And as sluggish as the F-35, and a lower range because two engines take up more space and leave less space for fuel.
.
kfx
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And as sluggish as the F-35, and a lower range because two engines take up more space and leave less space for fuel.
.
china you confusing us damn which one we buy now so many choices
There is nothing wrong with making assumptions. It is only wrong if you believe you are correct, worse when you have been proven wrong.Well, if you don't assume ANYTHING, it's quite impossible to have any kind of conversation at all.
I have always advised one thing to everyone, the Chinese members include and especially so: Wait for something more definitive. You cannot and should not make assumptions when all you have are speculative drawings. That is what I have been saying all along.You're assuming it's not photoshop. You're assuming the engines aren't next generation engines that look like RD-93 but produce 400kN each. You have to make reasonable assumptions. Assuming that you change something to make it better is completely reasonable.
Anyone is free to prove me wrong. The problem here is that I usually provide impeccable sources to support my arguments and key words for anyone to do their own research. To date, no one returned and proved to everyone I lied or misled the readers. So please do not use that word 'everyone'. You do not know enough.And everyone's sick of you acting like you know it all.
I have nearly twenty years in aviation, in and out of the military and I left aviation out of personal necessities, not because I lost interested in it. My experience enabled me to give the interested laymen the correct direction for which for anyone to do his own research. Much more than the Chinese members here can say for their own arguments.It's possible you know more than the other people here (or not), but quite frankly, that's not saying a lot because no one here knows nearly enough to slam a professional design like the PAK FA, F-35, J-20, Raptor, this thing, etc... If you were good enough to give it constructive criticism, you'd be working on a jet, not go off on some forum.
Show me which post that I said it was stupid.The people who designed a stealth fighter a specific way did it for a reason, and if you took 1 look and thought it was completely stupid,...
Funny that you would lecture me this way when one of your fellow Chinese boasted how much views he has on his Youtube video and how the F-35 is inferior to the J-20. Why not pose the same lecture to him and challenge him to post his arguments to Lockheed? The ironic part is that I have far more respect for the Chinese engineers than you boys do than to call the J-20 the slurs your man have for the F-35....it's probably because you know so little about that airplane you couldn't begin to comprehend the issues taken into consideration. You don't know jack squat. Keep your radar-deflecting diagrams and garbage to yourself. Or take it to Shenyang and show them that and some Chinese uber nerd will throw in your face a 200 page equation just for calculating the shape of the seat and then you'll know how much you don't know.
Then all you have to do is prove me wrong. Keep in mind that my arguments usually come with impeccable sources and filled with keywords for you to do your own research.I'm here to see new pics of the thing and to hear factual news (it took off today, things like that) and not how people who don't know jack squat but think they're among the top 10 geniuses in the world rant about what they think they understand about designing stealth jets. You think you're issuing a challenge and other people are failing to meet your standards? Yeah, everybody on the internet thinks that way. You think other people are delinquents? They all think you're a delinquent. Welcome to the internet. You're trolling just like everyone else except you troll with bs diagrams and pretend to know things.
New Recruit
Responsible? Now that is the cowardly way out of putting the same medicine to a fellow Chinese.Gambit, I am not responsible for answering to any video any other Chinese person posted about any fighter being superior to another.
It make the truck driver more knowledgeable than you about trucks. Delicious irony that in one post you defend making assumptions based upon ignorance, but in another post you deride ANY knowledge relevant to the field.20 years in aviation! Wow, makes you the guru, NOT. Truck drivers who have driven trucks for 40, 50+ years have no idea how to design a next generation automobile. The only people who I think are fit to be critical of stealth fighters are the actual designers of stealth fighters.
Not 'probably'. They are.Gambit, your diagrams are probably right.
This is where you are wrong. I do not post those illustrations for any specific aircraft. Those are for FOUNDATIONAL principles that everyone learned, usually on the job, in aviation engineering.Nobody will prove them wrong and nobody needs to but it's still complete BS. Why? Because you put this cartoon fit for a college club meeting of airplane enthusiasts up and you talk like this is all you need to design stealth jets. You follow this, success. You don't go by it, fail. If it were as simple as your googled diagram, Morocco would be flying stealth jets. You think the diagram is too complex and I can't understand? It's a cartoon a 5th grader can understand. If it were sufficient, we'd all be experts. Your diagrams are so simple and so superficial that the janitors at Shenyang know more.
And heeeeeeere we go...into the realm of 'Chinese physics'. Just as I expected.But to actually design a stealth fighter, you need to know so much more stuff, more rules, rules that override rules, exceptions, ways to get around things, etc... Frankly, a fighter could break all of the rules on your diagrams and end up still stealthy, why? Cus the designers have used more techniques for stealth preservation in the creation of this (and any) fighter than you could ever understand or even knew existed.
Your 'conclusions' are no different than speculations based upon ignorance.And no, I did not see you call any fighter stupid, but Korean did. And you slammed me for slamming him, so I just assumed (reasonably) that you agreed with his criticisms of the jet. Difference between me and him is that my conclusions come from common logic, and although they are not fool-proof, they are reasonable enough to make with a relatively low chance of being incorrect (in my opinion) while his conclusions come from what he thinks he knows about the advanced designs of stealth jets (that apparently, the designers don't).
Only against 'Chinese physics'.Is gambit claiming to be some super commando again? I didn't bother reading through all that crap you people posted in the last 15 pages.
Only against 'Chinese physics'.
New Recruit
To be maneuverable, a fighter jet must have low drag in the fuselage and wings. F-35 is a high drag design because of its SVTOL requirement that forced Lockheed to arrange things sideways, and this F-35 replica too is a high drag design because it is based on F-35 design plans stolen from Lockheed and BAE back in 2008.Korean's points:
1. It's not flat enough to be a maneuverable fighter. (Oh, really! Someone quickly tell Shenyang to flatten it, cus they didn't know that!)
New Recruit
The Shenyang supervisor would say "We can't, we don't have money and time to design a new airframe. So just produce that damned F-35 drawings that we have".If someone in Shenyang read this and said, "Comrades, I heard from a Korean American forum blogger that we need to flatten the body.