ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Our dearly respected, knowledgable and 'objective' member Martian (sarcasm) has constantly contradicted, refused to prove his claims with credible sources, and outright fabricated claims. Moreover, he has consistently ignored sources that disproved his claims.
On a daily basis he compares the J-20/F-35 to the pak-fa and calls it objective while conveniently ignoring many of the same 'design flaws' incorporated in the J-20.
Lets take a look at his usual claims shall we?
For starters he stated:
Yet all the while ignored the fact that the J-20 has DSI bumps as well as spheres underneath the wings, spheres that are drastically larger than anything found on the F-35, pak-fa, or F-22.
But of course, the J-20 is special, it does not obey the same laws, the very laws that Martian has claimed are so important to 'stealth' do not apply to the J-20.
Next let look at some claims he made about the pak-fa.
He stated that metal framed canopies are not good for stealth, that lack of sawtooth rear wheel bays are bad for stealth, that an IRST is bad for stealth, yet he called the WZ-10 'stealthy' despite the fact that it violated everything that he has been preaching.
Lets take a look at his quote:
So the small IRST sphere on the pak-fa is appearently 'bad for stealth' but the WZ-10's massive optical sphere, machine gun, fixed landing gear, rivets, pylons, various protrusions and there are many of them is not bad for stealth. Again Chinese made products seems to not follow the same rules as everyone else.
Moreover, the WS-10 has a vertical stab and large fin on the tail, as well as other right-angle surfaces, but again if it's Chinese it is exempt from the same rules.
And, yes, the WZ-10 has rivets, and it still remains 'stealthy' in Martians eyes, ironic considering that Martian constantly claims that rivets are an indication of poor 'stealth'.
Lastly, the WZ-10 has a 'metal canopy' which is as Martian said, 'bad for stealth', but again when it's Chinese made the same rules do not apply.
Now a little insight for anyone that is interested, there is no difference between a 'bubble' canopy and a standard canopy as long as the designers follow a few rules. Martian does not understand this and in general does not understand anything he posts, he simply makes claims but can never back them even when asked to do so.
The B-2, F-117, and Silent Eagle have one thing in common, they do not have bubble canopies, yet their RCS is reputed to be extremely low. Why? It all has to do with the joints--despite the garbage most of you have been fed, the metal 'strip' has nothing to do with stealth, it is the gap between the strip and the position of that 'stripe'. There is a reason that that none of the mentioned aircraft including the pak-fa have a metal strips that parallels the front, instead all aircraft have angled 'strips' similar to the concept of serrated bays. This concept depends on the concept of perpendicular angles to redirect EM energy away from the source.
Another claims:
While he consists that 'continuous' curvature (i doubt he knows what he is talking about) is such an important feature he neglects and disregards the importance of effect edge diffraction. And for anyone interested, he claimed that the pak-fa's rear fuselage does not incorporate continues curvature but i guess he has not seen the B-2 fuselage
Back on topic, this guy once said that canards are okay for 'stealth' because they are 'paper thin from the front' (yes he really said that). To anyone with even a vague understanding of edge diffraction they would understand that Martian knew nothing about the real effects of edge diffraction on canards. Again, i repeat, edge diffraction occurs off of every structure, in practical terms EM energy has to come off of a surface. A conventional aircraft such as an F-22 will have EM energy radiate in the rear because everything is interconected, the J-20's canards, on the other hand will have EM energy radiate on to the aircraft because of the positioning of the canards.
And canards will not simply give any aircraft 'super maneuverability'. The SU-35 got rid of its canards and it can replicate if not surpass the SU-30's performance. Fly-by-wire, trust to weight ration and design features such as wing loading will determine an aircrafts performance. This is not to say that canards do not improve performance but rather that advances in fly-by-wire, engines, ect have rendered canards unimportant. In fact canards are sometimes incorporated not because of maneuverability but because of need. The SU-30 needed them because the aircraft was at one point too heavy in the front.
On a daily basis he compares the J-20/F-35 to the pak-fa and calls it objective while conveniently ignoring many of the same 'design flaws' incorporated in the J-20.
Lets take a look at his usual claims shall we?
For starters he stated:
Yet all the while ignored the fact that the J-20 has DSI bumps as well as spheres underneath the wings, spheres that are drastically larger than anything found on the F-35, pak-fa, or F-22.
But of course, the J-20 is special, it does not obey the same laws, the very laws that Martian has claimed are so important to 'stealth' do not apply to the J-20.
Next let look at some claims he made about the pak-fa.
He stated that metal framed canopies are not good for stealth, that lack of sawtooth rear wheel bays are bad for stealth, that an IRST is bad for stealth, yet he called the WZ-10 'stealthy' despite the fact that it violated everything that he has been preaching.
Lets take a look at his quote:
So the small IRST sphere on the pak-fa is appearently 'bad for stealth' but the WZ-10's massive optical sphere, machine gun, fixed landing gear, rivets, pylons, various protrusions and there are many of them is not bad for stealth. Again Chinese made products seems to not follow the same rules as everyone else.
Moreover, the WS-10 has a vertical stab and large fin on the tail, as well as other right-angle surfaces, but again if it's Chinese it is exempt from the same rules.
And, yes, the WZ-10 has rivets, and it still remains 'stealthy' in Martians eyes, ironic considering that Martian constantly claims that rivets are an indication of poor 'stealth'.
Lastly, the WZ-10 has a 'metal canopy' which is as Martian said, 'bad for stealth', but again when it's Chinese made the same rules do not apply.
Now a little insight for anyone that is interested, there is no difference between a 'bubble' canopy and a standard canopy as long as the designers follow a few rules. Martian does not understand this and in general does not understand anything he posts, he simply makes claims but can never back them even when asked to do so.
The B-2, F-117, and Silent Eagle have one thing in common, they do not have bubble canopies, yet their RCS is reputed to be extremely low. Why? It all has to do with the joints--despite the garbage most of you have been fed, the metal 'strip' has nothing to do with stealth, it is the gap between the strip and the position of that 'stripe'. There is a reason that that none of the mentioned aircraft including the pak-fa have a metal strips that parallels the front, instead all aircraft have angled 'strips' similar to the concept of serrated bays. This concept depends on the concept of perpendicular angles to redirect EM energy away from the source.
Another claims:
While he consists that 'continuous' curvature (i doubt he knows what he is talking about) is such an important feature he neglects and disregards the importance of effect edge diffraction. And for anyone interested, he claimed that the pak-fa's rear fuselage does not incorporate continues curvature but i guess he has not seen the B-2 fuselage
Back on topic, this guy once said that canards are okay for 'stealth' because they are 'paper thin from the front'
(yes he really said that). To anyone with even a vague understanding of edge diffraction they would understand that Martian knew nothing about the real effects of edge diffraction on canards. Again, i repeat, edge diffraction occurs off of every structure, in practical terms EM energy has to come off of a surface. A conventional aircraft such as an F-22 will have EM energy radiate in the rear because everything is interconected, the J-20's canards, on the other hand will have EM energy radiate on to the aircraft because of the positioning of the canards.And canards will not simply give any aircraft 'super maneuverability'. The SU-35 got rid of its canards and it can replicate if not surpass the SU-30's performance. Fly-by-wire, trust to weight ration and design features such as wing loading will determine an aircrafts performance. This is not to say that canards do not improve performance but rather that advances in fly-by-wire, engines, ect have rendered canards unimportant. In fact canards are sometimes incorporated not because of maneuverability but because of need. The SU-30 needed them because the aircraft was at one point too heavy in the front.
