Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[amalakas]

..................

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"

Are you here again ? did you not have enough whooping and being made a fool for everyone here to see with your ignorance and stubbornness ?

you seem to like wikipedia alot ..

well here you are :

Components of jet engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air intakes
The air intake can be designed to be part of the fuselage of the aircraft (Corsair A-7, A-8, Dassault Mirage III, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21) or integrated part of the nacelle (Grumman F-14 Tomcat, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, Sukhoi Su-27, Sukhoi PakFa, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, Boeing 737,747, Airbus A380).

Let's see what nonsense you are going to come up once more

Let's see how many sources you are going to reject, you don't like common sense, you don't like reputable papers from IEEE and others, you don't like technology patents, you don't like wikipedia although it is the ONLY one you ever use, you pretty much don't like anything if you didn't write it.

This calls for a doctor I think, and this maniacal wish you have to make a fool of yourself, well bring it on, as I said, I get a kick out of showing everyone what a fool you are.

 

[antonius123]

Control theory is not the same thing as components, fool.

You brought on something that is several degrees apart from aviation: PLC versus DCS.

Those are components.

Ha ha ha ... again you are caught on lying and faking

Both PLC and DCS are not apart from Aviation as you think, as both are related much in flight control.

You think PLC and DCS are apart of Aviation control, because YOU HAVE NO CLUE at all.

All you are doing are faking and deceiving many people in the forums to obtain credibility and thanks.

It is time for you to admit you are a faker and liar! or should I show you evidence and strip you again until you are totally naked?

The laugh is on you, kid.

You continues to prove what a fool and a masochist you are.

https://ngc.taleo.net/careersection/ngc_pro/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=139235&src=JB-202


Apply for Job: Flight Controls Engineer

For the above two positions, NEITHER engineer will be concerned whether the flight control computer on the table has PLC or not. That is for the avionics component engineer to design and sell. For the above two positions, both would be concerned on whether that computer is applicable for their intended usage. That is 'system integration', a phrase that you probably never heard of until now.

See .. this is another proof that you are liar and faker.

Nonsense if you say that flight control engineer doesnt care whether it is using computer, PLC or else, he should!! because it is much related to the control engineering. The way we do algorithm in PLC, and on other controller or computer is not the same, how could you claim the control engineer doesnt care??

Ha ha ha .. you are again cought on lying and faking

If you go into their job interviews and you boast about how knowledgeable you are of PLC, you will not get either job. You will asked about flight control laws, which are mathematical in nature. You will be asked about aviation maintenance experience if any, because the system you are designing must be maintenance accessible. You will be asked about softwares such as MS Word or AutoCad, because you will use those tools to present your arguments. You will be asked about your flight experience, if any, because airborne time give the engineer insights of what a pilot will encounter, need and want. You will be asked about statistics, because your projects will involve a lot of number crunching. But most important of all, you will be asked about the highlighted in the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position.

You failed. Again. Liar.

You are totally wrong !

The difference between PLC and DCS is something basic!
How could the interviewer will be sure that you have good basic control engineering knowledge if you dont know what PLC and what DCS, and the difference??

What? Where?

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

Show us where did you answered that first year aerodynamics question. Show us which post number.

Anyway, the other questions that you dodged, and now lied about answering them, they are directly related to the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position as highlighted in the job description.

Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed?
A: Lift distribution.

We can chalk that one up to the list of your aviation 'background' ignorance and lies.

So here are a couple more for you to show everyone your so called aviation 'background', the one that you lied about and tried to use to shut down the Indians...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.

Remember, they have nothing to do with PLC vs DCS......But directly with aerodynamics and flight controls. I never worked with the POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication) engineers, so do not ask questions about POL. But then again...You probably have never heard of 'POL' in relations to aviation until now. So try to stick to aerodynamics and flight controls, got it?

You are the best example of the worst of the J-20's supporters in this forum: Technically ignorant but too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times?

What for you are acting like an expert by testing me, if you are caught many time as a clueless, faker and liar even in your effort to test me?

 

[antonius123]

Are you here again ? did you not have enough whooping and being made a fool for everyone here to see with your ignorance and stubbornness ?

you seem to like wikipedia alot ..

well here you are :

Components of jet engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Let's see what nonsense you are going to come up once more

Let's see how many sources you are going to reject, you don't like common sense, you don't like reputable papers from IEEE and others, you don't like technology patents, you don't like wikipedia although it is the ONLY one you ever use, you pretty much don't like anything if you didn't write it.

This calls for a doctor I think, and this maniacal wish you have to make a fool of yourself, well bring it on, as I said, I get a kick out of showing everyone what a fool you are.

Integrated part of nacelle doesnt mean the air intake is covered or within a Nacelle, you idiot ..

I think i have told you this a few times. When will you get a little bit smarter?

 

[amalakas]

Integrated part of nacelle doesnt mean the air intake is covered or within a Nacelle, you idiot ..

I think i have told you this a few times. When will you get a little bit smarter?

care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?

 

[antonius123]

care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?

Integrated parts mean that the parts are combined or coordinated together. The meaning is not narrow as what you think. Wing could be said integrated to Fuselage, but it doesnt mean that "wing = fuselage" as your idiotic thought

If you are not idiot, then why dont you explain what make you think that integration of Air Intake and Nacelle must mean that Air Intake = Nacelle? or Air Intake is within Nacelle? Are you aware that it is you who is claiming that integration of nacelle and air intake makes air intake = nacelle?

 

[gambit]

Ha ha ha ... again you are caught on lying and faking

Both PLC and DCS are not apart from Aviation as you think, as both are related much in flight control.

You think PLC and DCS are apart of Aviation control, because YOU HAVE NO CLUE at all.

All you are doing are faking and deceiving many people in the forums to obtain credibility and thanks.

It is time for you to admit you are a faker and liar! or should I show you evidence and strip you again until you are totally naked?




See .. this is another proof that you are liar and faker.

Nonsense if you say that flight control engineer doesnt care whether it is using computer, PLC or else, he should!! because it is much related to the control engineering. The way we do algorithm in PLC, and on other controller or computer is not the same, how could you claim the control engineer doesnt care??

Ha ha ha .. you are again cought on lying and faking



You are totally wrong !

The difference between PLC and DCS is something basic!
How could the interviewer will be sure that you have good basic control engineering knowledge if you dont know what PLC and what DCS, and the difference??

Did I say that basic electronics have no role in aviation engineering? But just as you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience, now you have to resort to twisting people's words to hide your ignorance.

If I was to ask 100 semiconductor Probe engineers on how much do they remember resistor color codes, 99 of them will start laughing and admit that they remember nothing about it. Does that mean they are stupid? No, it just mean that the level of electronics knowledge are not applicable to their daily tasks.

Here is what a 'Probe engineer' does...

Micron Semiconductor Asia Pte Ltd

Responsibilities:

JOB SUMMARY
As a Probe Process Engineer, you will ensure the smooth running of the Probe Production line by partnering various teams and optimizing the robustness of Probe systems & operations. In addition, you will also be responsible for deploying/maintaining business processes & automated systems for product disposition and quality control.

JOB RESPONSIBILITIES
Set up and maintain automated systems (Probe Auto-Dispo, AllCrunch etc) to support running of material at Probe, and enforce Micron quality requirements on products shipped out of Fab10
Define and streamline business processes at Probe to improve coordination across multiple teams & areas
Collaborate with the worldwide Probe community on projects with significant impact to Probe
Requirements:

Education
Bachelor’s degree in Engineering is preferred.
Candidates with basic/intermediate grasp of programming preferred.
Experience, Skills, Knowledge and Abilities
Good understanding of systems and able to take a “helicopter-view” of the situation
Demonstrated ability to cope with complex and fast-changing situation, while tackling multiple tasks at the same time. Must be able to deliver results while working under pressure
Strong written and verbal communication skills
Solid technical judgment with good analytical and problem solving skills

By the way, I used to work for Micron.

On the other hand, if I go down to Facilities maintenance and ask the 100 Chemical engineers whose responsibilities includes proper routing of deadly chemicals to their appropriate places about resistor color codes, 100 of them would be able to answer correctly.

Again, it is about the level of knowledge that is appropriately applicable to the job.

YOU are nothing but an ignorant fool. You found some words in an Indonesian aviation college course saying 'Control Theory' and immediately assume that it must be about components. In aviation, control theories are about the exploitations of aerodynamic forces via surfaces, simple or complex hydraulic actuators, computers, and finally the pilot. Not about whether I need to know if the computer in front of me have PLC or DCS control methods.

Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times?

What for you are acting like an expert by testing me, if you are caught many time as a clueless, faker and liar even in your effort to test me?

Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:

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

For the recent two that you did not answered despite claiming an aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
A: Pressure distribution over the wing.

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.
A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.

That is about 9 or 10 basic aviation questions that you could not answer with your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study'. You think the job interviewer is going to be impressed by knowledge of PLC versus DCS?

What a pathetic figure you cut on this forum, my little Indonesian tweenager. You came on here to suck up to the Chinese and to shut down the Americans and the Indians but ended up being a spectacular **** of jokes. The Chinese are wise enough not to make (easily challenged) claims about themselves -- but not you.

care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?

The kid redefined 'background' to eliminate experience. We know he does not have the education and training. So just as his 'background' is pretty much empty, so does whatever definition of 'integrated' he may have.

 

[antonius123]

Did I say that basic electronics have no role in aviation engineering? But just as you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience, now you have to resort to twisting people's words to hide your ignorance.

If I was to ask 100 semiconductor Probe engineers on how much do they remember resistor color codes, 99 of them will start laughing and admit that they remember nothing about it. Does that mean they are stupid? No, it just mean that the level of electronics knowledge are not applicable to their daily tasks.

Here is what a 'Probe engineer' does...

Micron Semiconductor Asia Pte Ltd

By the way, I used to work for Micron.

On the other hand, if I go down to Facilities maintenance and ask the 100 Chemical engineers whose responsibilities includes proper routing of deadly chemicals to their appropriate places about resistor color codes, 100 of them would be able to answer correctly.

Again, it is about the level of knowledge that is appropriately applicable to the job.

YOU are nothing but an ignorant fool. You found some words in an Indonesian aviation college course saying 'Control Theory' and immediately assume that it must be about components. In aviation, control theories are about the exploitations of aerodynamic forces via surfaces, simple or complex hydraulic actuators, computers, and finally the pilot. Not about whether I need to know if the computer in front of me have PLC or DCS control methods.


Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:

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

For the recent two that you did not answered despite claiming an aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
A: Pressure distribution over the wing.

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.
A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.

That is about 9 or 10 basic aviation questions that you could not answer with your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study'. You think the job interviewer is going to be impressed by knowledge of PLC versus DCS?

What a pathetic figure you cut on this forum, my little Indonesian tweenager. You came on here to suck up to the Chinese and to shut down the Americans and the Indians but ended up being a spectacular **** of jokes. The Chinese are wise enough not to make (easily challenged) claims about themselves -- but not you.


The kid redefined 'background' to eliminate experience. We know he does not have the education and training. So just as his 'background' is pretty much empty, so does whatever definition of 'integrated' he may have.

Dont play diverting gambit...

You have been joking and exposing the your real competence here.

Control theory is the basic of control engineering; and control engineering is the mother of flight control engineering. So if you claim yourself as an Aviation Expert in Avionics, you should have learned about control engineering.

Remember you are the first one asking me about "Control Theory", then I challenge you by asking control engineering (PLC and DCS), then you are excusing that you cant answer/dont know because you are not working in component level! From here many people in this forum will laugh and can see glaringly how you are caught as a FAKER and LIAR

Your excuse has demonstrated that you have no clue if PLC and Control is something basic in control engineering, including in flight control engineering! So if you are trying to test me with basic control theory but you yourself has no knowledge in basic control engineering you are demonstrating how joking, idiotic, liar and faker you are

 

[amalakas]

Integrated parts mean that the parts are combined or coordinated together. The meaning is not narrow as what you think. Wing could be said integrated to Fuselage, but it doesnt mean that "wing = fuselage" as your idiotic thought

If you are not idiot, then why dont you explain what make you think that integration of Air Intake and Nacelle must mean that Air Intake = Nacelle? or Air Intake is within Nacelle? Are you aware that it is you who is claiming that integration of nacelle and air intake makes air intake = nacelle?

in·te·grate   

1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.

this simply means that if the air-intake is an integrated part of the nacelle, in plain english it means they are inseparable , as in integrated circuits genius ... you wanna try separate those ??
Your inability to understand english is beyond belief. An air intake is an inlet as it is correctly called. You cannot have a jet engine without sucking in air from somewhere.

when the jet engine is housed inside the nacelle, the air-intake is the front of the nacelle and the exhaust is the back of the nacelle.

You cannot fathom that if one was to remove a jet engine from a nacelle, the air intake is STILL part of the nacelle !



keep up the comedy, you are now making more people than just me laugh...

 

[antonius123]

in·te·grate   

1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.

this simply means that if the air-intake is an integrated part of the nacelle, in plain english it means they are inseparable , as in integrated circuits genius ... you wanna try separate those ??
Your inability to understand english is beyond belief. An air intake is an inlet as it is correctly called. You cannot have a jet engine without sucking in air from somewhere.

when the jet engine is housed inside the nacelle, the air-intake is the front of the nacelle and the exhaust is the back of the nacelle.

You cannot fathom that if one was to remove a jet engine from a nacelle, the air intake is STILL part of the nacelle !



keep up the comedy, you are now making more people than just me laugh...

Nobody deny the definition, idiot!

What has been asked to you is: why do you think "the integrated" must mean "=" ?

Remember you, your master Gambit and other cheerleaders claim that the part that I said as Air Intake should be called Nacelle?

When will you get a little bit smarter?

 

[gambit]

Remember you are the first one asking me about "Control Theory",...

Which is about aviation.

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

That is first year aerodynamics and DIRECTLY applicable to aviation control theory. You did not know the answer despite your claim of having aviation 'background' or 'study' to try to shut down the Indians. Now you are saying that you answered it. Show us where.

 

[amalakas]

Nobody deny the definition, idiot!

What has been asked to you is: why do you think "the integrated" must mean "=" ?

Remember you, your master Gambit and other cheerleaders claim that the part that I said as Air Intake should be called Nacelle?

When will you get a little bit smarter?

First you said that a given plane has no nacelles,
then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle"
then it does not = nacelle...

I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger..

if integrated means inseparable, i.e. you cannot take them apart, that pretty much means one and the same.

Yes they said that because when you look at a nacelle from the front you look at the air intake, when you look at it from the back you look at the exhaust or nozzle... mr. aviation study.. the whole is the nacelle...

But you are playing with words, again. An arm does not = a person, but every person comes with arms from birth. Semantics and you are playing with them.. carry on ...as I said, that list above needs to grow...

 

[antonius123]

First you said that a given plane has no nacelles,
then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle"
then it does not = nacelle...

I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger..

Dont try to lie again boy..

I ve told you from beginning that i agree nacelle exist at pakfa as nacelle is a cover of engine.
Trace again my post, and dont lie.

Ive also give you credit when you could prove your answe to my test, it shows that i am fair, not unjust denial like you and crownies

if integrated means inseparable, i.e. you cannot take them apart, that pretty much means one and the same.

Yes they said that because when you look at a nacelle from the front you look at the air intake, when you look at it from the back you look at the exhaust or nozzle... mr. aviation study.. the whole is the nacelle...

But you are playing with words, again. An arm does not = a person, but every person comes with arms from birth. Semantics and you are playing with them.. carry on ...as I said, that list above needs to grow...

I repeat again for third times: nobody deny that integrated means inseparable, etc.

What i am asking you is why u claim air intake = nacelle? be integrated doesnt mean that nacelle cover air intake (in pakfa case).

Is it too dificult for you to understand the point? dont be too idiotic.

 

[antonius123]

Which is about aviation.

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

That is first year aerodynamics and DIRECTLY applicable to aviation control theory. You did not know the answer despite your claim of having aviation 'background' or 'study' to try to shut down the Indians. Now you are saying that you answered it. Show us where.

Try to lie again??

I dont answered yet, how could you claim i dont know? You even dare to lie for this simple thing.

For sure you failed to answer about controll technology and cought to be fake there

 

[gambit]

Try to lie again??

I dont answered yet, how could you claim i dont know? You even dare to lie for this simple thing.

Yet? What a loser...!!!

For sure you failed to answer about controll technology and cought to be fake there

I do not answer 'yet'. So how can you say I do not know?

Kid, everyone can see by now what a liar you are about yourself and this latest post nailed it.

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

You said many times you answered it...

Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times?

Now show us where.

 

[amalakas]

Dont try to lie again boy..

I ve told you from beginning that i agree nacelle exist at pakfa as nacelle is a cover of engine.
Trace again my post, and dont lie.

Ive also give you credit when you could prove your answe to my test, it shows that i am fair, not unjust denial like you and crownies



I repeat again for third times: nobody deny that integrated means inseparable, etc.

What i am asking you is why u claim air intake = nacelle? be integrated doesnt mean that nacelle cover air intake (in pakfa case).

Is it too dificult for you to understand the point? dont be too idiotic.

Again you comprehension problem shows. Half of the time you don't even know what you are asking.
You know why though. Just to mess up the discussion.