What's new

SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

Gambit, what video? My man? Who are these people you are talking about? Ridiculous to link these things to me because I'm Chinese. But if you wanna play it like that, I can link all the comments of the KKK to you because you're all white (if you are, I dunno, it's an example).

You think people learned from you? Anyone serious about learning the physics behind designing stealth jets isn't learning it off this forum. They will take university courses, graduate courses, do a doctorate, etc... No one here is interested in a physics debate. You know why no one read your post? You're not even proving a point in physics. You posted diagrams to try to prove you know stuff about stealth jets. Basically, "Here's a bunch of diagrams of stuff I know. Please see how long they are, and feel intimidated by my knowledge." If anything, the fact that you pulled out those diagrams in a common sense debate, not a physics debate proves your desperation to look knowledgeable. People who are desperate to look knowledgeable are usually NOT.

Once again, bottom line: You design stealth fighters= knowledgeable; You're on a forum = not.

Nefory, yeah, they're important for studies for a physics student but looking at that information as light as that and trying to understand stealth fighters from it is like trying to design nuclear weapons by studying the how soda blows up after you shake the can.
 
.
Tell you what, in any debate with you, if you treat me with respect, I will not use that phrase. However, based upon my experience with the Chinese members here, it will not be long before you get tire of seeing your fellow Chinese being challenged by someone who they considered to be of 'inferior' Asian stock, and will treat me with the same contempt as they have.

Well, I haven't visit this site quite often enough, not have I follow your conversation from top to bottom, so I have no idea what went wrong exactly. If indeed someone has been insulted deliberately, which I imagine is daily basis, a good way to counter such uncivilized behavior is simply report them and let the modulator do their job. Isn't that the way it should be? However, if you consider yourself speak on a scientific basis, you know "you Chinese boys are..." does not stand. It would be those you saw, not all of us. Well, anyway, it's your fight. I'm just passing by.
 
. .
Please stick to the topic it's getting side tracked again.
 
.
Fine.

An observation many people have probably already made. The RD 93 engines seem to be significantly smaller than the engine nacelles that they were fitted in. The WS 13 series is no bigger. What engine would be in the final version of the plane as these are obviously interim?
 
. .
Gambit, what video? My man? Who are these people you are talking about? Ridiculous to link these things to me because I'm Chinese. But if you wanna play it like that, I can link all the comments of the KKK to you because you're all white (if you are, I dunno, it's an example).
You mean you are not one of those 80-90 thousands viewers Mr. Martian2 boasted about? You might want to contact a fellow Chinese off the discussion about that.

You think people learned from you?
Absolutely many have. Even the Chinese member who made that ridiculous video. He learned from me the basics of radar detection.

Anyone serious about learning the physics behind designing stealth jets isn't learning it off this forum. They will take university courses, graduate courses, do a doctorate, etc... No one here is interested in a physics debate. You know why no one read your post? You're not even proving a point in physics. You posted diagrams to try to prove you know stuff about stealth jets. Basically, "Here's a bunch of diagrams of stuff I know. Please see how long they are, and feel intimidated by my knowledge." If anything, the fact that you pulled out those diagrams in a common sense debate, not a physics debate proves your desperation to look knowledgeable. People who are desperate to look knowledgeable are usually NOT.
You mean only you do not read my posts. That is because you are afraid -- if not terrified -- of learning the truth.

The issue is not about learning how to design 'stealth' aircrafts from anonymous Internet forums, but as you defended your right to make assumptions, it is equally a burden upon you (or anyone else who makes assumptions) to read rebuttals. That is how you learn, even if just a little by little, day by day, and admit when your assumptions are wrong, if proven wrong. Are you that intellectually honest with yourself? From the way it looks -- looks like NOT.

I did not seek out this forum. I was invited here. When I got here I found there are a lot of misconceptions on how radar detection works. Without a reasonable understanding of how radar detection works, EVERY assumptions on how 'stealth', or technically speaking 'low radar observable', are wrong. I corrected a lot of people on the word 'invisible'. I have said and continued to say that in radar detection, NOTHING is invisible. It shocked a lot of people, especially those who learned from popular media blurbs that uses the word 'invisible'. Now those who learned from me on why the word 'invisible' is not used by professionals in the field, they themselves do not use that word.

Prior to my participation here, no one knows of the phrase 'corner reflector' and understand why it is detrimental to 'stealth'...

direct_corner_refl.jpg

body_corner_reflector_ex.jpg


Now those who are intellectually honest with themselves and willing to learn successfully argued that for designing 'stealth' fighters, the aircraft MUST have twin canted vertical stabilators that does not produce the 90 deg corner reflector. Now all the talks about making every existing fighters 'stealthy' pretty much stopped.

Prior to my participation here, no one know of something called 'EM isolation anechoic chamber' testing for low radar observable bodies...

f22_anecho_test_79.jpg


Now those who are intellectually honest with themselves -- unlike you -- know the overall or 'helicopter view' of the process of designing a 'stealth' fighter: Prediction/Modeling then Measurement. EM isolation anechoic chamber testing is Measurement. And that is why not every country in the world can design an effective low radar observable aircraft.

They do not need to know the math or computer software of 'stealth' to learn that they harbored a lot of misconceptions. They know that what I posted are UNIVERSAL principles. If the Americans have done it, so can the Russians or the Chinese or the Pakistanis. The question is finance and granularity of 'Prediction/Modeling and Measurement'.

Learn anything yet?
 
.
Heres the problem. Mr Gambit likes to use arguments of different Chinese people in his arguments and expect that we back them up.

As if we were one big happy family that just agrees with each other.

This inherent racial grouping from him makes any reasonable argument completely impossible. Its downright disrespectful and this kind of behavior should not even be tolerated if this forum wants to call itself professional.
 
.
Gambit, honestly, I've seen most of those diagrams from Air Australia, sites like that. I've even lightly studied a few. I just don't think that knowing all of them means you know enough to judge stealth fighters. I don't read your post because I wasn't arguing with you about any aspect of stealth so there's no reason you should post diagrams anyway. The fact that they're there shows you're hiding behind a random bunch of facts that you've collected and not actively addressing my argument that despite all your diagrams you still don't know enough to comment on professional designs of stealth.

If you mention Martin's video (which I've never seen and I don't know who Martin is) to me again then every time you post I will mention that time Ho Chi Minh said he'd rather eat Chinese dung than French food and peg it on you like you tattooed it on your neck just because you're both Vietnamese.

Tianlixiang28776, I heard those gaps between the engine bay and engines are there because the caps used to hold the engines in place have not been installed. I'm not sure if it's true though.
 
.
Gambit, honestly,...
No. Lie to me...I prefer it that way...

...I've seen most of those diagrams from Air Australia, sites like that. I've even lightly studied a few. I just don't think that knowing all of them means you know enough to judge stealth fighters.
That is outright contradictory. If you insist on the right to make assumptions, which you did, then you deemed yourself knowledgeable enough to make judgments. Your problem is that you do not like to be challenged.

I don't read your post because I wasn't arguing with you about any aspect of stealth so there's no reason you should post diagrams anyway. The fact that they're there shows you're hiding behind a random bunch of facts that you've collected and not actively addressing my argument that despite all your diagrams you still don't know enough to comment on professional designs of stealth.
Like I already said...Intellectual dishonesty rules.
 
.
I see the problem, Gambit. You think that by studying a few papers you know as much as stealth fighter engineers. This is where we disagree.

I believe that you can find papers all you want and read free google diagrams all you want but that will never give you enough knowledge to judge a stealth fighter. There will be too much that you cannot learn from the self-search method to make an accurate judgement because that information is kept under top secret lock and key. I believe that to be a true expert in stealth fighters, you need professional aerodynamic engineering degrees and training and you also need to be debriefed on sensitive information about these jets that you cannot find by yourself. You need to know information available only to the most trusted designers of the project to make an accurate judgement of it.

You believe if you've googled anything for long enough, you're as good as any pro.

I know they probably taught you some stuff while you flew jets, maybe they even skimmed upon how stealth fighters work, but unless you are professionally trained and have access to classified information, there's no way you are a expert on stealth fighters.

You are hiding behind facts and using them as a shield of BS. Why would you post a diagram how how stealth fighters tails should be designed (seen that, simple concept, knew that) when we were not taking about that at all?? That is hiding. That is why it is garbage even though it is 100% true.

You were "invited"? Oh, wow, must make you feel so high and mighty someone said, "Hey, check this forum out." Or did they send you an official letter of invitation with a certificate or something? "I was invited..." LOL Shows your ego. Get this: as much as you think everyone else is trolling, you are too. You're not better than anyone else on the internet just because you flew an aircraft before. Invited... LOL

I don't see how much further this discussion can go...
 
.
Gambit likes to hide behind the arguments of other people when you try to make an argument. " Oh but Martian says this so prove that". Does my name look like fking Martian?

Yeah arguing with Gambit is pointless. He'll bring out the same articles and images dozens of times. He'll try to make you prove other peoples arguments. He'll use days of his pathetic life to argue with you spewing out paragraphs and paragraphs of text he stitches together from his past arguments.

I've personally seen this picture used in over a dozen different threads by him.

body_corner_reflector_ex.jpg




Expertise wise you've maintained some 4th gen planes at best as a mechanic. You have no knowledge on the design of fifth gen planes other than articles on Google that mimic what you believe in. Hell my 4th grade brother could do that.
 
.
To solve this whole problem of certain members claiming that they have professional knowledge when they obviously lack it, this forum needs to implement a credential system like on other sites.

If you claim you have explicit knowledge on a subject you actually have to give paper evidence to the mods that your profession is actually involved in it.

Gambit has never been involved in maintaining, building, or designing 5th gen jets. Therefore he lacks any credentials to claim professional knowledge.

Claiming otherwise is just lying and fraud. Some members believe Gambit because in his posts he claims that he has expert knowledge and history in 5th gen jets. That is simply not the case.
 
.
Intellectual dishonesty in this thread has only been shown by Gambit.

Others argue and point out that they are not in any way professionals in the subject and are basing them based on their best judgement.

Gambit here pretends that he is an actual professional on the subject when he is clearly not.

Thats what Intellectual dishonesty is.

Ability to Google unfortunately is not an credential for fifth generation airplane design as sad as it is.
 
.
I see the problem, Gambit.
No, you do not. The real problem is that you refused to concede to the potential that someone else might know more than you do.

You think that by studying a few papers you know as much as stealth fighter engineers.
No, I do not think so and have stated to many more fair minded than you.

I believe that you can find papers all you want and read free google diagrams all you want but that will never give you enough knowledge to judge a stealth fighter. There will be too much that you cannot learn from the self-search method to make an accurate judgement because that information is kept under top secret lock and key. I believe that to be a true expert in stealth fighters, you need professional aerodynamic engineering degrees and training and you also need to be debriefed on sensitive information about these jets that you cannot find by yourself. You need to know information available only to the most trusted designers of the project to make an accurate judgement of it.

You believe if you've googled anything for long enough, you're as good as any pro.
And yet YOU insisted on the right to make assumptions, which really are judgments in themselves, and you were so certain of yourself that you opined that you are probably less wrong than Mr. Korean, never mind the fact that both of you have no military experience, let alone aviation experience.

Now why is that so odd to readers who sees you focusing on my experience but said nothing about your own NON-EXPERIENCE. :lol:

I don't see how much further this discussion can go...
This is where you are wrong. Speculations about this latest inevitably will venture into 'Chinese physics'. Started of with you.

I've personally seen this picture used in over a dozen different threads by him.
Foundational principles are sooooooo boring...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom