The clearest J-20 pictures.

[gambit]

One final thing, I already knew about the F-117 radar blocker and I have a color photograph of the gold mesh. As I understand it, it deflects radar upwards. So "no," I didn't learn it from you. I read about it on Australia Air Power. I never discussed the mesh radar blocker, because it is irrelevant to supersonic aircraft.

Bullsh1t. This is the first time you know how the F-117's radar blocker was designed based upon known radar signal behaviors. So yes, this is another instance where you learned another new thing from me. The issue is not whether the F-117's method is suitable for supersonic air flow or not. The issue is whether a design is possible.

Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.

No, they are filled with highly convenient interpretations of sources. That is dishonesty from you.

 

[Martian2]

Bullsh1t. This is the first time you know how the F-117's radar blocker was designed based upon know radar signal behaviors. So yes, this is another instance where you learned another new thing from me. The issue is not whether the F-117's method is suitable for supersonic air flow or not. The issue is whether a design is possible.

Grrr....

Anyway, until next time.

 

[gambit]

Grrr....

Anyway, until next time.

This is where your nonsense will be challenged. Go back to your intellectually dead playground where others are more than willing to stroke your ego.

 

[amalakas]

Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.

----------

At Amalakas, I keep hoping you guys are on vacation. I look around and I don't see you guys. Once I start posting, you guys start popping out of nowhere. Then my aggravation goes up, because you numbskulls refuse to provide a citation when I ask you for one. Once I'm fed up, I need to relieve my stress. Thus, I'm gone again.

You shouldn't be aggravated, you shouldn't be anything.

If you believe what you support, then you should have no problem.

Again I am pointing out to you, that you see planes as shapes, not as engineering solutions, and as long as you do that, your positions will be biassed .

 

[gambit]

You shouldn't be aggravated, you shouldn't be anything.

If you believe what you support, then you should have no problem.

Again I am pointing out to you, that you see planes as shapes, not as engineering solutions, and as long as you do that, your positions will be biassed .

The man is a crybaby child. This is probably the one place where the majority of his posts are challenged. Not enough people outside of the Chinese members are willing to stroke his ego, hence he resorted to do it himself by boasting how many views he has on his pathetic video designed for the gullible.

 

[antonius123]

Right, and how is that so when the chin follows a Circumference of a perfect circle? And you still can’t even spell elementary…ouch, this comming from someone who is claiming i have no education.

Deny all you want but to proof is in the photo:

Either you are idiot or did not pass elementary math.
Should I bring cylinder picture infront of your face so that you recognize the cylinder shape?

Why dont you claim that PAKFA chin is also cylinder .....
Why dont you claim that F-22 chin is also cylinder...
Why dont you claim that F-35 chin is also cylinder...


Idiot

What ‘experts’? Kopp is not an expert in the field of low observability, he has no experience in that field. I have yet to see one real expert say a word. Real experts, people that know, don’t talk, people who talk don’t know.

Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... idiot

Don’t play stupid, I have had many debates with you where I have provided sources.

Your evidence is a joke just like the above

Firstly no one ever asked me to explain the equation, nor have I ever claimed I was expert that studied some random field of aviation, you did. Amalakas asked you to answer what the equation was and you never did. So much for your claims of being an expert. Your are a fraud and it’s been evident for some time.

Things don’t work like that, you were asked what the equation was not me, so the only one running is you, so what is it?

Then how come you mentioned that equation that you yourself dont understand to debate me?

Amalakas just drag equation that he himself cannot explain the connection with my arguments. I've challenge him and he cant answer.

If you dont understand either, then better shut up.

Wrong, where was your citation when I asked you to provide a source about the B-2? First you claimed the B-2 does not need to bank, and then when you looked like an utter fool you changed it too it does not need to bank HARD, I provided evidence that disproved your claim, yet you never provided a counter claim with proof.

I never claim that. It is your idiocy that made you missunderstand.
Where is you evidence about the expert that denounce kopp's suggestion about J-20?

Where is evidence that the J-20 chin is cylinder shape?

I have a clue to know that the J-20 has plenty of round shaping and massive corner reflectors from the tail fins.

Then prove to us that J-20 chin indeed is cylinder shape

And which link would that be?

See post #48

No, it confirms that the J-20 has massive corner reflectors but you have too much petty pride to admit it:

This is more confirmation that you are really idiot.

Even 8 year old child will know that the corner you show above is not 90 degree.

You are demonstrating idiocy and embarrassing yourself here

Every body know you are far from qualified to participate in this discussion

 

[antonius123]

The PAK FA is a joke.

LEVCONS.

Framed canopy.

Fully exposed compressor face.

Gaps around the inlets.

Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface

discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.

Conventional nozzles.

I'd rather call this "SILENT FLANKER"

 

[Safriz]

this is not the final design of J-20...The plane is still a work in progress..
Plus these two prototypes are what Chinese are allowing the world to see...
who knows what secret improvement they are doing behind the scenes...So before giving a final verdict...keep in min that the final rpoduct may be very different...
Clue: YF-23 and F-22 were very different.

 

[gambit]

Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... idiot

The one who said this...

 

[antonius123]

The one with the blue corner?

Hahahahahahhah

Read again your friend's claim please... I am tired dealing with idiocy

The one who said this...

Really???

When did he denouce Kopp's claim? evidence please. No more idiocy

 

[gambit]

Hahahahahahhah

Read again your friend's claim please... I am tired dealing with idiocy

I have. And it is YOU who are the idiot. In RCS control, the goal is to avoid the corner reflector completely, but if it is not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type. The J-20 have visible corner reflectors with those flight control surfaces. May be not exactly 90 deg, but corner reflectors nonetheless.

Really???

When did he denouce Kopp's claim? evidence please. No more idiocy

Now who is the true idiot here? Kopp used Physical Optics only. Now explain why did this person, who have far greater experience in radar than Kopp, said that Physical Optics failed.

 

[antonius123]

I have. And it is YOU who are the idiot. In RCS control, the goal is to avoid the corner reflector completely, but if it is not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type. The J-20 have visible corner reflectors with those flight control surfaces. May be not exactly 90 deg, but corner reflectors nonetheless.

You dont read with brain.

Where/which corner on J-20 that is 90 degree, as your friend claimed... idiot.

Now who is the true idiot here? Kopp used Physical Optics only. Now explain why did this person, who have far greater experience in radar than Kopp, said that Physical Optics failed.

That is your own assumption! if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.

Why should we use physical optics just in order to see the deficiency of PAKFA's shape like the exposed fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + corner reflector of the tunnel??

You are the true idiot here

 

[gambit]

You dont read with brain.

Where/which corner on J-20 that is 90 degree, as your friend claimed... idiot.

So here it is again for the reading public to see the idiot who pretended to have aviation experience but then retracted to say only 'study' but never revealed what was that 'study'...

In RCS control, the goal is to avoid:

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

Not all corner reflectors are 90 deg type. The J-20 have corner reflectors because of the flight control surfaces configurations. They may not be exactly 90 deg, but they do return a majority of the radar signal.

That is your own assumption! if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.

Kopp said so.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. The three dimensional model for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.

It is pretty bad that you cannot do even basic research and ended up with eggs on your face.

Why should we use physical optics just in order to see how exposed is the PAKFA's fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + corner reflector of the tunnel??

You are the true idiot here

This is why we know the idiot is YOU. We do not use PO on the engine and we use more than just PO on curvatures.

So what area of aviation did you studied? More like NONE because if you did, you would not be making a fool out of yourself as badly as we enjoy seeing you do it.

 

[gambit]

Folks,

Here is where the man made a spectacular fool out of himself...

That is your own assumption! if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.

If? Here are APA's own words...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. The three dimensional model for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.

Keep in mind that Kopp have no experience in radar.

Here are the words of a very famous person in the radar community...

Here are APA's own words again...

At this time the simulator does not implement surface travelling wave modelling and associated edge or gap backscatter modelling, or edge diffraction scattering effect modelling.

In other words, even Kopp and APA had to admit the failures of the Physical Optics method when used ALONE to estimate the RCS of any complex body.

And yet this fool continues to refuse to admit these shortcomings.

 

[amalakas]

Folks,.........

And yet this fool continues to refuse to admit these shortcomings.

My grandfather used to say, "let a fool speak, eventually he will let himself down" !!