Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[amalakas]

You are running out of word of gaming?

I've read your picture and article you drag, all is proving that your assumption is totally wrong!
Your picture show that Air Intake is separated with Nacelle.

Which proves that you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[antonius123]

This is your last effort in proving your wrong assumption, look again:

Intake ramp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nacelle has a round outer lip to defect spillage back into the longitudinal direction. The nacelle thus gets a very large cross section with more volume than needed for the engine and in the F-22 the nacelles are combined with the fuselage to create a large weapon bay, place for fuel, and a wide body, which generates some lift.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-169.html#ixzz21zR7F4n1

It is said that: Nacelle is combined with fuselage (on F-22 case), nothing new, everybody already knows.

There no mentioned that "Air Intake" is also combined with fuselage, as per your WRONG claim!

Again you are demonstrating fake, clueless, and poor reading comprehension

Which proves that you have a reading comprehension problem.

Which one of mine?

See the above evidence of your poor reading comprehension?

It is another junk word gaming you end up finally

 

[gambit]

air intake is part of the nacelle. Proven.

And summarily dismissed. Not by an engine specialist or even by someone who is part of design engineering team, but by a person who have no aviation education, training and experience and still claimed to have an aviation 'background'.

 

[gambit]

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?

Control theory is not the same thing as components, fool.

You brought on something that is several degrees apart from aviation: PLC versus DCS.

Those are components.

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

The laugh is on you, kid.

You continues to prove what a fool and a masochist you are.

https://ngc.taleo.net/careersection/ngc_pro/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=139235&src=JB-202

The GNC Engineer 3 will design, develop, implement, verify and test algorithms and software and simulation tools to perform guidance, navigation and control of aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, launch vehicles and upper stages during powered and coast phases of launch, flight, earth orbit, interplanetary cruise and orbital insertion, as well as during staging events. Navigation functions are to include the statistical processing of measured data points and their substitution into algorithms simulating physical reality. Guidance functions are to include the formulation of specific equations to achieve a desired position, orientation or orbit in space. Activities include development of the control laws and hardware and software requirements for aircraft, launch vehicles and/or spacecraft; non-linear 6DOF Simulation analysis (including stress testing, trade studies, mission analysis, etc); linear MATLAB/SIMULINK analysis (gain/phase margin determination, gain/filter determination, etc); embedded flight control software design/code/test, and supporting flight testing (pre-flight predictions, inertial instrument performance, post flight analysis, parameter identification, etc); as well as use and support of missile/ICBM specific heritage tools.

Apply for Job: Flight Controls Engineer

Job Title: Flight Controls Engineer
Description: Bachelors degree in engineering, a related curriculum, or equivalent combination of education and experience.

- Designs and integrates components and systems within the Advanced Programs Flight Controls (Fly by Wire) System to define design, performance, reliability and safety.
- Understands the Flight Control System: Fly-by-wire, Flight Control Computers, Related Electronic Flight Controls Systems Architectures, Primary Flight Controls (Ailerons, Elevator, Rudder), Secondary Flight Controls (Flaps, Spoilers), Actuators, Flight Controls and Fly-by-wire System Indication and Control.
- Performs operations in Catia V5 with minimal guidance or support. Includes 3-D modelling, 3-D creative modelling, projections, layout drawings, installations, dimensions and tolerances.
- Demonstrated experience in Enovia/LCA/Smarteam required.
- Applies company standards, procedures and processes against the Flight Control (Fly-by-wire) System.
- Shows a general understanding of aircraft integration and design at the enterprise level.
- Demonstrates a working knowledge of key elements of airworthiness, regulatory compliance, OEM, and industry-recognized compliance requirements.
- Adheres to Lean and/or Six Sigma principles to ensure quality initiatives and standard testing procedures are met.
- Performs operations and procedures in MS Office Suite with minimal guidance or support. Includes EXCEL and related statistical and analytical tools, MS Project, Access, and PowerPoint.
- Performs Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assess risk and severity of failure on system. Includes assessing risk in design, probability testing and factor weighting.
- Applies technical principles, theories, and concepts to solve a wide range of difficult engineering problems.
- Working with the Group Head, provides engineering and technical direction and support to less experienced engineers.
- With the Group Head, represents Advanced Programs, Flight Controls at key Systems Engineering, Programs, and other internal meetings with senior management attendance and visibility.
- Demonstrated experience in presenting to, and interfacing with senior management.
- Experience in coordinating with Suppliers on technical issues related to flight controls / fly-by-wire.

For the above two positions, NEITHER engineer will be concerned whether the flight control computer on the table has PLC or not. That is for the avionics component engineer to design and sell. For the above two positions, both would be concerned on whether that computer is applicable for their intended usage. That is 'system integration', a phrase that you probably never heard of until now.

If you go into their job interviews and you boast about how knowledgeable you are of PLC, you will not get either job. You will asked about flight control laws, which are mathematical in nature. You will be asked about aviation maintenance experience if any, because the system you are designing must be maintenance accessible. You will be asked about softwares such as MS Word or AutoCad, because you will use those tools to present your arguments. You will be asked about your flight experience, if any, because airborne time give the engineer insights of what a pilot will encounter, need and want. You will be asked about statistics, because your projects will involve a lot of number crunching. But most important of all, you will be asked about the highlighted in the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position.

You failed. Again. Liar.

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

What? Where?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

Show us where did you answered that first year aerodynamics question. Show us which post number.

Anyway, the other questions that you dodged, and now lied about answering them, they are directly related to the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position as highlighted in the job description.

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?
A: Lift distribution.

We can chalk that one up to the list of your aviation 'background' ignorance and lies.

So here are a couple more for you to show everyone your so called aviation 'background', the one that you lied about and tried to use to shut down the Indians...

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

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.

Remember, they have nothing to do with PLC vs DCS......But directly with aerodynamics and flight controls. I never worked with the POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication) engineers, so do not ask questions about POL. But then again...You probably have never heard of 'POL' in relations to aviation until now. So try to stick to aerodynamics and flight controls, got it?

You are the best example of the worst of the J-20's supporters in this forum: Technically ignorant but too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

 

[SOHEIL]

Dear gambit !

we can't deny that J-20 is a Great step for china

but i agree with you in some cases

 

[gambit]

Dear gambit !

we can't deny that J-20 is a Great step for china

I have never said things about the J-20 the same way many here say about the F-22 'Craptor'. I have always advocated caution in making any claims. A caution that the J-20's supporters consistently ignored and ended up making fools out of themselves.

but i agree with you in some cases

You mean like the Indonesian tweenager making a fool out of himself?

 

[SOHEIL]

I have never said things about the J-20 the same way many here say about the F-22 'Craptor'. I have always advocated caution in making any claims. A caution that the J-20's supporters consistently ignored and ended up making fools out of themselves.


You mean like the Indonesian tweenager making a fool out of himself?

Oh ! CMON MAN

 

[ptldM3]

You want me answered your garbage, while you ignore a lot of my questions?

Like what?

If you need my attention to your garbage, please a bit patient as I dont have much time now, just wait.

So you quoted something without understanding what you quoted and now you need time to research what you quoted? You just admitted that you don’t know what your own quote meant. This is embarrassing on your part since you claimed to have a background in aviation, not only that but you mocked other members by claiming they do not understand what they quote. Once called out it is you who demonstrated zero knowledge in your own source. If you understood what you quoted you simple would have explain it a long time ago.

Which one?

This one:

You act like your master Gambit by only dragging article and highlight the word "corner reflector" without understanding and ability to explain. That is far from enough to make you seem like an internet boy.

Proof you dismiss people’s claims no matter how reputable the source is based on the fact that you feel they did not explain the source, ironic since you have been caught quoting articles without understanding the context of what you quoted, so much so that you have asked for time in order to do the research and what you quoted.

This is one example of my last question to you that you ignore: "Yeah, on what plane? and how is the size?"

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-154.html#ixzz21HfOf7Rf

The canopy was from an aerobatics aircraft and obviously its smaller than a canopy from a fighter. Lets look deeper into buble canopies/weight and such. First let me start with the F-16. Here is various types of F-16 canopies, everything except the length is given:









http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHx1zeVb25ScpPF-IQCWjyGkbZBqQ




Various F-16 canopy weight by bird strike protection, thickness and material:

Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 127lbs


Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 123lbs


Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 133lbs

In comparison the F-22’s canopy is 140 inches long and 360lbs. The F-22 has a thicker canopy compared to the F-16, and this is needed because of manufacturing process. When we compare the F16 and the F-22 canopy we will see that they both share similarities in that the F-16 has a monolithic polycarbonate canopy that is manufactured by laminated sheets. The F-16 has one frame in the very aft of the canopy followed by a small continuation of the canopy. If the F-16 wanted to it could have had a one piece canopy at the cost of poorer visibility and or poorer safety.

Here is a comparison of canopies:


F-22






F-16







So yes even an old fashion canopy that employs laminated sheets can be formed to make a bubble canopy. A one peice canopy is not that special, laminated canopies with frames are logical because they are generally safer against bird strikes.

Tell me first: what is the connection those things with your arguments? isn't your argument saying that : Cone is doing exactly the same thing as DSI do? Actually I am more than enough to beat your argument claiming that Cone will do totally the same things as DSI do with the same performance which is obviously and glaringly contradictive to the citation i have given/showed you, without explaining what the meaning of those phrase as per your request.

The connection is that you were claiming that a cone intake can not do what a DSI can do, which is divert airflow and slow it down to subsonic speeds, my source proved that you were wrong, a cone does the same exact thing as a DSI, it diverts airflow and slows it down to subsonic speeds before it enters the engine. You claimed that a cone intake could not do either of those things--you were wrong.



And your source where you claim DSI is better is referring to the JF-17. If DSI’s improved the JF-17’s performance it does not mean it will improve the performance of other aircraft or that the DSI would be better over other methods. Every aircraft is different, everything from an intake lip, to an intake ramp to a serpentine intake effects airflow patterns and velocity. This means that if we take an aircraft such as a Mig-23 which utilizes serpentine intakes and we install a DSI the results would be different compared to installing DSI’s on a JF-17.

Hellow.. is there any evidence you can bring to prove that CONE perform exactly the same functions as DSI with THE SAME PERFORMANCE??

Either you did not bother reading my previous sources or you are just blatantly trolling but once again here it is:



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine.

The boundary layer on the cone is stretched as it moves up the cone preventing flow separation.



The resulting intake system is more efficient (in terms of pressure recovery) than the much simpler pitot intake.

That’s the bread and butter of a DSI. Inlet cone does what a DSI does, any improvements that the JF-17 had with a DSI is coincidental to its unique design. Remember, all aircraft will have different results with a DSI depending on the intake design.

We dont need your claim, or another empty claim. If you say it perform the same, then prove it!

Already have.

My citation is already my solid evidence that DSI offer better performance than cone.

And what was your citation? And what did it prove exactly?

OK, then we need the proof. Where is the proof of your such a claim?

You can not be serious. You quoted my post where I provided proof and now you want me to give you proof again? Further proof that you either do not read anything that anyone posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension, or a combination of the two.


I never claimed that a DSI and a Cone intake look the same, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I clearly and explicitly stated the very opposite.

Here is proof of that:

More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.

Proof enough for you?

Oooh, it is!

You have demonstrated your inability to understand and distinguish the difference of round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc. Dont blame me if I suspect you will do the same with other case.

No, the only one that has demonstrated the inability to understand ‘round vs. curvature is you. When I spoke about curvature I was referring to the J-20’s chin. The J-20’s chin fit’s the contour of a circle, a perfect circle. I never stated that the chin is a circle. I only stated that the J-20’s chin fit’s the contour of a perfect circle. I further provided visual proof by illustrating that a circle when imposed over the J-20 does prove that the J-20’s lower chin does follow the curvature of a perfect circle. It’s very simple and impossible to dispute.

Really?? show me where/when did I said so, or you are FRAUD.

Here it is for everyone to see:

The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. This things doesnt exist on cone inlet.

You clearly stated a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow and slow it down to supersonic speed, by claiming neither of those functions exist on the cone intake. So I’m not a fraud, you simply have been making claims and than forgetting that you made those claims, if you were humble you would either admit that you made a mistake (I quoted you on that mistake) or you apologize for calling me a fraud. Because the evidence shows you did make those claims, and now you claim you did not make those claim.


The proof is here for everyone to see but i suppose you will deny you said that even though i quoted you than you will call me an idiot.

Do you think you understand?

I can answer that easily and will answer that for you if you can answer my questions too with responsibility.

Yes I understand, I can answer what ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means and I can provide sources.

The problem is that you can not. I have asked you many times to explain what it means and every time you have refused to do so. And I would not have made I big deal about it but you were the one that accused other people of not understanding what they quote, so I used your tactic against you. Can you explain your quote? So far you have shown that you were not familiar with what your quote meant, so much so that you admitted that you need more time to do research. If you really knew what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching meant you would have answered it long ago. Clearly at the time that you quoted your source you had no understanding of what you actually quoted.

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

This is not directed at me but both of them were correct.




Here is a source:





Patent US6966524 - Aircraft engine nacelles and methods for their manufacture - Google Patents

Engine nacelles for use with aircraft. In one embodiment, an engine nacelle includes an inlet having an inlet aperture and an outlet having an outlet aperture.

There you go an intake or inlet is a part of a nacelle.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The trolls continue to talk while China forges ahead.

 

[amalakas]

The trolls continue to talk while China forges ahead.

are you referring to us ?

we are the trolls ?

 

[gambit]

The trolls continue to talk while China forges ahead.

You mean the ones who have no aviation related education, training and experience and yet are making physics defying claims? Got it...

 

[A.Rafay]

I think pak should talk to china about starting the production of joint fighter twin engined JF-18 based on this j-20 , the successor of JF-17, IF not then Pak should just consider buying these.

 

[Esc8781]

Close picture of the head of the j-20.

 

[Esc8781]

double post.

 

[antonius123]

Like what?

Like most of your comments

So you quoted something without understanding what you quoted and now you need time to research what you quoted? You just admitted that you don’t know what your own quote meant. This is embarrassing on your part since you claimed to have a background in aviation, not only that but you mocked other members by claiming they do not understand what they quote. Once called out it is you who demonstrated zero knowledge in your own source. If you understood what you quoted you simple would have explain it a long time ago.

Bla bla bla.. you talk to much but idiot. I've told you that you had serious reading comprehension problem.
Read again my posting.

It is you who do not understand what you wrote. You need to be responsible in debate.

This one:







Proof you dismiss people’s claims no matter how reputable the source is based on the fact that you feel they did not explain the source, ironic since you have been caught quoting articles without understanding the context of what you quoted, so much so that you have asked for time in order to do the research and what you quoted.

As I said, you have severe reading comprehension problem.

The canopy was from an aerobatics aircraft and obviously its smaller than a canopy from a fighter. Lets look deeper into buble canopies/weight and such. First let me start with the F-16. Here is various types of F-16 canopies, everything except the length is given:


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHx1zeVb25ScpPF-IQCWjyGkbZBqQ


Various F-16 canopy weight by bird strike protection, thickness and material:


In comparison the F-22’s canopy is 140 inches long and 360lbs. The F-22 has a thicker canopy compared to the F-16, and this is needed because of manufacturing process. When we compare the F16 and the F-22 canopy we will see that they both share similarities in that the F-16 has a monolithic polycarbonate canopy that is manufactured by laminated sheets. The F-16 has one frame in the very aft of the canopy followed by a small continuation of the canopy. If the F-16 wanted to it could have had a one piece canopy at the cost of poorer visibility and or poorer safety.

Here is a comparison of canopies:

F-22



F-16



So yes even an old fashion canopy that employs laminated sheets can be formed to make a bubble canopy. A one peice canopy is not that special, laminated canopies with frames are logical because they are generally safer against bird strikes.

You are talking without any knowledge.

I've explain you that the complexity is on the mold making technology.
Of course you have no idea about it, because you are only an English Teacher for kindergarten

Your clueless about molding injection technology is already a blatant proof that you have no knowledge about the thing that you want to debate!

The connection is that you were claiming that a cone intake can not do what a DSI can do, which is divert airflow and slow it down to subsonic speeds, my source proved that you were wrong, a cone does the same exact thing as a DSI, it diverts airflow and slows it down to subsonic speeds before it enters the engine. You claimed that a cone intake could not do either of those things--you were wrong.

See .. more and more you are demonstrating "reading comprehension" problem.
Many times I've told you that it is not what I said; I said about the performance difference, but you are stubbornly idiot miss understanding.

See again my explanation as i wont repeat for 100 times.

And your source where you claim DSI is better is referring to the JF-17. If DSI’s improved the JF-17’s performance it does not mean it will improve the performance of other aircraft or that the DSI would be better over other methods. Every aircraft is different, everything from an intake lip, to an intake ramp to a serpentine intake effects airflow patterns and velocity. This means that if we take an aircraft such as a Mig-23 which utilizes serpentine intakes and we install a DSI the results would be different compared to installing DSI’s on a JF-17.

The source is not saying the performance only good for JF-17 or limited to several aircraft.. idiot. Prove it if there is any sentence that showing so.

You are having severe reading comprehension!

Either you did not bother reading my previous sources or you are just blatantly trolling but once again here it is:

Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That’s the bread and butter of a DSI. Inlet cone does what a DSI does, any improvements that the JF-17 had with a DSI is coincidental to its unique design. Remember, all aircraft will have different results with a DSI depending on the intake design.

Again you are demonstrating severe reading comprehension problem.

There is no such a sentence that saying or implying that "Cone" has the same performance nor as good as "DSI".

You are delusional and daydreaming.

Furthermore, either you ignore or miss understand the sentence of the source:


The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such =as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive.[1]
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?

Already have.

No you dont; what you think as proof is actually your severe miss understanding.

And what was your citation? And what did it prove exactly?

Are you idiot or something?
How many times should I put the citation so that you could see?

It proves that DSI is better in term of efficiency, lower complexity (no moving parts, hence no ram coating needed).

You could read here:
Also, while the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) intakes are easier to maintain than more complex stealth-compatible intakes, such as on the F-22,
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The clue for you: the moving parts should be ram coated in order to reduce RCS; but with DSI there is no moving parts therefore no need additional ram coating, reduce weight with same low RCS of the coated moving parts more complex intake.
But i doubt you with your severe reading comprehension could catch what implied there

You can not be serious. You quoted my post where I provided proof and now you want me to give you proof again? Further proof that you either do not read anything that anyone posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension, or a combination of the two.

As said above: your have severe reading comprehension problem.

I never claimed that a DSI and a Cone intake look the same, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I clearly and explicitly stated the very opposite.

Here is proof of that:



Proof enough for you?

OK, a one credit goes to you for that.

But what make you thing Cone and DSI will bring out the same efficiency in spite of the evidences implied in the citation? Thats the problem with you, you are claiming something not only without backing evidence, but also againts evidence.

No, the only one that has demonstrated the inability to understand ‘round vs. curvature is you. When I spoke about curvature I was referring to the J-20’s chin. The J-20’s chin fit’s the contour of a circle, a perfect circle. I never stated that the chin is a circle. I only stated that the J-20’s chin fit’s the contour of a perfect circle. I further provided visual proof by illustrating that a circle when imposed over the J-20 does prove that the J-20’s lower chin does follow the curvature of a perfect circle. It’s very simple and impossible to dispute.

You obviously ignored the basic /elementary math evidence that I showed you.

I've explained you about equidistant. The requirement of the so called "circle" is:
1. equidistant
2. close curve
Circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you were trying to say is "arc" which is an open curve as a part of a (closed curve) circle.

The circle is a curvature, but curvature is not always circle.

Furthermore, you are still wrong if you think that the curve of J-20 chin is = arc, as it is not equidistant.

So, you are absolutely wrong!

See .. you are repeating the same idiocy that has been explained many times.

Here it is for everyone to see:




You clearly stated a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow and slow it down to supersonic speed, by claiming neither of those functions exist on the cone intake. So I’m not a fraud, you simply have been making claims and than forgetting that you made those claims, if you were humble you would either admit that you made a mistake (I quoted you on that mistake) or you apologize for calling me a fraud. Because the evidence shows you did make those claims, and now you claim you did not make those claim.


The proof is here for everyone to see but i suppose you will deny you said that even though i quoted you than you will call me an idiot.

Idiot! The things that do not exist on cone is: "The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl"

This is a proof of your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem.

Yes I understand, I can answer what ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means and I can provide sources.

The problem is that you can not. I have asked you many times to explain what it means and every time you have refused to do so. And I would not have made I big deal about it but you were the one that accused other people of not understanding what they quote, so I used your tactic against you. Can you explain your quote? So far you have shown that you were not familiar with what your quote meant, so much so that you admitted that you need more time to do research. If you really knew what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching meant you would have answered it long ago. Clearly at the time that you quoted your source you had no understanding of what you actually quoted.

Where is the evidence that I cannot answer that?
Where is the evidence that you can answer that?

You are throwing empty claims as usual.

The evidence exist that you have demonstrating is => your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem!

This is not directed at me but both of them were correct.

Here is a source:


Patent US6966524 - Aircraft engine nacelles and methods for their manufacture - Google Patents

There you go an intake or inlet is a part of a nacelle.

Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy

I have several times told you that this is only applied on "PODDED ENGINE", not on the engine like those on Pakfa/Flanker/F-15/etc.

Now I am afraid you have no clue about "PODDED ENGINE"