The clearest J-20 pictures.

[GR!FF!N]

How about this??

What kind of shape is that nacelle and nozzle if not round?
How many times should people post this image but you never bother to discern and understand?

lol..this one too from photo sharing site..who analysed this pic anyway???you???do you even understand how radar works???and i already posted,this thread is not on T-50 and neither T-50 is meant to be stealthy like F-22..

 

[antonius123]

lol..this one too from photo sharing site..who analysed this pic anyway???you???do you even understand how radar works???and i already posted,this thread is not on T-50 and neither T-50 is meant to be stealthy like F-22..

Whats wrong with photo sharing site?? in fact that is the photo of the real PAKFA - not photoshop, and the round shape is very blatant there.
Why you keep excusing and refusing to discern?

Why you now asking me about how radar work? cant you accept that round/cylinder shape is detrimental to RCS?

Nobody deny that F-22 may be stealthier than J-20; I am arguing the claim that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

 

[GR!FF!N]

Whats wrong with photo sharing site?? in fact that is the photo of the real PAKFA - not photoshop, and the round shape is very blatant there.
Why you keep excusing and refusing to discern?

Why you now asking me about how radar work? cant you accept that round/cylinder shape is detrimental to RCS?

Nobody deny that F-22 may be stealthier than J-20; I am arguing the claim that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

and i never said T50 is stealthier than J-20..you are arguing with yourselves..

 

[antonius123]

and i never said T50 is stealthier than J-20..you are arguing with yourselves..

I am arguing myself?? it is your friend who claim that J-20 is inferior than PAKFA including in term of stealth.

And you are the one who doubt my explanation that J-20 shaping suggest it is stealthier than PAKFA

 

[GR!FF!N]

I am arguing myself?? it is your friend who claim that J-20 is inferior than PAKFA including in term of stealth.

And you are the one who doubt my explanation that J-20 shaping suggest it is stealthier than PAKFA

lol..he was russian..i don't even know him/her..but i already read his/her analysis in another thread..awsome..may be that doesn't suits you..

 

[ptldM3]

Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?

I’m not comparing either aircraft, you and Martian are. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how ‘stealth’ works would understand that comparing two aircraft and pulling numbers out of thin air is futile and amateur. However, you and Martian can continue measuring your small penis’s and getting erections by thanking each other and overusing cheesy phrases such as ‘mighty drag-queen’.

In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.

Your ‘expert’ compared the F-35 and J-20 and proclaimed that the F-35 has ‘bumps’ and ‘humps’ yet all the while ignoring the J-20’s bumps and humps in the form of DSI, under wing protrusions, and curvature aft and forward of the j-20’s nozzles.

Kopp clear has and agenda and he isn’t shy about it. And he isn’t an expert in ‘stealth’, he has no credentials or experience in that field. Sorry to burst your bubble.

At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?

They aren’t metal, they are made up of or covered in a type of ceramic to reduce heat. Than again I expected you to be clueless and I expect you to use your old tactic of disinformation by continuing to shamelessly still claim the engines are ‘metal’.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

Anyone that is in the know, knows about the pak-fa’s engines, you aren’t in the know.

PtldM3, you complain a lot.

Bite me.

However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

You are comparing two different aircraft that share some similarities, be it vague. This would be like me comparing the J-20 to the J-10, because hey, according to Martian the J-20 can not be stealthy because of its striking similarities to the J-10, heck the J-20 shares many similarities with the Rafale, so why don’t you explain why the laws are different for the J-10/Rafale and J-20?

Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?[/COLOR]

If anyone is rewriting physics it is you and your laughable assertions and blatant denials. Once more, the pak-fa’s compressors are not metal. The engineers of the engines said it on camera, in fact they held up a ceramic blade on camera. In fact I will post that video:

Here it is and with English subtitles

Go to 5:30


Item 117 (AL-41F1) Engine - Fiery Heart of the Pak Fa fighter /

In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

In an interesting coincidence the J-20 shares many of the J-10’s/Rafale features.

I want to prove 3 points to all of you.

1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

Already explained it earlier, but now I will explain in detail.

2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.

You fail, not only that you fail to comprehend the simplest of things or use basic logic. The T-50’s frame is not metal--lets get that strait right here and now. And even if it were it wouldn’t make much of a difference or any difference at all.

For starters, lets look at the F-22’s engines and nozzles:









Those are metal engines yet even HUD images of opposing aircraft show that those aircraft are unable to achieve radar lock onto the F-22--no radar lock, nothing picked up on radar. So if two large metal engines are able to avoid being spotted by radar what makes you think that a so called ‘metal frame’ will be spotted? Remember the pak-fa’s frame (whatever it is made up of) is painted--an engine is not. Therefore, your argument falls apart like a dilapidated brick house.

Now lets look at the picture even closer. Notice the compressor blades. Now ask yourself how is the F-22 able to avoid radar lock with its compressor blades? There is no DSI or anything close to it, yet in countless DACT training the compressor blades with metal and all are able to avoid radar lock. Now the questions becomes, if the F-22’s compressor/metal engine is able to avoid radar lock than why is the pak-fa not able to do the same? After all the pak-fa’s engines are not metal nor are they fully exposed. From a generic view point one can claim that an exposed engine can cause a large or at least moderate spike in RCS. However, you have very little scientific backing to justify your claim, and claiming and engine is metal is not scientific. In fact, it has nothing to do with metal, instead it’s the gap or junction between the two pieces of canopy. If your logic had any ounce of truth than the B-2, F-117. And YF-23 with their ‘metal canopies’ would not be classified as ‘stealth’.

So now explain for everyone how the F-117, B-2 and YF-23 had metal canopies yet managed to be ‘stealthy’ please---I am eagerly waiting to see what kind of crap you will hobble together. TO put it in simple English if the pak-fa’s junction between the canopy is not stealthy than the J-20’s airbrake is equally not stealthy because of its junction.

Eye witness accounts and HUD footage is much more credible than anything you bring to the table. Your claims are dubious or vague at best. Pilot testimony and HUD footage takes your claim that exposed engines are ‘unstealthy’ and throws it into the trash bin.

There are many reasons as to why an engine is not as ghastly as you claim it to be.

The first is simple scattering. When EM energy comes in contact with compressor blades, EM energy scatters in all directions. This would be similar to hosing down a fan, the water which makes contact with the fan’s blades will simply scatter in all directions.


Further, EM energy weakening as it violently bounces inside the intakes chambers. The more EM energy bounces around a cavity the weaker it will become.

Absorbers also play a role, intake chambers of aircraft such as the YF-23 have been know to use composite based materials to absorb radar. An absorber alone probably does little but when EM energy is bouncing back and fourth the effect is great.

3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.

This is not stealthy at all:







That tail fin presents a perfect corner reflector from multiple angles.

I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.

You’ve proven your ignorance.

 

[Martian2]

Are you seriously going to claim "composites" for every metallic part on the T-50/Pak-Fa?

This is a close-up view of the METAL engine pod on the T-50/Pak-Fa. The engine pod is metallic to help conduct heat away from the reaction chamber. If you don't conduct away the heat, it will build up and melt down the reaction chamber walls. The orange part is probably copper or a copper alloy. If the material (as claimed by PtldM3) was made of composite material, it would have uniform reflectivity. I have never seen composite material that varies in color over a small area just like a metal pod.

Russian T-50/Pak-Fa composite material has an uniform dull color. It looks nothing like a metallic engine pod. (Source: Russia T-50 Fighter Jet)

Do you see those shiny metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Composite material doesn't look like that. Only a desperate nationalist (like PtldM3) would claim shiny metal engine pods are made of dull (which are non-shiny) composite material to evade my point on radar reflectivity and lack of stealth.

At PtldM3, you are the first person anywhere to claim a "composite" pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa engines. To everyone, the T-50/Pak-Fa engine pod looks exactly like the metallic engine pods on the Su-30.

Why does the T-50/Pak-Fa engines have metallic streaks just like the Su-30? The different bands of orange/copper metal (or black in the third picture) are consistent with the way metal cools and harden. You can see similar metallic streak bands on the Su-30. The metallic pattern of dark band patches is also consistent with uneven oxidation/rusting.

Anyway, I want to move on. Are you also going to claim "composite" on the metal-framed T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit canopy? If you do, I will post an earlier picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa that clearly shows the metal rivets.

Also, what about the single-crystal engine fan blades for the T-50/Pak-Fa. There is no S-duct to shield the T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades. Are you going to claim "composite" material for the single-crystal T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades?

You do realize only a single-crystal fan blade can withstand the unbelievable rpms of a modern jet fighter. It is ludicrous to suggest current technology can produce a "composite" engine fan blade. You better provide a reputable citation for support if you want to make this ridiculous claim.

By the way, I demand you provide a reputable citation to back up your claim of a "composite" engine pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa. All of the articles on the T-50/Pak-Fa that I have read mostly talk about composite materials being used for the wings or fuselage, not the engine pod. Time to prove your b.s. claim or retract it.

Finally, do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe your claim of "composite" for all of the obvious exposed metal parts on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Also, what is stopping you from invoking the same magical word "composite" to instantly transform the non-stealthy Su-30 fighter into a fifth-generation stealth fighter with the mention of the single word "composite"?

----------

At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?

----------

How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting metal engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

PtldM3, you complain a lot. However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?

In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.

 

[ptldM3]

Are you seriously going to claim "composites" for every metallic part on the T-50/Pak-Fa?

No I actually claimed the opposite when I spoke about the rear compressor blades and nozzles of the F-22, you are just too foolish to comprehend it.

At PtldM3, you are the first person anywhere to claim a "composite" pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa engines. To everyone, the T-50/Pak-Fa engine pod looks exactly like the metallic engine pods on the Su-30.

I was talking about in side the intake walls. But knowing you, you can’t help but to trip over the simplest of sentences.

Anyway, I want to move on. Are you also going to claim "composite" on the metal-framed T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit canopy? If you do, I will post an earlier picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa that clearly shows the metal rivets.

What do you think rivets are made of plastic or carbon fiber? Even if we assume that the pak-fa does have a metal frame, than so what? As I have proven metal makes little difference since compressors and nozzles of the F-22 are metal. Furthermore, that strip of so called metal is painted, so there is no metal. I can also see that you are clueless to the fact that certain alloys are referred to as composites.

Also, what about the single-crystal engine fan blades for the T-50/Pak-Fa. There is no S-duct to shield the T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades. Are you going to claim "composite" material for the single-crystal T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades?

Perhaps you did not understand or read what I wrote, so let me repeat it again since you seem to have difficulties. The pak-fa’s compressor are either coated with a ceramic or are made up of a ceramic. I provided a video with English subtitles with an engineer holding a small ceramic compressor blade, if that is not enough to convince you than you are clearly playing stupid.

You do realize only a single-crystal fan blade can withstand the unbelievable rpms of a modern jet fighter. It is ludicrous to suggest current technology can produce a "composite" engine fan blade. You better provide a reputable citation for support if you want to make this ridiculous claim.

Busted, engines up to recently have not used crystal blade technology, some of which produced incredible trust figures, some up to 55,000lbs of it. And its pretty standard to use a kind of thermal coating on engine blades. And there is no citations available, the technology is new and engineers aren’t sharing details. But if you want to believe that one of the chief engineers involved in the pak-fa’s engine program is blatantly lying on cammera than you are welcomed to believe so, than again you are in no position to demand reputable citations when you use Indian bloggers as a source. A chief engineer in a video interview is as reputable as it gets.


Anyways let me further, make a fool of you. Ceramic coating on compressors are not a new idea, the technology has been around, the pak-fa is to use the most modern type of ceramic to reduce heat and improve engine life. Do a simple weki search on turbine blades and you will see.

By the way, I demand you provide a reputable citation to back up your claim of a "composite" engine pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa. All of the articles on the T-50/Pak-Fa that I have read mostly talk about composite materials being used for the wings or fuselage, not the engine pod. Time to prove your b.s. claim or retract it.

The inside of the engine tunnels have no rivets, the only ways this is possible is if the intake tunnel is made up of a one piece resin based composite. In fact it is almost impossible for the tunnel to be anything else without rivets. It is not possible for it to be stamped unless they welded two halves and if that were the case you would see weld marks, even more importantly you would see rivets.

Finally, do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe your claim of "composite" for all of the obvious exposed metal parts on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Also, what is stopping you from invoking the same magical word "composite" to instantly transform the non-stealthy Su-30 fighter into a fifth-generation fighter with the mention of the singular word "composite"?

You are, since you overuse the word composite. I only mentioned it for the inside of the intake tunnel walls, although it is no secret that 70% of the pak-fa will eventually be composite based. It’s also blatantly obvious that you are not aware of alloy composites.

At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?

It’s not as simple as that, firstly the compressors are not metal, either are the inner intake walls. Secondly, we are yet to see what the intakes of the production model are to look like. Thirdly based on the F-22 and its exposed compressors as well as the experience with the YF-23 we can conclude that whatever returns an engine creates is minimal. Otherwise the F-22 would simply got missile lock during DACT training.

How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?

How did none stealthy J-10 features or Rafale features magically become stealth on the J-20? Better yet how does the WZ-10 with exposed rivets, numerous protrusions, FLIR, pylons, ‘humps/bumps’, fixed landing gear, multiple piece canopy and no sawtoothing classify as stealthy? Remember, you claimed that many of those features are none stealthy so how does the WZ-10 magically become stealthy?

Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?[/COLOR]

If that was true than the F-22 wouldn’t have a 144:0 kill ratio. Remember, it’s nozzles and engine are made up of metal alloys. So explain to everyone how the aircraft such as F-15 fail to achieve a lock onto the F-22? Remember we are talking metal.

 

[Martian2]

No one agrees with you. You're nuts and I'm tired of proving you wrong with my citations.

You keep arguing with no citations. You're wasting my time.

 

[gambit]

Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.

You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.

 

[Martian2]

You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.

This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.

You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.

You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or group of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.

You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.

Gambit, you're in the wrong forum. You should try "forum for grammarians" or "octogenarians who love wordplay."

 

[Esc8781]

Look at the f-35, then look at their undersides, the f-35 might look bumpy but it looks like the same configuration as the f-22, I can't remember about the f-35's underside is for a member of f-16.net told me a possible hypothesis but I can't remember. Can anyone tell me what's the f-35 underside if for thank you.

 

[gambit]

This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.

You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.

You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or groups of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.

You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.

Gambit, you're in the wrong forum.

You can call it semantics if you like, but if you were in my class way back then, I would have booted you out in the first week of training. You have a flawed understanding of behaviors to start and your subsequent claims took you even further off the true path based upon that flawed understanding. With every challenge from me, people will see that it is YOU who have been wasting their time.

By the way, did you find out who wrote that Physical Optics alone is a failure in modeling/predicting complex bodies RCS?

 

[gambit]

Look at the f-35, then look at their undersides, the f-35 might look bumpy but it looks like the same configuration as the f-22, I can't remember about the f-35's underside is for a member of f-16.net told me a possible hypothesis but I can't remember. Can anyone tell me what's the f-35 underside if for thank you.

Not sure what you are talking about there, but I will explain the basics of radar signal behaviors to start.

If you take a plate and rotate it, you will get a fluctuation of reflected signals from highest (perpendicular) to lowest (horizontal).

On the other hand, if you take a diameter (sphere or cylinder) and rotate it, you will get a constant level of reflected signal because of that specular reflection.

This is where the Chinese boys have got it wrong. They misunderstood their own sources, especially when those sources were using the retired F-117 as an example for 'stealth'. The F-117 used the angled faceting technique, which are essentially plates in the first illustration. Under radar bombardment, as the aircraft maneuvers, eventually one or more of those angled faceted plates will present itself/themselves as highest (perpendicular) to the seeking radar.

With curvatures, a curvature will induce unique surface wave behaviors that can be exploited for RCS control while giving the aircraft the aerodynamic performance the F-117 with its angled facetings did not have. No matter the angle of incidence (arrival), a curvature will give only one signal of reflection -- that tiny specular.

As the diameter get larger, that creeping wave behavior will disappear. The ratio is wavelength to diameter or as we in the radar community knows and call it the '10-lambda' rule. The Greek letter 'lambda' is representative of wavelength. The '10-lambda' rule states that if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect will occur. If diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect WILL NOT occur. This rule is applicable to all wavelengths but somehow the Chinese boys here believe it to be applicable to only the HF/VHF/UHF bands. This is what I call 'Chinese physics'.

The only curvature that is truly detrimental to RCS control is the concave.

So for the B-2, F-22, F-35, PAK, and the J-20, all designs have incorporated a combination of angled facetings and curvatures where aerodynamics allow. Aerodynamic demands trumps all.

 

[Esc8781]

Not sure what you are talking about there, but I will explain the basics of radar signal behaviors to start.

If you take a plate and rotate it, you will get a fluctuation of reflected signals from highest (perpendicular) to lowest (horizontal).

On the other hand, if you take a diameter (sphere or cylinder) and rotate it, you will get a constant level of reflected signal because of that specular reflection.

This is where the Chinese boys have got it wrong. They misunderstood their own sources, especially when those sources were using the retired F-117 as an example for 'stealth'. The F-117 used the angled faceting technique, which are essentially plates in the first illustration. Under radar bombardment, as the aircraft maneuvers, eventually one or more of those angled faceted plates will present itself/themselves as highest (perpendicular) to the seeking radar.

With curvatures, a curvature will induce unique surface wave behaviors that can be exploited for RCS control while giving the aircraft the aerodynamic performance the F-117 with its angled facetings did not have. No matter the angle of incidence (arrival), a curvature will give only one signal of reflection -- that tiny specular.

As the diameter get larger, that creeping wave behavior will disappear. The ratio is wavelength to diameter or as we in the radar community knows and call it the '10-lambda' rule. The Greek letter 'lambda' is representative of wavelength. The '10-lambda' rule states that if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect will occur. If diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect WILL NOT occur. This rule is applicable to all wavelengths but somehow the Chinese boys here believe it to be applicable to only the HF/VHF/UHF bands. This is what I call 'Chinese physics'.

The only curvature that is truly detrimental to RCS control is the concave.

So for the B-2, F-22, F-35, PAK, and the J-20, all designs have incorporated a combination of angled facetings and curvatures where aerodynamics allow. Aerodynamic demands trumps all.

Thank you Gambit I have to admit I am a noob at stealth and I need someone to teach me, but explain to me why is the f-35's underside is shaped like that? Thanks for replying .