China's F-16: Meet the J-10 Fighter (Possibly Thanks to Israel)

[alee92nawaz]

You are the one and only embarrassment of this forum.

LOL you wish that the Su-30 kill is not confirmed. This isn’t Modi forum.

Bas bhai tere se certificate nahi lena. Next time, try to stay away from my replies or comments

 

[maximuswarrior]

Bas bhai tere se certificate nahi lena. Next time, try to stay away from my replies or comments

Piss off from this forum Hindu appeaser.

As beast said this place is mouthpiece of CCP members and Chini airforce.

Don't expect any facts here.

It is funny you come to such a place.

Now get back to pretending how Abhinandan is a hero LOL

well, facts... my colleagues were making trips to china for this project. Fact enough!. You guys want to rewrite history etc. all your parts are cloned. get a home grown engine first then come and give hot air.

Who says that China doesn’t have a home grown engine?

When Pakistan design something, they call it Chinese and look for similar Chinese products.
When China design something ,they call it copied or stolen and look for similar designs around the world.

When India assemble su-30 at home, they call it indigenous jet.

Indian logic is best to be ignored.

 

[gambit]

DON'T BE SILLY.
Even for the SAME 737 Jet, Boeing had to modify the software for the new Max8 with a slightly larger engine.
Boeing had the SOURCE CODES, and yet they FAILED Miserably.
You must be IGNORAMUS to think that one could just copy verbatim critical fly-by-wire code from F-16 to a much different F117.
PLEASE WHO DO YOU WANT TO KID.

And DON'T ACT DUMB, Mr SENILE.
Software is INVOLVED here.

My answer is HERE
https://www.upi.com/FAA-reviewing-software-patch-for-Boeing-737-Max-aircraft/6571553079074/
FAA reviewing software patch for Boeing 737 Max aircraft

Mr SENILE, you should be familiar with DOS low level system programming with your age.
Low level means accessing the hardware directly, in case you are a FAKE.
Please let us know your TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, what is the serious problem with calling Dos Int 25h.
.

Maybe you should do what I have always advocate -- READ YOUR SOURCES.

So far, the only thing that involves software is Boeing is releasing a 'patch' for the EXISTING software and the FAA is reviewing that patch, not the MCAS software itself.

...it is reviewing a software patch for a possible fix to issues with the Boeing 737 Max aircraft.

As for you saying that I said we copied 'verbatim' the FLCS software from the F-16 to the F-117? The word 'verbatim' is YOURS, not mine. That is dishonest. But that is typical behavior from you.

What I said back in post 36 is quite universal in basic architecture, even modern civilian airliners uses it. I have a lot more respect for the Chinese engineers than you do. They did exactly what was needed -- copied. It does not mean they copied 'verbatim'. That was YOUR word and dishonestly, at that. What I said back in post 36 regarding the digital FBW is true -- that certain flight controls parameters must be modified to meet each aircraft's unique features, such as additional flight control surfaces like the canards or having twin vertical stabilizers or different wing shapes. I do not need to understand DOS to understand software, pup.

 

[denel]

Piss off from this forum Hindu appeaser.



It is funny you come to such a place.

Now get back to pretending how Abhinandan is a hero LOL



Who says that China doesn’t have a home grown engine?



Indian logic is best to be ignored.

Were you there in Lavi's model design and wind tunnel tests at Atlas? If not then please keep quiet and stick to the point at hand. Chinese proverbially want to claim everything ...

best analogy - 'Mind Your Language' BBC series; they invented everything eg. first tv, radio etc etc etc.

 

[master_13]

yea so is the israeli f-16





View attachment 548877

f-16 copy haha

lol, copy.... you must either be blind or an idiot.

 

[sinait]

Maybe you should do what I have always advocate -- READ YOUR SOURCES.

So far, the only thing that involves software is Boeing is releasing a 'patch' for the EXISTING software and the FAA is reviewing that patch, not the MCAS software itself.


As for you saying that I said we copied 'verbatim' the FLCS software from the F-16 to the F-117? The word 'verbatim' is YOURS, not mine. That is dishonest. But that is typical behavior from you.

What I said back in post 36 is quite universal in basic architecture, even modern civilian airliners uses it. I have a lot more respect for the Chinese engineers than you do. They did exactly what was needed -- copied. It does not mean they copied 'verbatim'. That was YOUR word and dishonestly, at that. What I said back in post 36 regarding the digital FBW is true -- that certain flight controls parameters must be modified to meet each aircraft's unique features, such as additional flight control surfaces like the canards or having twin vertical stabilizers or different wing shapes. I do not need to understand DOS to understand software, pup.

COPY means COPY verbatim.
We don't copy a File with missing parts.
If we can MODIFY a COPY, means we have the TECHNICAL CAPABILITY to understand how it works.

2 cars that are ONLY similar in having 4 wheels and an engine is NOT COPY.
The Chinese had Russian fly-by-wire to use as the basic framework to MODIFY, no need to copy the CRASH CRASH CRASH CRAP from the USA.

If you ARE THAT OLD, you should know DOS.
If you ARE THAT TECHNICAL you should know the ports and interrupts that make a PC WORK.
If you ARE A FAKE, you of course don't know what is Dos Int 25h which most system Programmers need to know in order to write stuff to disk, EVEN IN WINDOWS(early versions).
But it has a SERIOUS FLAW.
I put this question to test HOW FAKE YOU ARE because this problem is not easily found on the Internet.
A seasoned person well versed in SOFTWARE or have access to Microsoft Labs should have no problem.

Mr GOOGLE SEARCH PROFESSOR, HA HA HA.
.

 

[gambit]

COPY means COPY verbatim.
We don't copy a File with missing parts.
If we can MODIFY a COPY, means we have the TECHNICAL CAPABILITY to understand how it works.

We are talking about using the same architecture as I pointed out back in post 36. Do you really think I made it up?

What I said in post 36 is here...

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Control_Laws

Airbus Flight Control Systems

Not American.

Information from numerous sources including pilot sidesticks and rudder pedals,

This is 'Command'.

the Air Data Inertial Reference Units (ADIRUs)

This is 'Air Data'.

the Landing Gear Control Interface Units (LGCIU), the Slat Flap Control Computers (SFCC)

This is part of 'Command'. However, these are flight configuration presets. Landing gears and flaps/slats are used for take-off and landing. As such, these presets have their own command structure in the FLCC.

the Flight Management Guidance Computers (FMGC) and the accelerometer is sent to the five flight control computers.

This is aircraft attitude sensor package.

There, dependent upon the active control law, the aircraft speed, altitude, configuration, attitude, phase of flight and numerous other parameters, the sidestick and rudder pedal or autopilot commands are interpreted and the appropriate control deflection signals are sent to the control actuators.

Everything is used by the FLCC to calculate final flight control surface displacement -- signals are sent to the control actuators.

Just as I outlined in post 36.

This fly-by-wire architecture is proven by US and refined throughout the decades. The architecture have been COPIED by everyone from Boeing to Airbus to Bombardier to COMAC. The context of 'copy' here is not to be as pedantic and childishly nitpicking like you have been.

I do not need to know DOS in order to work on software related projects, pup.

 

[sinait]

We are talking about using the same architecture as I pointed out back in post 36. Do you really think I made it up?

What I said in post 36 is here...

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Control_Laws

Not American.


This is 'Command'.


This is 'Air Data'.


This is part of 'Command'. However, these are flight configuration presets. Landing gears and flaps/slats are used for take-off and landing. As such, these presets have their own command structure in the FLCC.


This is aircraft attitude sensor package.


Everything is used by the FLCC to calculate final flight control surface displacement -- signals are sent to the control actuators.

Just as I outlined in post 36.

This fly-by-wire architecture is proven by US and refined throughout the decades. The architecture have been COPIED by everyone from Boeing to Airbus to Bombardier to COMAC. The context of 'copy' here is not to be as pedantic and childishly nitpicking like you have been.

I do not need to know DOS in order to work on software related projects, pup.

Proven but still CRASH CRASH CRAP.
We all KNOW what you meant to INSINUATE by COPY.
Now you TURN TAIL and redefine COPY after I EXPOSE THE FAKE YOU ARE.
Now COPY becomes ARCHITECTURE.
As an example, Microsoft Programming Frameworks are there for everybody to use, no need to STEAL & COPY.

Its NOT about DOS, but about the Interrupts that SOFTWARE uses to interact with hardware.
A SOFTWARE TECHNICAL EXPERT that you think you are should know.
You don't KNOW because you are A FAKE.
Mr GOOGLE SEARCH PROFESSOR. HA HA HA
.

 

[gambit]

A SOFTWARE TECHNICAL EXPERT that you think you are should know.
You don't KNOW because you are A FAKE..

I never claimed to be a 'software technical expert'. That is your assumption of what I said.

 

[sinait]

I never claimed to be a 'software technical expert'. That is your assumption of what I said.

TECHNICAL is highlighted because you asked me to stay out of the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE arena that you are the KNOW ALL expert.
That is the reason I don't go out to humiliate you on numerous previous occasions.
We all have our favorite limited scope specializations.
But you go around claiming expertise on many subjects and calling others "kid".
KID, you don't know who you are dealing with on the Internet.

Anyway this is as far as I will go.
I feel bad calling others a dimwit and I am NO EXPERT as well.
Still learning at 65 young, but NOT from GOOGLE SEARCH PROFESSOR.
.

 

[gambit]

We all have our favorite limited scope specializations.

And you are in mine -- aviation. I do not need to know programming to understand high level software requirements in aviation just as I do not need to be a pneudraulics engineer to understand how that system integrate with avionics. Get my point?

 

[sinait]

And you are in mine -- aviation. I do not need to know programming to understand high level software requirements in aviation just as I do not need to be a pneudraulics engineer to understand how that system integrate with avionics. Get my point?

WRONG.
You ARE MESSING with SOFTWARE when you INSIST fly-by-wire software can be STOLEN, COPIED and transferred from one plane to another different model plane.
When EXPOSED, you sidestep to say the ARCHITECTURE that is COPIED.

Everyone here have witnessed how you claim to be EXPERT in a lot of things.
I am not Know-All EXPERT like you, GOOGLE SEARCH PROFESSOR.
.

 

[gambit]

WRONG.
You ARE MESSING with SOFTWARE when you INSIST fly-by-wire software can be STOLEN, COPIED and transferred from one plane to another different model plane.
When EXPOSED, you sidestep to say the ARCHITECTURE that is COPIED.

This is why you should stay out of aviation. Here is post 36...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...-thanks-to-israel.609628/page-3#post-11305828

The architecture of the fly-by-wire flight control system INCLUDES software, hardware, and firmware.

Everyone here have witnessed how you claim to be EXPERT in a lot of things.

Actually, no. I have never used the word 'expert' to describe myself. You are free to use the forum's search feature to verify that, of course.

What I have always done is provide the readers with appropriate keywords so they can research for themselves and judge who is the more credible. That is why the Chinese members are not taken seriously when it comes to technical issues, especially regarding aviation in general and military aviation in particular.

So far, you have not proven anything I said in post 36 as technically incorrect. Why not? Is it because I know what I am talking about and you and your Chinese friends do not? Yes, it is. None of you know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[sinait]

This is why you should stay out of aviation. Here is post 36...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...-thanks-to-israel.609628/page-3#post-11305828

The architecture of the fly-by-wire flight control system INCLUDES software, hardware, and firmware.


Actually, no. I have never used the word 'expert' to describe myself. You are free to use the forum's search feature to verify that, of course.

What I have always done is provide the readers with appropriate keywords so they can research for themselves and judge who is the more credible. That is why the Chinese members are not taken seriously when it comes to technical issues, especially regarding aviation in general and military aviation in particular.

So far, you have not proven anything I said in post 36 as technically incorrect. Why not? Is it because I know what I am talking about and you and your Chinese friends do not? Yes, it is. None of you know what the hell you are talking about.

No point going on and on with you.
Even in Software, it is so diverse, it is unwise to deride one another.
I would never dare trivialize the Excel Spreadsheet Expert or the Database specialist.

You are another Indian MOUTH NEVER SAY DIE type.
.

 

[gambit]

No point going on and on with you.

Because you will lose and end up looking like a fool, just as you have so far.