Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[amalakas]

Why dont you answer my last challenge/question to you that you still cant answer yet? before I list many of them that you failed to answer.

which one ? state it clearly...

but even more so...entertain us... list ALL your so called challenges in bullet points .. go on.. ALL

 

[antonius123]

which one ? state it clearly...

but even more so...entertain us... list ALL your so called challenges in bullet points .. go on.. ALL

See... pretend like a faker

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-167.html#ixzz21wv5Hmz3

 

[amalakas]

See... pretend like a faker

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-167.html#ixzz21wv5Hmz3

Oh man you are such a comedy provider...

F-14 Tomcat Jet Intake - Danger! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

or this :


HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: detail air intake

Or perhaps a wikipedia which you so seem to love ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intake_ramp

An intake ramp is a rectangular, plate-like device within the air intake of a jet engine, designed to generate a shock wave to aid the inlet compression process at supersonic speeds.

What else....let me think...mmmm, perhaps this:

HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: F-14 Air Intake

we have established the F-14 has nacelles ..and now we have established the F-14 has ramps in its air-intakes ...

what else...?

OH I FORGET ..THIS IS THE F-14 NACELLE..IT DOESN'T PROVE THE PAKFA HAS NACELLES WITH AIR INTAKES..RIGHT?

oh well.... here we go...

remember you and the chinese members love Air power australia...right ?



Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA

from the same link we have

Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA

Examination of the publicly displayed PAK-FA prototypes show that this design is a continuation of the highly evolved pedigree of Flanker aerodynamic design. However, as observed in and predicted from the most recent Flanker variant, the Su-35S, and the work done during the deep modernisation program that resulted in this design, Sukhoi have evidently taken the next step by providing the PAK-FA with relaxed static stability in the directional axis.

Open source materials such as high resolution imagery and video camera footage show there are a number of features about the aerodynamic design of the PAK-FA that are different to, but clearly enhancements on the tried and proven aerodynamics of the Flanker family of aircraft, including:
Fully articulated, reduced aspect ratio dorsal fins that are canted outwards. These provide large control power and control authority while minimising drag and side area with the additional LO benefit of the latter.
Articulated LEX sections/control surfaces above and immediately forward of the quite large intakes of the propulsion system.

right... what next? ....

oh yes...

Defence Professionals: Part 2 of a comprehensive overview on Sukhoi’s 5th generation fighter

In this way, the upper surface of the air intake contributes to overall lift generation. It is also possible that the movements of these peculiar elements, when linked to the full authority digital flight control system, could contribute in some way to the aircraft’s longitudinal control, acting like a third control surface (in line with the Sukhoi tradition as exemplified in the three-surfaces Su-30MKI). It seem however clear that the “lips” cannot move as fully independent control surfaces, due to their primary role in ensuring a correct airflow to the engines.

Do you want me to carry on ?

See... pretend like a faker

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!

comprehensively and thoroughly proven to your embarrassment..

I am still waiting for your list of "unanswered" challenges .... .. I'll be here... ain't going anywhere...

 

[gambit]

I have warned you, you are embarrassing yourself. And now even more so.

His behaviors are typical of the J-20's supporters who are long on wind but short on substance. When confronted with credible sources and logic, just simply redefine and/or dismiss. In essence, they are never wrong and can never be wrong as long as this intellectually dishonesty option is available.

 

[Esc8781]

Gambit can you provide me a link of the wing area subject?

 

[gambit]

It was you who challenge me with control theory questions, then I challenge you back with the control technology question, and as usual you FAILED again

Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight controls, not at the component level, kid. Your failure to respond to even a first year aerodynamics question marked you as a fraud.

It is totally bullshits and big FAKE if you claim you are an expert in system and process level, but have no idea about PLC and control technology

Do you think you can lie and fool people here? You are fake and busted pall ..

Fine...Then regardless of what I say about myself, why have you been unable to answer all these aviation related questions? Remember, it was you who claimed to have aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians, and yet out of six questions, four you did not know and two pending.

So here they are again...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?

Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed? Hint: In the 'Reference Wing Area', you must use the underside surface, that is why the illustration have the red field intrude into the fuselage.

Should be simple enough for you, right?

 

[amalakas]

His behaviors are typical of the J-20's supporters who are long on wind but short on substance. When confronted with credible sources and logic, just simply redefine and/or dismiss. In essence, they are never wrong and can never be wrong as long as this intellectually dishonesty option is available.

not willing to listen.... sad i think.

 

[antonius123]

Oh man you are such a comedy provider...

F-14 Tomcat Jet Intake - Danger! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

or this :


HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: detail air intake

Or perhaps a wikipedia which you so seem to love ...

Intake ramp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




What else....let me think...mmmm, perhaps this:

HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: F-14 Air Intake

we have established the F-14 has nacelles ..and now we have established the F-14 has ramps in its air-intakes ...

what else...?

OH I FORGET ..THIS IS THE F-14 NACELLE..IT DOESN'T PROVE THE PAKFA HAS NACELLES WITH AIR INTAKES..RIGHT?

oh well.... here we go...

remember you and the chinese members love Air power australia...right ?



Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA

from the same link we have

Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA


right... what next? ....

oh yes...

Defence Professionals: Part 2 of a comprehensive overview on Sukhoi’s 5th generation fighter



Do you want me to carry on ?




comprehensively and thoroughly proven to your embarrassment..

I am still waiting for your list of "unanswered" challenges .... .. I'll be here... ain't going anywhere...

Hahahahaha... you are demonstrating idiocy and frustration

You are only showing where Air Intake is on the Airfighter, which everybody in this forum already knows long long time ago

What you are asked to prove for your own claim is: Where is the proof that Air Intake is part / covered by Nacelle??

It is accepted that Nacelle is a cover of engine, we agree that cover of engine of Flanker/Pakfa/F-15/etc is also called nacelle.

But if you said "air intake cover" is also called Nacelle, then it is confirmed that you are clueless about aviation and only capable in drag, copy & paste internet article which limited to fanboyism capability.

 

[antonius123]

Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight controls, not at the component level, kid. Your failure to respond to even a first year aerodynamics question marked you as a fraud.

Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight control is not at the component level?? hello??
Are you denying what you were just bursting without any clue?

In designing aircraft, flight control not only one component, but also very important and critical thing in integration, of course it involve control engineering, and of course the control theory is basic of control engineering.

See .. you are again and again demonstrating your clueless about aviation, as you really-really has no idea about what you are claiming

Fine...Then regardless of what I say about myself, why have you been unable to answer all these aviation related questions? Remember, it was you who claimed to have aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians, and yet out of six questions, four you did not know and two pending.

So here they are again...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?

Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed? Hint: In the 'Reference Wing Area', you must use the underside surface, that is why the illustration have the red field intrude into the fuselage.

Should be simple enough for you, right?

Again you repeat the stale question which has been responded and challenged many times.

Where is your answer for my questions which is very much related to our debate??
Where is your proof that Pakfa's air intake is so called NACELLE, as per your claim??

 

[amalakas]

Hahahahaha... you are demonstrating idiocy and frustration

You are only showing where Air Intake is on the Airfighter, which everybody in this forum already knows long long time ago

What you are asked to prove for your own claim is: Where is the proof that Air Intake is part / covered by Nacelle??

It is accepted that Nacelle is a cover of engine, we agree that cover of engine of Flanker/Pakfa/F-15/etc is also called nacelle.

But if you said "air intake cover" is also called Nacelle, then it is confirmed that you are clueless about aviation and only capable in drag, copy & paste internet article which limited to fanboyism capability.

You said... and I quote:

See... pretend like a faker

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!

air intake is part of the nacelle. Proven.

And besides all the proof I provided, astronautics genius... a nacelle is housing a JET engine, it needs to suck in air.. it needs an intake at the front. Man your IQ must be approaching zero..

All the rest you are throwing out now is word play. Give it up you are outgunned and outmatched. All the silly smileys in the world can help you save face now. And sadly it is for all to see. I did warn you.

Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight control is not at the component level?? hello??
Are you denying what you were just bursting without any clue?

In designing aircraft, flight control not only one component, but also very important and critical thing in integration, of course it involve control engineering, and of course the control theory is basic of control engineering.

See .. you are again and again demonstrating your clueless about aviation, as you really-really has no idea about what you are claiming





Again you repeat the stale question which has been responded and challenged many times.

Where is your answer for my questions which is very much related to our debate??
Where is your proof that Pakfa's air intake is so called NACELLE, as per your claim??

Shown in my posts.... stop being intellectually challenged by choice.

as for your expertise .. do me a favour. What is this ?

[/IMG]

 

[antonius123]

You said... and I quote:




air intake is part of nacelle. Proven.

All the rest you are throwing out now is word play. Give it up you are outgunned and outmatched. All the silly smileys in the world can help you save face now. And sadly it is for all to see. I did warn you.



Shown in my posts.... stop being intellectually challenged by choice.

as for your expertise .. do me a favour. What is this ?

[/IMG]

Proof with what?? is there any statement in your valid citation saying that Air Intake is part / within / covered by Nacelle??

Hello?? are you getting frustrated??

You can not prove your claim with another claim of yours

 

[amalakas]

Proof with what?? is there any statement in your valid citation saying that Air Intake is part / within / covered by Nacelle??

Hello?? are you getting frustrated??

You can not prove your claim with another claim of yours

My posts are full of links and citations by sites and people previously used by you and other chinese members and yes they are saying it with words and pictures.. you just need to open you eyes and obviously be able to read and understand. Playing this game won't help you and it is exposing you as the village idiot.

Know what the equation I posted is ? wanna tell me genius?


Also you may want to read this :


EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION

I can keep this up until everyone sees that what you and your friends have been spilling in here have nothing to do with aviation...

 

[antonius123]

My posts are full of links and citations by sites and people previously used by you and other chinese members and yes they are saying it with words and pictures.. you just need to open you eyes and obviously be able to read and understand. Playing this game won't help you and it is exposing you as the village idiot.

Know what the equation I posted is ? wanna tell me genius?


Also you may want to read this :


EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION

I can keep this up until everyone sees that what you and your friends have been spilling in here have nothing to do with aviation...

Idiot!!!!!

Nacelle indeed a cover of engine + air intake.... in ... a podded engine, as I said many times to you

But NOT a cover of engine + air intake (at once) ... in PAKFA, Flanker, and most of airfighter .. idiot

Do you understand what podded engine is??

Look again the picture that I've posted many times for both of you!

Is that a kind of engine that Pakfa/Flanker has?

Is this the quality of so called aviation expert??

You obviously HAVE NO CLUE about aviation stuff.

You have been busted many many times and prove to be faker, pal !!

Can you distinguish "podded engine" with PAKFA/Flanker/F-14 engine .. amalakas?

You need to go back to school, kidz

 

[amalakas]

Idiot!!!!!

Nacelle indeed a cover of engine + air intake.... in ... a podded engine, as I said many times to you

But NOT a cover of engine + air intake (at once) ... in PAKFA, Flanker, and most of airfighter .. idiot

Do you understand what podded engine is??

Look again the picture that I've posted many times for both of you!

Is that a kind of engine that Pakfa/Flanker has?

Is this the quality of so called aviation expert??

You obviously HAVE NO CLUE about aviation stuff.

You have been busted many many times and prove to be faker, pal !!

In the previous posts I made it clearly indicates PakFa, Su-34, F-14 have nacelles, everybody can see these no matter what garbage you say.

besides all is there to see in my previous posts.. You have been exposed for the world player and utter useless contributor of anything really of meaning.

 

[antonius123]

In the previous posts I made it clearly indicates PakFa, Su-34, F-14 have nacelles, everybody can see these no matter what garbage you say.

besides all is there to see in my previous posts.. You have been exposed for the world player and utter useless contributor of anything really of meaning.

I've given a credit to you for that nacelle on pakfa/flanker kid....

But where is the proof of your claim that "Air Intake" is part of / covered by Nacelle - on the PAKFA/Flanker case? as per your and gambit claim??

You cant claim your contribution if all you can do is just copying and pasting capability.
I could bring my own analysis based on citation, instead of merely dragging internet article and copy & paste article like you and gambit usually do. Gambit some times brings his analysis, but many times his claim/analysis contradict to available citations.

I am busting you and gambit, it is also my contribution to reveal how fake your self proclaimed expert and the real quality of both of you!