The clearest J-20 pictures.

[antonius123]

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.

Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.

Citation please....

It is your bad habit to make claim without evidence, while drag internet article without knowing the relevance with the debate

Kopp said so.

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

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

Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot

Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.

Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.

Where is the evidence that he said he only use PO to suggest that J-20 stealthier than PAKFA? liar??

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.

The why you claim PO as the only tool Kopp use??

You are obviously idiot here, as you demonstrating problem with following debate.

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.

Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.

My education background has nothing to do here.

You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background

Folks,

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


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

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

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...


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.

FAILED!

No evidence that Kopp use PO method solely in suggesting J-20 shaping should be more stealthy than PAKFA. You claim but cant bring any evidence so far - except lie and twisting.

Folks can see that tt is you who claim Kopp use PO in his shaping suggestion. It means you are the idiotic fool here.

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

I believe your grandfather said so to your grandmother about you.

No wonder if he was surprised with your ignorance.

 

[j20blackdragon]

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.

I challenge someone to do a ray trace to show that these supposed corner reflectors on the J-20 actually return a majority of the radar signal.

Remember, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.

 

[gambit]

Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.

That is called a 'pentagonal' corner reflector.

Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius

...by combining the two rectangular metal plates 2a and 2b so that the metal plates 2a and 2b form an apical angle of about 120.degree.

Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot

Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.

Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.

No, the idiot is still YOU. In RCS modeling/predicting where a complex body with plates, curvatures, and edges are plenty, each type of radiator will require a different method of calculating their radiation. For example, with a diameter, we must calculate for specular reflection and if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior must be calculated as well. All the while, the diameter's curvatures require us to calculate for surface wave radiation. So if Kopp did actually calculate for non-plate radiators, he would have stated so for the sake of full disclosure. Your argument mean you have NO experience in a technical and/or engineering related industry.

Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.

My education background has nothing to do here.

You brought it up so therefore it is fair game. Since you originally claimed to have aviation experience, then retracted it to 'study', whatever that mean, and since aviation have many sub-disciplines, what was that 'study'?

You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background

I have more than enough proven it, kid.

We now can definitively say without reservation that you are a fraud and a fool.

 

[gambit]

I challenge someone to do a ray trace to show that these supposed corner reflectors on the J-20 actually return a majority of the radar signal.

Remember, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.

Geezz... A corner reflector is essentially a highly directional antenna for either reception or transmission.

The use of a straight line with an arrow is usually meant to denote direction, not what the radar transmission actually look like.

A true radar transmission is a cone. A non-90 deg corner reflector does not reflect the highest CONCENTRATION of the transmission but precisely because the transmission is conical in shape, SOME of it will be reflected back to source direction. A non-90 deg corner reflector is often used to test a radar's sensitivity to diffused/weakened signals.

 

[amalakas]

Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.

Citation please....

It is your bad habit to make claim without evidence, while drag internet article without knowing the relevance with the debate




Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot

Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.

Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.

Where is the evidence that he said he only use PO to suggest that J-20 stealthier than PAKFA? liar??



The why you claim PO as the only tool Kopp use??

You are obviously idiot here, as you demonstrating problem with following debate.



Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.

My education background has nothing to do here.

You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background



FAILED!

No evidence that Kopp use PO method solely in suggesting J-20 shaping should be more stealthy than PAKFA. You claim but cant bring any evidence so far - except lie and twisting.

Folks can see that tt is you who claim Kopp use PO in his shaping suggestion. It means you are the idiotic fool here.



I believe your grandfather said so to your grandmother about you.

No wonder if he was surprised with your ignorance.

You keep asking for proof yet when you are pointed at the proof you disregard it.
Not only that but you don't even understand the nature of what you say.
You failed miserably in understanding what Kopp was saying and you were busted for it. you are a :

 

[j20blackdragon]

The use of a straight line with an arrow is usually meant to denote direction, not what the radar transmission actually look like.

A true radar transmission is a cone. A non-90 deg corner reflector does not reflect the highest CONCENTRATION of the transmission but precisely because the transmission is conical in shape, SOME of it will be reflected back to source direction. A non-90 deg corner reflector is often used to test a radar's sensitivity to diffused/weakened signals.

The straight line with an arrow is a decent enough representation of where the main lobe is. If you would like to draw in the side lobes as well I don't mind.

 

[gambit]

The straight line with an arrow is a decent enough representation of where the main lobe is. If you would like to draw in the side lobes as well I don't mind.

That does nothing to detract from the truth on what a corner reflector does. Are you going to act like your clueless teenage Indonesian friend and deny that non-90 deg corner reflectors exists for the same purpose?

 

[antonius123]

That is called a 'pentagonal' corner reflector.

Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius

This is again the proof of your severe IDIOCY, as you as usual drag article without clue / proper understanding.

That pentagonal corner reflector is still formed by 2 perpendicular plate (90 degree). The pentagonal word do not refer to the corner where the reflection happen directly.

Worse than that, there is no kind of pentagonal shape on J-20 as your delusional fantasy.

You are IDIOT

No, the idiot is still YOU. In RCS modeling/predicting where a complex body with plates, curvatures, and edges are plenty, each type of radiator will require a different method of calculating their radiation. For example, with a diameter, we must calculate for specular reflection and if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior must be calculated as well. All the while, the diameter's curvatures require us to calculate for surface wave radiation. So if Kopp did actually calculate for non-plate radiators, he would have stated so for the sake of full disclosure. Your argument mean you have NO experience in a technical and/or engineering related industry.

You still dont get the simple point I show you above repeatedly, so patethic.
Kopp obviously do not solely refer to PO, as you accuse blindly without thinking.

So your accusation againts him is FAILED.

You brought it up so therefore it is fair game. Since you originally claimed to have aviation experience, then retracted it to 'study', whatever that mean, and since aviation have many sub-disciplines, what was that 'study'?

Yeah, but it has nothing to do with discussion.
Is it so difficult for you to understand?

You can fool folks by distracting the topics in order to safe your failure here

I have more than enough proven it, kid.

We now can definitively say without reservation that you are a fraud and a fool.

No you dont.

As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly

 

[rcrmj]

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

you must always been let down by yourself```

 

[antonius123]

That does nothing to detract from the truth on what a corner reflector does. Are you going to act like your clueless teenage Indonesian friend and deny that non-90 deg corner reflectors exists for the same purpose?

The clueless here is you


Read again carefully article you drag here :
Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius

There is no non perpendicular corner reflector.
The pentagonal corner in your picture is not the meant corner reflector. It is still the perpendicular corner that reflect/return the wave.

With that low level understanding, you cant claim you have knowledge. Even you are far from expert.

 

[lordwedggie]

No you dont.

As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly

No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate. I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛ̳-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.

 

[Esc8781]

No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate. I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛ̳-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.

That's for f-16.net too they have real pilots, engineers, and maintainers; but one thing I don't like about the website you proposed, it is has a whole lot of spams. cheers

 

[gambit]

This is again the proof of your severe IDIOCY, as you as usual drag article without clue / proper understanding.

That pentagonal corner reflector is still formed by 2 perpendicular plate (90 degree). The pentagonal word do not refer to the corner where the reflection happen directly.

No, kid. There are plenty of publicly available information on adjustable corner reflector antenna in radio communication. As for the image I posted, there are clearly non-90 deg angles formed by the frames and panels.

Here it is again, blind fool...

And if you think reflection behaviors occurs ONLY on corners that are exactly 90 deg, it is an even further confirmation that you have education and training no higher than grade school.

Now look at this source for one of those corner reflector antenna...

Corner reflector antenna

What does figure B say, fool?

Worse than that, there is no kind of pentagonal shape on J-20 as your delusional fantasy.

You are IDIOT

Nope, the idiot here is still YOU for failing logical thinking. The issue is avoidance of corner reflectors in RCS control methods. It does not matter if the corner is 90 deg or not. Avoid them if possible. The B-2 have no vertical stabilators, so there are no corner reflectors formed by flight control surfaces. The F-117, F-22, and F-35 are of different designs and they must have vertical stabilators but not the 90 deg type. So for you to say that I say there is a pentagonal reflector on the J-20 is an epic failure of critical thinking.

If you have any real aviation 'study' like you claimed, we would not be having this debate. You are a fraud.

You still dont get the simple point I show you above repeatedly, so patethic.

Kopp obviously do not solely refer to PO, as you accuse blindly without thinking.

So your accusation againts him is FAILED.

Since Kopp DID NOT say that he had a real J-20 in his measurement, does that mean he could have a real J-20? Do you really think that people is going to buy that line of 'logic'?

Again, it is clear to everyone outside of the Chinese circle here that you have absolutely NO aviation experience in general, let alone in the discipline of radar. This is also a clear case of failed logical thinking.

Yeah, but it has nothing to do with discussion.
Is it so difficult for you to understand?

You can fool folks by distracting the topics in order to safe your failure here

Yes it does. You tried to use your alleged aviation experience to shut the Indians up. I challenged you on what experience do you have. You then retracted it to merely 'study'. So since you brought it up once and is currently engaged in an aviation related subject, your claim is fair game.

So what did you 'study' in aviation? What a fraud you are.

No you dont.

As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly

I understand it far better than you do. You never even read what Kopp did. Heck, I doubt if you understood the intro paragraph. And yet you failed to see the long section where Kopp admitted how Physical Optics failed and that he had no other tools to compensate. You failed at logical thinking here, fraud.

No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate. I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛ̳-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.

Too late. All of you Chinese boys are already 'worked up'. Never thought that you would encounter someone with real aviation experience, did you?

 

[lordwedggie]

You are quite epic, though not for your words of wisdom but amusement. I have no idea how you find so much time but your devotion is certainly apparent and for that I salute you. As for being an aviation expert, yeah, sure kid.

 

[gambit]

You are quite epic, though not for your words of wisdom but amusement. I have no idea how you find so much time but your devotion is certainly apparent and for that I salute you. As for being an aviation expert, yeah, sure kid.

What is epic for amusement is a bunch of conscript rejects, literally no experience in the subjects they engages in, are demanding their words to be taken seriously.