The clearest J-20 pictures.

[amalakas]

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.

or even worst a grown man with delusions of intelligence

 

[antonius123]

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.

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.

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.

See your self the above picture.

How come you claim the circle fit the non cylinder shape ??

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.

You can put the same circle and see how it round

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

Alot.

Challenge you = challenge idiocy.

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.

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?

These:

Source please.

His credibility is not convincing.

If he said so then he ruin his own credibility. Why Rafale with canard is stealthier that more exposed fan blade SU-27?

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.

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!

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:

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.

It demonstrate how poor your basic physics knowledge.

Sorry, I never studied Chinese physics.

The picture of reflection above is general and basic physics.

I can see you never studied physics.

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.

He is saying how wrong you draw the reflected wave on the J-20 as your draw violate basic physics.

 

[eachus]

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:





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.

a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
that is common sense proof. if a plane fell into a rice land without
landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving. I am not sure it
nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.
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.

?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.

you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
it is plain lie.

you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.



" 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?
and after days of crashed?

you are a proved liar!!!

Alot.

Challenge you (ptldM3) = challenge idiocy.

man, that is the post of the day!

 

[amalakas]

a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
that is common sense proof. if a plane fell into a rice land without
landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving. I am not sure it
nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.
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.

?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.

you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
it is plain lie.

you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.



" 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?
and after days of crashed?

you are a proved liar!!!




man, that is the post of the day!

I seriously don't think you are doing your self any favours by agreeing with antonious123 ... seriously...

 

[gambit]

No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and zero aviation knowledge, but also zero logic.

So what was your 'study' in aviation again? Did we missed that post where you showed us?

 

[ptldM3]

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 or 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 real 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 and your buddies have been caugt with their pants down

 

[ptldM3]

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.

 

[skydrill_2]

hehe i learned this physics in class 4 itself......



.

 

[feilong]

X 31 95 Aerial (X31-95Aerial.jpg) - 12453289 - Free Image Hosting at TurboImageHost

Who the idiot showing a plane crashed on sand bed (hot dessert) with rocks, didn't you realized sand bed is harden then mud? Why he posting plane crashed on solid road, hard rock but cannot even find a real plane crashed on mud? When you trying to proof, Chinese plane crashed on rice field with mud. You know better what mud mean? Mud is not meaning a cup ok got it? Mud is water or rain combine with soils. Stop fooling yourself, get a real plane and crashed like you telling Chinese plane crashed in rice field and you see the different.

 

[eachus]

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



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


What makes you think it fell? The aircraft was clearly involved in a forced landing based on the minimal damage to the aircraft.



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.



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.

http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/12453289/X31-95Aerial.jpg.html



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.



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.


Never heard of a glider have you?

Or better yet Air Transat Flight 236?


Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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.


http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/12452878/f-16wreckage.jpg.html


Plain old wreckage.



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 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.

ok, I dont agree with you, but I still thank for your time on researching.
you obviously did a lot of work to reply my message. anyway,
here is a logic problem.

you proved a fighter can eject/broke off an engine from its body in air.
you can prove a fighter can eject fuel in air before landing.
you can prove a fighter can smash on to ground.
you can prove a fighter lost speed and crash on land and completely burned.
you can prove a fighter can be emerging landing.


however, you can not combine these together.
the photos show some wreckages were in extremely good condition --- does not like smash into ground.
the crashed plane did not have engine, can not emerging landing, can not soft landing.
if the plane lost speed, you dont have time to eject fuel, emerging landing is impossible.
if the plane lost speed, eject engine or engine broke away is likely a case.
if a plane broke off engine in air, no wreckage is in good condition.
no landing path evidence prove it was not a soft landing crash, likely smash into ground.
there is no holes, no evidence of big collision show, that should be a soft landing.

the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location,
it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos.
look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall race field path). from one
photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has
a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away.
the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.

those are very obvious errors on the fake photos.

 

[Zabaniyah]

My brain! My poor brain!! ><

 

[eachus]

ptldM3, there is a simple mistake.
for instance, you did many trial tests on T50,

1) one test you can fly T50 at max speed 2.5M.
2) one test you can fully load T50 which carry 10 tons of weapon,
3) one test you fly T50 max range 5000km without refuel

now you concluded the T50 can load up 10tons and fly at speed 2.5M for all 5000Km without refuel.
something 1+2 != 3.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

ptldM3, there is a simple mistake.
for instance, you did many trial tests on T50,

1) one test you can fly T50 at max speed 2.5M.
2) one test you can fully load T50 which carry 10 tons of weapon,
3) one test you fly T50 max range 5000km without refuel

now you concluded the T50 can load up 10tons and fly at speed 2.5M for all 5000Km without refuel.
something 1+2 != 3.

 

[ptldM3]

ok, I dont agree with you, but I still thank for your time on researching.
you obviously did a lot of work to reply my message. anyway,
here is a logic problem.

you proved a fighter can eject/broke off an engine from its body in air.
you can prove a fighter can eject fuel in air before landing.
you can prove a fighter can smash on to ground.
you can prove a fighter lost speed and crash on land and completely burned.
you can prove a fighter can be emerging landing.


however, you can not combine these together.

Indeed I have proven all of those things. Let me remind you that you doubted all of them but have now conceded, so what makes you believe that all of those actions are not possible?

the photos show some wreckages were in extremely good condition --- does not like smash into ground.

Aircraft don’t always smash into the ground, sometimes they may make a hard or even soft landing but them after the touchdown the aircraft may flip after the wing clips the ground, a tree, or something else. Damage may be light or severe, it all depends on a magnitude of factors. It also doesn’t help your argument that the rice field was soft and wet, this will of course limit the severity of the damage.

the crashed plane did not have engine, can not emerging landing, can not soft landing.

You do not know that the aircraft did not have an engine, my guess is that the nozzle broke off. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, the aircraft would still be able to perform an emergency landing and even a soft touchdown even with no engine power, given that the aircraft had enough altitude and airspeed. Remember flight 236 flew 129km with no engines and, in fact, flight 236 could have gone further because it was forced to circle the runway and bleed off as much speed as possible before it made an emergency landing.

if the plane lost speed, you dont have time to eject fuel, emerging landing is impossible.

This is a big if. If an aircraft losses engine power a pilot can often maintain enough airspeed to bring the aircraft down for a hard/crash landing, every aircraft has a particular lift-to-glide ratio.


And yes you would have time to dump plenty of fuel, unless the aircraft was extremely low and lost power while at a slow airspeed. Dumping fuel not only minimizes damage when the aircraft lands/crashes but also improves its lift-to-glide ratio. Furthermore, we don’t know how much fuel the J-10 was carrying, it could have been very little.


Here is how much fuel an F-15 can dump:


F-15E.info: Strike Eagle reference and resources - F-15E.info - Fuel Dumping System

Approximate fuel dumping rate is 390 lbs/min for the right internal wing tank, 260 lbs/min for the of left internal wing tank and 1,260 lbs/min for tank 1. This gives a total dumping rate of 910 lbs/min.

if the plane lost speed, eject engine or engine broke away is likely a case.

You don’t make any sense.

if a plane broke off engine in air, no wreckage is in good condition.

Very unlikely that an engine would break off while an aircraft is in the air even of a catastrophic explosion occurred. Speculation of whether or not the engine broke off or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that an aircraft can still maintain flight without an engine, and again the condition of the aircraft is also irrelevant. Every crash is different.

My brother lost power in his aircraft, he managed to glide it for some time, the aircraft unfortunately clipped a building. The building was not large but the aircraft was completely destroyed, nothing but the tail end remained. Then you get violent crashes to where the aircraft looks like it’s in decent condition, the point is that there are too many factors involved in what determines the extent of how bad an aircraft is damaged.

no landing path evidence prove it was not a soft landing crash, likely smash into ground.

How can you see whether or not there was a landing path? The aircraft was in a wet rice field with standing water. This is like landing or crashing into an ocean. Water does not leave a footprint, thus you will not see anything

there is no holes, no evidence of big collision show, that should be a soft landing.

Does not need to be a hole, even if it was a violent landing, even the picture of the X-31 showed that there was not hole, nor was there any kind of landing path. The X-31 simply crashed down. If the X-31 did not leave a hole or any landing path than what makes you think that an aircraft crashing down in water would leave anything?

the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location, it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos.

Yes it was, the two photos were just taken at different distances, one photos was taken probably 100 yards from the wreckage, and the other picture was taken up close to the wreckage.


Look here:



This picture is taken far from the wreckage as well as the spectators:






This picture was taken close to the wreckage as well as spectators.









You also are not accounting for the time laps and angle of the pictures, by the time the camera man moved closer to the wreckage the spectators could have also moved.

look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall race field path). from one
photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has
a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away.

Duh, of course that green patch of grass is closer in one photo---because the camera man moved closer to the wreckage to take the photo.

the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.

This is another duh moment, of course the angle of the crash is different the camera man took two photos, from two different angles. Both the right and left side of the aircraft was photographed, one was a close up the other was from far away.

 

[antonius123]

Your picture doesn&#8217;t work--fail. And yes the chin fit&#8217;s the contour of a perfect circle. Denial doesn&#8217;t mean it is not true.

Is this what you call fit, idiot?

Even CONE which is perfectly fit to your circle is not the same as Cylinder. You are really idiot.

CONE SHAPE <> Cylinder Shape (eventhough fit to the circle)


Btw circle means : a curve with points having the equidistant (the same distant) to a certain point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle

You cannot say J-20 chin is circle if the curve is not a closed curve with equidistant.


Idiocy + lack of basic math & physics.

Another epic fail. The pak-fa has a flat chin. You&#8217;re now just making a fool out of yourself.

It is cylinder according to your own idiot understanding

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.

As I said, because the problem with you is idiocy.

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&#8217;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.

He doesnt challenge Copp. It is you who has missunderstanding on Richard's statement due to your myopic and bias.

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

This is what he said:

Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia has also raised doubts about the use of canards on a design that is intended to be low-observable: &#8220;There&#8217;s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See.. he only DOUBT the use of canard for low-observability.

First => He never said that PAKFA will be more stealthy than J-20 judging from the shape; He never said that Canard is certainly much more detrimental than round shape/expose fan blade/corner reflector. (HE NEVER CONTRA COPP!!!)

Second => He only DOUBT about canard; DOUBT imply "his personal belief" rather than a "scientific statement". Doubt is as weak as believe - compared to suggestion/analysis.

Got it?

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&#8217;s RCS, the SU-27 was never designed with that emphasis.

That is answering your argument, idiot.

The low rcs design on Rafale like "hidden fan blade", minimize square tunel/corner reflector is the answer rather than removing canard.

It means Rafale's canard is much less detrimental compared to other things (fan blade, square tunnel, round shape).

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&#8217;t able to than shut up.

It is you using drugs when saying J-20 chin fit perfectly to circle

You are referring to the 90 degree tunnel on the outside of F-22/J-20 right?

There is no such 90 degree tunnel on F-22/J-20/F-35.
Show me if there is!

Using worlds like &#8216;incident ray&#8217; doesn&#8217;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&#8217;s v-tails can not always be active. Moreover, you still are refusing to except the truth that the J-20&#8217;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.

You are idiot.

Your drawing of incident and reflected ray/line on J-20 is not the same as that corner reflector picture above. Either You are a pathetic LIAR or Drunk or Totally idiot.

The degree of the incident and reflected one is not the same!

Correct, I never studied Chinese physics.

Correct!

More exactly to say that you never study physics + idiot.