) approx at this minima.

For the 900 HP stated speed of 170 knots, this would convert to about 202 knots for 1500 HP.

For the 900 HP stated speed of 190 knots, this would convert to about 225 knots for 1500 HP.

Very close to your result as multiple of 2 is fairly insignificant compared to a cubing ofc.

 

[Nilgiri]

I was about to say that, You have Cl, lift and Cd drag in aircraft. So you are using a percent of the drag force for lift. Drag x speed won't be the required power. Cd would be the aerodynamical force against aircraft.

Yeah but its a sensitivity analysis for cruise speed power requirement....assuming this is max cruise speed we are talking about.

Basically its all factored in and thrust = drag and lift = weight.

The next analysis would naturally be for endurance and range, those would use the lift = weight condition curve.

 

[dustdevil]

Great job with your sensitivity analysis. Takes me back nostalgically.

As a slight addition, if we reasonably assume the max cruise speed is close to the power minima (as it ideally should be for engine power selection i.e it is same as drag minima)

we can assume that the correlation is to 2*V^3 factor ...as 1/V = V^3 (factors wise) approx at this minima.

For the 900 HP stated speed of 170 knots, this would convert to about 202 knots for 1500 HP.

For the 900 HP stated speed of 190 knots, this would convert to about 225 knots for 1500 HP.

Very close to your result as multiple of 2 is fairly insignificant compared to a cubing ofc.

Hey, thanks for the compliment and additional explanations.

Actually I have the same figures, but due to truncation errors, illustrative purposes and uncertainty I rounded them down to easy numbers. As you said in the other post, some variables are already factored in like drag, so it's not a "very inaccurate" method. I think most of the uncertainty comes from the official 195 kts figure and slight changes in IAS will result in bigger differences in TAS at altitude, so the actual number could be different.

Analysing official statements and videos, Akıncı is not tested with landing gear up yet for maximum speed and altitude. So waiting for more info...

 

[Cabatli_TR]

TB3 will use the lightened version of PD-170 engines.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348637486105448453

 

[Balamir]

New products from DASAL

ALBATROS GA-B (Ground Attack Bomber) carries a special release and 4 Togan and similar bombs; Thanks to the various technologies it has, it successfully leaves it to the determined or self-determined target.

EBABİL platform, +50 min. It is a unique platform for military operations with its flight time, maximum carrying capacity of 2 kg and a flight range of up to 10 km, and its bombing system, which has proven itself in harsh weather conditions.

ARIKUSU is designed to perform special missions with their ability to take off and land from mobile land and sea vehicles. It performs sensitive tasks such as Observation, Tracking, Identification, Detection and Reporting thanks to technologies such as image processing, artificial intelligence and sensor fusion.

Being a member of the Albatros platform, this IHA III class X8-3500 PCP (Postal Cargo Platform) provides autonomous, continuous, fast and economical logistics between medium distances with its 75 kg capacity cargo module specially designed for different sized cargo groups.

The X8-1400 FEM (Fire Extinguishing Missile) platform contributes by throwing fire missiles or bombs carrying special chemicals to fires without any airtime limitation with a wired energy transfer solution. It performs its duty effectively by climbing rapidly to floors that are difficult to reach on high floors.

Designed as the Main Fire Fighter, the X8-3500 FFB (Forest Fire Fighter) plays an important role in controlling fires by dropping fire cannons of different sizes, which they carry up to 75kg, to the points where the fire is strong and developing, serially or intermittently. The platform can move autonomously to the locations determined by the X4-950 FDF model and can be managed from the fire zone or the central control room.