What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Thats because i dont hide the image view source, therefore kind of internet boy like you can trace :lol:

Question for Validation purpose: Why should we use MPC than others? (simple one, to validate if you really know or just an internet boy who guess from the image code)




Any type that come to your mind.


Your test is not finish yet.


Really???? my test has not finished yet? WOW !!!!

right genius...

first of all I have no idea what you mean with image source code. I am assuming you are implying I found where you got your equation from. Or even worse, you tried to find my equation on the net ???? :rofl:
Let me save you some trouble, it is on a research paper puplication...

Don't worry because true knowledge is easy to verify.

right..

your answer is:

a) MPC doesn't really need a process model. now you can tell us what it does with step or impulse responses, right? you can ocourse. and it doesn't because of that need a PIP.

b) the controller can be described by plotting the closed loop responses and show exactly where and why the variable is changed.

c) it is real time optimised which means it is tolerant to .... what genius???

and now that I have answered you... can you tell me where else I can find uses of an MPC ???

and on an unrelated question.. .can you tell me what this is ?

10pvxb7.jpg


Sir
How his question was related to aviation or Aeronautical Engineering?

There are some studies on the use of MPC on flight control systems, but really the MPC shines in other areas.

in one form or another the entire control theory material has been used in aviation over the last 80 years or so.. so he is bound to get something related.

The point is, does he understand ?
 
.
Antonius123,

I'll give you a hint on the pitot tube.

IMC

With your "aviation background & study" it should be elementary.

"if its blocked, your fuc#ed"
 
.
So do I. But you should understand that we Americans are guests here on this inherently anti-US playground. Anything that can be used to insult the US will be used and if that require the person to suck up to a US adversary, that suck up will occur. This Indonesian tweenager is doing exactly just that. Unfortunately for him and to the Chinese, never in his immaturity did it ever occurred to him that on a military oriented forum that someone may have real military experience.

Agreed. But ya know, it is entertaining when you and several others with real knowledge and experience puts a lid on fantasy physics and how the fanboys react by twisting facts to suit their fantasies.
 
.
3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?
Term? Are you kidding me? Whoever is coaching you in this -- fire him. :lol:

The more correct question should be: 'What is the effect of aspect ratio, finite or infinite, on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?'

An 'aspect ratio' is...

Geometry Definitions
...a measure of how long and slender a wing is from tip to tip. The Aspect Ratio of a wing is defined to be the square of the span divided by the wing area and is given the symbol AR.
The effect is lift reduction. The theoretical infinite AR will have no reduction. The real world AR will have the wing tip as the limit, hence, the longer the wing, as in the glider U-2 design, the lower (or less) the lift reduction.

Further...

Geometry Definitions
The F-14 and F-111 have the best of both worlds. They can change the aspect ratio in flight by pivoting the wings--large span for low speed, small span for high speed.
I was on the F-111 for five yrs. This basic aerodynamics principle is well known in the swing wings community.

There is also an inverse relationship between AR and induced drag: Infinite AR = Zero induced drag.

Now that I have answered yours, unlike you who have dodged more than a dozen questions, how about you answered mine.

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?

This is a practical engineering question and have nothing to do with theories. You must first have to know what is a pitot probe in principle, then how would you incorporate it into an aircraft and make it a long term working device.
 
.
Sir
How his question was related to aviation or Aeronautical Engineering?
Our ID tweenager lifted the MPC equation image from a wiki source...

Model predictive control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MPC models predict the change in the dependent variables of the modeled system that will be caused by changes in the independent variables. In a chemical process, independent variables that can be adjusted by the controller are often either the setpoints of regulatory PID controllers (pressure, flow, temperature, etc.) or the final control element (valves, dampers, etc.). Independent variables that cannot be adjusted by the controller are used as disturbances. Dependent variables in these processes are other measurements that represent either control objectives or process constraints.
This is how dishonest this guy really is. You can find that equation image half way down the page.

All the questions posed to him, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' to try to shut down you Indians, are DIRECTLY related to aviation. Control theories that he brought on in trying to make himself look good, are at least a couple of degrees away from aviation and aviation practical engineering. It is not wrong but it is inappropriate.

MPC in aviation is new. Am not talking about within the last few yrs but more like post WW II when the concept started to be explored with the advent of computer assisted and computerized flight controls.

In a chemical process, independent variables that can be adjusted by the controller are often either the setpoints of regulatory PID controllers (pressure, flow, temperature, etc.) or the final control element (valves, dampers, etc.).
The aeronautical engineering equivalent of the above are items that are internal to the aircraft such as hydraulics, command signals, surface displacement feedback signals, or air data signals.

Independent variables that cannot be adjusted by the controller are used as disturbances. Dependent variables in these processes are other measurements that represent either control objectives or process constraints.
The highlighted for both of the above are significant.

Variables that cannot be adjusted by the aircraft are loss of functions induced usually by damages. Bird strikes or combat damages are a couple of examples. None of the aircraft's systems are able to predict when any of these 'disturbances' will occur.

What Model Predictive Control (MPC) does is to enable the aircraft to adjust its flight controls system out of the usual operations in the event any of these 'disturbances' occur and does it without pilot interactions.

flcs_f-15_ec89232-1.jpg


The above is an excellent example of MPC. But what made this event unusual is that this was both an exercise in MPC by the pilot and by the inherent design of the F-15 itself.

The pilot had to increase thrust via afterburner to increase airspeed, hence airflow, over whatever was remained in terms of lift surfaces. The F-15's fuselage was designed to be a major contributor to lift, aka 'lifting body' or 'body-wing blend' design. The automated version of this would have the FLCC does everything automatically, from an increase in thrust to maintain airspeed, to increase in AoA, to deflecting the opposite flight control surfaces to compensate for lift loss. MD was called and according to folklore, MD engineers declared that based upon their computer simulations, what happened was impossible. Should have been a complete loss of aircraft, not land.

So now you know.
 
.
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.





Wow, seriously? Not only does that not make any sense in regards to the topic and context of the topic it’s a cheesy way of diverting attention away from you. Come up with something original instead of calling me an idiot with reading comprehension problems. My English writing as well as English comprehension is far more advanced than your incoherent rants.

In any case point out to everyone how, where, and why I have problems with reading comprehension. You quoted me where I stated that you were slandering others in this thread for quoting sources they did not have adequate knowledge of. (that is a verifiable fact, you said so). You quoted the following: ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ (a verifiable fact). I asked you to explain what it meant since you were accusing others of not understanding what sources they quote. (verifiable fact). Now, after countless times of asking you explain the meaning of your own source you have yet to answer and, in fact keep coming up with excuses. (verifiable fact).






As I said, you have severe reading comprehension problem.




You don’t make any sense. I keep asking you to explain the context of your own quote and you keep avoiding it. It has nothing to do with reading. In fact, the only rebuttals you have had was telling me I have a reading comprhension problem.


This is how our conversation has gone:


Antonius: None of you understand your own sources.

Antonius: Hey look how great DSI is, weki states the following: ‘[DSI gives] high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’

PtldM3: Can you explain the context of your quote since you accused others of not understand their own source?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: Again can you explain your quote?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: You do not know what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means.

Antonius: You have reading comprehension problems and you are an idiot.

PtldM3: You still have not answered.

Antonius: What you don’t know what it means? You’re an idiot.

PtldM3: I’m asking you what it means, don’t try to change the subject.

Antonius: I need time to do the research.

PtldM3: So if you need to do the research that means you did not know what it meant when you quoted it.

Antonius: You have severe reading comprehension and you’re an idiot.

PtldM3:You still have not answered.

Antonius: where is the evidence that I can not answer?











You are talking without any knowledge.



Really? I have covered the weight, dimensions, and type of canopies, and what have you covered? You stated that if I answer your question about canopies that you will answer mine. For far you have not lived up to your promise, deadbeat flaker.





I've explain you that the complexity is on the mold making technology.



Really? Pull up that quote I would like everyone to see your technical explanation. So far you haven’t said jack about canopies other than the fact that they are ‘complex’. Using such vague language demonstrates that you have no clue about what you are talking about.


Of course you have no idea about it, because you are only an English Teacher for kindergarten :lol:








Better to be an English teacher for kindergarten than an illiterate liar with metal health problems.




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.




Nope, my reading is fine. You are just a liar that plays with words or completely denies that you ever made certain claims despite the fact that you have been quoted on making those claims.



What you stated was that DSI diverts boundary airflow layers away from the engines and than slows it down to supersonic speeds. You than claimed that neither of those functions exists on a cone intake. I posted sources that show a cone intake does the very same functions. So what was that performance difference again?

And for everyone’s benefit here is his quote:


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.



He claimed those functions don’t exist on a cone intake which is untrue. Now he claims he was talking about performance differences. What those difference are, are a mystery.







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!




You really are brain dead. Your Weki source spoke about the JF-17. Take a look:



The JF-17 Thunder also uses a DSI. Work on the DSI was started in 1999 with the aim of improving aircraft performance and took almost two years, during which a number of models underwent wind tunnel tests at different speed regimes. It was found that the DSI gave high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching.



Two things to note. Firstly they are talking about the JF-17; secondly, it merely stated that the JF-17 had good performance with a DSI. It doesn’t show any data results of a JF-17 pre DSI. For all you know an aircraft such as the Mig-21 could have similar or better performance than a JF-17 with DSI.







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".



Wow, you really are stooping to new lows. You claimed that DSI is ‘better’ than other intake methods. Your reasoning for that was because it diverts boundary airflow and than slows it down to subsonic speeds; you than claimed the a cone intake can do neither of those functions. To your amazement the intake cone does the very same functions.

So to some it up, your reasons as to why a DSI is better backfired in your face since the very same functions exist on a cone intake. It is up to you to prove than a DSI is better than a cone intake since it was you that made the claim that the DSI is better in performance.






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?





Word for you, a cone intake has no moving parts, your source is talking about an intake ramp. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.









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




It says nothing about a DSI having better efficiency compared to a cone intake. You’re playing your little game again. Also lower complexity does not mean that something is better , the Mig-23 had probably one of the most complex landing gears ever conceived and because of this its wheel bays were extremely small. Similarly the cone intakes on aircraft such as the Mi-21 and SR-71 were more complex for a reason. At different flight regimes the intakes cones would adjust to compensate for the shockwave, without adjustable intake cones both aircraft would have worse performance.





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 :lol:



A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts.




As said above: your have severe reading comprehension problem.






No, you quoted my post where I provided a source, you than demanded a source. Little did you know the source was already provided when you quoted me. The only thing this proves is that you are the one that has severe ready comprehension problems. :lol:







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.

220px-Circle_slices.svg.png

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




You didn’t teach me anything new. I stated that the J-20’s lower chin follows the contours of a perfect circle, I even had a perfect circle imposed over the J-20’s chin. The lower chin followed the arc of a perfect circle, thus it fit the contour perfectly.





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



It does not need to be, it already matches the arc of a circle. By your claim and your fellow J-20 fan boys all the nonsense about the pak-fa can be regarded as lies since there is nothing that is equidistant on the aircraft.









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

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



Don’t try to save face or change the subject. You stated that, 'a bump and forward inlet cowl work together to divert to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down to subsonic speeds'. The problem is that you quoted a passage that stated that a DSI deverts boundary airflow and slows it down to subsonic speed, you basically tried to convince everyone that a cone intake can not do those things. The fact that a bump and cowl exists is irrelevant, we all know that a DSI consists of a bump while a cone consists of sharp point. It would be like my quoting that a cone has a conical structure (duh obvious) and that it diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speeds (first part is irrelevant, the second part is relevant). We all know how a cone looks like so we can disregard the fact that it has a point, the point i would be trying to make is that the cone intake diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speed.















Nice try though at trying to change the subject by twisting words. We weren't talking about the differences in looks but the differences in performance.







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.




You have to be kidding me. The evidence is that there is not one post that shows you answered the question. This is really low, before you just ignored the question, that you played games with me by stating ‘what you don’t know what it means?’, that you said you need ‘time’ to answer and now you are shamelessly claiming to show evidence that you can not answer, and the evidence is, or lack there of, shows that you have not answer the question .







Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy :rofl:

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





And the source for that is?






First you said that a given plane has no nacelles,
then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle"
then it does not = nacelle...

I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger.. :rofl:



The guys stories grow more an more elaborate, he makes claims, when those claims are busted, he than make some hypothetical claims that he can not provide sources for. There has been a few times when he denied he made certain statements, when I pull up a quote he just calls me an idiot that can’t read. He manipulates sources as well, he tried to claim that a cone intake will have a higher RCS because of moving parts, when in fact his source was talking about an intake ramp.






Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:






The guy will not answer, he does not live up to his end of the bargain. He outright claims he will not answer question but than in the same sentence demands we answer his questions. Even worse is that he makes promises that he will answer my question if I answer his, when I answered his question he continued to refusing to answer my question. His last excuse was that ‘were is the evidence I can not answer’. prior to that he tried to play reverse psychology by stating’ what you don’t know the answer?’.


I don’t know if you have been reading our exchanges but I highly encourage you to at least read my latest exchange with him. It is highly entertaining watching him struggle and get caught in his own web of lies.
 
.
Wow, seriously? Not only does that not make any sense in regards to the topic and context of the topic it’s a cheesy way of diverting attention away from you. Come up with something original instead of calling me an idiot with reading comprehension problems. My English writing as well as English comprehension is far more advanced than your incoherent rants.

In any case point out to everyone how, where, and why I have problems with reading comprehension. You quoted me where I stated that you were slandering others in this thread for quoting sources they did not have adequate knowledge of. (that is a verifiable fact, you said so). You quoted the following: ‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ (a verifiable fact). I asked you to explain what it meant since you were accusing others of not understanding what sources they quote. (verifiable fact). Now, after countless times of asking you explain the meaning of your own source you have yet to answer and, in fact keep coming up with excuses. (verifiable fact).











You don’t make any sense. I keep asking you to explain the context of your own quote and you keep avoiding it. It has nothing to do with reading. In fact, the only rebuttals you have had was telling me I have a reading comprhension problem.


This is how our conversation has gone:


Antonius: None of you understand your own sources.

Antonius: Hey look how great DSI is, weki states the following: ‘[DSI gives] high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’

PtldM3: Can you explain the context of your quote since you accused others of not understand their own source?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: Again can you explain your quote?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: You do not know what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means.

Antonius: You have reading comprehension problems and you are an idiot.

PtldM3: You still have not answered.

Antonius: What you don’t know what it means? You’re an idiot.

PtldM3: I’m asking you what it means, don’t try to change the subject.

Antonius: I need time to do the research.

PtldM3: So if you need to do the research that means you did not know what it meant when you quoted it.

Antonius: You have severe reading comprehension and you’re an idiot.

PtldM3:You still have not answered.

Antonius: where is the evidence that I can not answer?















Really? I have covered the weight, dimensions, and type of canopies, and what have you covered? You stated that if I answer your question about canopies that you will answer mine. For far you have not lived up to your promise, deadbeat flaker.









Really? Pull up that quote I would like everyone to see your technical explanation. So far you haven’t said jack about canopies other than the fact that they are ‘complex’. Using such vague language demonstrates that you have no clue about what you are talking about.











Better to be an English teacher for kindergarten than an illiterate liar with metal health problems.









Nope, my reading is fine. You are just a liar that plays with words or completely denies that you ever made certain claims despite the fact that you have been quoted on making those claims.



What you stated was that DSI diverts boundary airflow layers away from the engines and than slows it down to supersonic speeds. You than claimed that neither of those functions exists on a cone intake. I posted sources that show a cone intake does the very same functions. So what was that performance difference again?

And for everyone’s benefit here is his quote:






He claimed those functions don’t exist on a cone intake which is untrue. Now he claims he was talking about performance differences. What those difference are, are a mystery.












You really are brain dead. Your Weki source spoke about the JF-17. Take a look:







Two things to note. Firstly they are talking about the JF-17; secondly, it merely stated that the JF-17 had good performance with a DSI. It doesn’t show any data results of a JF-17 pre DSI. For all you know an aircraft such as the Mig-21 could have similar or better performance than a JF-17 with DSI.











Wow, you really are stooping to new lows. You claimed that DSI is ‘better’ than other intake methods. Your reasoning for that was because it diverts boundary airflow and than slows it down to subsonic speeds; you than claimed the a cone intake can do neither of those functions. To your amazement the intake cone does the very same functions.

So to some it up, your reasons as to why a DSI is better backfired in your face since the very same functions exist on a cone intake. It is up to you to prove than a DSI is better than a cone intake since it was you that made the claim that the DSI is better in performance.











Word for you, a cone intake has no moving parts, your source is talking about an intake ramp. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.














It says nothing about a DSI having better efficiency compared to a cone intake. You’re playing your little game again. Also lower complexity does not mean that something is better , the Mig-23 had probably one of the most complex landing gears ever conceived and because of this its wheel bays were extremely small. Similarly the cone intakes on aircraft such as the Mi-21 and SR-71 were more complex for a reason. At different flight regimes the intakes cones would adjust to compensate for the shockwave, without adjustable intake cones both aircraft would have worse performance.









A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts.











No, you quoted my post where I provided a source, you than demanded a source. Little did you know the source was already provided when you quoted me. The only thing this proves is that you are the one that has severe ready comprehension problems. :lol:












You didn’t teach me anything new. I stated that the J-20’s lower chin follows the contours of a perfect circle, I even had a perfect circle imposed over the J-20’s chin. The lower chin followed the arc of a perfect circle, thus it fit the contour perfectly.









It does not need to be, it already matches the arc of a circle. By your claim and your fellow J-20 fan boys all the nonsense about the pak-fa can be regarded as lies since there is nothing that is equidistant on the aircraft.













Don’t try to save face or change the subject. You stated that, 'a bump and forward inlet cowl work together to divert to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down to subsonic speeds'. The problem is that you quoted a passage that stated that a DSI deverts boundary airflow and slows it down to subsonic speed, you basically tried to convince everyone that a cone intake can not do those things. The fact that a bump and cowl exists is irrelevant, we all know that a DSI consists of a bump while a cone consists of sharp point. It would be like my quoting that a cone has a conical structure (duh obvious) and that it diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speeds (first part is irrelevant, the second part is relevant). We all know how a cone looks like so we can disregard the fact that it has a point, the point i would be trying to make is that the cone intake diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speed.















Nice try though at trying to change the subject by twisting words. We weren't talking about the differences in looks but the differences in performance.












You have to be kidding me. The evidence is that there is not one post that shows you answered the question. This is really low, before you just ignored the question, that you played games with me by stating ‘what you don’t know what it means?’, that you said you need ‘time’ to answer and now you are shamelessly claiming to show evidence that you can not answer, and the evidence is, or lack there of, shows that you have not answer the question .













And the source for that is?










The guys stories grow more an more elaborate, he makes claims, when those claims are busted, he than make some hypothetical claims that he can not provide sources for. There has been a few times when he denied he made certain statements, when I pull up a quote he just calls me an idiot that can’t read. He manipulates sources as well, he tried to claim that a cone intake will have a higher RCS because of moving parts, when in fact his source was talking about an intake ramp.













The guy will not answer, he does not live up to his end of the bargain. He outright claims he will not answer question but than in the same sentence demands we answer his questions. Even worse is that he makes promises that he will answer my question if I answer his, when I answered his question he continued to refusing to answer my question. His last excuse was that ‘were is the evidence I can not answer’. prior to that he tried to play reverse psychology by stating’ what you don’t know the answer?’.


I don’t know if you have been reading our exchanges but I highly encourage you to at least read my latest exchange with him. It is highly entertaining watching him struggle and get caught in his own web of lies.


Man, I for one read everything. I have made a personal trail of busting that begun quite some time ago.
There hasn't been a single ..not 1 point that he has made that has gone unanswered by at least one member of this forum, yet he hasn't answered to a single question. And I am not talking about aviation related questions, any questions in general, prime example being, what was his aviation study particulars or his expertise. Even when he posted an obscure course in some college, he did not clearly say he followed that course.

He doesn't know basic aviation topics, he doesn't know basic control topics, he doesn't seem to understand the content and context of the debates in this forum and by far his most favourite expression is
you are an idiot!
..

similarly I do not know if you are following my personal exchanges with him, but they are just comedy..pure comedy channel stuff..

and not to forget his mentor, a certain guy from Mars who has declared IEEE publication sources as non reputable!
 
.
I don’t know if you have been reading our exchanges...
Yes, I do. The tweenager's favorite tactic against everyone, which he erroneously believe make him look clever, is to demand that we 'prove' that he does not know what was challenged to him whenever he refused to answer. Whenever anyone has to redefine 'background' to exclude experience, we can be certain that this person has none. If all you have is book knowledge from formal education, there is no shame in that, at least you made an entry into the field under discussion. But if you try to use whatever knowledge you have to shut others down, then you have an obligation to show everyone what you learned from the contents of your posts. This guy have done nothing of the sort.

The reason why he persists when a wiser man would have bolted a long time ago is because he is a kid and have much emotional investment into this electronic persona he created here. His pride will not let him abandon this version of himself. In the end, he does more damages to the J-20 crowd with this persistent stupidity than he may realize.
 
.
Really???? my test has not finished yet? WOW !!!!

right genius...

first of all I have no idea what you mean with image source code. I am assuming you are implying I found where you got your equation from. Or even worse, you tried to find my equation on the net ???? :rofl:
Let me save you some trouble, it is on a research paper puplication...

Don't worry because true knowledge is easy to verify.

right..

You can check the view image info by right click on the picture, and you will find the address of wikipedia that I take the picture; from there you will be able to find the source.

your answer is:

a) MPC doesn't really need a process model. now you can tell us what it does with step or impulse responses, right? you can ocourse. and it doesn't because of that need a PIP.

b) the controller can be described by plotting the closed loop responses and show exactly where and why the variable is changed.

c) it is real time optimised which means it is tolerant to .... what genius???

and now that I have answered you... can you tell me where else I can find uses of an MPC ???

and on an unrelated question.. .can you tell me what this is ?

10pvxb7.jpg

Whats your point? it is your answer for my question or (according to you) my answer to your questions? because I am not answering your question.

I dont see you have answered my question yet (Why should we use MPC than others)

Antonius123,

I'll give you a hint on the pitot tube.

IMC

With your "aviation background & study" it should be elementary.

"if its blocked, your fuc#ed"

Agreed. But ya know, it is entertaining when you and several others with real knowledge and experience puts a lid on fantasy physics and how the fanboys react by twisting facts to suit their fantasies.

OK, I see you are another cheerleader here.

I am not bothering to answer Gambit's questions as his question is not related to debate that he is running off.

If you think Gambit is real aviation expert, then why dont you help him to answer my challenge?

Gambit tried to correct me when I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "Nacele". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.

Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!
 
.
You can check the view image info by right click on the picture, and you will find the address of wikipedia that I take the picture; from there you will be able to find the source.



Whats your point? it is your answer for my question or (according to you) my answer to your questions? because I am not answering your question.

I dont see you have answered my question yet (Why should we use MPC than others)





OK, I see you are another cheerleader here.

I am not bothering to answer Gambit's questions as his question is not related to debate that he is running off.

If you think Gambit is real aviation expert, then why dont you help him to answer my challenge?

Gambit tried to correct me when I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "Nacele". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.

Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!
Can you get an image not off of wikipedia then? If you don't want to tell them the answer?
 
.
Our ID tweenager lifted the MPC equation image from a wiki source...

Model predictive control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how dishonest this guy really is. You can find that equation image half way down the page.

All the questions posed to him, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' to try to shut down you Indians, are DIRECTLY related to aviation. Control theories that he brought on in trying to make himself look good, are at least a couple of degrees away from aviation and aviation practical engineering. It is not wrong but it is inappropriate.

MPC in aviation is new. Am not talking about within the last few yrs but more like post WW II when the concept started to be explored with the advent of computer assisted and computerized flight controls.


The aeronautical engineering equivalent of the above are items that are internal to the aircraft such as hydraulics, command signals, surface displacement feedback signals, or air data signals.


The highlighted for both of the above are significant.

Variables that cannot be adjusted by the aircraft are loss of functions induced usually by damages. Bird strikes or combat damages are a couple of examples. None of the aircraft's systems are able to predict when any of these 'disturbances' will occur.

What Model Predictive Control (MPC) does is to enable the aircraft to adjust its flight controls system out of the usual operations in the event any of these 'disturbances' occur and does it without pilot interactions.

flcs_f-15_ec89232-1.jpg


The above is an excellent example of MPC. But what made this event unusual is that this was both an exercise in MPC by the pilot and by the inherent design of the F-15 itself.

The pilot had to increase thrust via afterburner to increase airspeed, hence airflow, over whatever was remained in terms of lift surfaces. The F-15's fuselage was designed to be a major contributor to lift, aka 'lifting body' or 'body-wing blend' design. The automated version of this would have the FLCC does everything automatically, from an increase in thrust to maintain airspeed, to increase in AoA, to deflecting the opposite flight control surfaces to compensate for lift loss. MD was called and according to folklore, MD engineers declared that based upon their computer simulations, what happened was impossible. Should have been a complete loss of aircraft, not land.

So now you know.


Here we go .. some one who cannot answer my questions about control engineering things, and trying to avoid my challenge about control, suddenly pop up with dragged internet article about MPC, not so long after some one else has answered about MPC and agreed by the counter debate (me) :rofl:


You cannot answer the simple thing (MPC Equation) when this question is directed by you, then suddenly you drag a lot of internet article when someone else already answer (and agreed) :lol:

Why dont you come earlier with the answer, instead of waiting other people mention the answer? :lol:

I am still waiting your answer to my other control engineering questions directed to you that you havent answered and havent answered successfully :lol:
 
.
Here we go .. some one who cannot answer my questions about control engineering things, and trying to avoid my challenge about control, suddenly pop up with dragged internet article about MPC, not so long after some one else has answered about MPC and agreed by the counter debate (me) :rofl:


You cannot answer the simple thing (MPC Equation) when this question is directed by you, then suddenly you drag a lot of internet article when someone else already answer (and agreed) :lol:

Why dont you come earlier with the answer, instead of waiting other people mention the answer? :lol:

I am still waiting your answer to my other control engineering questions directed to you that you havent answered and havent answered successfully :lol:
Your challenge about the aspect ratio effect on lift coefficient was more than adequately met, and I corrected you on your own challenge at that. :lol:

Now here is a practical aviation engineering question...

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?
 
.
Your challenge about the aspect ratio effect on lift coefficient was more than adequately met, and I corrected you on your own challenge at that. :lol:

Now here is a practical aviation engineering question...

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?
Can I say the answer?
 
.
because I am not answering your question.
You never answered any to start. You tried to use your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians. Fair enough. But when challenged as to what is that 'background', you never explained. So why should we take you seriously other than to mock you?

Can I say the answer?
Please...No. Let the fool continue to make a fool out of himself.
 
.
@ ptldM3,

Your are talking rubbish with your reply, as it is not more than silly word gaming and ignorance.

I dont have much time to play with your rubbish by answering one by one of your reply at the moment, I will do it later.

But I want to show in front of your eyes, how silly and clueless you are about "Cone Air Intake" as you say : "A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts".

It demonstrate you dont know how Cone air intake works!

Do you know that Cone is moved to handle the shock wave?? how it will be moved without moving parts as you claim above??

Silly answer!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom