Latest Thread
Can some one explain the front part (nose) of the plane which makes the UAV damn un-aerodynamic.
Can some one explain the front part (nose) of the plane
which makes the UAV damn un-aerodynamic
You dont need a calculation for that, as a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle.Intake (also inlet) of the engine
Please show us your calculations. Or why did you claim that?
Subsonic case : round/circular nose is more aerodynamicYou dont need a calculation for that, as a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle.
But why place the inlet on the nose?
damn un-aerodynamic
a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle
Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?
Well for a tanker drone you want to maximize payload and have it stable as the fuel amount drops while it is refueling and matching other jets pace and movement. So a flying wing may not be suitableIs using a flying wing for the role of tanker UAV optimal? Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?
View attachment 70374 View attachment 70373
That is US procurement culture, not Turkish. Look how fast Turkish UAV projects are advancing and with very affordable budgets. Tanker UAV doesn't need to be technologically advanced unlike Anka-3 or Kızılelma.Very tiny small budget indeed.
“The MQ‑25 program is an acquisition category 1B Major Defense Acquisition Program with an estimated cost of $16.5 billion, including $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, $12.6 billion for procurement, and $747.5 million for military construction,” according to DODIG’s review. Navy budget documents estimate that the average unit cost for each MQ-25 will be just under $150 million, not counting various ancillary items.
![]()
MQ-25 Stingray Tanker Delays, Risks Come Into View
A new report warns about the risks of the Navy's aggressive plans for the MQ-25 as Boeing gets millions in new funding for its development.www.twz.com
Tanker UAV doesn't need to be technologically advanced