SyrianChristianPatriot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,145
- Reaction score
- 0
Good Job China to bad won't be exported for a while.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Looked like 10-11 seconds to me, hard to be sure. 9 seconds is good but completing a full turn at that rate is the issue. I was talking about figure 8s not 8 second turns. It can't maintain good turn performance at speed if it continued from a 180 to a 360. It was carrying no load while at low altitude. Unless the pilot was holding back or throttled the engines, the J-20 is way underpowered. These rumours about the fast development of the WS-15 haven't produced any concrete news yet except for a publicly declared milestone. Unless it is ready for first flight by 2014, there's no way the J-20 will be competitive in a dogfight in its first iteration. I don't buy the malarky about the existence of the ethereal WS-10G engine.Each turn was over 10 second... How did you calculate that? Each 180 degree turn (the one with reference) was around 9 seconds tops. Not bad for AL-31 engines.
Also I was talking about figure 8s, a type of maneuver, at not 8 second turns.
there's a materials solution to everything.
canards holding back stealth? make radio transparent canards. it can be done. they're also extremely strong to boot. ceramics are just too heavy but that can be done away with through weight reduction elsewhere. machining the ceramics is easy for the low curvature canards.
Refractories and Industrial Ceramics, Volume 43, Numbers 3-4 - SpringerLink
Here are the 2 messages I wrote relating to this specific sub-topic...
Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception. Why am I not surprised given the level of integrity you demonstrate with many of your messages. You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a threat environment and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces. This is basic logic that any neophyte can understand. In addition, your umpteenth red-herring that it would reduce maneuverability is irrelevant because such a flight mode would be used in a threat environment, as in before you were detected by any of the probable multiple illuminating enemy radars in the vicinity, stealth would be the primary goal at that juncture not maneuverability, since the objective at that point in time would be to get as close as possible to the engagement zone. Like I said, not your forte. Your attempts to prove 1+3=13 is simply wrong.
I think you take this personally. I don't know how big the IRST probe appears to a radar, but on the other hand you have to think in terms of the russian engineers having a tiny bit of brain too.
if a 12 year old geek from his mums basement can see the IRST, and ***** about it, I guess an engineering team full of PhDs would see it too.
Looked like 10-11 seconds to me, hard to be sure. 9 seconds is good but completing a full turn at that rate is the issue. I was talking about figure 8s not 8 second turns. It can't maintain good turn performance at speed if it continued from a 180 to a 360. It was carrying no load while at low altitude. Unless the pilot was holding back or throttled the engines, the J-20 is way underpowered. These rumours about the fast development of the WS-15 haven't produced any concrete news yet except for a publicly declared milestone. Unless it is ready for first flight by 2014, there's no way the J-20 will be competitive in a dogfight in its first iteration. I don't buy the malarky about the existence of the ethereal WS-10G engine.
If Americans and Chinese could hide IRST then russian Phds could have done it before it would have been criticized even that damn Rafale IRST has relatively low observability then pak-fa. We hope russian Phds would grow brains.
I would disagree, the rafale probes are no different to the PAK-FA ones, the only difference is a fairing that connects the pak fa probe to the front of the cockpit.
I don't think these arguments hold any water, and I don't appreciate you thinking a team of people who make supersonic jets, don't know what they are doing.
Don't care if you don't appreciate what has been said is to the point and scientifically proven. I don't need to repeat what Martain2 has already explained in detail in reference to pak-fa's overall huge rcs and design.
To start off with pak-fa complete design is non stealthy. Let me port what Martain2 posted nothing better than to re-posted which is to the point. So pak-fa team actually did not work that hard to design a stealth prototype lets see if in later stages their brains growup.
1. Circular exhaust.
2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
3. Canopy frame,
4. Gaps around the inlets.
5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles.
6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature.
So russians need to work hard to come up with a refined revamp design.
Right.. you believe martian.. conversation ended.. nothing more to say
Yet to see a functioning IRST which is hidden...
You and that other guy are indeed dense.You're the one who insinuated the non-faceted spheroidal IRST of the PAK FA could be larger according to the lambda rule not me. Nice try at role reversal there Houdini but no cigar. I suggested you had an interesting psychosis at some point but I didn't know it was this bad. LOL Those who have been paying attention know the history behind that statement.
Btw, if, as you suggest, the IRST's curvature already conforms to the lambda rule, what radar bands are you referring to exactly? The IRST looks to be somewhere between 22cm-28cm, typical fighter radar targets X-Band (2.5-3.75cm). Only the lower bound of X-Band somewhat applies and it wouldn't be effective because of the surface discontinuities of the IRST. It would have to be shaped more like a WOK, or better yet like the underwing protrusions of the J-20, for it to be reasonably stealth shaped.
Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you,
I stopped paying attention to lufty a long time ago. I do believe he is a 12yr old.Right.. you believe martian.. conversation ended.. nothing more to say
Just because you are too stupid to understand dumbed down concepts does not mean they are 'lies and deceptions'.Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception.
News for you, kid. Aerodynamic requirements trumps any and all tactical desires. Without aerodynamic exploitation, we do not have this thing call 'flight'.You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a threat environment...
Really? Then why bother with canards in the first place? Why not make those other flight control surfaces do the work that includes those compensatory actions?...and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces.
A delta wing is a wing whose shape when viewed from above looks like a triangle, often with its tip cut off. It sweeps sharply back from the fuselage with the angle between the leading edge (the front) of the wing often as high as 60 degrees and the angle between the fuselage and the trailing edge of the wing at around 90 degrees. Often delta-wing airplanes lack horizontal stabilizers. Despite the fact that paper airplanes have delta wings and appear to fly quite well when launched from a height, delta wings actually perform poorly at low speeds and often are unstable (i.e., they do not stay in level flight on their own). Their primary advantage is efficiency in high-speed flight.
A Su-7U modified with canards and a longitudinal stability augmentation system. It was designed as a testbed for a fly-by-wire system for the Sukhoi T-4. It was later used in 19731974 during the development of the Su-27's fly-by-wire system.
The lower the natural static stability of the aircraft, the larger the number of corrections required, thus diverting attention from other tasks. This doesn't last forever, because there comes a point where the pilot himself can no longer respond fast enough to make the appropriate correction, with that degree of instability the aircraft becomes unflyable.
A large number of current applications point to the necessity of lower static stability, for one reason or another, yet the aircraft must remain flyable.
In a Control Configured Vehicle (diagram 2.) corrections to the aircraft's attitude are carried out by a computer. Assuming the pilot is not touching the controls, we shall examine the system's behaviour.