Wow, seriously? Not only does that not make any sense in regards to the topic and context of the topic it’s a cheesy way of diverting attention away from you. Come up with something original instead of calling me an idiot with reading comprehension problems. My English writing as well as English comprehension is far more advanced than your incoherent rants.
In any case point out to everyone how, where, and why I have problems with reading comprehension. You quoted me where I stated that you were slandering others in this thread for quoting sources they did not have adequate knowledge of. (that is a verifiable fact, you said so). You quoted the following: ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ (a verifiable fact). I asked you to explain what it meant since you were accusing others of not understanding what sources they quote. (verifiable fact). Now, after countless times of asking you explain the meaning of your own source you have yet to answer and, in fact keep coming up with excuses. (verifiable fact).
You don’t make any sense. I keep asking you to explain the context of your own quote and you keep avoiding it. It has nothing to do with reading. In fact, the only rebuttals you have had was telling me I have a reading comprhension problem.
This is how our conversation has gone:
Antonius: None of you understand your own sources.
Antonius: Hey look how great DSI is, weki states the following: ‘[DSI gives] high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’
PtldM3: Can you explain the context of your quote since you accused others of not understand their own source?
Antonius: NO response.
PtldM3: Again can you explain your quote?
Antonius: NO response.
PtldM3: You do not know what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means.
Antonius: You have reading comprehension problems and you are an idiot.
PtldM3: You still have not answered.
Antonius: What you don’t know what it means? You’re an idiot.
PtldM3: I’m asking you what it means, don’t try to change the subject.
Antonius: I need time to do the research.
PtldM3: So if you need to do the research that means you did not know what it meant when you quoted it.
Antonius: You have severe reading comprehension and you’re an idiot.
PtldM3:You still have not answered.
Antonius: where is the evidence that I can not answer?
Really? I have covered the weight, dimensions, and type of canopies, and what have you covered? You stated that if I answer your question about canopies that you will answer mine. For far you have not lived up to your promise, deadbeat flaker.
Really?
Pull up that quote I would like everyone to see your technical explanation. So far you haven’t said jack about canopies other than the fact that they are ‘complex’. Using such vague language demonstrates that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Better to be an English teacher for kindergarten than an illiterate liar with metal health problems.
Nope, my reading is fine. You are just a liar that plays with words or completely denies that you ever made certain claims despite the fact that you have been quoted on making those claims.
What you stated was that DSI diverts boundary airflow layers away from the engines and than slows it down to supersonic speeds.
You than claimed that neither of those functions exists on a cone intake. I posted sources that show a cone intake does the very same functions. So what was that performance difference again?
And for everyone’s benefit here is his quote:
He claimed those functions don’t exist on a cone intake which is untrue. Now he claims he was talking about performance differences. What those difference are, are a mystery.
You really are brain dead. Your Weki source spoke about the JF-17. Take a look:
Two things to note. Firstly they are talking about the JF-17; secondly, it merely stated that
the JF-17 had good performance with a DSI. It doesn’t show any data results of a JF-17 pre DSI. For all you know an aircraft such as the Mig-21 could have similar or better performance than a JF-17 with DSI.
Wow, you really are stooping to new lows. You claimed that DSI is ‘better’ than other intake methods. Your reasoning for that was because it diverts boundary airflow and than slows it down to subsonic speeds; you than claimed the a cone intake can do neither of those functions. To your amazement the intake cone does the very same functions.
So to some it up, your reasons as to why a DSI is better backfired in your face since the very same functions exist on a cone intake.
It is up to you to prove than a DSI is better than a cone intake since it was you that made the claim that the DSI is better in performance.
Word for you,
a cone intake has no moving parts, your source is talking about an
intake ramp. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.
It says nothing about a DSI having better efficiency compared to a cone intake. You’re playing your little game again. Also lower complexity does not mean that something is better , the Mig-23 had probably one of the most complex landing gears ever conceived and because of this its wheel bays were extremely small. Similarly the cone intakes on aircraft such as the Mi-21 and SR-71 were more complex for a reason. At different flight regimes the intakes cones would adjust to compensate for the shockwave, without adjustable intake cones both aircraft would have worse performance.
A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts.
No, you quoted my post where I provided a source, you than demanded a source. Little did you know the source was already provided when you quoted me. The only thing this proves is that you are the one that has severe ready comprehension problems.
You didn’t teach me anything new. I stated that the J-20’s lower chin follows the contours of a perfect circle, I even had a perfect circle imposed over the J-20’s chin. The lower chin followed the arc of a perfect circle, thus it fit the contour perfectly.
It does not need to be, it already matches the arc of a circle. By your claim and your fellow J-20 fan boys all the nonsense about the pak-fa can be regarded as lies since there is nothing that is equidistant on the aircraft.
Don’t try to save face or change the subject. You stated that,
'a bump and forward inlet cowl work together to divert to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down to subsonic speeds'. The problem is that you quoted a passage that stated that a DSI deverts boundary airflow and slows it down to subsonic speed, you basically tried to convince everyone that a cone intake can not do those things. The fact that a bump and cowl exists is irrelevant, we all know that a DSI consists of a bump while a cone consists of sharp point. It would be like my quoting that a cone has a conical structure (duh obvious) and that it diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speeds (first part is irrelevant, the second part is relevant). We all know how a cone looks like so we can disregard the fact that it has a point, the point i would be trying to make is that the cone intake diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speed.
Nice try though at trying to change the subject by twisting words. We weren't talking about the differences in looks but the differences in performance.
You have to be kidding me. The evidence is that
there is not one post that shows you answered the question. This is really low, before you just ignored the question, that you played games with me by stating ‘what you don’t know what it means?’, that you said you need ‘time’ to answer and now you are shamelessly claiming to show evidence that you can not answer, and the evidence is, or lack there of, shows that you have not answer the question .
And the source for that is?
The guys stories grow more an more elaborate, he makes claims, when those claims are busted, he than make some hypothetical claims that he can not provide sources for. There has been a few times when he denied he made certain statements, when I pull up a quote he just calls me an idiot that can’t read. He manipulates sources as well, he tried to claim that a cone intake will have a higher RCS because of moving parts, when in fact his source was talking about an intake ramp.
The guy will not answer, he does not live up to his end of the bargain. He outright claims he will not answer question but than in the same sentence demands we answer his questions. Even worse is that he makes promises that he will answer my question if I answer his, when I answered his question he continued to refusing to answer my question. His last excuse was that ‘were is the evidence I can not answer’. prior to that he tried to play reverse psychology by stating’ what you don’t know the answer?’.
I don’t know if you have been reading our exchanges but I highly encourage you to at least read my latest exchange with him. It is highly entertaining watching him struggle and get caught in his own web of lies.
