It is you who denial.
What make you become idiot?? see the picture bellow yourself, how come that shape you called cylinder?? you are making yourself laughable and ruin your credibility.
Your picture doesn’t work--fail. And yes the chin fit’s the contour of a perfect circle. Denial doesn’t mean it is not true.
You can put the same circle and see how it round
Another epic fail. The pak-fa has a flat chin. You’re now just making a fool out of yourself.
Alot.
Challenge you = challenge idiocy.
More like you have nothing to challenge me with thus you resort to one liners that name calling. Instead of attacking me attack the argument, something you have not done so far.
You havent answered my question.
I repeat again: Who is Richard Aboulafia, how credible and reputable is he? what journal he wrote? and what has he stated againts J-20 stealthier than Pakfa?
You really have some audacity and no morals, you want me to find a specific person that challenges Copp, yet when I ask you to find a specific person that challenges Richard Aboulafia you simple refuse and instead question the man’s credentials. The point here is how silly and petty your tactics are, you demand we find someone that challenges Copp but when I use your same tactics and I ask you to find someone that challenges Richard Aboulafia, you attack the mans crudentials. How pathetic of you. Now I ask you, find someone denouncing Aboulafia.
Source please.
His credibility is not convincing.
The man actually worked with some of leading aerospace companies in the world, if that is not convincing than what is?
Here is your source:
Richard L. Aboulafia, Vice President, Analysis
If he said so then he ruin his own credibility. Why Rafale with canard is stealthier that more exposed fan blade SU-27?
No, you ruin your credibly, there are no official RCS numbers for either aircraft. The Rafale was also specifically designed around RCS reduction. There are many features found on the Rafale that would reduce it’s RCS, the SU-27 was never designed with that emphasis.
No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and zero aviation knowledge, but also zero logic.
If the 90 degree tunnel is not exposed to radar wave, then why it has to reflect/return the zero radar wave? you are idiot!
You must have been using some psychedelic drugs when you wrote this. Who said anything about a tunnel not being exposed to radar. Please quote me on that. Also since when did the tunnels on the pak-fa/F-22 become 90 degrees? The question was why is an intake which essentially is a tunnel any different from a tunnel found next to the intake? Stop dodging the question that I asked many times and answer, if you aren’t able to than shut up.
You are drawing the WRONG wave reflection! as your reflection line violate the physic rule.
The reflected ray and incident ray have to have the same degree of angle, thats the rule, while you are drawing totally different angle.
Using worlds like ‘incident ray’ doesn’t make your argument convincing. My picture followed the same incident and reflection behavior of the same picture you used:
Which would be this:
So are you now calling yourself a liar? Or are your seriously using the lame excuse that because the v-tails are active that corner reflectors do not apply? Like I stated before, the J-20’s v-tails can not always be active. Moreover, you still are refusing to except the truth that the J-20’s fins create additional corner reflectors. What you are doing is losing the argument and stooping to the lowest of low by bringing up irrelevant claims such as the V-tails, being active during the time of the photo, or demanding I find someone specifically denouncing Copp because you claim that since no one is denouncing him that he has to be right.
It demonstrate how poor your basic physics knowledge.
The picture of reflection above is general and basic physics.
I can see you never studied physics.
Correct, I never studied Chinese physics.
a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
that is common sense proof.
Apparently you have never heard of a stall. Many aircraft that crash land/crash go into stalls, where they are either dangerously below the minimum airspeed or they are at or near zero airspeed.
Here is one famous crash:
Anatoly Kvochur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a bird was sucked into the turbofan of his right engine (a bird strike), causing the engine to burst into flames. Kvochur immediately turned the remaining engine to full afterburner. However his speed, at 180 kilometres per hour (110 mph), was too slow to maintain stability on one engine.
Here is more proof, this time in video form. The F-4 in the video, while in a stall was probably traveling well under 100km an hour at the time of the crash.
F-4 Phantom Stall & Crash - YouTube
if a plane fell into a rice land without
What makes you think it fell? The aircraft was clearly involved in a forced landing based on the minimal damage to the aircraft.
landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving.
The picture is real and you know it, your are just neck deep in your own crap to admit it. You have no valid claims, just twisted delusions. The fact is the Chinese media has reported the crash, even the ’division’ that the J-10 belonged to is know--2nd Air Division. The location of the crash is also known--Guilin. On top of that we have authentic photos.
nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.
You clearly are slow. If the aircraft makes a forced landing that does not mean there will be large holes. In fact there are dozens of videos that prove that. You watch too many movies if you think that there should simply be a crater. Clearly large pieces of the aircraft are intact, thus there can not be any large noticeable craters. Even if there was some damage to the ground the aircraft is in standing water. The waters would simply fill any holes.
Hey, look everyone, it’s an X-31. The US Air Force, must of faked their official photos of the wreckage because there is no hole or crater.
and some the plane body was in "good" condition. even a car accident
at 60km/hr can not have condition like that good. that from common sense
is 100% fake pics.
When an automobile crashes it takes the full grunt of the impact, this is even worse if it’s a head on collision. An aircraft, on the other hand, can merely land with no power or without working landing gears to constitute a crash. Further, if the aircraft stalls at low altitude it will likely have minimal damage as long as it lands on the fuselage as apposed to a nose dive.
?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.
Again where is the evidence. I asked you to post proof of this ‘1/5 acre’ landing where is it? The X-31 wreckage must also be fake because it crashed in its own footprint.
you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
it is plain lie.
Never heard of a glider have you?
Or better yet Air Transat Flight 236?
Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 06:13 UTC, while still 135 miles (217 km) from Lajes,[4] engine no. 2 on the right wing flamed out because of fuel starvation. Captain Piché ordered full thrust from the remaining operational engine, , and the plane descended to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), unable to stay at its 39,000 feet (12,000 m) cruising altitude with only one engine operating. Ten minutes later, the crew sent a Mayday to Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control. Thirteen minutes later, engine no. 1 also flamed out at while the aircraft was still approximately 65 nautical miles (120 km) from Lajes Air Base.
you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.
I claimed that the engines nozzles could have broken off. But yes, an engine can be ejected from an aircraft. It’s no lie my naïve friend, an engine is one of the heaviest and most dense parts of an aircraft, a hard impacts can cause it to break off.
Here is proof you fool:
Wreckage recovered from ocean.
Plain old wreckage.
" the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. "
thay is plain lie pointing to 2 photos.
look at the plane location, look at where people stand.
they crashed plane moved to another piece of rice field?
the plane can move after lose the engine without fuel?
I’m going to be a nice as possible when I say this but….you are stupid. The plane did not move, the camera man did. Time proximity, and angle all play a factor in the way objects are perceived in pictures. One photo was taken from far away, another photo was taken up close to the wreckage, thus it might appear that the people are standing closer. Equally as important is that the picture was taken from another angle, so by the time the camera man walked around the wreckage to take a closer shot of the aircraft the by standards could also have walked closer to the wreckage.
and after days of crashed?
you are a proved liar!!!
And you are plain stupid, as explained above the concept of time, proximity and angle might seem new to you but I learned how proximity and angle can be used to manipulate a painting/drawing back when I took art in college.
And if you didn’t look pathetic enough the crash has been confirmed by Chinese news agencies. Hard to hid a crash when dozens of eye witnesses converge on the wreckage and start taking photographs.
man, that is the post of the day!
Yes, it is and you are the jester that everyone is laughing at. Great that you received some thanks from your buddies, they are as clueless and dull as you. They thanked you for nonsense such as aircraft can’t fly without an engine, they thanked you for claiming an aircraft crashing down has to have a speed of at least 500-600km, they thanked you for you conspiracy theory regarding the photos. All those claims have been dismissed with sources.