Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[IceCold]

No problem, what ever he mean it will demonstrate his quality as well, whether he is just another cheerleader or have capability to understand the points.

It is right that practical experience doesn't guarantee deep knowledge in science and engineering knowledge, more over for pretending to know everything. Gambit and amalakas have demonstrated internet copy paste without capability to explain and prove. He is right if he know this, and on the contrary he will demonstrate clueless of what he is speaking if it is sarcastis.

Sir there is a reason you see professional written underneath Gambits name. Not mine not yours. Lets just move pass the usual insult. Its serves no purpose.

 

[antonius123]

Sir there is a reason you see professional written underneath Gambits name. Not mine not yours. Lets just move pass the usual insult. Its serves no purpose.

My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?

 

[amalakas]

Obviously not but really do you see it happening with both sides claiming other to be an Idiot or a fake and questioning his background.
Since the thread is about J-20 and its updates, lets keep it that way shall we

What would you have me do? I am an engineer. I served as an engineer. I am proud of it. Engineering is not just a profession. It is a discipline. We have professional bodies. Accreditation. People go through rigorous tests and evaluations before they are allowed to do something.

Would you have me disregard everything I have learned all my professional life so some funboy can have his two cents creating a false impression and taking others with him believing things about engineering that are simply not true ?

Should I allow that? If yes then this forum doesn't take itself seriously and I can post images of UFOs! If yes then I have an obligation as a professional to say something about the gross misunderstanding and fallacies that I see posted.

With all due respect IceCold, I am open to your suggestions.

 

[gambit]

Right sir! but past few days so much information has flown that an average joe like myself would hardly be able to tell or decide which information is correct.

The difference between the Chinese boys and I is that no one have and probably never will see posts that are foundational in principles to ALL sides, meaning whatever I explained those principles will contain strengths and weaknesses that depends on someone's ability to exploit and/or avoids, from the Chinese members here.

You will never see posts like these from the Chinese side...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-155.html#post3185058

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-151.html#post3174302

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-ratios-all-fighter-planes-4.html#post2473648

Prior to my participation here, people were throwing the word 'stealth' around willy nilly to make this or that fighter 'fully stealth' or 'partial stealth'. They, including the Chinese, did not know about details like the corner reflector, edge diffraction, and general radar behaviors. I do not post claims like this...

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

This is completely meaningless with no explanations on the hows and the whys. If you want to know the rebuttal, mine is nothing new. The word 'composite' have little to do with low radar observability in the radar community. The proper word is 'absorber'. Composite materials are used mainly for weight reduction versus structural strength. Absorbers are limited in freqs and bandwidths and are not as dominant as shaping in today's low observable designs. The word 'absorber' have a context that is applicable to geometric structures whose intention is to deny the seeking radar much reflections -- 'geometric absorber'.

ECCOSORB Principles

Geometrical shaping means breaking the front surface into an aggregate of shaped pointed elements (such as cones or pyramids), where the axis of individual elements is oriented perpendicular to the plane of the absorber.

This Indonesian tweenager that could not understand the difference between mechanisms of radiation and the radiation itself would never get the context of 'geometric absorber'. With his continued insistence about the corner reflector can only be 90 deg, he has effectively called millions of professionals and decades of experience -- worthless. This is typical behavior from the Chinese and their fanboys.

This 'stealth' issue is technically complex. These intellectually dishonest people knows it and they intends to exploit the layman's ignorance and honest desire to learn -- to mislead. They will NEVER get down to the foundations of 'stealth' because they never had the education, training and experience in the first place so they will resort to twisting the 'middle layers' of knowledge to suit whatever nationalistic biases they have.

Chinese may want to call J-20 superior, in the end does it matter? after all the real Chinese will know where does J-20 stand w.r.t F-22. US arm industry is no joke, Chinese know that, Russia knows that. Other then that it hardly matters.

People like YOU and other members do matter, to me and those who have relevant experience, and to the intellectually dishonest Chinese. If these foundational principles and truths matter to the working professionals then it should and does matter to interested laymen like yourself and to me. The Chinese claims must be challenged and it is your responsibility to verify all sides' arguments. The moment you entered the debate even with just a question about a basic principle, you have taken on that burden.

So what would you like to know?

My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?

You claimed to have aviation 'experience' to try to shut the Indians up. Then you backed down to 'study'. So if you have either, it should be a simple matter to tell us what was your 'study'. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. What do you have?

 

[amalakas]

My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?

Nobody has to prove anything to you. IEEE - The world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology proved everything to you and everyone else. sleep tight !

 

[no_name]

@ Gambit,

You cannot keep claiming without explaining and showing evidence.

Explain why transmission is = reflection, and give us the proof.

I could easily prove that your claim is TOTALLY WRONG. But I am still waiting yours because you are the claimer.

What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a feed signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.

The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.

 

[gambit]

What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a feed signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.

The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.

That is just great...!!! Now you have done it...!!! The word 'feed' is associated with livestock...!!! The kid already have a hard time grasping what you understood. Now he is going to ask why are you bringing in farm animals?

 

[ptldM3]

I showed you evidence how DSI is better in performance.
So the only reason Russia has not applied it yet because of the technology they have to mastered yet.

That’s funny considering cone intakes perform the same function as a DSI (verified) and the Russians have had the technology since the 50’s. The SU-27 broke no less than 40 world records, much of this was thanks to its aerodynamics and the extensive research that went into it such as mathematical modeling, wind tunnel testing, and computer modeling.


And now some Indonesian kid is claiming that that these people can’t stick a bump in front of an intake.

By naked eye you should be able to see the difference!
DSI show "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl.

This is Cone

How amazing you cant see the glaring difference.



Sorry, but your inability to difference glaringly different shape is so amazing!

Not only are you illiterate but you seriously have some learning deficiencies which would constitute taking ‘special classes’ in most countries.

So where did I claim that the two intakes look different? I claimed the very opposite. I clearly distinguished between the two by stating a DSI has curvatures while a cone intake is, well you guessed it, a cone.

Here is proof:

More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.

Stop putting worlds in my mouth. But I suppose when someone is stupid they will have a hard time grasping simple sentences.

This happen not only now, but in the previous case like round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc.

More like this happens when someone embarrasses themselves like you did above, and please sunny boy. If anyone doesn’t understand curvature, cylinders, cones ect, it’s you. But please feel free to continue your denial and masquerading, no matter what is presented you twist every word like you did with DSI vs. cone intakes. No matter how credible a sources is you disregard it by asking if we understand our own sources. In general you are pathetic, petty, and you have nothing to bring to the table other than entertaining everyone with your stupidity.

As I said you are idiot and having severe reading comprehension problem.

Wow really? This hilarious based on your past history. Your DSI vs. cone intake gaffe doesn’t ring any empty bells? Of course there are many others, someone like you can confuse an airfoil for tinfoil.

My point is obvious: DSI is different from Cone intake, both from the shape, and subsequenly the performance.

The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. This things doesnt exist on cone inlet. It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

Once again to show everyone that you are a fraud:


Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

---The boundary layer on the cone is stretched as it moves up the cone---

It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

Don’t talk your way out of it. First you claimed that a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed by claiming that those features don’t exist on a cone intake And now you are making a vague claim that contradicts your original statement, not only that but you bring no evidence.

I said Cone doesnt have "bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl" idiot... you are demonstrating reading comprehension problem.

As explained above, It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

Once again it is you that is demonstrating reading comprehension as well as serious learning disabilities. I always acknowledged that a DSI has curvature and that it is distinctly different in shape to a cone intake. I just couldn’t stop laughing when you pulled up a quote stating that a DSI has a ‘bump’. Firstly I already new and stated that, secondly I could not resist the opportunity to laugh at you quoting something so insignificant, it just demonstrated that you have reading comprehension/learning disabilities, you have lost the argument, you have nothing to bring to the table, and you are desperately trying to stay relevant by quoting random common facts.

You dont know that? Then why you are so sure that Cone offer the same performance with DSI?

No you don't know. Don't pretend to know what it means by twisting the subject and implying that i don't know. I am the one asking you to explain your sourse, and it's not that i don't know, it's that you don't and i want to hold you accountable for running your mouth.



I asked to explain what ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means since you quoted it and told everyone to check it out.

This is utterly embarrassing on your part, I have asked many times for you to explain what it is and every time you have avoided the question. Remember it was you mocking everyone by saying they don’t understand their sources and it was you mocking everyone by saying they could not explain their sources.

And now when I ask you to explain what your own source said so are avoiding it.


Once again what does ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ mean?

I Know you are clueless to what it is.

 

[doidoi2]

with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics.

Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.

So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.

 

[gambit]

with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics.

Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.

So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.

Why not single out your fellow Chinese? After all, even he admitted that he has not one ounce of relevant experience. But I guess intellectual honesty is far second to racial solidarity.

 

[amalakas]

with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics.

Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.

So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.

I am sorry .. my degrees say otherwise.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I am sorry .. my degrees say otherwise.

And yet Greece doesn't have a stealth fighter despite all your degrees.

China is about to have two.

Turkey is about to have the F-35.

 

[amalakas]

And yet Greece doesn't have a stealth fighter despite all your degrees.

China is about to have two.

Turkey is about to have the F-35.

Greece Population : 9.000.000
Turkey Population : 80.000.000 ( 71.000.000 more)
China Population : 1.400.000.000 ( 1.391.000.000 more)

You want to comment on individual personal achievement weight / per population ?

 

[antonius123]

What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a feed signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.

The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.

Correct.

He is talking about EM Radiation caused by electrons within conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, it means he is talking about transmission.

But the sad thing is He doesnt know that Transmission is not the same as Reflection.
So if you read the history of the debate, you will see how funny as he think people believe him as expert while he saying something stupid like the above

Why not single out your fellow Chinese? After all, even he admitted that he has not one ounce of relevant experience. But I guess intellectual honesty is far second to racial solidarity.

Read again what he wrote above:

"Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics."

 

[amalakas]

Correct.

He is talking about EM Radiation caused by electrons within conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, it means he is talking about transmission.

But the sad thing is He doesnt know that Transmission is not the same as Reflection.
So if you read the history of the debate, you will see how funny as he think people believe him as expert while he saying something stupid like the above



Read again what he wrote above:

"Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics."

What is the difference between transmission and reflection genius? Ok, we have no idea. Enlighten us.

Not that you will, because clearly you have no idea about anything anyway.