What made you think that?
Sorry my language dear stranger but...
What made you come up with that? If you give me your reasonings, I might try to explain the design choices.
Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Sorry my language dear stranger but...
What made you come up with that? If you give me your reasonings, I might try to explain the design choices.
It's 4 a.m. and I can't sleep so I might as well answer this.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about the latest design, tbh in one way I don't like it's design; but in another way, I like that It's now more unique other than just being a "Turkish F-22".
It now has design elements which remind me of the F-22, F-35 and the Su-57. I don't like the design, I think it looks ugly but at the same time I like the fact that It now looks more unique. For example I don't like that huge space between the engines on the new design.
Aside from the cockpit section, I loved the old design. But due to some engineering reasonings that we may never know, the design was changed actually quite some time ago. People who don't follow Turkish aviation programs closely will be supised but there already have been news about this change a couple of years ago. And because this design is a couple years old, there recently have been talks around the defence industry watching community that this is not the finalised design but is a very analogous one.
Can you explain to me what makes this plane and its technologies "flanker-era"?
The Air Force requested essentially a stealthified F-15C/E due to the operational requirements and this plane literally is more like what a 5th gen Eagle would look like than an F-22 derivative.
One issue is that the internal bays were designed to carry 1000lb bombs just like the F-22, which is a problem imo.
By the way, what no one surprisingly is not talking about is that the earlier design was 21 meters long but the last design is 19 meters and is more wide due to that humongous space between engines.
I heard that the Su-57 can't fire missiles from forward and rear weapon bays at the same time, is that right? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I think this may be an issue.
But then, the Americans wouldn't put the same style bays in the Yf-23 when it was competing for such a critical program, would they?
Just out of curiosity what do you find ugly about the new design compared with the old one? Do you dislike the addition of LERX?
Nah, that's not it, TF-X always had LERX and is even more visible on the old design I shared in my last reply. I think the Su-57-like design elements, mainly the S-duct and the wide space and internal stations between the engines made it uglier. After saying this, I'm probably going to be excommunicated by avgeeks but I find the Su-57 to be ugly looking.
It was far more attractive looking like an F-22.
Wider spacing improves body lift though. It improves turning at possible detriment to roll rate. Personally I find the differences from F-22 refreshing.
Yeah, me too; as I said it now looks more unique; like a mixture of 22, 35 and Su-57. Which appeals to me. Most 5th gen fighters look indistinguishably almost the same, except the main big 4 F-22, F-35, J-20 and Su-57. Even then J-20 looks like it's American counterparts from the frontal profile. Others like the AMCA, J-XY and KF-21 also really look like the F-35 but with their main differences being double engines. In this circumstances, TF-X having a more fresh and more unique design is surely always a nice thing.
But still, the old design looked better and I think most people would agree on this.
The advantages you said are there, but we were talking about the attractiveness of both designs.
What made you think that?
It should be made one piece instead of two, Russians do this cause Su-57 is a central body lifting aircraft like other flankers, it was once a four piece frame (each ring welded by 2 pieces)
And in this pic , I think this frame is at the end of the bay, which takes a serious amount of force , other 5gens tend to use integral frame at this place ( except Su-57)
It’s not about the whole aircraft ,but the first pic .
It should be made one piece instead of two, Russians do this cause Su-57 is a central body lifting aircraft like other flankers, it was once a four piece frame (each ring welded by 2 pieces)
And in this pic , I think this frame is at the end of the bay, which takes a serious amount of force , other 5gens tend to use integral frame at this place ( except Su-57)
Wider space between two engines makes a lot of sense,the F22 couldn’t reach the maneuvering requirement posted by USAF without TVC despise the huge vertical tails it has, and YF-23 reached the goal without TVC, I know it’s not only about the wider space between engines but surely is a major factor .
It's just for demonstrstion and some limited testing purposes. In fact, those parts were built with CNC machines for the purposes I mentioned. In fact, the whole reason why TAI bought a 3d printer from Sciaky, is to be able to build this bulkhead in one piece.
An another example, here is the full part:
You should at least put up the work and do your research before coming here and blustering about it.
Like, dude, we are sacrificing our time and put up some efford here to inform others about these kind of stuff, you can at least read them before talking out of nowhere.
Last edited:
I tried my best with my paint skills to scale the size of the Flanker with the MMU, @CasualObserver @Philister :
They are both 21m in length and 14m spanwidth. If someone else can compare them visually better than I did, please go ahead by all means.
We can clearly see how large the horizontal stabilizers are on the MMU.
They are both 21m in length and 14m spanwidth. If someone else can compare them visually better than I did, please go ahead by all means.
We can clearly see how large the horizontal stabilizers are on the MMU.