# Chinese Delivery UAV with 12,000 lbs MTOW in Full Commerical Operation

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Tom DM

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
But it does have sorta lifting fuselage and weird rudder/elevator unit ?

Do they make any difference ?

Yes, both make it considerably cheaper and more efficient.

In racing, military or space second best is worth nothing and every gain in the concept phase pays free dividends down the line.

But ... war remains stupid. Armies costs fortunes to make, bigger fortunes to operate and it kills off clients, afterwards reconstruction costs again.
While there is no problem with entering or starting a war, there is a big problem when loosing one. Some found out the very hard way as did the USA on several occasions.

As quoted from a fictional work: "Even the very wise can not predict."

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Compared to the Predator about $38x10^6 reasons? No, fortunately, it's not as bad as that. In 2009, the price for one Predator "system" was$20 million. One 'system" included 4 aircraft (complete with all sensors), a ground control station, and a satellite link. More here: MQ-1B Predator

It was groundbreaking.

Lifting fuselage on TB2? If it has one, I wouldn't think it is especially efficient. In general, it is best not to bother with fuselage lift and better to just make it as low drag as practical, minimize interference drag at the wing/fuselage interface, and let the wing do the lifting.

Last edited:

#### Hot Wings

##### Grumpy Cynic
Supporting Member
No, fortunately, it's not as bad as that
Compared to the MQ-9 is is only $30x10^6 ......... per an only slightly more diligent Google search. 'Ground breaking' - such an unfortunate choice of words for an aviation drone. #### Vigilant1 ##### Well-Known Member Supporting Member Note - 'quick Google' Compared to the MQ-9 is is only$30x10^6 ......... per an only slightly more diligent Google search.

'Ground breaking' - such an unfortunate choice of words for an aviation drone.
The MQ-9 is MUCH bigger than the TB2 (MTOW about 500% larger) and also much more capable. The MQ1 is a better comparison, though the MQ1 was still much closer to what the US needed at the time compared to something like the TB2.
The TB2 and systems like it have a lot of utility in the right situation.

#### Sraight'nlevel

##### Well-Known Member
Probably to increase loiter time and save fuel.
I think the correct word is "effective" instead of exceptional.
I like the looks in Predator better. Anyway.....in BT2 only front wheel retracts.

For such a small payload capacity it seems to give a punch like no other ?

I bet a plane with 10-15% better efficiency still could be made ?

#### rv7charlie

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
And I'd bet that at the speeds/altitudes/payloads the BT2 flies, retracts would slow it down/hurt its efficiency.

#### galapoola

##### Well-Known Member
Never explain a joke.
Catch 22, Milo was played by John Voight. He stole military goods and sold them including pilot’s parachutes

#### qchen98

##### Well-Known Member
The BT2's Chinese clone Rotax 912 should be quite fuel-efficient.

#### Riggerrob

##### Well-Known Member
When Rotax added electronic fuel injection to their 915 engines, they lowered fuel consumption by 40 percent ... to increase loiter time of drones.