Like most of your comments
So you quoted something without understanding what you quoted and now you need time to research what you quoted? You just admitted that you dont know what your own quote meant. This is embarrassing on your part since you claimed to have a background in aviation, not only that but you mocked other members by claiming they do not understand what they quote. Once called out it is you who demonstrated zero knowledge in your own source. If you understood what you quoted you simple would have explain it a long time ago.
Bla bla bla.. you talk to much but idiot. I've told you that you had serious reading comprehension problem.
Read again my posting.
It is you who do not understand what you wrote. You need to be responsible in debate.
This one:
Proof you dismiss peoples claims no matter how reputable the source is based on the fact that you feel they did not explain the source, ironic since you have been caught quoting articles without understanding the context of what you quoted, so much so that you have asked for time in order to do the research and what you quoted.
As I said, you have severe reading comprehension problem.
The canopy was from an aerobatics aircraft and obviously its smaller than a canopy from a fighter. Lets look deeper into buble canopies/weight and such. First let me start with the F-16. Here is various types of F-16 canopies, everything except the length is given:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHx1zeVb25ScpPF-IQCWjyGkbZBqQ
Various F-16 canopy weight by bird strike protection, thickness and material:
In comparison the F-22s canopy is 140 inches long and 360lbs. The F-22 has a thicker canopy compared to the F-16, and this is needed because of manufacturing process. When we compare the F16 and the F-22 canopy we will see that they both share similarities in that the F-16 has a monolithic polycarbonate canopy that is manufactured by laminated sheets. The F-16 has one frame in the very aft of the canopy followed by a small continuation of the canopy. If the F-16 wanted to it could have had a one piece canopy at the cost of poorer visibility and or poorer safety.
Here is a comparison of canopies:
F-22
F-16
So yes even an old fashion canopy that employs laminated sheets can be formed to make a bubble canopy. A one peice canopy is not that special, laminated canopies with frames are logical because they are generally safer against bird strikes.
You are talking without any knowledge.
I've explain you that the complexity is on the mold making technology.
Of course you have no idea about it, because you are only an English Teacher for kindergarten
Your clueless about molding injection technology is already a blatant proof that you have no knowledge about the thing that you want to debate!
The connection is that you were claiming that a cone intake can not do what a DSI can do, which is divert airflow and slow it down to subsonic speeds, my source proved that you were wrong, a cone does the same exact thing as a DSI, it diverts airflow and slows it down to subsonic speeds before it enters the engine. You claimed that a cone intake could not do either of those things--you were wrong.
See .. more and more you are demonstrating "reading comprehension" problem.
Many times I've told you that it is not what I said; I said about the performance difference, but you are stubbornly idiot miss understanding.
See again my explanation as i wont repeat for 100 times.
And your source where you claim DSI is better is referring to the JF-17. If DSIs improved the JF-17s performance it does not mean it will improve the performance of other aircraft or that the DSI would be better over other methods. Every aircraft is different, everything from an intake lip, to an intake ramp to a serpentine intake effects airflow patterns and velocity. This means that if we take an aircraft such as a Mig-23 which utilizes serpentine intakes and we install a DSI the results would be different compared to installing DSIs on a JF-17.
The source is not saying the performance only good for JF-17 or limited to several aircraft.. idiot. Prove it if there is any sentence that showing so.
You are having severe reading comprehension!
Either you did not bother reading my previous sources or you are just blatantly trolling but once again here it is:
Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thats the bread and butter of a DSI. Inlet cone does what a DSI does, any improvements that the JF-17 had with a DSI is coincidental to its unique design. Remember, all aircraft will have different results with a DSI depending on the intake design.
Again you are demonstrating severe reading comprehension problem.
There is no such a sentence that saying or implying that "Cone" has the same performance nor as good as "DSI".
You are delusional and daydreaming.
Furthermore, either you ignore or miss understand the sentence of the source:
The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such =as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive.[1]
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?
No you dont; what you think as proof is actually your severe miss understanding.
And what was your citation? And what did it prove exactly?
Are you idiot or something?
How many times should I put the citation so that you could see?
It proves that DSI is better in term of efficiency, lower complexity (no moving parts, hence no ram coating needed).
You could read here:
Also, while the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) intakes are easier to maintain than more complex stealth-compatible intakes, such as on the F-22,
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The clue for you: the moving parts should be ram coated in order to reduce RCS; but with DSI there is no moving parts therefore no need additional ram coating, reduce weight with same low RCS of the coated moving parts more complex intake.
But i doubt you with your severe reading comprehension could catch what implied there
You can not be serious. You quoted my post where I provided proof and now you want me to give you proof again? Further proof that you either do not read anything that anyone posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension, or a combination of the two.
As said above: your have severe reading comprehension problem.
I never claimed that a DSI and a Cone intake look the same, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I clearly and explicitly stated the very opposite.
Here is proof of that:
Proof enough for you?
OK, a one credit goes to you for that.
But what make you thing Cone and DSI will bring out the same efficiency in spite of the evidences implied in the citation? Thats the problem with you, you are claiming something not only without backing evidence, but also againts evidence.
No, the only one that has demonstrated the inability to understand round vs. curvature is you. When I spoke about curvature I was referring to the J-20s chin. The J-20s chin fits the contour of a circle, a perfect circle. I never stated that the chin is a circle. I only stated that the J-20s chin fits the contour of a perfect circle. I further provided visual proof by illustrating that a circle when imposed over the J-20 does prove that the J-20s lower chin does follow the curvature of a perfect circle. Its very simple and impossible to dispute.
You obviously ignored the basic /elementary math evidence that I showed you.
I've explained you about equidistant. The requirement of the so called "circle" is:
1. equidistant
2. close curve
Circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What you were trying to say is "arc" which is an open curve as a part of a (closed curve) circle.
The circle is a curvature, but curvature is not always circle.
Furthermore, you are still wrong if you think that the curve of J-20 chin is = arc, as it is not equidistant.
So, you are absolutely wrong!
See .. you are repeating the same idiocy that has been explained many times.
Here it is for everyone to see:
You clearly stated a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow and slow it down to supersonic speed, by claiming neither of those functions exist on the cone intake. So Im not a fraud, you simply have been making claims and than forgetting that you made those claims, if you were humble you would either admit that you made a mistake (I quoted you on that mistake) or you apologize for calling me a fraud. Because the evidence shows you did make those claims, and now you claim you did not make those claim.
The proof is here for everyone to see but i suppose you will deny you said that even though i quoted you than you will call me an idiot.
Idiot! The things that do not exist on cone is: "The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl"
This is a proof of your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem.
Yes I understand, I can answer what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means and I can provide sources.
The problem is that you can not. I have asked you many times to explain what it means and every time you have refused to do so. And I would not have made I big deal about it but you were the one that accused other people of not understanding what they quote, so I used your tactic against you. Can you explain your quote? So far you have shown that you were not familiar with what your quote meant, so much so that you admitted that you need more time to do research. If you really knew what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching meant you would have answered it long ago. Clearly at the time that you quoted your source you had no understanding of what you actually quoted.
Where is the evidence that I cannot answer that?
Where is the evidence that you can answer that?
You are throwing empty claims as usual.
The evidence exist that you have demonstrating is => your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem!
This is not directed at me but both of them were correct.
Here is a source:
Patent US6966524 - Aircraft engine nacelles and methods for their manufacture - Google Patents
There you go an intake or inlet is a part of a nacelle.
Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy
I have several times told you that this is only applied on "PODDED ENGINE", not on the engine like those on Pakfa/Flanker/F-15/etc.
Now I am afraid you have no clue about "PODDED ENGINE"