Asoka
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 781
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact??
You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????
That's impossible.
The satellite images are extremely blurry and very low resolution. The number of pixels of J-15 is 101, and J-20 is 97, which differs by only 4 pixels.
At the ratio of 101 pixels and 21.2m, Every 4.8 pixels equals to 1 meter. Those are extremely tiny numbers.
The margin of errors is clearly much greater than 3 pixels, as stated in the pictures.
The blurriness is much more at the nose and the nozzle area, than at the wingspan area, which is why I accepted the wingspan estimates, but not the length estimate.
The length estimates, based on those extremely blurry and very small satellite pictures, are clearly not reliable.
Anyone, who accepted those length estimates as final, and taken as the GOLD STANDARD, and allow to be challenged, is foolish, IMO.
Last edited: