Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[antonius123]

Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.

It is you old boy you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

Wrong.

The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent TO SOME DEGREE. Not 100%. But only enough to pass the impinging signal through the surface. If it is not EM transparent to a certain degree it would reflect like any other 'normal' surface and would not be called an 'absorber'.

You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Owwhh ..U TOTALLY WRONG!

Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought.

What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.

See .. again you are demonstrating idiocy here

Gambit! when will you stop misleading readers by pretending as undisputed aviation expert but bursting MISCONCEPTION??

You are busted again for uncountable times here!

Source for this.

You have no clue about this?

Finally...You got something right...

You cant find anything to criticize about this?

Yes there are. But am willing to bet you do now know why.

Then tell us why.

Then STFU about the J-20. You do not know anything about aviation anyway.

It is you old boy you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

 

[antonius123]

Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.

It is you old boy you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

Wrong.

The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent TO SOME DEGREE. Not 100%. But only enough to pass the impinging signal through the surface. If it is not EM transparent to a certain degree it would reflect like any other 'normal' surface and would not be called an 'absorber'.

You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Owwhh ..U TOTALLY WRONG!

Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought.

What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.

See .. again you are demonstrating idiocy here

Gambit! when will you stop misleading readers by pretending as undisputed aviation expert but bursting MISCONCEPTION??

You are busted again for uncountable times here!

Source for this.

You have no clue about this?

Finally...You got something right...

You cant find anything to criticize about this?

Yes there are. But am willing to bet you do now know why.

Then tell us why.

Then STFU about the J-20. You do not know anything about aviation anyway.

It is you old boy you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

 

[antonius123]

Yes, YOU effectively said so...


Not only are you a liar and a fraud, but you cannot keep up with your own arguments.

See .. you have severe reading comprehension problem, then you blame me for your idiocy

I said: the moving parts! not the retracted cone, idiot

 

[gambit]

It is you old boy you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

You could not answer a dozen questions on basic aerodynamics and four on basic flight controls engineering. But we will continue on that in a bit.

Owwhh ..U TOTALLY WRONG!

Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought.

The illustration showed an absorber allows SURFACE PENETRATION, fool. That is what is meant by PARTIAL TRANSPARENCY.

KTH | Publication database at ETK

The new FSS back Jaumann absorber design not only provides a partial transparency for the radome but it also shows an improvement in radar cross section compare with ordinary Jaumann absorber.

The radome is made of such partial transparent material, so is RAM for RCS control purposes.

What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.

And what I corrected you was on your comment about how an absorber works.

Now to continue exposing your ignorance...

Q: What is the most adverse effect in the relationship between the break out force of the stick and friction?
A: Increasing friction increases difficulty in precise command at maneuvers.

You did not know this. And this make 5 basic flight controls engineering questions you failed.

Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is MORE LIKELY to have superior command response?

 

[sms]

Sorry to have missed your question pal

Your 1st question: Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone

A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.

Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.

A: RAM is not a transparent EM wave material; in fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave. When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary. The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.Therefore no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/Raptor.

Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?

A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.

Thanks, for your reply ...
But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?

 

[gambit]

See .. you have severe reading comprehension problem, then you blame me for your idiocy

I said: the moving parts! not the retracted cone, idiot

Let us review your original post...

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

What this mean is that you do not know what a conic intake system look like. The system do not have exposed translation mechanisms in the airstream. All of that are secured behind/inside the cone itself. So for you to say that the moving parts contribute to higher RCS mean you thought that those mechanisms are exposed.

So yes, it is YOU who said that a translating supersonic cone increases RCS.

 

[antonius123]

Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.

It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you

 

[gambit]

It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you

Am not mad at you. Am picking on you. And no, the readers have seen and will continually see what a fool you really are.

 

[amalakas]

Source for this.

his source is : Radar Glossary Page 7 - Super Glossary

 

[gambit]

his source is : Radar Glossary Page 7 - Super Glossary

Now that is just freaking pathetic. Looks like this is the extent of his aviation 'study' and the most of his intellect.

 

[amalakas]

It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you

disbelieve what ? simple common sense and educated responses with credible sources or the fantasies of a 10year old ?

Now that is just freaking pathetic. Looks like this is the extent of his aviation 'study' and the most of his intellect.

The thing is .. why does the quote refer to a "boundary" ... does he know why the term is used, and what it means?

It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you

will you just for once simply tell us what this is ?

 

[gambit]

The thing is .. why does the quote refer to a "boundary" ... does he know why the term is used, and what it means?

That is so pathetic that he does it verbatim from a definition. This guy's aviation 'study' is about studying on how to patch together disparate aviation related words into what he hoped to be a coherent technical sentence.

This clued me in...

Then another question goes to you:

3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?

Explain the 'term'? What does the definition of aspect ratio have to do with lift coefficient? Any first year engineer on his first aviation job would recognize it as nonsensical.

The proper question should be: 'What IS aspect ratio and what effect does it have on lift coefficient?'

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087

And it is clear the answer to his challenge question went over his head because he simply dismissed it.

Where??

I dont see your answer at all, except your lie.

Even when the source is given, it is a lie. But then again, we are dealing with a crowd that dismissed IEEE as not reputable, even though I posted sources that have Chinese names in them.

 

[p3avi8tor69]

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!

Kid you don't even know what you have been posting. You google, find similar terms and make what you think is a connection and the proceed to post that in this thread. Then you get busted and you reply, "idiot, comprehension problem blah blah". Your source was a glossary that you pasted and it was quite apparent because the pasted sentences made grammatical sense as opposed to your usual drivel. Now I am not criticizing your english as it is clear english is your second language (as it has no bearing in this thread) I only pointed it out because it was plain as jane to see your pasting.

You were asked basic aviation theory questions that you should have been able to answer if you trully had aviation background or study, yet, you continually avoid them and insist in your nacelle air intake nonsense.

 

[amalakas]

Kid you don't even know what you have been posting. You google, find similar terms and make what you think is a connection and the proceed to post that in this thread. Then you get busted and you reply, "idiot, comprehension problem blah blah". Your source was a glossary that you pasted and it was quite apparent because the pasted sentences made grammatical sense as opposed to your usual drivel. Now I am not criticizing your english as it is clear english is your second language (as it has no bearing in this thread) I only pointed it out because it was plain as jane to see your pasting.

You were asked basic aviation theory questions that you should have been able to answer if you trully had aviation background or study, yet, you continually avoid them and insist in your nacelle air intake nonsense.

Which has been thoroughly proven over and over and over again. Yet, his "you're idiot" argument is still there.. it seems it works for everything...

 

[ptldM3]

You are idiot! you are the one who claim that retracted cone wont increase RCS, then prove it!

A cone has no moving parts, so there is nothing that will cause an increase in RCS. All of the parts/retractable mechanisms that control the cone are housed inside the aircraft. Your source was talking about an inlet ramp, you than tried to claim that the inlet cone has moving parts and that it will increase RCS.

You are shocked because you have no clue about moving cone with its moving parts

Me shocked? I knew that a Mig-21 cone is retractable since I was like 6 years old, in fact I mentioned it before you did.

The evidence is clear and blatant, while you are trying to correct your wrong statement

You are the one with the least knowledge among you, gambit, and amalakas, because you are an elementary english teacher and fan boy of military fighter.

Maybe I am, i certainly schooled you many times or maybe I am a military pilot that holds real degrees, than again maybe I run a successful internet business from Nigeria. Or maybe I tend to my rice field? I can be all or none of those things, heck i can be batman if that is what you want to hear but what i am not is someone that lied about a 'backround' that they did not have.

The mix of delusional + ignorant + severe reading comprehension problem is the cause.

What comprehension problems? You constantly ask for sources and demand answers when in fact those sources and answers are literally in front of your face. It goes like this (you) Where is my source? (me) you quoted it.


By the way am I going to have to weight 5 months for you to answer my question? Actually it’s not even my question, I asked you to explain what your own quote meant. You said you would if I answered your question about canopies, I lived up to my end of the bargain.