SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[Beast]

You can't draw it because it's speculation.

The naysayers/haters/trolls here have been saying time and time again that the trailing edge of the canards will supposedly diffract onto the main wings and fuselage, and generate a radar return.
Y
I want to see how that actually happens.

Please draw the diagram.

I am sick of the repeating nonsense by gambit. When his point is challenged and ask to prove. This guy will just beat around the bush and flood this tread with some technical data which just confused the readers. Fancy even moderator like Oscar think this guy is an asset to this forum? More like spreading , misled all of us to believe the agenda of anti china sentiment.

Everybody can see the canard is aligned in the same place as root wing. I think someone shall post a picture of J-20 with canard align with main wing to shut this pest.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

What Gambit uses is called Argument Verbosium

 

[gambit]

You can't draw it because it's speculation.

The naysayers/haters/trolls here have been saying time and time again that the trailing edge of the canards will supposedly diffract onto the main wings and fuselage, and generate a radar return.

I want to see how that actually happens.

Please draw the diagram.

I am sick of the repeating nonsense by gambit. When his point is challenged and ask to prove. This guy will just beat around the bush and flood this tread with some technical data which just confused the readers. Fancy even moderator like Oscar think this guy is an asset to this forum? More like spreading , misled all of us to believe the agenda of anti china sentiment.

Everybody can see the canard is aligned in the same place as root wing. I think someone shall post a picture of J-20 with canard align with main wing to shut this pest.

Both of you are hopeless.

Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction: Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev: 9780470097717: Amazon.com: Books

I do not need to draw any diagrams because Professor Ufimtsev already done it. Not just for me, but for the entire world, including Chinese engineers.

An impinging radar wave travels the ENTIRE canard structure, not just the root. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'. Both of you are embarrassment to the smarter Chinese members here.

 

[Ultima Thule]

you r entirely correct Mr,gambit but these chinese people don't understand

 

[j20blackdragon]

you r entirely correct Mr,gambit but these chinese people don't understand

If he is correct, why is he constantly ducking and weaving around the issue?

I've requested several times for him to draw a diagram to illustrate exactly why canards are detrimental.

If he wanted to, he could draw a simple diagram like this in 5 minutes with MS Paint.

 

[gambit]

If he is correct, why is he constantly ducking and weaving around the issue?

I've requested several times for him to draw a diagram to illustrate exactly why canards are detrimental.

If he wanted to, he could draw a simple diagram like this in 5 minutes with MS Paint.

You really have embarrassed yourself and even worse, you do not even know it. You cannot even see how your own illustration debunked you. Am willing to bet that you really believe that those arrows go only one way.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Stop ducking and weaving gambit.

Open up MSPaint and draw the diagram.

You can do it in 5 min if you actually had an argument.

 

[gambit]

Stop ducking and weaving gambit.

Open up MSPaint and draw the diagram.

You can do it in 5 min if you actually had an argument.

Do YOU believe the edge diffraction arrows in this illustration...

...Go only one way, as shown?

 

[hk299792458]

Do YOU believe the edge diffraction arrows in this illustration...

...Go only one way, as shown?

Sorry, but no any human being can determinate the RCS or the level of stealth of any item only with his eyes.

This kind of arguments show already a lot of things.

Useless to argue again.

Henri K.

 

[gambit]

Sorry, but no any human being can determinate the RCS or the level of stealth of any item only with his eyes.

This kind of arguments show already a lot of things.

Useless to argue again.

Henri K.

What I asked was not derived from eyeballing anything. Edge diffraction fields have been measured as to their intensity and field dispersal. So yes, it is useless to argue with you who refused to acknowledge real physics.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Notice that gambit has been ducking and weaving like a professional boxer for a page now, but refuses to draw a simple black and white diagram on MSPaint.

Something like this will do just fine:

No one is asking for a complicated drawing like this:

 

[gambit]

Notice that gambit has been ducking and weaving like a professional boxer for a page now, but refuses to draw a simple black and white diagram on MSPaint.

Something like this will do just fine:

No one is asking for a complicated drawing like this:

Take the F-16 image...

Do YOU believe that is exactly how edge diffraction behaves on the wing? Exactly and only. And that no edge diffraction signals will impact the horizontal stab.

Simple enough question, kid. Funny part is that no matter how you answer, you will end up looking the fool.

 

[j20blackdragon]

More misdirection as expected.

Notice that gambit has not explained why the canards are as bad as he says they are.

He has also not produced a diagram illustrating why.

 

[gambit]

More misdirection as expected.

Notice that gambit has not explained why the canards are as bad as he says they are.

He has also not produced a diagram illustrating why.

I have no need to provide any 'diagram'. YOU are. And excellent examples at that. Now answer my question. Or are you afraid?

 

[j20blackdragon]

While we're on the subject of the F-16, I might as well point out that the trailing edges of the F-16's main wings and horizontal stabilizers are perpendicular to the direction of flight. That fact alone should make it absolutely inferior to the J-20.

Still waiting for gambit's analysis of the J-20. Where's the diagram? You can't deliver?