The clearest J-20 pictures.

[Surenas]

What you wrote makes no sense ...

Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.

Greek empire or Macedonian empire? I think the last one.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Guys, please stay on topic.

At the current stage, the J-20 is still not flawless, some modifications are required, especially the rear needs to be replaced with the flat nozzled engines.

Hopefully we can see it being done within this year.

 

[Esc8781]

Guys, please stay on topic.

At the current stage, the J-20 is still not flawless, some modifications are required, especially the rear needs to be replaced with the flat nozzled engines.

Hopefully we can see it being done within this year.

Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?

or the F-22 nozzle?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?

or the F-22 nozzle?

The simplest solution would be to do the F-35 nozzles.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?

or the F-22 nozzle?

The F-22 type of nozzle is more likely.

 

[antonius123]

What you wrote -- EVERYTHING SO FAR IN THIS DISCUSSION -- are gibberish typical of the ignorant and the pretender.

So...Since you claimed to have 'aviation experience' to shut the Indians up, what was that 'aviation experience' or 'study'?

All you can do is pretending as if you were an expert by dragging article from internet, ignoring, jeering, faking.. instead answering your counter part's challenge.

Of course he did. You do not have to address your target directly. Any time you publish something, be it an opinion or an analysis, that is contrary to what came before, that is a challenge.

Then tell us in which statement of his that Richard Aboulafia denounce Carlo Kopp's suggestion/analysis about J-20 should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shaping?

If doubt is as weak as belief compared to analysis, then Kopp's poor attempt at analysis using only Physical Optics qualified that weak belief. We know by now you did not read what Kopp did.

So what was your 'aviation experience' or 'study' again...???

Till now we are still waiting your EVIDENCE that Copp only use Physical Optics for his suggestion, where is it???

It is confirming your bad habit of throwing empty check and claiming without ability to prove/back it, but acting delusional as if it were already proven fact

Cmon.. you are ruining your reminding credibility more and more here.

Go back...??? He is STILL in school. He is probably a teenager living off ma and pa and thought he could make 'something' of himself on an anonymous Internet forum. Never in his juvenile mind that he would meet adults who have the experience he pretended to have.

If that is the case you should be ashamed of your self, as you are unable to defend your claim and argument against a schoolboy teenager

 

[pakindia]

What you wrote makes no sense ...




Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.

haha the first ever nuclear weapon(brahmastra) and plane(garuda and many others) in the world was invented in the indian subcontinent...check wiki or british encyclopedia or any other sources.....LOL

 

[amalakas]

haha the first ever nuclear weapon(brahmastra) and plane(garuda and many others) in the world was invented in the indian subcontinent...check wiki or british encyclopedia or any other sources.....LOL

ahh yes.. right back then when Atlantis was trading and the chariots of the gods were flying ..yes yes yes...


Back on topic.

I am certain the J-20 will fly at least with some flat nozzles. I do not know if they will be adopted for the plane though ..

 

[gambit]

All you can do is pretending as if you were an expert by dragging article from internet, ignoring, jeering, faking.. instead answering your counter part's challenge.

Fine...Then show us what was your 'study' and/or 'aviation experience'. If you are so confident that what I posted are worthless, show everyone how good you are.

Then tell us in which statement of his that Richard Aboulafia denounce Carlo Kopp's suggestion/analysis about J-20 should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shaping?

Terrible reading comprehension. You obviously have never written a technical paper.

Till now we are still waiting your EVIDENCE that Copp only use Physical Optics for his suggestion, where is it???

And it is clear that you have never read Kopp's so-called 'analysis'.

So what was your 'study' in aviation again?

 

[gambit]

Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?

Not possible. The YF-23 does not have nozzles in the traditional sense. What they did was place the exhaust completely topside.

The jet's exhausts are simply not sensory 'accessible' from below. Such a structural modification for the J-20 to this route would be extensive enough to qualify as designing a new aircraft.

or the F-22 nozzle?

More technically possible than the YF-23 but would still be an engineering challenge and financially costly. The F-35's method of serrated nozzle is more likely and less money outlay.

 

[antonius123]

Fine...Then show us what was your 'study' and/or 'aviation experience'. If you are so confident that what I posted are worthless, show everyone how good you are.

I dont say your post is worthless, I said you mostly post article without understanding.
You are demonstrating terrible reading comprehension

Terrible reading comprehension. You obviously have never written a technical paper.

Is that all you can do?? bring nothing while your counter part challenge you for any evidence required to prove your claim?

Then where is your answer for my question above?

And it is clear that you have never read Kopp's so-called 'analysis'.

So what was your 'study' in aviation again?

Is that all you can do?

If your accusation is true, then why dont you just bring the EVIDENCE as requested the above? or at least where I am wrong, instead throwing another empty word.

Thes above 2 replies of you have been the "SOLID EVIDENCE" that you cant defend your empty check anymore, and it is confirming what I have said above that all you can do is just faking, ignoring, jeering and throwing empty claims as usual

 

[gambit]

I dont say your post is worthless, I said you mostly post article without understanding.
You are demonstrating terrible reading comprehension

Fine...Then show us what was your aviation 'study' and/or 'experience' to demonstrate your 'superior' understanding.

Is that all you can do?? bring nothing while your counter part challenge you for any evidence required to prove your claim?

That is all that is needed. If you have ever written a technical paper, you would know that it can be used to challenge someone on purely technical grounds without even mentioning the target.

So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again...???

If your accusation is true, then why dont you just bring the EVIDENCE as requested the above? or at least where I am wrong, instead throwing another empty word.

Thes above 2 replies of you have been the "SOLID EVIDENCE" that you cant defend your empty check anymore, and it is confirming what I have said above that all you can do is just faking, ignoring, jeering and throwing empty claims as usual

But I did bring evidence. And here it is again...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype.

At this time the simulator does not implement surface travelling wave modelling and associated edge or gap backscatter modelling, or edge diffraction scattering effect modelling.

If APA did any simulation on other than specular reflection, they would have said so. That is because they have written plenty of technical papers in the past. Something that apparently you have never done but tried to lie about yourself. But I doubt that you would understand the source.

Face it...You are a fraud. Stay in school. Shut up. And may be you will learn something.

 

[eachus]

the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location, it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos. look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall rice field path). from one photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away. the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.



Yes it was, the two photos were just taken at different distances, one photos was taken probably 100 yards from the wreckage, and the other picture was taken up close to the wreckage.

Look here:
This picture is taken far from the wreckage as well as the spectators:



This picture was taken close to the wreckage as well as spectators.





You also are not accounting for the time laps and angle of the pictures, by the time the camera man moved closer to the wreckage the spectators could have also moved.

Duh, of course that green patch of grass is closer in one photo---because the camera man moved closer to the wreckage to take the photo.


This is another duh moment, of course the angle of the crash is different the camera man took two photos, from two different angles. Both the right and left side of the aircraft was photographed, one was a close up the other was from far away.

lets put down all technical arguments first, just compare with 2 pictures there.
photo #1, the vertical tail of the J10 was perpendicular(around 90degree) to the tall grassy path where ppl stood. the distance of the J10 tail to the grassy path was around 15-20 feet, no more than 20 feet.

photo #2, the vertical tail of the J10 was around 30 degree to the tall grassy path, very far behind. the distance of of the J10 tail to the tall grassy path was at least 80 feet, no less than 80 feet if measure follow in the tail's direction.

that is huge and very obvious different. unless you are intended to refuse the fact.
if you dont agree, please input your opinion of what you think those numbers were.
photo #1, angle of vertical tail to the tall grassy path, the distance to the tall grassy path.
photo #2, angle of vertical tail to the tall grassy path, the distance to the tall grassy path.

from those as proof, the pictures are 100% fake.