Chinese troops have been equipped with WZ-10 helicopter gunships

[rcrmj]

Your the last person that should be talking about educating people on 'stealth'. The angled fuselage is nothing more than a design feature that gullible people like you interpret as being 'stealthy'. There are many things that increase an aircraft's RCS, one of the biggest is right angle surfaces, the ZW-10 is full of them; for example, the vertical stabilizer, pylons, the fin on the tale, the two large antennas on the tail, the exhaust manifold, the cowl (right below engine), the gun, and the flir/optics housing are all right angled surfaces. But there is also the landing gears and countless protrusions sticking out from the fuselage.

On a related matter when an aircraft like an F-22 or B-2 opens it's weapons bays it is seen on radar, these are fully optimized for low observability and there is no sacrifice, so tell me if an F-22 is seen on radar with an opened weapons bay how is this ZW-10 with all it's right angled surfaces and protrusions--landing gear and all 'stealthy'? And what about those saw tooth patterns that you can't seem to get enough of, according to you without them this helicopter can not at all be 'stealthy'.

heli designers and developers wont put up a shape just to trick 'gulible' people like you said, they dont hv time to fool anyone but to satisfy buyers, all the shapes and design of WZ-10 has its own purpose, be it areodynamics or reduce overall RCS` accroding to the 'stealth' benchmarks you put on really rule out T-50 (with all those right angled bits and bobs) to be a stealth plane which is well known fact, unless you are gullible to believe whatever came out those hyped russian magzines, trying to convinece no body but to fool indians to put more money into the project.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Your the last person that should be talking about educating people on 'stealth'. The angled fuselage is nothing more than a design feature that gullible people like you interpret as being 'stealthy'. There are many things that increase an aircraft's RCS, one of the biggest is right angle surfaces, the ZW-10 is full of them; for example, the vertical stabilizer, pylons, the fin on the tale, the two large antennas on the tail, the exhaust manifold, the cowl (right below engine), the gun, and the flir/optics housing are all right angled surfaces. But there is also the landing gears and countless protrusions sticking out from the fuselage.

On a related matter when an aircraft like an F-22 or B-2 opens it's weapons bays it is seen on radar, these are fully optimized for low observability and there is no sacrifice, so tell me if an F-22 is seen on radar with an opened weapons bay how is this ZW-10 with all it's right angled surfaces and protrusions--landing gear and all 'stealthy'? And what about those saw tooth patterns that you can't seem to get enough of, according to you without them this helicopter can not at all be 'stealthy'.

That makes pak-fa a flying dolphin. Spare us of your non-sense stop copying F-22 and don't go for stealth since according to your logic "The angled fuselage is nothing more than a design feature that gullible people like you interpret as being 'stealthy'." stealth is useless russians should move away from it.

 

[ptldM3]

heli designers and developers wont put up a shape just to trick 'gulible' people like you said, they dont hv time to fool anyone but to satisfy buyers, all the shapes and design of WZ-10 has its own purpose, be it areodynamics or reduce overall RCS` accroding to the 'stealth' benchmarks you put on really rule out T-50 (with all those right angled bits and bobs) to be a stealth plane which is well known fact, unless you are gullible to believe whatever came out those hyped russian magzines, trying to convinece no body but to fool indians to put more money into the project.

Sorry I don't understand a thing you wrote besides the fuselage, and yes it is a coincidental design that gullible people misinterpret as 'stealth'. The SU-34 has a canted nose, does that also mean it is 'stealthy'--no it was just a coincidental design due to the seat configuration. And please don't tell me that physics do not apply to the WZ-10, do you also believe that right angled surfaces and protrusions do not kill rcs? I can post some sources that says otherwise.

 

[ptldM3]

That makes pak-fa a flying dolphin. Spare us of your non-sense stop copying F-22 and don't go for stealth since according to your logic "The angled fuselage is nothing more than a design feature that gullible people like you interpret as being 'stealthy'." stealth is useless russians should move away from it.

Except the pak-fa does not have right angled surfaces does it? I also find it funny that the same guys I replied to continuously bash the pak-fa but you never seemed to jump in when that happened, worst of all none of there bashing can ever be verified or supported, yet you heroically jump in to back up your brothers one of these guys goes to different forums and make threads of how 'un-stealthy' the pak-fa is. But it's me that is always seen as the bad guy, it was me that debunked the myth of the SU-47 being 'stealthy' and the SU-47 is a Russian aircraft. Again, like I asked the other guys, do you believe the ZW-10 defies physics?

On a funny side note of the guys that claimed multiple piece canopies, rivets, and lack of saw tooth is bad for 'stealth' now claims that the WZ-10 is stealthy, looks like someone got caught in there own web of bullshit

Like i mentioned earlier the WZ-10 has too many right angled surfaces and protrusions to be called 'stealthy', i'm sure the designers of the WZ-10 would also agree with me--and before anyone starts occusing me of trolling let me remind everyone that i debunked the myth of the SU-47 being stealthy--so spare me.

 

[rcrmj]

Sorry I don't understand a thing you wrote besides the fuselage, and yes it is a coincidental design that gullible people misinterpret as 'stealth'. The SU-34 has a canted nose, does that also mean it is 'stealthy'--no it was just a coincidental design due to the seat configuration. And please don't tell me that physics do not apply to the WZ-10, do you also believe that right angled surfaces and protrusions do not kill rcs? I can post some sources that says otherwise.

lol you understand very single word of my post, but you are paranoid you just jump on every matters as long as it has to do with chinese 'stealth' or chinese is doing than russia now in some fields```

its well known fact canted shape can reduce overall RCS, but again as you said on your post over and over again, 'right angled surfaces and protrusions do kill the RCS' like a slap on your own face that believe T-50 is a stealth fighter`

 

[rcrmj]

Except the pak-fa does not have right angled surfaces does it? I also find it funny that the same guys I replied to continuously bash the pak-fa but you never seemed to jump in when that happened, worst of all none of there bashing can ever be verified or supported, yet you heroically jump in to back up your brothers one of these guys goes to different forums and make threads of how 'un-stealthy' the pak-fa is. But it's me that is always seen as the bad guy, it was me that debunked the myth of the SU-47 being 'stealthy' and the SU-47 is a Russian aircraft. Again, like I asked the other guys, do you believe the ZW-10 defies physics?

On a funny side note of the guys that claimed multiple piece canopies, rivets, and lack of saw tooth is bad for 'stealth' now claims that the WZ-10 is stealthy, looks like someone got caught in there own web of bullshit

i hv gotta say, your nerve is so sensitive, Dragon Emperor merely said it looks stealthy and you started all those old defies of physics again like all you posted on J-20 threads`

 

[Luftwaffe]

now claims that the WZ-10 is stealthy, looks like someone got caught in there own web of bullshit.

People got caught in their web of BS about pak-fa does that sound familiar it looks terribly bad.
Ouch J-20 thread has memories saved how pak-fa was taken down from the list of stealth optimized designed Jet, Failed!

 

[ptldM3]

lol you understand very single word of my post, but you are paranoid you just jump on every matters as long as it has to do with chinese 'stealth' or chinese is doing than russia now in some fields```

Wrong, for the third time, i was the same guy that destroyed the fanboy myth the the SU-47 being 'stealthy' so what now?

its well known fact canted shape can reduce overall RCS, but again as you said on your post over and over again, 'right angled surfaces and protrusions do kill the RCS' like a slap on your own face that believe T-50 is a stealth fighter`

Juvenile, you can have all the canted surfaces in the world but that does not mean that you will be 'stealthy', again lets review, what happens when the F-22 opens it's weapons bays? Oh yes that is right, it is seen on radar. If the designers of the WZ-10 made some retractable landing gears, weapons bays, go rid of all the right angled surfaces and cleaned up the fuselage than I would believe the WZ-10 to be a so called 'stealthy'--reduced RCS is more correct, but as it standing it has none of those things. There are also other features besides right angled surfaces and protrusions that need to be accounted for when making a 'stealth' platform but all of those things are too difficult and advanced for you and your friends to comprehend.

 

[ptldM3]

now claims that the WZ-10 is stealthy, looks like someone got caught in there own web of bullshit.

People got caughted in their web of BS does that sound familiar it looks terribly bad.
Ouch J-20 thread has memories saved how pak-fa was taken down from the list of stealth optimized designed Jet, Failed!

And who made that list? Your fanboys. I tend to believe the experienced and educated professionals with relevant design experience at Sukhoi than some pukes on this forum. There was also an F-22 designer that claimed once the pak-fa's test equipment is removed and RAM is applied it RCS would be that of a marble.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Features that leap out as being non stealthy on the T-50 include:

- Absence of sawtooth edges on anything but the weapons bay doors and frontal landing gear door.
- Absence of edge alignment on skin panels
- Control surface inner edges not aligned with platform edges
- Noisy features like the auxiliary vents on the engine inlets
- Lower fuselage from the inlets rearward is completely conventional, no blending at all of engine nacelles into fuselage
- Upper fuselage from the mid-wing rearward is conventional, no blending of engine nacelles into fuselage (although partially masked from the sides by the empennage)
- Straight-through engine nacelles

un-blended rear nacelles, lack of panel edge alignment, control surfaces not aligned with wing trailing edge.

People for images google.

 

[TOPGUN]

Good work China keep it up wish you all the best ...

 

[ptldM3]

This was a conversation about the WZ-10 and it's very obvious it's not a 'stealth' platform of any kind and again I debunked the myth of the SU-47 being 'stealth' so you look like an immature juvenile with some of the crap you copied and pasted.

Features that leap out as being non stealthy on the T-50 include


- Absence of saw tooth edges on anything but the weapons bay doors and frontal landing gear door.

The second prototype had more of those saw tooth features incorporated and you’re plain wrong about the weapons bays and bay door being the only thing with saw tooth patterns, and don't even act like you know why those are incorporated.

- Absence of edge alignment on skin panels

Say what? I bet you don't even know what you copied and pasted.

- Control surface inner edges not aligned with platform edges

Stop copying and pasting crap you have no clue about, this nonsense makes no sense. Give me a source that explained this phenomenon.

- Noisy features like the auxiliary vents on the engine inlets

This is a joke right? There are these thingies called jet engines and they make quite a bit of noise, as does the cubic volume of air that enters the intakes--thus causing loud crackling that is often mistaken for the sound barrier being broken. At any rate the F-117 had 'vents'.

- Lower fuselage from the inlets rearward is completely conventional, no blending at all of engine nacelles into fuselage

The lower fuselage is canted--it's not flat but it is canted.

- Upper fuselage from the mid-wing rearward is conventional, no blending of engine nacelles into fuselage (although partially masked from the sides by the empennage)

This is just getting ridiculous, the engines do blend into the body of the aircraft--have you taken a look at the B-2's fuselage, the random of the cockpit is no different than the pak-fa's engines.

- Straight-through engine nacelles

And what about the F-117 or the Silent Eagle?

 

[gambit]

What about the stealth shape of the fuselage to reflect radar away from the emitter? Or are your eyes incapable of seeing the obvious faceted shaping?

If you're having problems comprehending the stealth shaping, let me educate you. When radar hits the top-half of the WZ-10, it reflects away into space. When radar hits the bottom-half of the WZ-10, it reflects into the ground. Either way, the radar is redirected away from the receiver.

WZ-10 Attack Helicopter with stealth-shaped fuselage to deflect radar waves away from receiver.

Then I will educate you => http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/90506-china-wz-10-pics.html#post1594871

 

[Luftwaffe]

I and my fellas over here and across the world consider you are officially delusional ptldm3 you have lost every ground to prove t-50 as stealth.

Please don't bring in stealth planes by any definition after what my honorary Martian2 has posted on youtube and on defence.pk and perhaps add up my last post pretty much proves this thing called t-50 is out of the league of stealth aircraft designs.

That said I'll not reply further to you it is a waste of time to talk to a radio man.

 

[ptldM3]

I and my fellas over here and across the world consider you are officially delusional ptldm3 you have lost every ground to prove t-50 as stealth.




Please don't bring in stealth planes by any definition after what my honorary Martian2 has posted on youtube and on defence.pk and perhaps add up my last post pretty much proves this thing called t-50 is out of the league of stealth aircraft designs.

it was you who brought up 'stealth' planes not me, and it is communist lovers like yourself and communists themselves that are delusional. The conversation was about the WZ-10 but you stooped to copying and pasting some nonsense that you yourself are clueless of. And is this the same honorable Martian that claimed canards are not bad for stealth because they are paper thin from the front--that is embarrassing, also is this the same Martian that goes to different forums making threads how the pak-fa sucks--how honorable of him, even more honorable that he can never produce sources with his claims.

There are enough professionals including F-22 designers that think the pak-fa is fine aircraft, I myself have discussed the aircraft in detail as have others, more important all claims I make about the aircraft are backed with sources, I can't say the same for your brother--in fact your brother literally make fake claims so do not worry about the pak-fa.

Moving back to topic I am not the only one who thinks that the WZ-10's fuselage design was a coincidence or necessity that is mistaken for 'stealth'. The WZ-10 is brimming with right angled surfaces that alone should tell you that there was no effort in making the WZ-10 a 'stealthy' helicopter, then of course, there are all those protrusions that hang from the helicopter including pylons, landing gears, antennas, exhaust, side probe (?) and countless other miscellaneous things that I can only call protrusions. It is naive to think that the WZ-10 is 'stealthy'. The only other person with knowledge about 'stealth'--Gambit also thinks what I think but what he calls 'doodads' I call protrusions.

That said I'll not reply further to you it is a waste of time to talk to a radio man.

Taking the cowards way out? What is wrong, you can't face me for a meaningful debate so you run away? I asked you to back your claims, but instead you run, is it perhaps you can not, could it be that you copied and pasted/made up some fake nonsense that you can not back up? Like I said back post #25 with sources or at least explain how "Control surface inner edges not align[ing] with platform edges' are a contributor to RCS. Is there a source for this? Can you explain exactly what in hells name you mean by inner edges not aligning with platform edges? Can you explain what phenomenon EM occurs for this to happen or the relationship between the inter edges of the control surfaces and relationship between 'platform' edges? In any case you fan boys grossly misuse and over use the word 'stealth', why is everything that comes out of China suddenly 'stealthy' give it a rest.