The clearest J-20 pictures.

[ptldM3]

This is hilarious.

If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.

Why have you still not answered? You claimed i was wrong, i asked you to explain how i was wrong and how those pictures you posted relate to the subject. All i got from you so far has been the same photos.

And sorry just because the vertical stabilizers were activated during the time the photo was taken does not mean that they are constantly in use. In fact vertical stabilizers are used the least out of all flight control surfaces. More of which the tail fins create additional corner reflects in relation to the aft fuselage.

 

[eachus]

You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.

Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.

this guy has 0% credibility. said saw J10 has been down at least 5, can not prove any.
these fake photos were 100% fake, he still painted the artificial story in his colors to lie.
a picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.
the 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud. he said water covered.
do you guys see any hole? the heavy machine make can float on water after crash?

J10 can not eject engine in air, only Russian fighters can. Russian fighters often have engines burn.
US fighter could not eject engines in air neither, nobody has seen one.
the 600 km/hr vertical crashed J10 had strong parts flew away, the soft parts stay on without much damage?
this guy still argue that was the real accident.


if you compare 2 photos he posted, look at the locations where did farmers stand,
you can tell the photos are fake.

 

[gambit]

The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are.

Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?

When you guys see the words 'corner reflector', did it occurred to anyone that it begs the question of whether there are any other types of reflectors? Probably not. Not one of you guys have proven himself to be sufficiently self critical of what he know and what he does not know.

In long range communication, the reflector antenna is the most frequently used where high gain are required. Of the reflector class, the parabolic reflector, aka 'dish', is the most prominent.

Other reflectors are:

- Parabolic cylinder

Projects-doc-282-v1: Directivity of a Parabolic Cylinder Antenna

The 21 cm project is based on a parabolic cylinder antenna with receivers placed periodically along the focus line of the antenna.

- Parabolic torus

The parabolic torus reflector antenna

A multiple-beam antenna in which the reflecting surface is a parabolic torus can be used to scan an arc of over 90-deg with a performance virtually unchanged over the entire range.

- Spherical

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1144675&tag=1

A study is made of spherical reflectors for use as wide-angle scanning antennas.

Then there is the multiple reflectors type but the designs under this are not applicable to our discussion relating to radar cross section (RCS). The three above and the corner reflector are of single reflector type and are often found on any aircraft's body. Each structure create a different radiation pattern from the others. If there is a tranmitting antenna like a simple dipole that is placed in front of a reflector, the entire assembly is called an 'active reflector antenna'.

A circular active reflector atenna (CARA), energy distribution calculations, and an experimental test :: Institutional Repository

Such a device is called a circular active reflector antenna (CARA),...

Without a transmitting antenna, the label is "passive reflector antenna'.

Passive reflectors

This document deals with the 'antenna-passive reflector' association used in microwave links.

From an RCS control perspective, we look for the passive reflector type such as the 90 deg corner reflector created by the vertical and horizontal stabilators joining.

In the above illustration, the angle between the sides is called the 'aperture angle'.

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page

An experimental comer reflector was erected at the Table Mesa antenna range near Boulder. The aperture angle of this antenna was made adjustable to any value between 20 and 180 degrees. The widths and lengths of the reflecting surfaces were each adjustable from 0.4 to 5.0 wavelengths. Measurements of gain were made for numerous combinations of lengths and widths of reflecting surfaces. These measurements were made with a half-wave dipole in the first, second and third maximum positions. The aperture angle was adjusted to maximize the gain. The principal results are presented in the form of contours of constant gain plotted for a range of widths and lengths of reflecting surfaces from 0.4 to 5.0 wavelengths. These graphs should be useful to a designer of corner-reflector antennas.

The highlighted are significant. First, it mean the phrase 'corner reflector' is not restricted to the 90 deg type. Second, it mean altering the aperture angle affects gain and reflected power. This paper is decades old and the information within have been used by radar testing specialists the world over whenever they need to design and build target corner reflectors for radar testing -- what I used to do after the USAF.

We can design these target enhancers to help a weapon's radar to hit a ship or even a SPECIFIC part of a ship. The greater the departure from 90 deg by the aperture angle, the weaker the reflected signals, and the greater the odds of a miss. That is how we learn the effectiveness of a weapon's radar system under a variety of conditions, from natural such as weather to man made such as chaff. Inside the corner reflector, the main beam may not return to source direction but the side lobes will approach each side differently. We can calculate how the side lobes will reflect and whether they can be detected or not. Then we build to verify.

Before 'stealth', in aviation, usually when a new discovery is made or a new technology developed, a new aircraft design will have a lead from the appropriate technology branch. For example, when the 'area rule' was discovered, aerodynamicists with their new delta wing designs dominated the 'Century' series. When the jet engine was new, the Propulsion branch dominated with the P-80 and later with the F15 and F-16 with their powerful engines that skewed the thrust to weight ratio. For the A-10, the Armament branch dominated, they essentially told everyone else to design their systems to support the Vulcan cannon.

With 'stealth' starting with the F-117, the Electrical Engineering branch took the lead and have been ever since. As far as the RCS control engineer is concerned, every aircraft is a conglomeration of different reflectors of different sizes and shapes. Every structure must have the EE's input. Granted, to keep the design flight worthy, aeerodynamics must take priority, but now the aerodynamicists cannot ignore the EE and often times must concede to the EE's demands.

So for RCS control, the rules from Electrical Engineering are:

- Avoid the corner reflector.
- If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type.

The first rule basically say ALL reflectors are evil. Does not matter if it is corner or parabolic. The corner type just happens to be the most common, but any structure that focuses and concentrate reflected signals unidirectionally is an evil structure because there is a chance that just a little will be enough to give you away. So do not have it anywhere.

The second rule basically say that since aerodynamic necessity trumps RCS considerations, then avoid the 90 deg corner reflector because it is the best concentrator of reflected signals. So if you must have the corner reflector, avoid the 90 deg type and use it sparingly.

The B-2 is the first rule. Everything else, including the J-20, is the second rule. From the side view, the F-22 have one corner reflector, where the vertical stabilator created it with a part of the horizontal stabilator and with a part of the wing. From the side view, the J-20 have two corner reflectors: one from the vertical and horizontal stabilators, one from the ventral and horizontal stabilator.

So when I said that the F-22's flight control surfaces created corner reflectors and the ID village idiot laughed because he thought he did a 'gotcha' on me, it revealed that your little pet is a fraud when he said he has aviation experience or 'study' but refuses to tell us what.

I do not expect you Chinese boys to believe what I posted above despite the sources I presented to show the items and terminologies are legit. I have seen enough of your guys' behaviors to know the lot of you is sufficiently arrogant and full of yourselves to think that if you have never heard of <something> it does not exist, no matter how much proofs and logic are in front of you. You guys' disdain for experience is unique to you while everyone else appreciates it when they know they do not have it. For the Chinese members here, it is inconceivable that THEY COULD BE WRONG. You would rather twist and abuse the laws of nature than to concede to your errors.

 

[antonius123]

This is hilarious.

If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.

So hilarious ..

I dont know what to call whether it is Indian Physics, Russian Physics, or Vietnam physics with that kind of optical reflection. But for sure so many FRAUD here. Some irresponsible people are easily claim them self expert, have strong valid background etc by dragging internet articles, self proclaiming etc. But in fact what they are only demonstrating clueless and idiocy.

 

[gambit]

So hilarious ..

I dont know what to call whether it is Indian Physics, Russian Physics, or Vietnam physics with that kind of optical reflection. But for sure so many FRAUD here. Some irresponsible people are easily claim them self expert, have strong valid background etc by dragging internet articles, self proclaiming etc. But in fact what they are only demonstrating clueless and idiocy.

So what was your 'study' in aviation?

 

[antonius123]

Let me explain this in a way that even the most feeble minded individuals can understand. Below is a photo of the J-20. Note, the red outline on the lower chin, it is a perfect circle, and not just curvature. A cylinder is also a perfect circle. Furthermore, the J-20’s chin a long tubular like structure, so is a cylinder.

Than again you brought this on yourself by claiming the pak-fa is full of rounder/cylinder shapes.

Your red circle is round, but the j-20 chin is definitely is nor cylinder

You have made so many basic/fundamental mistakes with that math/physics.

Because it isn’t, the pak-fa has a flat chin, J-20 has a round chin, do you understand the difference?

I can't discuss anymore with some one who has no clue even to basic math and physics + idiocy.

You dont even know what round shape, what cylinder shape, what flat shape. It is so embarrassing.

Because neither of those are.

Come up with something better.

This is junk

This is what any reasonable person would call unreasonable. Do you expect real people that have real experience in the field to go on television, or create a webpage dedicated to denounce anyone; specifically Copp. I guess all those claims where ‘experts’ made statements about the J-20 being a poor aircraft must be true because no one denounced them.

This is idiocy.

Why for someone like you who easily drag article from internet, cant you find any REPUTABLE EXPERT who denounce kopp, if exist??

If you cant find, it means your claim is baseless.
You have poor understanding, poor knowledge to the basic math, physics etc, and now you dont have any credible expert to support your fantasy.

Ouch, good playground comeback, but in the intellectual world we provide intelligent counter claims, other than empty one liners.

Don’t bring me into this, you were asked what the equation was because you claimed to have aviation experience. Don’t try to sneak around the subject.

This is junk. Whats the point?
You are asking people the equation that even you yourself have no clue.

Where is the expert statement denouncing Richard Aboulafia’s statement on the J-20. You see where this is going? Your tactics are cheap.

Which Richard Aboulafia's statement?

Who is he? which statement of his that contradict to kopp?? is he Reputable one? how is his reputation compared to kopp's?

Already have.

Like I said where is the credibility, post 48 cited Kopp and his flawed methods.

Read again carefully.

Caught in your own web, how is a tunnel a corner reflector when you claimed a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees, and please explain for everyone how a tunnel is any different than an Intake? If you claim a tunnel to be detrimental than the same principle applies to an intake. Both channel and direct airflow.

Explain why has to be the same with intake?
Is tunel's 90 degree corner exposed to radar's wave?

You are idiot.

Wow, please enlighten everyone what is the difference between the two. A corner reflector, will always create a return, the degree of the corner reflector will determine how strong the return is.

That is how all corner reflectors behave regardless of the degree, as I stated the degree of the corner will determine how strong a return is. The adjacent inter structures of a corner reflector will determine how much EM energy is harnessed and concentrated and how much is dissipated outwards, but eliminating all returns is not possible since you still have a corner, key word is corner.

That imply you have very poor on physics.

Take a look at the picture that blackdragon bring.

It is something unfamiliar with you?? did you not learn about this??

Or we can just demonstrate this:

That is demonstrating your idiocy and your poor basic physics.

Blackdragon has slapped you, hope you understand what he is trying to correct and teach you.

Yeah...Just as we know: You are a liar about your aviation experience.

I toyed with you enough just for giggles. What you think of me is irrelevant because there are plenty people here who are far smarter than you who understood what I said and who now see you for what you are: A clueless teenager.

You are FRAUD, it is proven already.

Yeah there could be plenty people who fall for your lie, as saying: blind man lead blind men.

 

[gambit]

You are FRAUD, it is proven already.

Yeah there could be plenty people who fall for your lie, as saying: blind man lead blind men.

So you have no aviation experience at all despite your earlier claim.

 

[antonius123]

So you have no aviation experience at all despite your earlier claim.

Do you think with aviation maintenance experience (assumed it is true) you can talk theory and science beyond your practical maintenance knowledge?

 

[gambit]

Do you think with aviation maintenance experience (assumed it is true) you can talk theory and science beyond your practical maintenance knowledge?

At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ?

Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.

 

[amalakas]

At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ?

Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.

The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars. He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries.

and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!

 

[j20blackdragon]

So for RCS control, the rules from Electrical Engineering are:

- Avoid the corner reflector.
- If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type.

The first rule basically say ALL reflectors are evil. Does not matter if it is corner or parabolic. The corner type just happens to be the most common, but any structure that focuses and concentrate reflected signals unidirectionally is an evil structure because there is a chance that just a little will be enough to give you away. So do not have it anywhere.

The second rule basically say that since aerodynamic necessity trumps RCS considerations, then avoid the 90 deg corner reflector because it is the best concentrator of reflected signals. So if you must have the corner reflector, avoid the 90 deg type and use it sparingly.

The B-2 is the first rule. Everything else, including the J-20, is the second rule.

I agree with all of it.

For example, something like this would probably be stealthier than the F-22, but less maneuverable.

So is it better than the F-22?

It would be a better bomber definitely, but is that all we're looking for?

 

[antonius123]

At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ?

Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.

What ever real aviation experience you claim, obviously the knowledge you have demonstrated here suggest where your level is. Also at least your Fraud tendency is obvious in the way you drag article with self proclaim but with missunderstanding + inability to defend/response.

The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars.

No i dont. It is you who think that way.

He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries.

and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!

Maintenance job is not an engineering job.

Even non degree person with adequate apprentice or practice could be a maintenance guy.

You are FRAUD and idiot.

 

[Esc8781]

What ever real aviation experience you claim, obviously the knowledge you have demonstrated here suggest where your level is. Also at least your Fraud tendency is obvious in the way you drag article with self proclaim but with missunderstanding + inability to defend/response.



No i dont. It is you who think that way.



Maintenance is not engineering.

Even non degree person with adequate apprentice or practice could be a maintenance guy.

You are FRAUD and idiot.

 

[gambit]

I agree with all of it.

For example, something like this would probably be stealthier than the F-22, but less maneuverable.

So is it better than the F-22?

It would be a better bomber definitely, but is that all we're looking for?

Not necessarily. It is easy to take apart an aircraft and highlight one component's technological advances, shape, feel, smell, taste, whatever, and exaggerate to your heart's content. What make an aircraft 'better' than another, especially when they are within only a few years of technology flux, is how the aircraft integrate diverse features and capabilities into an efficient package. The F-15 is a more powerful aircraft than the F-16 but as our resident airline pilot who is a former F-15 IP admitted F-15 pilots do not like to engage the smaller F-16. Too small. Too agile. Too quick. Keep in mind that 'quick' is not the same as 'fast'. So if go by the F-15 pilots' admission, is the F-16 a 'better' fighter?

The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars. He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries.

and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!

Notice he still dodges the fact that he lied about his aviation experience, which he later retracted to vague 'study' but still would not reveal what is that 'study'.

 

[ptldM3]

Your red circle is round, but the j-20 chin is definitely is nor cylinder

You have made so many basic/fundamental mistakes with that math/physics.

Denial, denial, denial. The red circle fit’s the counter of the J-20’s chin, perfectly, we can all see that in the photo. More of which the J-20’s chin is long, which means it would very much behave similar to a cylinder when ‘eliminated’.

But instead of telling me I don’t understand basis fundamentals or calling me an idiot, why don’t you actually provide some solid evidence for your claim. You claim that the J-20’s chin is not round while the illustration shows that the circle fit’s the contour of the chin perfectly.

I can't discuss anymore with some one who has no clue even to basic math and physics + idiocy.

Can’t or are unable to? The red circle fit the contour of the chin, the only way this is possible is because the lower chin has the exact contour of a perfect circle, thus the red circle and the chin fit like a perfect puzzle.

You dont even know what round shape, what cylinder shape, what flat shape. It is so embarrassing.

More like you don’t, remember it was you that asked why the pak-fa’s chin is not round. Any photo would reveal that the pak-fa has a perfectly flat chin.

This is junk

Such an insightful and well thought out rebuttal. You’re desperately trying to stay relevant but have nothing to challenge me with.

This is idiocy.

Why for someone like you who easily drag article from internet, cant you find any REPUTABLE EXPERT who denounce kopp, if exist??

If you cant find, it means your claim is baseless.
You have poor understanding, poor knowledge to the basic math, physics etc, and now you dont have any credible expert to support your fantasy.

You are asking me to find a particular ‘expert’ that ‘denounces’ Kopp, by this token I can also post opinions of people such as Richard Aboulafia and because there is no one denouncing him shredding the J-20 he must be credible, right?


So lets use your tactics against you: you find an ‘expert’ denouncing Richard Aboulafia's statement.

Which Richard Aboulafia's statement?

These:

this thing is just sort of cobbled together

“There’s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth” than adding canards to the aircraft.”

Who is he? which statement of his that contradict to kopp?? is he Reputable one? how is his reputation compared to kopp's?

“aviation analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense consulting firm”.

Explain why has to be the same with intake?
Is tunel's 90 degree corner exposed to radar's wave?

You are idiot.

This only demonstrates that you have zero critical thinking skills and zero knowledge of anything aviation. The tunnels that you see on the pak-fa as well as F-22 channel airflow. Those tunnels are angled downwards. An intake is also a tunnel, but instead of channeling airflow downwards it channels it to the side. Now please explain how a tunnel is a ‘90 degree’ corner reflector.

That imply you have very poor on physics.

Take a look at the picture that blackdragon bring.

It is something unfamiliar with you?? did you not learn about this??

I don‘t hold a degree in Chinese physics, instead I hold a real degree. The trollinsky was trying to point out how the vertical stabilizer was active during the time the photo was taken, thus he tried to claim that a corner reflector would not be possible based on angle of deflection. But this only demonstrates how desperate he as well as you are. The vertical stabilizers are not always active. Unless you expect the J-20 to be flying around with its vertical stabilizers locked, it’s safe to say your Chinese physics fails. Moreover, those vertical stabilizers create additional corner reflectors in relation to the fuselage.

What your thanking buddy did was a desperate last ditch attempt to undermine the truth by pointing at something that has little relevance, the truth is that tail fin produces additional corner reflectors. Here is a picture of the j-20’s ‘V-tails’ while they are not active:

That is demonstrating your idiocy and your poor basic physics.

Sorry, I never studied Chinese physics.

Blackdragon has slapped you, hope you understand what he is trying to correct and teach you.

The guy pointed out how the V-tails were active when the picture was taken, that is not a slapping but a desperate attempt to establish something in the J-20’s defense. If anyone has been getting slapped around its you two.

this guy has 0% credibility. said saw J10 has been down at least 5, can not prove any.

More like you are stubbornly in denial, your own government acknowledged at least some of the crashes because they could not hid the fact that they had dead pilots.

these fake photos were 100% fake, he still painted the artificial story in his colors to lie.
a picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.

Where is the proof? How do you know where the aircraft made initial impact?

Once again to prove your utter ignorance:


Saab JAS-39 Gripen crashing in landing - YouTube



That is enough to dismiss your Chinese physics. The Grippen came to an abrupt stop almost immediately after it began to tumble.

Also just because some aircraft may leave craters when they crash does not mean that they all do. Look at the following crashes, no craters.


http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-200912/fb7605827f4b12b3166cdbfd63424e9f.jpg

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/60319323.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bosnia_mig29.jpg

the 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10

Post proof that says it was traveling at 500-600 km, and that it was ‘falling’.

could not make a den on the soft mud. he said water covered.
do you guys see any hole? the heavy machine make can float on water after crash?

Do you see any holes in the photos I posted?

J10 can not eject engine in air, only Russian fighters can. Russian fighters often have engines burn.

Fail! The J-10 had a Russian engine. Whether or not an engine stays secure has nothing to do with engine type, instead it has to do with how well secure the engine is and how strong the frame is. The other concern in regards to an engine staying secure is how much force the impact of the crash has and where the impact occurs.

And the rest of your argument is some made up nonsense and you know this very well.

the 600 km/hr vertical crashed J10 had strong parts flew away, the soft parts stay on without much damage?
this guy still argue that was the real accident.

Again where is the proof of this 600km/hr nose dive? Stop making stories up, it’s evident that the aircraft made an emergency landing. Parts such as wing often break apart and what is left is the fuselage similar to that on the picture.


Look, it's a Mirage and it looks suspicilously familiar to the J-10 wreckage, it must also be fake:

if you compare 2 photos he posted, look at the locations where did farmers stand,
you can tell the photos are fake.

Wow, has it ever occurred to you that the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. I get a feeling that I’m arguing with a pre adolescent boy that lacks basic adult skills in critical/abstract thinking.