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

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

Just asking my Turkish friends out here that how much of this pictographic is true? As one can notice no main Turkish component out here.
View attachment 17540

An unnecessary inography. All of the products he mentioned already have equivalents locally. Only night IR performance of our same size Aselsan Cats Flir is not as good as its Wescam counterpart so we have use this. As for other products, for example, on the Anka platform, we all have versions that comply with domestic and military standards (MIL), but Bayraktar uses much cheaper civilian products as it is desired to be produced in an extraordinary number of times. You can order all of the products in the products shown there, except WESCAM, to your home.
In addition, viasat was never used in satcom, only in the prototypes of the Anka S platform years ago.

 

[Nutuk]

Just asking my Turkish friends out here that how much of this pictographic is true? As one can notice no main Turkish component out here.
View attachment 17540

That's a childish Greek origine infographic to make themselves feel good.
It is not a secret that Baykar used also OEM products in their design. I mean how smart is it to develop a light bulb instead of using a light bulb that you can buy everywhere. In all products there are some OEM products, some products are not worth to develop and you just take an existing good working product into your design.

 

[Ryder]

That's a childish Greek origine infographic to make themselves feel good.
It is not a secret that Baykar used also OEM products in their design. I mean how smart is it to develop a light bulb instead of using a light bulb that you can buy everywhere. In all products there are some OEM products, some products are not worth to develop and you just take an existing good working product into your design.

Infographic just makes Greeks and Armenians feel good about themselves.

Yay we hit the Turks thinking they have crippled our capabilities

 

[Fuzuli NL]

An interesting Tilt Rotor UAV design from the Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Karatay University

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1378671491387129858

The design has some potential if it works especially for deployment on naval platforms.

 

[Hexciter]

I think it depends on how much ground run is needed for acceleration. I did not calculate anything othen than for TB2 200meters of run is possible with PD180 with 180hp. In TB2/Akıncı videos they usually run about 300 meters. But if PD180 can give more than 220hp+ for the takeoff run only, with some kind of constant speed propeller (if it was not employed yet on TB2) with a tractor configuration for a bigger propeller and ground clearance and better airstream over wings, maybe it could be possible with 1200 kgs+ too.

If not, probably single AI450 can do it. Dual / coaxial propellers in tractor/pusher config with two PD180 is another possibility, but it’s all speculation for now.

The Bayraktar uses at around 150 hp per metric ton. TAI & General Dynamics prefer a lower around 100.

 

[dustdevil]

Warning: Some bullshit calculations in the following text, not only assumptions but heavy guesswork/random stuff


It's a matter of balance between lift off speed and acceleration to reach this speed:

- Higher mass means less acceleration for the same force and possibly higher stall speed if wings are same
- Acceleration time to a speed beyond stall speed dictates take-off run and distance
- For higher acceleration more force is needed

Propeller efficiency, increasing drag and wheel friction complicates the issue but let's keep things simple, I directly take engine HP -> force so could be all wrong from now on....

Same stuff could have been described with wing loading (W/S) and T/W ratio terms too...

Take off distance = square of speed/2 * acceleration (from Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators book, let's see if we can work with it)
d= V^2/2a

So if we keep stall speed same with scaled up wings for heavier TB3,

Assuming lift off speed is 50 knots, 25.7 meters/sec for both TB2 and TB3 (which is propably not but the ratios may hold and give us some idea)

For TB2, 300 meters observed for takeoff run from youtube videos
300m=25.7*25.7/2*a
300m= 660/2*a

a=1.1 m/s^2 (acceleration)

TB2= 650 kgs
TB3= 1200kgs

Now if we use the same engine and propeller on TB3, and let's say the mass is still 1.85 times of TB2. New acceleration will be 0.594 m/s^2 from F=ma

New distance will be: 555 meters.... not acceptable for ship take-off....


For TB3, for 300 meters of run, we need an engine power of ~200 hp assuming TB2 uses ~110 hp (too tired to find & check engine manual).

For 300 meters TB2 uses an engine with 110 hp (Rotax 91x)
For 200 meters TB2 needs an engine with 165hp (PD170)
For 100 meters TB2 needs an engine with 330hp... (AI450, 450hp, or maybe a smaller version of this core)

Assuming no weight changes...

For 1200 kg TB3 multiply all with 1.85, assuming again the weight stays same (which is not)...

For 300 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~200hp (PD222)
For 200 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~300hp (AI450 with a small core or 2x PD170)
For 100 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~600hp... (AI750)

And this is with the same stall speed assumption. To get the same stall speed, TB3 wing has to have 1.85 times more area than TB2 wings....

Maybe a constant speed propeller, if not already used on TB2, may help for low speed performance and cut those power requirements from engines a bit (by a factor of ~1.5, so new required engine power will be 133, 200 and 400hp back to single PD222 and AI450 range, example propeller data: https://www.propellor.com/Content/Images/uploaded/Documents/Articles/Comparison of Fixed and CS propellers corrected.pdf ), helped with not only scaled up but better wings. According to formula d= V^2/2a, speed is more important than acceleration because it is squared, so Tb3 may have nice design changes because there is also a space limit on deck....

I also don't rule out catapult or rocket assisted take-off. Just for backup we should develop that method too. If desperate piston diesel + turbofan/turboprop dual or triple engine configuration can be tried too, UAV can be launched with all engines and the jet engine can be shut down during slow cruise flight for maximum endurance, reignited for high speed...

Calculator used: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/acceleration

 

[Nutuk]

I don't know but your "calculations" don't look like calculations but estimations.

You assume that TB2 will be more or less the same as TB3. How would you know whether TB3 has not more wingspan and wing area? TB3 which is 2x the weight of TB2 must be different, where does that weight come from?

Without knowing the lift parameters of TB3 all calculation / estimations are baseless, I am sure the guys from Baykar know this much better than us.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

I wish that Bayraktar would soon give us a teaser about the TB3 to end this torture!

 

[Huelague]

 

[Fuzuli NL]

*A visual teaser.

 

[Nilgiri]

Warning: Some bullshit calculations in the following text, not only assumptions but heavy guesswork/random stuff


It's a matter of balance between lift off speed and acceleration to reach this speed:

- Higher mass means less acceleration for the same force and possibly higher stall speed if wings are same
- Acceleration time to a speed beyond stall speed dictates take-off run and distance
- For higher acceleration more force is needed

Propeller efficiency, increasing drag and wheel friction complicates the issue but let's keep things simple, I directly take engine HP -> force so could be all wrong from now on....

Same stuff could have been described with wing loading (W/S) and T/W ratio terms too...

Take off distance = square of speed/2 * acceleration (from Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators book, let's see if we can work with it)
d= V^2/2a

So if we keep stall speed same with scaled up wings for heavier TB3,

Assuming lift off speed is 50 knots, 25.7 meters/sec for both TB2 and TB3 (which is propably not but the ratios may hold and give us some idea)

For TB2, 300 meters observed for takeoff run from youtube videos
300m=25.7*25.7/2*a
300m= 660/2*a

a=1.1 m/s^2 (acceleration)

TB2= 650 kgs
TB3= 1200kgs

Now if we use the same engine and propeller on TB3, and let's say the mass is still 1.85 times of TB2. New acceleration will be 0.594 m/s^2 from F=ma

New distance will be: 555 meters.... not acceptable for ship take-off....


For TB3, for 300 meters of run, we need an engine power of ~200 hp assuming TB2 uses ~110 hp (too tired to find & check engine manual).

For 300 meters TB2 uses an engine with 110 hp (Rotax 91x)
For 200 meters TB2 needs an engine with 165hp (PD170)
For 100 meters TB2 needs an engine with 330hp... (AI450, 450hp, or maybe a smaller version of this core)

Assuming no weight changes...

For 1200 kg TB3 multiply all with 1.85, assuming again the weight stays same (which is not)...

For 300 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~200hp (PD222)
For 200 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~300hp (AI450 with a small core or 2x PD170)
For 100 meters TB3 needs an engine with ~600hp... (AI750)

And this is with the same stall speed assumption. To get the same stall speed, TB3 wing has to have 1.85 times more area than TB2 wings....

Maybe a constant speed propeller, if not already used on TB2, may help for low speed performance and cut those power requirements from engines a bit (by a factor of ~1.5, so new required engine power will be 133, 200 and 400hp back to single PD222 and AI450 range, example propeller data: https://www.propellor.com/Content/Images/uploaded/Documents/Articles/Comparison of Fixed and CS propellers corrected.pdf ), helped with not only scaled up but better wings. According to formula d= V^2/2a, speed is more important than acceleration because it is squared, so Tb3 may have nice design changes because there is also a space limit on deck....

I also don't rule out catapult or rocket assisted take-off. Just for backup we should develop that method too. If desperate piston diesel + turbofan/turboprop dual or triple engine configuration can be tried too, UAV can be launched with all engines and the jet engine can be shut down during slow cruise flight for maximum endurance, reignited for high speed...

Calculator used: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/acceleration

Doing a bit of shorthand calculation (by taking L = W at moment of takeoff....a closely related condition* to stall characteristic you went with) gives a few more results and confirmation:

*i.e assuming same stall and same L/W assumes same/similar Coefficient of Lift for both (TB2 and TB3), or more specifically same Cl.alpha...i.e same wing performance)

i.e we get about 22 meter wingspan and 21 square metre wing area for TB3...which compares favourably to the dimension increases of MQ-1 to MQ-9 (which have same coefficient similarity if you look at line drawings).

It must be noted/compared that when MQ-1 was scaled up to MQ-9 we can see much larger thrust ratio increase rather than just a doubling (as you suggest)...as I have noted in the left page above....in their case it was 8x thrust for 4x weight increase.

Thus if TB3 goes with say a quad-multiplier (for thrust) for its doubling of weight from TB2....by your a = F/m calc we would get an effective max possible a of 4/1.85 times....say roughly 2a for TB3. To achieve same take-off velocity (by same CL for wing essentially, scaled ceterus paribus)....you might actually reduce the take-off distance by half (i.e 150m) if turkey follows same kind of thrust-scaling regime that MQ-1 ---> MQ-9 went for.

The wingspans, areas etc all match up favourably between the two families so this could be an option.

 

[dustdevil]

I don't know but your "calculations" don't look like calculations but estimations.

You assume that TB2 will be more or less the same as TB3. How would you know whether TB3 has not more wingspan and wing area? TB3 which is 2x the weight of TB2 must be different, where does that weight come from?

Without knowing the lift parameters of TB3 all calculation / estimations are baseless, I am sure the guys from Baykar know this much better than us.

Please read again all the warnings and descriptions in the message.

Because of the assumptions, the calculations could be all incorrect.

(I did not assume a wing with the same size by the way. Same stall speed assumption means wing has to have a bigger area because of the weight increase if other parameters kept same. If, after those assumptions, we find that we can’t increase area as required due to hitting size limits on the deck, we can assume a better Cl is needed too.

“Weight stays the same assumption” in few places is between different engine configurations within the same airframe. In order not to calculate acceleration again, I kept TB2=650kgs and TB3=1200)

The point is not to do the Baykar’s work but to understand the physics involved and to appreciate the design challenges.

If more data becomes available everyone can update their estimations with new ones because the physics remain same. (F=ma, d=v^2/2a, L=Cl*1/2*ρ*v^2*S)

 

[dustdevil]

Doing a bit of shorthand calculation (by taking L = W at moment of takeoff....a closely related condition* to stall characteristic you went with) gives a few more results and confirmation:

View attachment 17562

*i.e assuming same stall and same L/W assumes same/similar Coefficient of Lift for both (TB2 and TB3), or more specifically same Cl.alpha...i.e same wing performance)

i.e we get about 22 meter wingspan and 21 square metre wing area for TB3...which compares favourably to the dimension increases of MQ-1 to MQ-9 (which have same coefficient similarity if you look at line drawings).

It must be noted/compared that when MQ-1 was scaled up to MQ-9 we can see much larger thrust ratio increase rather than just a doubling (as you suggest)...as I have noted in the left page above....in their case it was 8x thrust for 4x weight increase.

Thus if TB3 goes with say a quad-multiplier (for thrust) for its doubling of weight from TB2....by your a = F/m calc we would get an effective max possible a of 4/1.85 times....say roughly 2a for TB3. To achieve same take-off velocity (by same CL for wing essentially, scaled ceterus paribus)....you might actually reduce the take-off distance by half (i.e 150m) if turkey follows same kind of thrust-scaling regime that MQ-1 ---> MQ-9 went for.

The wingspans, areas etc all match up favourably between the two families so this could be an option.

Thanks for the work and references.

I too arrived to that wingspan if wing geometry is just scaled but don't know if it's suitable for the LHD deck operation. Bayraktar said there would be folding wings, and it may suggest wing span is not small. A couple of times PD170 and PD180 is mentioned by TEI manager and Bayraktar, but some of them before talks of LHD capability. Guessing again, if the stall speed is reduced dramatically like a classic STOL aircraft with a complete new wing and aerodynamic changes (tractor instead of pusher etc) it looks possible, but the other capabilities might suffer.

If I was Baykar, I'd design 3-4 new airframes concurrently, some of them having STOL features, some of them MQ-9 like as you suggested... maybe TUSAŞ can design a new bigger Anka with TEI's turboprop engines too.

 

[Nutuk]

Please read again all the warnings and descriptions in the message.

Because of the assumptions, the calculations could be all incorrect.

(I did not assume a wing with the same size by the way. Same stall speed assumption means wing has to have a bigger area because of the weight increase if other parameters kept same. If, after those assumptions, we find that we can’t increase area as required due to hitting size limits on the deck, we can assume a better Cl is needed too.

“Weight stays the same assumption” in few places is between different engine configurations within the same airframe. In order not to calculate acceleration again, I kept TB2=650kgs and TB3=1200)

The point is not to do the Baykar’s work but to understand the physics involved and to appreciate the design challenges.

If more data becomes available everyone can update their estimations with new ones because the physics remain same. (F=ma, d=v^2/2a, L=Cl*1/2*ρ*v^2*S)

physics may remain same but there is a thing like aerodynamics, the shape of a plane determines whether it is a fast plan, stable plane, unstable plane or a slow plane with huge lift properties.

Think a bit like the paper planes that we all have made when we were kids, fold a plane in a bit different shape and the flight characteristics is totally different, you cannot just calculate that with some physics formula's

 

[dustdevil]

physics may remain same but there is a thing like aerodynamics, the shape of a plane determines whether it is a fast plan, stable plane, unstable plane or a slow plane with huge lift properties.

Think a bit like the paper planes that we all have made when we were kids, fold a plane in a bit different shape and the flight characteristics is totally different, you cannot just calculate that with some physics formula's

I understand you but I'm aware of those possibilities, that's why I talk about assumptions/estimations/guesswork. I'm not the designer of TB3, but I can talk about possibilities and make educated guesses, update them if new data comes out.

If TB3 is revealed, whatever they do, it won't violate the laws of physics, the equations still could be used explain its performance.

 

[Combat-Master]

Is the view of the aerial vehicle with propulsion groups positioned for very short runway take - off and electrically assisted climbing and cruise.

is the view of the aerial vehicle with propulsion groups positioned for a very short runway landing.

shows the wing compartment with the propulsion groups in the vertical position with the wing propellers open.

 

[Yasar_TR]

This TB3 may not be too much bigger than the TB2. But have much bigger wing area and a much more powerful engine (either a 750HP AI450 or 2 x PD180/222 or even 2 x AI450) . The weight increase will come from extra engine weight, constructional strengthening and extra fuel needed for the engine/engines.
There is only 17m clearance on the deck of Anadolu. So the wing span has to be within safe operating dimensions. Folding wing is needed to fit it in to lifts and for storage.
Some sort of hold/release brake system will have to be applied to the deck so that prior to take off the engines are given time to Rev-up to have a powerful start up. At full speed , Anadolu itself will reach 40km/hour. So the plane has this speed at start. Within 190-200 metres it has to reach take-off speed. The ski lift will provide a good deal of lift as well. All these parameters will have to be included in a realistic calculation of flight scenario.
@Combat-Master ’s drawing with fatter but shorter wings is what I was thinking of Albeit with 2 engines.

 

[Zafer]

TB3 should have different mission profiles than TB2 as the requirements of operating from a ship deck is different. I would suggest a shorter flight time like 10-12 hours with smaller aspect ratio wings which means a shorter wingspan. This in turn may require a bigger engine power. This will require the characteristics of the airframe to be changed as well. Instead of the existing double tail boom a single tail boom should be employed. A higher solidity propeller like 4-5 blades out the very back may be appropriate. This will enable the plane to push the deck harder at take off utilizing ground effect to the extreme. A limited gimballing (trust vectoring) capability could be utilized as well.

 

[dustdevil]

"ludicrous drive mode" is Tesla Cars' fast acceleration mode, not that I am a fan of Tesla. With this I mean even a simple, fast electric car can drive this plane to take off speed as the possible additional acceleration margin is not huge if any. The car will not travel the whole runway and will start to brake (in different ways not only with its on board systems but probably systems anchored on the ship by a cable) in a safe distance from the end of the runway. I don't mean a regular car should do it but even the systems of a regular car fitted in a low profile tug/tow car can do the job as the plane is already low weight. Thinking in reverse such a method can possibly help launch heavier planes up to several tons.

Sorry for not reading carefully before, I arrived to the same conclusion and written about it in another forum.

Tesla Roadster 2, 0-100kmh 2.1sec, assuming it's 1200 kg like Roadster 1 before. If it's heavier it's a bonus.

Acceleration calculated as 13.2 m/s^2 and uses 29 meters to reach that speed.

With Tb3 loaded on top and unnecessary parts removed from the Roadster, let's say we need 120 kmh (64 knots), and guess new acceleration as 6.7 m/sec^2, the distance is 83 meters. For safety spoilers to press down the platform and a Formula 1 brake capability is desirable.. We can use this technique on not so ideal roads on land too.

 

[Quasar]

even booster rockets can be experimented with UAVS for the take off, landing has been always the tricky part