Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[ptldM3]

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

Don’t play games. I want to test you because you were the one bragging that other people don’t know what they are quoting, so I want to know if you know what you are quoting. Remember it was you that stated, only a qualified person can explain the context of their quote. If you ask me to explain my quote I would be more than happy to do so but you refuse to do the same, why? Because you can’t answer, it’s not that you don’t want to answer but that you are simply not able to answer.

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 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!




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.



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!

It would be easier to just admit you that you do not know the answer to the question instead of posting an emotional rant.


If you knew the answer you would have answered me months ago, instead you keep playing these games and making excuses such as, “why should I answer?” Or, “The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified” You keep accusing other members of not knowing what they quote, or not understanding their own source yet when I called you out and asked you to explain your own source you stopped dead in your tracks.


I am merely asking you to explain what your own quote meant. I’m not asking you to explain my quote, I’m not asking you to explain a random question, I’m asking you to explain your quote, something that you keep refusing to do even though it goes against everything you have been saying. You don’t know the answer to your own quote, that much is clear.

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.

I’m a reader, I want to know. Other reader do not need to openly ask for the answer to the question , it’s reasonable to assume that the readers of this military forum would like to know the answers to aviation questions especially when someone quotes something and someone else asks what that quote means.

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

All I want to know is if you knew what you quoted, it’s simple as that. After asking you a dozen times it’s clear you don’t know the answer, an answer to your own quote nevertheless.

 

[antonius123]

Don’t play games. I want to test you because you were the one bragging that other people don’t know what they are quoting, so I want to know if you know what you are quoting. Remember it was you that stated, only a qualified person can explain the context of their quote. If you ask me to explain my quote I would be more than happy to do so but you refuse to do the same, why? Because you can’t answer, it’s not that you don’t want to answer but that you are simply not able to answer.

Ow, you finally come out from hypocrisy and admit that the motive is to test me.

OK, thats fine; before you test me and I take the challenge, please answer me: "Do you know the answer"?

If you know, then lets the game.
If you dont know, then you are a clown who doesnt deserve to test other with more knowledge than you

It would be easier to just admit you that you do not know the answer to the question instead of posting an emotional rant.


If you knew the answer you would have answered me months ago, instead you keep playing these games and making excuses such as, “why should I answer?” Or, “The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified” You keep accusing other members of not knowing what they quote, or not understanding their own source yet when I called you out and asked you to explain your own source you stopped dead in your tracks.

I can give you the answer.

But since your motive is to test; then before I answer your test, I want to know if you also know?

If yes, then lets begin.

I am merely asking you to explain what your own quote meant. I’m not asking you to explain my quote, I’m not asking you to explain a random question, I’m asking you to explain your quote, something that you keep refusing to do even though it goes against everything you have been saying. You don’t know the answer to your own quote, that much is clear.

Its so funny

I took it from wikipedia;
So since you are debating me, it means you should know much much better than I do.
Why you debated me, if you dont have a clue about that?

I’m a reader, I want to know. Other reader do not need to openly ask for the answer to the question , it’s reasonable to assume that the readers of this military forum would like to know the answers to aviation questions especially when someone quotes something and someone else asks what that quote means.

That is assumption from a liar.
You were caught lie, as you claimed that other readers were asking to me.

If thats so, then they should ask this question to you too, since you act like an expert and debating me.

All I want to know is if you knew what you quoted, it’s simple as that. After asking you a dozen times it’s clear you don’t know the answer, an answer to your own quote nevertheless.

I know what I quote.

Do you know what I quote? that is from wikipedia regarding the advantage of DCS over cone/etc.
If you dont know, then you were acting like a clown when debating me.

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?

Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you

Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims

 

[amalakas]

I know what I quote.

Do you know what I quote? that is from wikipedia regarding the advantage of DCS over cone/etc.
If you dont know, then you were acting like a clown when debating me.

do you know anything else other than wikipedia?

Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you

Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims

many many times?

List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?

 

[ptldM3]

Ow, you finally come out from hypocrisy and admit that the motive is to test me.

Yes and I always stated that from day one. You opened the flood gates when you said that other people don’t know what they quote and that only a qualified person can explain their quote. You are saying that you have an intimate knowledge of what you quoted. Prove it.

OK, thats fine; before you test me and I take the challenge, please answer me: "Do you know the answer"?

If you know, then lets the game.
If you dont know, then you are a clown who doesnt deserve to test other with more knowledge than you

Do you want me to give you the answer(s) to the question? That would defeat the purpose. Hypothetically even if I didn’t know the answer it would be irrelevant, lets say I’m just a casual member and I would be interested in knowing more about what you quoted. It would be your obligation to provide a detailed insight to what you quoted since you quoted it and claimed to have knowledge about everything you quote.

I can give you the answer.

But since your motive is to test; then before I answer your test, I want to know if you also know?

If yes, then lets begin.

Okay, give the answer(s).

Its so funny

I took it from wikipedia;
So since you are debating me, it means you should know much much better than I do.
Why you debated me, if you dont have a clue about that?

I do know much better than you. I am debating with you because you claimed you know better than everyone else. Remember what you said about other people quoting sources? You said they don’t know what they quote. Do you know what you quote? You claimed you did, so prove it.

That is assumption from a liar.
You were caught lie, as you claimed that other readers were asking to me.

If thats so, then they should ask this question to you too, since you act like an expert and debating me.

You just like to twist the subject, this is exactly what I said:

I’m sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.

Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.

do you know anything else other than wikipedia?

The problem is that i don't think he can find the answer on Wikipedia.

 

[amalakas]

Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.

Yes. I want to know too.

The problem is that i don't think he can find the answer on Wikipedia.

No, I don't think so either.

Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.

 

[antonius123]

Yes and I always stated that from day one. You opened the flood gates when you said that other people don’t know what they quote and that only a qualified person can explain their quote. You are saying that you have an intimate knowledge of what you quoted. Prove it.

But yesterday you pretend as if you wanted to learn. That hipocrisy.

I can explain! but do you know what you were debating?

If you dont know basic thing I quote about DCS advantage, then why you pretend like an expert and debated me?

Do you want me to give you the answer(s) to the question? That would defeat the purpose. Hypothetically even if I didn’t know the answer it would be irrelevant, lets say I’m just a casual member and I would be interested in knowing more about what you quoted. It would be your obligation to provide a detailed insight to what you quoted since you quoted it and claimed to have knowledge about everything you quote.

Nevermind, I will give you my answer first, then you will give yours.

But I need you to admit first: whether you know the issue or not?

If you dont know, then why you were debating me?

Okay, give the answer(s).

Tell me first if you know or not?

You can't test me if you yourself dont know.

I do know much better than you. I am debating you because you claimed you know better than everyone else. Remember what you said about other people quoting sources? You said they don’t know what they quote. Do you know what you quote? You claimed you did, so prove it.

Ok, I take your word.

I will answer one, and you will give your answer for the other.
You test me, and I test you; OK?

You just like to twist the subject, this is exactly what I said:

Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.

This is what you were saying: "You owe the readers an explanation"

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eration-aircraft-updates-discussions-185.html

It implies that readers want me to give answer about the issue..

Then that mean the readers will appreciate if you can answer that too, and bust my argument with what you know about that issue

 

[ptldM3]

Yes. I want to know too.

That is at least 2 people that would like for him to explain his quote.

No, I don't think so either.

Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.

That is correct, much of his arguing has nothing to do with the subject or technical maters it’s usually word games, such as “why should I answer?” or insult such as, “you’re an idiot”, or it’s bragging about how we don’t understand our sources when in fact he does not understand his sources. He essentially doesn’t say anything until after we provide sources with explanations and after we do so he picks up tid-bits and tries, and I say tries to argue.

 

[antonius123]

Yes. I want to know too.

@ ptldM3,

See .. your friend want you to answer too

No, I don't think so either.

Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.

If thats the case, then why I bust your master everytime he throw claim and drag internet article?

You are too idiotic to give objective and fair assessment.

In fact I give your master gambit my own answer and bust his answer, instead of picking up his answer as you claim.

do you know anything else other than wikipedia?

What do you mean?

many many times?

List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?

Read how I bust your master above! dont be lazy

do you know anything else other than wikipedia?

What do you mean?

many many times?

List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?

Read how I bust your master above! dont be lazy

 

[ptldM3]

Tell me first if you know or not?

You can't test me if you yourself dont know.

Like I said before don’t play games with me, I asked you if you knew the answer to your own quote, and now you have the audacity to ask me if I know? And yes I know the answer.

Ok, I take your word.

I will answer one, and you will give your answer for the other.
You test me, and I test you; OK?

So you want me to answer half of your question for you? So you answer only what you are able to and what you can not answer you expect me to answer for you?


You answer the question in its entirety or admit that you don’t know.

This is what you were saying: "You owe the readers an explanation"


It implies that readers want me to give answer about the issue..

Yes and you do owe the readers an explanation if asked to do so. So far I have asked for you to explain your quote and so has amalakas.

@ ptldM3,

See .. your friend want you to answer too

No, he wants you to answer not me. More proof you can't comprehend simple sentences.

 

[gambit]

Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you

Your credibility is not up to you to determine. It is up to the readers. So if you want to apologize, do it to them.

Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims

You cannot answer this first year aerodynamics question...

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

That and a long list of first year Basic Aerodynamics. When I was in aviation, active duty and civilian life, I trained many foreigners, from Saudis to Egyptians to Spaniards, from aviation technicians to engineers. All of my 'on-aircraft' trainees, not students because they are beyond the classroom stage, have a mastery of technical English that were obvious even over two decades ago. You DO NOT have that mastery and that gave you a flawed understanding of every basic principles in aviation. You are too stubborn to admit it your lack of knowledge and understanding of technical issues. The result is that no matter what citations or logical reasoning presented, your childish pride will not allow you to concede you are wrong and you must insist that everyone else are wrong.

Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?
A: Inboard spoilers are discouraged in designs for use in flight because their deployments for rolling maneuvers may cause airflow disruptions on the empennage (tail structure) and that would cause buffeting. Discouraged -- not forbidden -- in designs. Outboard spoilers are used for in flight rolling maneuvers instead. When weight is fully on wheels on landing, inboard spoilers are deployed as speed brakes or 'liftdumpers'.

Flight control surfaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After touchdown, the ground spoilers deploy, and "dump" the lift generated by the wings, thus placing the aircraft's weight on the wheels,...

While the Internet is available for all to find information, when it comes to technical issues, only experience can guide a person on where to look for sources to support his arguments. That is why no one here dare to tell the forum on how to operate on the human brain even though there are no brain surgeons members here. So your convenient dismissal of publicly available sources when they proved you wrong and ignorant further show the readers what an immature child you really are. You have no formal education in aviation, no real experience in aviation, and therefore nothing but flawed understandings of aviation from basic aerodynamics to actually working on the aircraft itself.

Next...

Q: In designing a spoiler system, what is the most dangerous condition/effect a spoiler system could have?

 

[amalakas]

Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?
A: Inboard spoilers are discouraged in designs for use in flight because their deployments for rolling maneuvers may cause airflow disruptions on the empennage (tail structure) and that would cause buffeting. Discouraged -- not forbidden -- in designs. Outboard spoilers are used for in flight rolling maneuvers instead. When weight is fully on wheels on landing, inboard spoilers are deployed as speed brakes or 'liftdumpers'.

Flight control surfaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I definitely know the 727 and the 747 do not use the inboard spoilers in-flight, I think there are designs were rolling aid is progressively with speed moved from the outboard ones to the inboard ones for wing loading issues.

 

[antonius123]

Like I said before don’t play games with me, I asked you if you knew the answer to your own quote, and now you have the audacity to ask me if I know? And yes I know the answer.

You are playing the game with me.

If you say you know the answer and even claim know better than me, then I deserve to test you too.

So you want me to answer half of your question for you? So you answer only what you are able to and what you can not answer you expect me to answer for you?

Not like that.

I will give you my answer, and I will be expecting your answer too. I will start for the first question, then you will start for the second question. It is fair enough.

Dare you?

You answer the question in its entirety or admit that you don’t know.

I will of course.

But you must give your answer too, then it is fair. Otherwise, you are only an unfair coward

Yes and you do owe the readers an explanation if asked to do so. So far I have asked for you to explain your quote and so has amalakas.

Then what make you think you - who claim know the answer and know better than me - do not owe to readers?

No, he wants you to answer not me. More proof you can't comprehend simple sentences.

Why is that?

Do you forget that you claim you know it too and even know better than me? then readers want to know from the one who claim know better

 

[amalakas]

Why is that?

Do you forget that you claim you know it too and even know better than me? then readers want to know from the one who claim know better

No, you posted it, you explain it.

You don't see any of us letting others explain what we post, do you?

 

[antonius123]

No, you posted it, you explain it.

You don't see any of us letting others explain what we post, do you?

You are demonstrating your bad motive pal.

You just want to attack me blindly, and defend your beloved friend blindly

You should be more interested to know from one who claim know better than me.
To be fair, at least you should ask both of us not only me alone.

 

[gambit]

You are demonstrating your bad motive pal.

You just want to attack me blindly, and defend your beloved friend blindly

You should be more interested to know from one who claim know better than me.
To be fair, at least you should ask both of us not only me alone.

What a crybaby...!!!

The kid is a member in a military oriented forum, with no military experience. He engages in a highly technical discussion, of which he lied about his experience, then when challenged he boo-hoo-hoo about being questioned.