MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Dear MastanKhan,
with all due respect, your post surprises me and even if we did not always share the same opinion, I always respect yours. Here however - and I hope this ruins not everything - it is either a fundamental misunderstanding or indeed I cannot say differently, a plain stupid idea.
1. even if similar in overall appearance, in configuration or layout, to call the FC-31 a twin-engine F-35 is stupid. I'm always annoyed - in fact pissed-off - by the same stupid US accusations, but these constant copy & paste theories are s much stupid that I really cannot hold my horses. Therefore I'm flattered that You follow this ... or do you also think the A320 is a copied B737 and even more the C919 a "conversion of an Airbus?
2. No, the fuselage of the FC-31 cannot be rebuilt to fit only one engine, that's exactly as stupid as these similar stupid claims, "just take two RD-93, mate them and you have a twin-engine JF-17".
To say, the overall configuration, lay-out and concept could be taken, and redesigned around a decent engine like the WS-15, that would be possible, but result de facto in a new design.
Do you really think aeronautical design, engineering and manufacturing is so easy, just like plug & play on a Samsung mobile? Therefore again sorry to say so, but if You really believe this, then I'm indeed arrogant ...
3. The epitome of stupidity is to think one WS-19 - as done in his artwork No. 3 - could substitute two RD-93/WS-13. Do you guys at least sometimes try to think about such proposals? How could a ~100kN engine with the size of the RD-93 substitute 2x about 80 kN?? To enable this at least a similar thrust performance would be necessary and even with a WS-15 it would be difficult since we are again at point 2 of my explanation.
So again I hope it is more a misunderstanding based on different definition ... otherwise I deeply regret the situation, but I will hold my opinion.
Best regards,
Deino
Hi,
You are going on and on with your post---stop for a moment and think---.
A single engine will be built in its own suitable size---maybe smaller in size---.
A single engine fuselage will be built on its own merits---.
All aircrafts are copies of either one or the other in some ways---.
Myself as someone with engineering background I think that others would also think that the parameters of single engine fuselage design would be kept foremost when designing a single engine aircraft and not that of a twin engine---even though the nose---the profile---the wings the twins tails will be more similar or the same---.
The parameters of the stealth design have been met---so if they have to configure a single engine aircraft---the majority of the work has been done---.
Most of the plug and play has been done designing the J31---.
It is not stupid to call the J31 a twin engine F35---the whole world has been calling it---the US military consortium and the US intel agy and the US congress and the US senate has called it---every defense related and not defense related magazine has called it---. if you have not---then it is upto you---.
At the end of the end---when the 5th gen single engine Paf aircraft comes out---it would almost be a twin of the J31 inus one engine---and not twin in the movie 'TWINS'---.
People with limited knowledge in aircraft design ( I too am among them however have already offers from universities to study the same topic ) think aircraft are just plug and play ? And all the talk of the J31= Copied f35 is such utter rubbish , physically speaking it is, even if the said 'design ' is copied and stolen by Chinese hackers or so they say ( also rubbish as one is dual engine and the other single so all the fuel allocation etc I'm not gonna dive deeper) , then did they also copy every single piece of code ? If it's copied won't they also need to have copied the engine ? The radar ? The eots? The IBMS ? FADEC ? HMD? TDL? Doesn't this mean China already has supposedly already copied the entirety of the cream of nato technology ? Wouldn't this just mean China is already way more advanced than the West so it won't even have needed to copy in the first place ? The paradox which they subtly refuse to answer,
Hi,
They may have copied it but building it is a different thing---.
So stop this british habiot of chewing your words---looking sarcastic and acting arrogant---.
The US intel agy's the senate the congress and every magazine in the world calle dthe J31 a copy of the F35---.
Who and what are you to challenge that---do you have any substance---talking big---.
Nothing is plug and play per say---you assume it is---because when you hear a conversation---you respond to it at your level of thinking and understanding---.
When i say it---it is taking into consideration my 30 plus years of professional experience by default in expecting the READER WILL HAVE COMMON SENSE AND BRAINS to understand that any venture a nation is taking has considered the ups and downs and the difficulties associated with it---.