The J-20 SUCCESSFULLY conducts first flight!!

[siegecrossbow]

by loudest talking mouth you imply Indians.... i love chinese people and their willingness to destroy India. Always gets a good laugh out of me. Supreme ruler of the universe.. All Hail PRC...

He never said that the country with the loudest talking mouth was India. You are making the implications here, not him.

 

[ares]

No. The photo is just flipped horizontally.

[/QUOTE]

The 2001 on port(left) side of the Photoshop pic is taken from starboard (right)side of aircraft.

You can comapre the above pic to this one.

Which too is also an obvious PS ..alas a better one.

 

[Speeder 2]

Good Avionics God In Heaven...!!! In all my years of serving You, my Lord, in and out of the military, never have I heard such nonsense and from a civilian at that.

Civilian? Pauleeeez!

Address me Dr Civilian, Dr Speeder actually, soilder !

Speedy, pal. You are way out of your league. Fly by wire IS move by wire. There are NO mechanical linkages between the pilot and the rest of the aircraft. All commands MUST be routed through the flight control computer. There are no on/off switch for this. The only mechanical actuators in the system are by the surfaces themselves and they are hydraulics.

Yes, pal, I may be out of my league in some specific military knowhow where you have an edge ( and I appreciate it) , but you are way out of your league in general knowledge level that this case is also concerned.

OKE, assume that it is correct that no mechnical linkage btw pilot and machine, only FBW, no problem.

All commands go to FBW, ok, no problem.

But "There are no on/off switch for this" you said ? --->>> Bullshit! There might not be any hardware switches, but FBW software , like all other software codes, is full of "what -if " soft switches.

There are no such 'button'. If there is such a 'button' and if it is in 'off' position, pray tell how are the actuators going to move?


No such thing as 'flight controls laws' you say?


Read and see how foolish you look.

FBW is full of soft buttons and rules via "if -then " codes, where I am 100% certain as general logic dictates that FBW rules differently when the said plane is in different speed modes; and I am 100% certain that FBW can identify the current speed of the plane ( "if "), and act accordingly to a slightly different rules ( "then"), particularly in the situation where it is prefectly understandable and logical for the plane to have completely set of flexibilities when at still or near still speed , say between 0 and 10 mph, or even between 0 and 5 mph, as per the photo.

Get a grip!

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

by loudest talking mouth you imply Indians.... i love chinese people and their willingness to destroy India. Always gets a good laugh out of me. Supreme ruler of the universe.. All Hail PRC...

Oh, you got offended. Well, I am just talking about reality. You are not an Indian that hates Chinese, great.

But your government are saying one thing while doing another. I hope you are not to concerned aboiut my comment. It is true, China and India are heading towards war. We Chinese have to be prepared.
The war is however, avoidble, that depend on how Indian people correctly view Chinese and understanding Chinese people.

But now, most Indians are not doing that.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

You see soooooooooooooooooooooooo many indians trolls on other Chinese related threads this only tells that Indians have a grudge against us Chinese.

However, on the J-20 threads most Indians, Russians, Viets are silenced. Why, cause they simply can not take the facts that Chinese did something great. Which is ok. Their views on Chinese are completely from the wrong SOURCE. You as an Indian who has a correct view on Chinese should not be concering about me saying these stuffs, if your people keeping trolling and trolling thenn it will keep alarming us Chinese about your TRUE COLOR!

Instead, you as an Indian who has a correct view on Chinese people and maybe Chinese government should go tell other Indians the TRUTH about Chinese, instead of arguing with me, what I think and decide is conpleted affect by what Indians do, NOT what you say. No one was born to hate something at birth.

 

[Jet Li]

 

[gambit]

Civilian? Pauleeeez!

Address me Dr Civilian, Dr Speeder actually, soilder !

Yeah...A quack doctor.

Yes, pal, I may be out of my league in some specific military knowhow where you have an edge ( and I appreciate it) , but you are way out of your league in general knowledge level that this case is also concerned.

And what area of general knowledge will that be?

OKE, assume that it is correct that no mechnical linkage btw pilot and machine, only FBW, no problem.

All commands go to FBW, ok, no problem.

There are no assumptions about this. In a pure fly-by-wire flight controls system, there are no mechanical linkages between the cockpit and the surfaces.

But "There are no on/off switch for this" you said ? --->>> Bullshit! There might not be any hardware switches, but FBW software , like all other software codes, is full of "what -if " soft switches.






FBW is full of soft buttons and rules via "if -then " codes, where I am 100% certain as general logic dictates that FBW rules differently when the said plane is in different speed modes; and I am 100% certain that FBW can identify the current speed of the plane ( "if "), and act accordingly to a slightly different rules ( "then"), particularly in the situation where it is prefectly understandable and logical for the plane to have completely set of flexibilities when at still or near still speed , say between 0 and 10 mph, or even between 0 and 5 mph, as per the photo.

Get a grip!

Software switches? Gee whiz...Why did I not think of that from all those years in avionics. By the way, check out this man...

Putting teamwork on the radar - 2008-04-01 06:00:00 | Test & Measurement World

Anyway...If this is an attempt to salvage your failed argument, it is an epic fail built upon a previous epic fail. The one who is trying to pass his BS here is YOU because the crux of your argument rests upon a pilot selectable hard switch...As implied here...

NO, you are confusing about several things:

FBW means Fly by Wire, not Move by Wire. Since when the first button that a pilot presses after he sits into a cockpit must automatically activate FBW software as if he were at 30,000 feet?

Now after you did some googling and found out how spectacularly wrong you are, you had to resort to software switches as if I do not know what I am talking about? Give me a break. In fact, I either explained or alluded to these software switches in previous posts.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1220308-post27.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/873222-post22.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/863933-post1937.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/590295-post29.html

These software switches are not pilot selectable. Gains and degrees of surface responses are created and executed without pilot intervention and that reduction in pilot workload is the intention of an augmented FLCS and eventually a pure fly-by-wire FLCS in maintaining stability.

So are there such things as flight controls laws? Yes, this is real physics. A 'law' is a directive that has adverse consequences if that directive is not obeyed. The word 'flight' in flight controls laws does not mean these laws are applicable only upon wheels off ground but they are applicable from engine start to engine off. This is where you are confused.

 

[Shak]

Cognates to China. Very hard working people indeed. Indians must learn from Chinese.

 

[topjumper]

Are we still talking about j-20's inward twisted rudder here and whether it is a software related issue? One member pointed it out a couple of days ago that on the ground it might be used for braking purposes, this seems to be echoed by guys from some other forums, someone also suggested that the large angled inward rudder displacement is used to generate more "nose up pitching moment". link

 

[Redstorm]

请说英语，谢谢！ Please speak english。。。。

发言前先仔细浏览下置顶的中文帖子“ 中国同胞们看过来”，入乡随俗。

 

[Redstorm]

美国的霸权之所以走向衰弱就是因为犯了两个大错误：
1，他们灭亡了苏联。
如果苏联今天仍然存在，那么中国和欧洲会继续跟着美国的指挥棒走，大家一起对付来自北方的强大威胁。但苏联没了，所以欧元和RMB出现了，欧洲推出了地中海计划，中国也提出了自己的政治要求。老布什被迫发动了海湾战争，让美圆和石油挂钩，延续了美国霸权的寿命，这也是他们支持以色列的原因。
“养贼自重，兔死狗烹”显然美国人不懂这个道理。
2，资本主义富裕了美国，但极端资本主义最终会毁灭美国。
美国不断将工业往外迁移，本土越来越偏向金融等高端行业。虽然看上去很美好，但这其实不是一个大国应该采用的政策。一个大国最重要的属性就是全面，美国的目标是超级霸权，而不是加大版的瑞士。靠NBA球星或者华尔街律师什么的无法撑起一个大国的脊梁。
====================
对于中国来说，全球化的世界并不是一个“强化自己是削弱别人”的世界。当然，我们不可能永远做世界工厂，我们也要做高端，但这不代表着我们就会放弃低端工业，原因嘛：
1，在非洲和印度完成工业化准备之前，没有哪个国家可以顶替中国的生产任务。而从这两个地方的人口素质（识字率健康状况等）和基建水平来看，暂时不具备大规模接班的条件。
2，中国会将工业向西部迁移，那里有更多的人口红利可以吃。

Please speak english。。。。

 

[aimarraul]

 

[Akasa]

The number 11/11/01 (the date of the flight) in Western culture means strong will, determination, and perseverance.

 

[Guest]

@gambit
I'm not sure if J-20 still keeps a michanical flight control system, but what if it does, then the pilots can still turn off its FBW (although the possibility is extreemly low). the reason i said the possibility is extreemly low is because we got much better and "bugs free" control systems now, so don't compare A300's decades-old FBW with our lattest systems. We used exactly the same testing tools that is being used by NASA and Lockheed Martin. In this regard, we have a much better kick off compare to that of the F-22s' in the 1990s.

as to the "law", what if i told you that there is no or little "law" in X-36's FBW system at the beginning, and they are keep changing, by the plane itself, as it flights more hours. would you still consider law is a appropriate word.

 

[gambit]

Are we still talking about j-20's inward twisted rudder here and whether it is a software related issue? One member pointed it out a couple of days ago that on the ground it might be used for braking purposes, this seems to be echoed by guys from some other forums, someone also suggested that the large angled inward rudder displacement is used to generate more "nose up pitching moment". link

Correct. But it is applicable to canted vertical stabilators to look like this...

The vertical stab is NOT the rudder. The vertical stab assembly contains the rudder, which are the movable slabs as seen above. Both rudders must deflect inward and they must be to the SAME degree, else there most likely be an adverse yaw condition. Remember, the v-stabs are off centerline, so there should be the same amount of aerodynamic down force on both. For both v-stabs, the greater from 90deg, the greater the aerodynamic assistance the v-stabs can be to the all-moving horizontal stabs in take-offs and landings. Once the nose and main landing gears have weight-on-wheels (WoW), it is a combination of gear brakes and aerodynamic drag to slow down the aircraft but the requirement that there should be equal aerodynamic force on both v-stabs is still the same. We do not want asymmetric forces for fear of adverse yaw.

So when we see this condition...

It is reasonable to question as to the justification as to why would anyone want to have asymmetric v-stab deflections. When the nose gear is turned as we see above, that mean the aircraft's ground speed is too slow for aerodynamic forces to be of any use. The right v-stab's deflection seems to be reasonable but what could cause or be the reason as to why should the left v-stab to deflect as great as it is.