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

[Anmdt]

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 calculations, much appreciated

Further things to add:
- the maximum vertical (or H 1/3) acceleration of the platform at a given sea-state, presumed to be operating, this will be derived by obtaining response at wave conditions.
- the maximum side-ways or cross-wind (or at H 1/3) at given sea-state, presumed to be operating, can be obtained directly from wind spectrums and possible wind profile at the elevated height.
If values are not satisfied for sea-state 3 but lets assume satisfied for 2,then it means UAV operations can be only conducted up to sea state 2.

Sea state, for the above explained reason is what limiting aerial operations on ships. I know some people would tell " that ship is 20k +tons dude how come waves affect it", and here i say, "Don't underestimate power of buoyancy lifting 20k tons"

It won't be easy for sure, and definitely they will need a launcher system so i got my popcorn and waiting how they will handle it.

So far i can tell a few things: these are calculate for the worst-case scenario. People would like to add +20 knots because of the ship's forward motion as the best case scenario but this is not constant, the ship may rest at mid-sea or might be traveling at flotilla speed (14-15 knots) or even at 6-7 knots slow speed. the UAVs should be able to take-off and land at the worst case scenario for a given sea-state.
It is mainly a probabilistic evaluation, but lets say if it satisfied by %80+ (giving a made-up value, not the actual Turkish Navy requires), then it is referred as a "pass"

 

[Huelague]

*A visual teaser.

Yes.

 

[Cypro]

even booster rockets can be experimented with UAVS for the take off, landing has been always the tricky part View attachment 17588

This was tried by USA even in regular planes for many times (like C-130) but eventually it is not economically viable unless rockets are reusable. May be something like rocket powered catapult so when UAV left rocket would remain in the deck for reusability and liquid rather than solid propellant.

 

[mulj]

Seldzuk delivers his promises, exiting time ahead.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379048184895393794

Selçuk Bayraktar: Unmanned warplanes are coming.

 

[Nilgiri]

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.

Yah, what I (and dustdevil) did was very baseline "worst case" situation of just scaling up the TB2 to larger size to get idea of some parameters that change.

i.e assuming that CL remains constant..... to get what the performance envelope is for STO (w.r.t say engine choice) of the inherent aerodynamic layout as it exists right now in TB platform.

Design envelope will be constrained of course by the use objectives/constraints.

You are right that there is maybe 50% of the ship beam on offer to support:

So if we take say 17 m or even 16 m as maximum wingspan permitted...

A) keeping CL constant, that would be solved by having much higher engine T/W for desired STO (and compromise there on other mass budgets and buffers available for other mission parameters)

B) Changing CL (say making thicker fatter wing) could achieve desired STO too by increasing wing area for every given wingspan (at compromise to L/D at other regimes say in cruise....affecting loiter, endurance, range efficiencies etc).

C) Total new STO-specific lift augmentation like combat-master posted a few times....or a very new design from scratch in general etc (and this is compromise in time + RnD resource).

The issue is somewhat like onion layers (starting at centre and work way out), i.e you do the very basic sizing of envelope on offer (with proven design, given time + reliablity proven are also valuable resources) and then add constraints/objectives in each subsequent N1, N2, N3 step that bring their various pros, cons and compromises made....if none are good then you go for total new design etc.

==============================

I am of course making no account for the Anadolu ski jump alpha addition (but TB3 may be designed for later flattop STO use anyway) and of course the various assisted take-off routines....that in a way the lift-augmentation stuff in (C) also part of.

Also the ship cruise speed should not be factored IMO....as the (unchangeable) baseline scenario here will have the ship at rest (i.e things should be able to launch without needing ship to be in movement).

 

[Nilgiri]

Thanks for the calculations, much appreciated

Further things to add:
- the maximum vertical (or H 1/3) acceleration of the platform at a given sea-state, presumed to be operating, this will be derived by obtaining response at wave conditions.
- the maximum side-ways or cross-wind (or at H 1/3) at given sea-state, presumed to be operating, can be obtained directly from wind spectrums and possible wind profile at the elevated height.
If values are not satisfied for sea-state 3 but lets assume satisfied for 2,then it means UAV operations can be only conducted up to sea state 2.

Sea state, for the above explained reason is what limiting aerial operations on ships. I know some people would tell " that ship is 20k +tons dude how come waves affect it", and here i say, "Don't underestimate power of buoyancy lifting 20k tons"

It won't be easy for sure, and definitely they will need a launcher system so i got my popcorn and waiting how they will handle it.

So far i can tell a few things: these are calculate for the worst-case scenario. People would like to add +20 knots because of the ship's forward motion as the best case scenario but this is not constant, the ship may rest at mid-sea or might be traveling at flotilla speed (14-15 knots) or even at 6-7 knots slow speed. the UAVs should be able to take-off and land at the worst case scenario for a given sea-state.
It is mainly a probabilistic evaluation, but lets say if it satisfied by %80+ (giving a made-up value, not the actual Turkish Navy requires), then it is referred as a "pass"

Yup excellent points made. This is very rudimentary first setting of envelope so far.

As has been shown, already simply scaling the TB2 with constant CL makes the wingspan too large.

So I guess first design exercise of note would be for say idealised shore based facility take off (replicated to geometry and deck constraints of the Anadolu)....i.e say 16 m max wingspan and engine/assists needed for the raw minimum STO desired.

Then with that iteration, you plug in what the sea state envelopes govern on that design and make compromises from that etc if needed (i.e what is the exact state you want to be able to definitely launch in, or what are the probability profiles in worse sea states etc and can intrinsic design help with these and worth investing time into...or you simply go with knowledge of the operation matrix with frozen design at certain spectrum achieved).

Best case scenarios like ship at full movement (and no perturbations/sea state issues) etc, are really "extra". I tell myself each day when I drive in sunny summer in Canada.....its a freebie "Extra good" performance w.r.t baseline conditions we get in winter heh.

 

[Combat-Master]

Maybe we can bring the TG-X1 back

 

[ATG]

Droning On in the Middle East

Back in the early 2010s when I first started playing with drones [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9DRiIXcp0], I speculated in the FT [https://www.ft.com/content/9cc59dce-5e27-11e1-8c87-00144feabdc0]that if I could own a drone, anyone could, and that this would have big implications for global...

www.americanpurpose.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379555855511642114

 

[Era_shield]

Droning On in the Middle East

Back in the early 2010s when I first started playing with drones [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9DRiIXcp0], I speculated in the FT [https://www.ft.com/content/9cc59dce-5e27-11e1-8c87-00144feabdc0]that if I could own a drone, anyone could, and that this would have big implications for global...

www.americanpurpose.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379555855511642114

"Turkish drones like the Bayraktar TB2 and Anka-S were developed by the Turkish defense firm Baykar Makina"

http://imgur.com/V8onHQ3

 

[Anmdt]

Maybe we can bring the TG-X1 back
View attachment 17646
View attachment 17645

404 - TUSAS

404

www.tusas.com

Damn, it is perfect:
Take off in 150 meters, landing in 210 meters
Width ~6 meters, (folded 2.3)
Endurance 6 hours, Range ~900 km (High speed), ~1600 (Economical)
Stall speed ~60 knots,
Maximum speed ~240 knots
400 kg payload on 2 Hardpoints (+ E/O)
MTOW 940 or 1200 kg

Runs on a single 450 HP engine probably a diesel and heavy one a turboprop engine can be used in trade off some more fuel.

 

[Combat-Master]

 

[Ryder]

These Greeks are wasting their time they should be happy we have passed the era of conquests and empire building.

I rest assure them nobody is going to waste their time in trying to rule a hostile land. When its easier to put politicians in your pockets making them your pawns.

Resources and defending your interests and sphere of influence is the main game of today not empire building.

Seriously the only shit our neighbours have is anxiety about a non existent neo Ottoman Empire

 

[Glass🚬]

I think TAI or Baykar should work on something like this as an UAV platform

 

[Zafer]

I think TAI or Baykar should work on something like this as an UAV platform

The closest thing to it is the Martin Jetpack, company closed after a lot of efforts to make it.

This kind of thing will not work as it has very high disc loading on fans leading to very bad energy efficiency.
These guys couldn't find an available motor for it and brought together experts to produce a 200hp engine.

Now they have closed shop. Sadly.

You need to have wings to fly effortlessly for longer time. Existing jetpacks can only fly for a maximum of 12 minutes with a person in it.

 

[Glass🚬]

The closest thing to it is the Martin Jetpack, company closed after a lot of efforts to make it.

This kind of thing will not work as it has very high disc loading on fans leading to very bad energy efficiency.
These guys couldn't find an available motor for it and brought together experts to produce a 200hp engine.

Now they have closed shop. Sadly.

You need to have wings to fly effortlessly for longer time. Existing jetpacks can only fly for a maximum of 12 minutes with a person in it.

Thats why an UAV and if there are no jet engines for such an airframe for now maybe use different engines and enhance the design of baykar cezeri in that direction

 

[Zafer]

Thats why an UAV and if there are no jet engines for such an airframe for now maybe use different engines and enhance the design of baykar cezeri in that direction

Cezeri's design is hopeless.
No wings no fly. I bet it can fly for under 4 minutes even without a person in it.
I don't know why they made this thing.
They say it is a long term project of 10-15 years, why start now, just for show.
Foreign competitors are hoping to start commercial flights in 2023, carrying paid customers.

This is a shame for Turkey, soaring in UAV development but sinking in flying cars.

 

[Nutuk]

Cezeri's design is hopeless.
No wings no fly. I bet it can fly for under 4 minutes even without a person in it.
I don't know why they made this thing.
They say it is a long term project of 10-15 years, why start now, just for show.
Foreign competitors are hoping to start commercial flights in 2023, carrying paid customers.

This is a shame for Turkey, soaring in UAV development but sinking in flying cars.

That's not only the case for Baykar, no one will have a flying car before 15 years.

It is not about the tech to make it fly but all the regulations to ensure safe flights that are non existing. Otherwise the demonstrator of Baykar is already flying

 

[Combat-Master]

Cezeri's design is hopeless.
No wings no fly. I bet it can fly for under 4 minutes even without a person in it.
I don't know why they made this thing.
They say it is a long term project of 10-15 years, why start now, just for show.
Foreign competitors are hoping to start commercial flights in 2023, carrying paid customers.

This is a shame for Turkey, soaring in UAV development but sinking in flying cars.

Your claims are all based off your opinion of wings, for whatever use case you're thinking of. Helicopters do not have wings yet they are viable methods for transport. It's not like they are developing a flying shuttle so it can fly from Istanbul to Ankara, it's an inter-city vehicle.

As for the design, there are multiple well known aviation companies developing designs very similar to Cezeri - so not as hopeless as you claim.

 

[Zafer]

Your claims are all based off your opinion of wings, for whatever use case you're thinking of. Helicopters do not have wings yet they are viable methods for transport. It's not like they are developing a flying shuttle so it can fly from Istanbul to Ankara, it's an inter-city vehicle.

As for the design, there are multiple well known aviation companies developing designs very similar to Cezeri - so not as hopeless as you claim.

View attachment 17744 View attachment 17745

A helicopter is a rotary wing. Its blades are wings.

Just because Airbus with its tens of thousands of engineers is building such a vehicle does not mean they will be successful, they are failing, they will probably quit soon but they are not prepared to take the shame.

Those companies that are preparing for commercial deployment all have wings barring one which is the Chinese eHang. eHang with its toylike design is even going public through a SPAC deal and have already reached several billion dollar valuation. They can not be allowed to carry people. Regulations allow no more than 1 fatal accident per one billion hour of flight but eHang has never shared their development records, no one knows if they ever crashed or not. Just like how citizens of Wuhan do not report deaths.

 

[Nilgiri]

Your claims are all based off your opinion of wings, for whatever use case you're thinking of. Helicopters do not have wings yet they are viable methods for transport. It's not like they are developing a flying shuttle so it can fly from Istanbul to Ankara, it's an inter-city vehicle.

As for the design, there are multiple well known aviation companies developing designs very similar to Cezeri - so not as hopeless as you claim.

View attachment 17744 View attachment 17745

Yes the point is to have everything else sorted out as far as you can, so you are the first (or at least among first 10) in the door when certain basic energy parameters (density, deployment, efficiency, transmission) hits critical ratio...and it is issue of scaling+ best practical engineering on that (and you dont have to work on the other stuff at same time).

It will likely involve a series of breakthroughs in nanotechnology imo.

I remember talking to my cousin many years back when he laughed off electric propulsion for aircraft, he isn't laughing quite as much these days on it.