Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

Wrong!

Transperancy is about how much the EM wave pass through the material!

By your misconception, the transparent Radome cannot pass the EM wave therefore the wave from the radar's transmitter behind the radome cannot deliver the wave outward.

Yes, and a radome is a structure that is made of composites and composites are constructed from different materials. This is further evidence of your small mind. You are incapable of thinking what is a substrate or a constituent child material in a composite parent.

Say nothing is not lying!

Saying nothing in a technically relevant debate is lying by omission.

I am not saying I dont know, you liar.

I do not care what you say about yourself. We already know that you are a liar.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You said you answered that first year Basic Aerodynamics question to proved you had an aviation 'background'. Where is that post, liar?

I am afraid you dont know the meaning of permeability/permissivity, or have wrong understanding about them, as you think that transparency is due to permeability/permittivity

If permeability does not allow permittivity, or to use another word permissivity, then what does? This is how you childishly debate in trying to hide your ignorance.

You are proving what Martian says about you => ignorance, stubborn, tend to evade the debate by bringing other topic/question.

They could no more answer those questions as you proved yourself the liar about your aviation 'background' and 'study', but we will continue with that charade.

One more time...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.

He likes to copy paste long article from internet, but demonstrate misconception.

He think by dragging long article or long explanation he will be admitted as an expert
Instead people will judge his point/claims and bust his misconception.

People? Who? Certainly not you or the Chinese boys here.

I am the guy that will put YOU down everytime you try to take me on. Just like I have done now. I quite enjoy humiliating you old man.

The only thing you successfully done is spammed the discussion with garbage to hide the embarrassment that is your friends.

What technical contributions have you done to 'humiliate' me, conscript reject?

F-22 craptor is an overhyped piece of trash that is not even proven in battle.

Has the J-20 been proven even in an exercise? Wait...It is still in test fight stages. But already you Chinese boys are talking about taking out ships and bases

If the F-22 craptor is trash, F-35 cant even fly (Carlo Kopp who is a real expert says so)

Kopp have no aviation background. Did you know that?

But im sure you know more than all these experts riiiight my vietnamese 'reeeeeeal' expert with playstation experience?

Must be tough to see your fellow Chinese, members of the 'superior' Asian race, be actually humiliated by a Viet.

Not hard for the J-20 to surpass a fighter where the pilot will die due to no oxygen (F-22)

Riiiiight...For an aircraft that is still in the test flight stages.

F22 Raptor Exposed - Why the F22 Was Cancelled - YouTube

Debunked here a long time ago, conscript reject.

 

[Mitro]

Wow very nice picture Good job China Mighty Dragon

 

[gambit]

I am not impressed with link brought by somebody.
I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.

Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, but only qualified person can understand and explain.

The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.

But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)

What this mean is that you never understood what he was asking for. He wants to know how is it possible that a radome can limit a radar signal from the outside to penetrate its structure but can still allow the aircraft's radar to penetrate the same radome to allow transmission.

You did not know what he was asking for and performed your typical evasion dance.

The answer is freq selective surfaces (FSS). The radome's outer surface is made up of a material that will limit, not completely block, penetration. The radome's inner surface is made up of a different material that will allow pass through. Between the two layers, outer and inner, are layers of composites to support the structure.

This subject was discussed a long time ago and I gave sources that helped everyone in understanding, sources that you dismissed because you do not understand them.

I gave him those sources in private to see how much further an evading liar you can be and you proved yourself -- again.

 

[cirr]

31.08.2012：

 

[antonius123]

Then show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with exposed cone translation mechanisms.

Here are your words...


If cone translation mechanisms do contribute to RCS, then they must be exposed to radar view to some degrees. All you have to do is show everyone such a source.

I've explained you many times about traveling wave, but you still dont know.

It confirm that you dont have clue about traveling wave.

Does look pretty much just a bump off the surface, ain't it?

Wow! you are demonstrating your real expert quality by claiming bump is only half cone at best only by LOOK, while you despise Copp in spite of his simulation

Readers can see now how fake you are

Then you confirmed what I said that you do not understand even 1/10th of what I posted.

Why? how?? prove?

I can say on the other way round, that you are confirming what I said that your capability is only drag internet article and throw empty claim

Why have a small cone when we can design a full serpentine intake system? This just goes to show how pathetic your logical thinking really is.

See .. you dont know the function of Cone at all, readers can see that cleary

You know the cone like that of Mig 21 could hide the moving part! Why are you making such a idiotic argument?

Further evidence of a small mind and of lying about your aviation 'background' and 'study'. The location of the engines dictate the design of the intake system.

Nope! on the contrary this is evidence of your idiocy and your lying about your Aviation Expert and Background.

You dont have idea what is main purpose of CONE.

You dont know that F-22 is using ramp intake instead of cone. J-20 and F-35 choose to use DSI instead of Cone.

Wherever the engine locates, we still need either cone or ramp intake or dsi to controll the airflow

As if you really understand what all those aviation related words really mean and how they actually function.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You cannot answer that first year Basic Aerodynamics question.

Readers can see that you are not addressing my challenge to you, instead you are trying to evade it by bringing irrelevant questions.

Playing diverting is you bad habit

You dismiss citations anyway? So why are you crying for them now?

Dont play diverting.

So you now admit that your claim is without citation?

You are unable to be consistent. First you demand citations in one sentence, then you criticize them as 'drag internet article'.

Dont be idiotic. Read again carefully my sentence.

Some your explanation is indeed attached with dragged internet article as citation; but this is not what I am debating.

I am not debating your some explanation with your dragged internet article.

But your debated claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.

Show me a cone intake system that does not contain a cone.

Who claims that the cone intake system is without cone?

You are crazy

And remember your inconsistency, demand citations in one sentence, then dismiss them the next.

Read again the above.

You can only bring citation for your showing off explanation which is not debated.

But you always fail to bring citation for your own claims that are being challenged.

claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.

 

[antonius123]

Yes, and a radome is a structure that is made of composites and composites are constructed from different materials. This is further evidence of your small mind. You are incapable of thinking what is a substrate or a constituent child material in a composite parent.

Why are you answering for thing not being asked?

I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent radome should be a perfect absorbing material

You are idiot, and fake

Saying nothing in a technically relevant debate is lying by omission.

Where do you get that morality?

In fact you are lying and trying to mislead readers here.

Lying is saying untruth.
Not saying or not yet saying is not a lie.

See .. how you are demonstrating your self as TRUTH TWISTER and SLANDERER!

If I say that my statement is coming from myself not from other source, then you can accuse me a liar. In fact I always tell you that my claims is always based on citation; therefore using your accusation, I am always throw claim that I can back with citation/evidence/source, not like you.

But if we use your FAKING Morality, you are the one who lie the most, as you havent answered most of my question, throwing claims without citation/evidence and playing diverting

Furthermore your accusation that I am stealing wiki just because I dont mention the source - is a strong evidence that you are not only a kind of Faker and Liar, but a SLENDERER too.

I do not care what you say about yourself. We already know that you are a liar.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You said you answered that first year Basic Aerodynamics question to proved you had an aviation 'background'. Where is that post, liar?

See .. you are lying again by twisting and playing diverting.

Readers can see that.

Remember you are proving your self as SLANDERER, worse than a Liar and Faker.

If permeability does not allow permittivity, or to use another word permissivity, then what does? This is how you childishly debate in trying to hide your ignorance.

OK, then explain to us why do you think permittivity/permissivity is the cause of transparency.

Remember you bring this permittivity/permissivity when I am debating your misconception about semi transparency.

They could no more answer those questions as you proved yourself the liar about your aviation 'background' and 'study', but we will continue with that charade.

One more time...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.

Why should we believe in you why you are always demonstrating yourself as a liar, twister and slenderer?

People? Who? Certainly not you or the Chinese boys here.

Remember you are only supported by some indians, and few people with questionable flags.
It is because you always kiss their arss, and conflicting me with them - everytime you loose support from them

 

[gambit]

I've explained you many times about traveling wave, but you still dont know.

It confirm that you dont have clue about traveling wave.

Where have you 'explained' anything?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You claimed you answered that and several other questions pertaining to basic aerodynamics. You failed to bring on those posts. So why should anyone believed you?

Wow! you are demonstrating your real expert quality by claiming bump is only half cone at best only by LOOK, while you despise Copp in spite of his simulation

It is. Half a cone or a bump is not a full cone.

The above are examples of what a cone really look like. Not a bump.

Readers can see now how fake you are

And for you who claimed to have an aviation 'study' and yet still cannot say what is that 'study'? We know who is the real fraud here. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. The reason why you cannot say what discipline is your 'study' is that you have no aviation background at all. You lied about it. You are absolutely TERRIFIED of what you are going to say about yourself next because you know that I will bust you.

Why? how?? prove?

I can say on the other way round, that you are confirming what I said that your capability is only drag internet article and throw empty claim

I have already proved it.

Here is what you said about post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237

From your explanation, I dont see yet the evidence that there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade?

Post 2750 have 5 credible sources explaining what are RADAM and JEM and yet you insisted that there are no evidences of how things behind the first fan stage contribute to RCS -- if exposed to radar.

You are an idiot.

See .. you dont know the function of Cone at all, readers can see that cleary

The functions of a cone is to hold a glob of ice cream, to shield a radar antenna or a cluster of warheads, or to provide aerodynamic efficiency to either an engine or flight control surfaces.

I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do.

You know the cone like that of Mig 21 could hide the moving part! Why are you making such a idiotic argument?

So here is your claim again...

Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?

Show us a source that has a jet engine with a cone intake system where the cone translation mechanisms are exposed in order to contribute to RCS. You made that claim. Now support it.

Nope! on the contrary this is evidence of your idiocy and your lying about your Aviation Expert and Background.

Fine...Then show everyone what a liar I am by showing us where you answered...

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You dont know that F-22 is using ramp intake instead of cone. J-20 and F-35 choose to use DSI instead of Cone.

Wherever the engine locates, we still need either cone or ramp intake or dsi to controll the airflow

Wrong. The F-16 have neither.

Readers can see that you are not addressing my challenge to you, instead you are trying to evade it by bringing irrelevant questions.

I have more than answered your questions. I proved that you are a liar about yourself.

So you now admit that your claim is without citation?

Post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237 <= have five credible sources that went over your head. Your Chinese friends learned about importance of providing sources from me.

Dont be idiotic. Read again carefully my sentence.

Some your explanation is indeed attached with dragged internet article as citation; but this is not what I am debating.

I am not debating your some explanation with your dragged internet article.

Then you cannot complain about citations. It looks like you do not even understand the meaning of 'citation', let alone how to use it.

But your debated claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.

This make no sense, as usual. I never said the things behind the first fan stage contribute more. My sources showed how they contribute. It is obvious that those sources went over your head.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

I do not citation for that one. Just appearance will do. But then again, this comment shows you inconsistent you are: First you demand citations, but when they are provided, you dismissed them.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

No need for citations on this one as well. Radar behaviors will do. The same behaviors that you do not understand.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.

This is a clear misrepresentation of what I actually explained.

See post 2747 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3356514

It is over for you a long time ago, liar and fraud.

Last chance, little boy...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.

 

[gambit]

Why are you answering for thing not being asked?

I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent radome should be a perfect absorbing material

You are idiot, and fake

What a dumbass...!!!

The radome is not a material, idiot.

The radome is a STRUCTURE.

A building is a structure. It has many materials such as concrete, steel, or plastic.

Likewise, a radome as a structure have many materials in layers or substrates...

Patent US20100225563 - DUAL POLARIZATION ANTENNA STRUCTURE, RADOME AND DESIGN METHOD THEREOF - Google Patents

A dual polarization antenna radome includes a plurality of dielectric substrates. Each dielectric substrate provides a plurality of metal totems, and the pattern of the metal totems is unchanged after the metal totems rotate by 90 degrees around the axis perpendicular to the dielectric substrate.

A radome can be 0-100% transparent. Zero meaning completely opaque and 100 mean completely transparent. It depends on the substrates formulations.

 

[ptldM3]

I am not impressed with link brought by somebody.
I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.

Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, but only qualified person can understand and explain.
The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.

But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)

So why after asking you dozens of times over a period of several months you still have not been able to explain your own quote?

So what is high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching?

 

[antonius123]

Where have you 'explained' anything?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You claimed you answered that and several other questions pertaining to basic aerodynamics. You failed to bring on those posts. So why should anyone believed you?

Are you playing diverting again?

OR it is your confirmation that you cant answer and dont have a clue about traveling wave.

It is. Half a cone or a bump is not a full cone.

The above are examples of what a cone really look like. Not a bump.

Then why are you ignoring other kind of cone, like this:

to be compared with this:

Are you trying to lie or twisting fact here ..

And for you who claimed to have an aviation 'study' and yet still cannot say what is that 'study'? We know who is the real fraud here. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. The reason why you cannot say what discipline is your 'study' is that you have no aviation background at all. You lied about it. You are absolutely TERRIFIED of what you are going to say about yourself next because you know that I will bust you.

You are lying here. I have told you the study and disciplines. And I dont want to be trapped with your diverting game.

In fact you cannot explain what your Aviation job and level of your expertise that deserve you act like a very highly aviation expert in this forum.

Then you are the liar and faker here.

I have already proved it.

Here is what you said about post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237

You are not proving anything, but playing dirty games as usual!

I am challenging you: why you accuse me that I know less than 10% of the technical explanation?

You are not giving concrete and clear answer, instead you are playing hide and seek.

This is evidence how dirty your mentality.

Post 2750 have 5 credible sources explaining what are RADAM and JEM and yet you insisted that there are no evidences of how things behind the first fan stage contribute to RCS -- if exposed to radar.

You are an idiot.

There is no prove in that article saying that something contribute more RCS than fan blades.

There is no prove in that article saying that the things behind the first fan blade contributes more RCS than the first fan blade.

I am afraid this is only your imagination or assumption.

Your claim that fan blade on the second or more stages contribute more RCS than the first stage need to be proved.

By the logic the second stage will only received smaller EM wave than first stage receive, as most EM Wave has been reflected by first stage. Consequently it reflect much smaller EM too.
Simply speaking: the stage behind first stage is only receiving and reflecting residual EM WAVE that pass the first stage, which indicates that the amount should be smaller.

The functions of a cone is to hold a glob of ice cream, to shield a radar antenna or a cluster of warheads, or to provide aerodynamic efficiency to either an engine or flight control surfaces.

I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do.

WRONG!!!

The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine

Ironically you are demonstrating your clueless and fake more and more while you are thinking that you are an aviation expert

So here is your claim again...


Show us a source that has a jet engine with a cone intake system where the cone translation mechanisms are exposed in order to contribute to RCS. You made that claim. Now support it.

I have explained you about "traveling wave"

What make you still dont understand?

Fine...Then show everyone what a liar I am by showing us where you answered...

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

No need.
You have demonstrated again your fake + clueless + twister + slenderer

Wrong. The F-16 have neither.

You mean F-16 doesnt need to control airflow?

What kind of Aviation Expert are you? for not recognizing the requirement of airflow control !
F-16 is using pitot intake as alternative.

So your evasion is FAILED, and you are demonstrating your clueless about the function of CONE! Hence another prove you are a fake self proclaimed expert.

I have more than answered your questions. I proved that you are a liar about yourself.


Post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237 <= have five credible sources that went over your head. Your Chinese friends learned about importance of providing sources from me.

But unfortunately your credible source do not support your claims!

Your claim that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.

Then you cannot complain about citations. It looks like you do not even understand the meaning of 'citation', let alone how to use it.

Whoooats??? so you mean you want every single of your claim to be accepted as a truth in spite of no citation nor evidence?

You are a clown, and your statement indicates that you dont know ethics

This make no sense, as usual. I never said the things behind the first fan stage contribute more. My sources showed how they contribute. It is obvious that those sources went over your head.

But you claim that inside the air intake, there is other thing contribute more RCS than Fanblade. what is that?

I do not citation for that one. Just appearance will do. But then again, this comment shows you inconsistent you are: First you demand citations, but when they are provided, you dismissed them.

Judging quantitative thing by appearance is not only idiotic, but also demonstrating that you did not attend university.

Also it prove my words that you like to throw subjective claims without evidence.

No need for citations on this one as well. Radar behaviors will do. The same behaviors that you do not understand.

Without citation and evidence, then every 5 years old fan boys can say something like that.

The fact that most Stealth Fighter choose not use cone as serpentine replacement is a bust to your arbitrary claims.

Even PAKFA do not choose Cone to settle the fan blade exposure issue there.

So your claim => FAILED.

This is a clear misrepresentation of what I actually explained.

See post 2747 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3356514

It is over for you a long time ago, liar and fraud.

Explain us how am I misrepresentating your explanation?

Dont play seek and hide, it is degrading your reputation lower and lower.

Last chance, little boy...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.

Strong evidence of your stubborness and dirty mentality.

How many times should I warn you not to play diverting, do not run away, and stick on the topic being debated!

 

[antonius123]

What a dumbass...!!!

The radome is not a material, idiot.

The radome is a STRUCTURE.

A building is a structure. It has many materials such as concrete, steel, or plastic.

Likewise, a radome as a structure have many materials in layers or substrates...

Patent US20100225563 - DUAL POLARIZATION ANTENNA STRUCTURE, RADOME AND DESIGN METHOD THEREOF - Google Patents

A radome can be 0-100% transparent. Zero meaning completely opaque and 100 mean completely transparent. It depends on the substrates formulations.

Your answering that radome is not material but structure is not addressing my question to you; instead it is just like evading effort just you usually do.

Let me reprhase my statement:

I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent material at the radome should be a perfect absorbing material

What is your answer?

 

[antonius123]

So why after asking you dozens of times over a period of several months you still have not been able to explain your own quote?

So what is high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching?

Please remind me:

Why do you think I owe you that?

What claim have I made regarding that issue? Why do you think I have obligation to answer every question you throw?

Have you answered all my questions against all of your claims?

 

[ptldM3]

Please remind me:


What claim have I made regarding that issue? Why do you think I have obligation to answer every question you throw?

I'm not asking you to answer any random questions, i am asking you to explain your own quote. Remember you stated that only a qualified person can explain their source. I for one would like to know if you actually know what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means since you quoted it. Are you qualified?

Why do you think I owe you that?

You owe the readers an explanation, and if the readers of this forum mean nothing to you than you owe it to yourself to let to nay sayers know that you know what you are talking about. It is you who keeps advocating that only qualified people can explain their sources and that many people here do not understand what they quote. Can you practice what you preach and educate the readers? I&#8217;m sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.

Have you answered all my questions against all of your claims?

To the best of my knowledge i have. You promised me that if i answered your question about canopies that you would explain to the readers what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means. I did my part, i answered the question about canopies (at least the best that i could) but you still have not explained what your own quote meant.

 

[antonius123]

I'm not asking you to answer any random questions, i am asking you to explain your own quote. Remember you stated that only a qualified person can explain their source. I for one would like to know if you actually know what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means since you quoted it. Are you qualified?

IF you want to ask me in order to TEST my qualification during the debate, then please show your own QUALIFICATION first.

Do you know what you are debating? Do you know that matters? because if you dont know, you were not supposed to debate severely with stubborn.

You owe the readers an explanation, and if the readers of this forum mean nothing to you than you owe it to yourself to let to nay sayers know that you know what you are talking about.

Noo... so far i notice the reader asking me that is only you, dont lie!

OR can you prove other many readers asking that?? you have to be honest here.

It is you who keeps advocating that only qualified people can explain their sources and that many people here do not understand what they quote. Can you practice what you preach and educate the readers? I’m sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.

You are lying. I never claim my self expert, you are slandering like your master Gambit now

It is funny if you claim you want to learn from me while you are debating me like hell and show your attitude of stubborn and ignorance against me.

And if you want to learn about that issue, why dont you go to the one who proclaim as True / Real Aviation Expert here, then come back to me to continue our debate?

Evidence => Gambit: "I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do".

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-185.html#ixzz25Hjpb2Tf

Asking me for thirst of knowledge and debating me is 2 contradictive things that prove your hypocrisy!

To the best of my knowledge i have. You promised me that if i answered your question about canopies that you would explain to the readers what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means. I did my part, i answered the question about canopies (at least the best that i could) but you still have not explained what your own quote meant.

Nooo ... i did not see that; or please show me your satisfactory answer for your claim that I am challenging you. I remember you leave my last question.

I want to see your genuine motive behind your question, before I address your question that you claim as a genuine question in quest.

Your statement that you want to know genuinely from me for the thirst of knowledge in fact is contradicting to your behavior/attitude with your ignorance, stubborn and accusation against me during the debate.

But if you ask me in order to test me, then let me know first if you yourself really understand the issue as relevance to the debate. The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified.

Shame on you for your hypocrisy!

 

[gambit]

IF you want to ask me in order to TEST my qualification during the debate, then please show your own QUALIFICATION first.

That is BULLSH1T, kid.

YOU were the one who boasted about your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians so you opened the door to test your claim to that 'background'.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

It is absolutely amazing that you do not know that basic aerodynamics question given what you claimed about yourself and to tell others to shut up and defer to you. So far, you could not answer a dozen basic aerodynamics and seven flight controls engineering questions.

So to continue to expose your lie about yourself...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.
A: Operational efficiency. Capacity for continuous development. Market viability.

For example: The C-130 airframe is an example of a 'successful' airframe design in all three areas. The target audience or market is the transport community. Its largely tubular airframe is operationally efficient at all altitudes with varying atmospheric pressure. Very few compound curvatures. Straight and broad wings for high lift and stability. And the list is considerable that gives this airframe longevity in terms of evolution and improvements throughout these decades. In the fighter aircrafts community, there are plenty of obsoleted and retired airframes. But in the transport community, although there are plenty of airframes that have similar physical traits as the -130, most of them have sub-systems that do not contribute as well to operational efficiency, or discourages continuous developments, or is so complex that market viability is limited, in other words, even though the Concord is a member of this community, it has a very limited utility. The C-130 design is not going to be retired any time soon.

This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight controls engineering questions you could not answer.

Next...

Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?