TF-X Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircraft Projects

[siegecrossbow]

I have been following with interest your posts on the other forum, not only on this topic but also on other aviation topics. Thank you on my behalf for sharing your knowledge and the different in-depth views that experienced eyes can offer, it is a pleasure to read your posts.

Lol I am a complete amateur in the field. What I do know about the subject is just stuff I've been reading online, some of which admittedly are legitimate academic sources.

 

[Deino]

Wow ...

 

[dBSPL]

Lol I am a complete amateur in the field. What I do know about the subject is just stuff I've been reading online, some of which admittedly are legitimate academic sources.

As you can see, while not only here but also in most international defense forums are becoming more and more of a troll-fest, the profiles that contribute to the discussions as much as possible to a technical extent without taking the topics out of their own channel are very valuable. Frankly, I am not interested in whether you are an amateur or a professional, what I find valuable is your approach and open attitude to share your knowledge.

 

[Deino]

I'm still amazed even if at least by now, I find the front section a bit strange!

 

[dBSPL]

I'm still amazed even if at least by now, I find the front section a bit strange!

View attachment 921530

Looking at the details, as siegecrossbow pointed out in the other forum, many things about the aircraft seem to be much more ready contrary to generally believed before. Most important issue is that the CDR phase has not yet been announced. I think the situation with the MMU will become more clearer around May, as the target for the maiden flight is the end of 2023.

 

[siegecrossbow]

As you can see, while not only here but also in most international defense forums are becoming more and more of a troll-fest, the profiles that contribute to the discussions as much as possible to a technical extent without taking the topics out of their own channel are very valuable. Frankly, I am not interested in whether you are an amateur or a professional, what I find valuable is your approach and open attitude to share your knowledge.

Well, I am quite a s**t poster myself. It’s just that I mostly keep analytical content separate from lame memes.

Additional insights I posted on another forum:

During wind tunnel tests the engineers must've realized that the transonic drag reduction/added space for fuel/electronics is well worth the detriment to rearview visibility, especially in this day and age. I am also of the opinion that a version of EODAS will be incorporated sooner or later.

I just realized that the air speed probe is there all along. A bit unusual for a prototype to have this instead of the nose-pitot typically seen on other fifth gen prototypes. I have a nagging suspicion that the plane is further along in development than many have suspected.

A bit of clarification on what I meant. Having a nose pitot would interfere with the radar to some extent, and once a fifth gen is ready to test the radar it is removed for distributed air speed probes. Not saying that the radar is ready but there technically isn’t anything stopping them from putting one in.

 

[BON PLAN]

High resolution video.

TFX, queen of taxiing.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Using your image to make a point. Hopefully you don't mind @Indos.

From a layman's perspective the bulge behind the canopy sure makes the aircraft's head look big doesn't it? Going by intuition it must add considerable drag to the aircraft and must've been done only to increase internal space for fuel/electronics at the expense of aerodynamics/rearview visibility?

Wrong!
This is the perfect illustration for why you should never eyeball aerodynamics and/or RCS and come to a conclusion.

https://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract18586.shtml

I have attached an article from the HKXB journals, published by the same researchers who made the canopy modifications on the J-35. Based on wind tunnel testing, adding a "bulge" behind the cockpit has contributed to significantly lower transonic drag by reducing pressure behind the cockpit. This is very important for an aircraft that has super cruise requirement.

Counter intuitive, isn't it? This is why you should never assume that your eyes know more about aerodynamics than people with access to wind tunnels.

 

[LegionnairE]

Using your image to make a point. Hopefully you don't mind @Indos.

From a layman's perspective the bulge behind the canopy sure makes the aircraft's head look big doesn't it? Going by intuition it must add considerable drag to the aircraft and must've been done only to increase internal space for fuel/electronics at the expense of aerodynamics/rearview visibility?

Wrong!
This is the perfect illustration for why you should never eyeball aerodynamics and/or RCS and come to a conclusion.

https://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract18586.shtml

I have attached an article from the HKXB journals, published by the same researchers who made the canopy modifications on the J-35. Based on wind tunnel testing, adding a "bulge" behind the cockpit has contributed to significantly lower transonic drag by reducing pressure behind the cockpit. This is very important for an aircraft that has super cruise requirement.

Counter intuitive, isn't it? This is why you should never assume that your eyes know more about aerodynamics than people with access to wind tunnels.

No, the shape never seemed less aerodynamic for me, it's a huge plane, you could put avionics basically anywhere.

My problem with it is that the canopy ends too early and rearward visibility suffers as a result. F22 Canopy is MUCH nicer.

Only thing they are going to compromise aerodynamics is for RCS. Although size of the nose and size of the internal weapons bays will define the plane.

 

[siegecrossbow]

No, the shape never seemed less aerodynamic for me, it's a huge plane, you could put avionics basically anywhere.

My problem with it is that the canopy ends too early and rearward visibility suffers as a result. F22 Canopy is MUCH nicer.

Only thing they are going to compromise aerodynamics is for RCS. Although size of the nose and size of the internal weapons bays will define the plane.

Doesn’t matter that much if you incorporate EODAS., which I think TF-X is getting.

 

[LegionnairE]

Doesn’t matter that much if you incorporate EODAS., which I think TF-X is getting.

Yeah TFX is getting DAS but I would still argue for the importance of Mk. I eyeball.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

TFX, queen of taxiing.

Just started low speed taxi tests btw your mighty rafale was directly made its first flight from the factory???

Stop trolling

 

[Jamie Brooks]

Model by @Buchmaru from twitter. He got the tail somewhat wrong but overall good 3D model from just the pictures

 

[Otonom Piyade]

Wow ...

View attachment 921524View attachment 921525View attachment 921526View attachment 921527View attachment 921528View attachment 921529

Yes... a classical case and sign and display of TURKISH SUPERIOR MASTERY at hand...

TF-X is a big bird no doubt.. what's more interesting is that it's avionics will be superior than F-22 since it will be built lately..

We could thank BON PLAN for displaying Turkish Superiority case here..

 

[Hold the door]

Yes... a classical case and sign and display of TURKISH SUPERIOR MASTERY at hand...

TF-X is a big bird no doubt.. what's more interesting is that it's avionics will be superior than F-22 since it will be built lately..

We could thank BON PLAN for displaying Turkish Superiority case here..

What are you trying to achieve by posting this psychopath's gif? garbage