SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[qwerrty]

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

 

[hurt]

china you confusing us damn which one we buy now so many choices

choice some what you need

 

[gambit]

Well, if you don't assume ANYTHING, it's quite impossible to have any kind of conversation at all.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions. It is only wrong if you believe you are correct, worse when you have been proven wrong.

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.

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.

And everyone's sick of you acting like you know it all.

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.

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.

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.

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,...

Show me which post that I said it was stupid.

...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.

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.

I take it my illustrations went whooooosh over your head? Sorry, but I cannot dumb them down any further.

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.

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.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Gambit, I am not responsible for answering to any video any other Chinese person posted about any fighter being superior to another. 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.

Gambit, your diagrams are probably right. 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. 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.

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).

 

[gambit]

Gambit, I am not responsible for answering to any video any other Chinese person posted about any fighter being superior to another.

Responsible? Now that is the cowardly way out of putting the same medicine to a fellow Chinese.

No one said anything about being 'responsible' for someone else's actions. You have a different definition of the word than the rest of us do. But I guess being fair take second to racial solidarity and intellectual honesty.

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.

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.

Gambit, your diagrams are probably right.

Not 'probably'. They are.

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.

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.

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.

And heeeeeeere we go...into the realm of 'Chinese physics'. Just as I expected.

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).

Your 'conclusions' are no different than speculations based upon ignorance.

 

[S10]

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.

 

[gambit]

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'.

 

[theniubt]

Only against 'Chinese physics'.

Which is something that Vietnam is jealous about, and wished they could learn at least 1% of it.

 

[帅的一匹]

Gambit should help Vietnam air force buid a Stealth jets instead of wasting his precious time here.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Gambit, the truck driver may know more than me, but I know he doesn't know enough to tell me how the next Lamborghini should be designed. Understand this: just because you flew jets for 20 years doesn't mean you know how to design a stealth fighter. You may know more than the layman, but you still don't know anything compared to people who design these things and you don't know enough to explain them accurately.

I understand your concept of "Chinese physics" now. It means physics that are too complicated for you to understand. Any physics beyond your basic principles cartoon is considered "Chinese physics" by you. If you didn't learn it, it's considered Chinese.

Your founding principles google cartoon is trash. You heard it at orientation, googled up a pic, and thought this is the bible to making stealth jets. In all classes, we learn founding principles on the first day. If it was the third grade, those principles stood till the last day. In college, we learned exceptions as the class progressed. In a PhD level course, by the end of the course, the founding principles were shot so full of holes you'd fail the final for sure if you stuck by them because every test question was on how to solve an exception to the rule. The more complex, the less you can simply apply "founding principles" and you bring your google cartoon to discuss stealth jets like you know how things work. "Chinese physics" is all the exceptions and bypasses to your "founding principles".

Dude, I never saw the J-10 to F-35 video and even if I did see the title, I'd never click on it because I know the "vs." things by forum addicts are basically worth toenail clippings in terms of their ability to predict a real outcome. The jet you think would win is most highly probably the one your country made, no matter where you're from. (Iran: Our bootleg F-5 with 2 vertical stabilizers would totally kill the Raptor because this:..... LOL) Don't know why you brought it up at all, because a Chinese person once said it?

My points:
1. J-31 seems to look like a F-22/F-35 hybrid so it probably incorporates the best of both, because it doesn't make sense to incorporate the worst of both.
2. Change in design usually reflects improvement.
3. I might be wrong; the true indicator of the jet's performance (other than war, of course) is whether or not the PLAN and PLAAF choose to buy it.

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!)
2. The nose/cockpit/air intakes look like F-35 so it's sluggish. (Sure, no need to compare wings, stabilizers or anything, cus those don't matter in terms of maneuvering the jet.)
3. It must have low range because it has 2 engines and is roughly similarly sized to the F-35. (Sure, all engines are exactly the same in terms of fuel consumption. Also, the space that held a VTOL fan in the F-35 is probably filled with foam and bubble wrap in the Chinese version. Couldn't possibly be used for extra fuel or weapons bays.)
4. The Chinese probably stole the F-35 design, didn't analyze it despite massive criticism, and copied it with all its flaws. (Yeah, sounds like a good plan to me, must sound like a great plan to military scientists; let's do that.)

Instead of slamming other people's stealth fighters with analyses that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese after a shoot-out with Al Pacino (probably not as clever a joke as I thought LOL), Korean should be praying (or working on it, if he's that great) that the KFX gets off paper in the next decade.

If you think my arguments and Korean's arguments are the same in terms of assumptions, then it's pretty clear why you relegated from Air Force to internet forums.

 

[Korean]

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!)

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.

The key to lower drag is reducing the frontal area, and a flattened fuselage achieves it while providing additional lift.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Sounds good. You seem to know more than everybody. If someone in Shenyang read this and said, "Comrades, I heard from a Korean American forum blogger that we need to flatten the body. He explained it very well and we never thought about that. Let's do it!" and they end up with a better stealth design, I guess you'd be doing 20-life for giving away military secrets, huh? LOL

I'll say this again. No one here knows enough to slam a professional design because if you were that good, you'd be designing a jet instead of bsing on a forum. If you see a flaw that can be easily fixed on a professional design, chances are NOT that you saw it but 1,000 engineers didn't; chances are they know way better than you and they know why they didn't do it your way. The confidence that some people have in their "knowledge" of advanced physics and aerodynamics is amazing.

 

[Korean]

If someone in Shenyang read this and said, "Comrades, I heard from a Korean American forum blogger that we need to flatten the body.

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".

Just look at Chengdu, J-10 struggled for like 20 years and J-20 already spent like 10 years in development and 7 more years to go. That's what it takes to design a new jet.

 

[April.lyrics]

leave that korean.he is try to make this thread ruined.just ignore him.

 

[Beast]

Hooray! Korean is banned...