Aerodynamics thread

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Here is another one of your fallacy called

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, where you are substituting other statement with one that you invented.

this was expected since now you can not justify your great mistake upon the article you go to distractors what does it say

the first
is to increase the agility of a conventional fighter aircraft by pairing TV with standard
aerodynamic control surfaces to improve the aircraft’s ability to rapidly change its
orientation.

later

flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

hahaha

2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated
flow over the wings and tail.



hahahahaha you are comic


hahahahaha

The keyword is "controlled flight".

the key word with your argument is "controlled lie" hahaha since Su-27 does not flat spin and Su-35 does hook without TVC nozzles hahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

The author even says this


There are two primary application for this technology: the first is to increase the agility of a conventional fighter aircraft by pairing TV with standard aerodynamic control surfaces to improve the aircraft’s ability to rapidly change its orientation.

what so you pair aerodynamic surfaces i see so the aerodynamic surfaces can be stalled

ROFL! Your desperation shows as you now cannot even come up with a coherent argument.

Pairing the thrust-vectoring with aerodynamic control surfaces do not mean those aerodynamic surfaces won't stall at high AoA. It simply means when those aerodynamic surfaces become ineffective, the thrust-vectoring can take over at providing control. The above statement quoted by you does not support your belief that tailplane remains effective at high AoA; especially given the fact that your belief has been debunked with statements from paper such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which says that tailplane losing effectiveness at high AoA:

It can be explained by loosing of effectiveness of control surfaces... In the range of AoA up to 35[SUP]o[/SUP] the normal increases approximately linearly, then stabilises and practically the tail surface losses its effectiveness.

At high enough AoA, the aircraft will enter a stall and the aerodynamic surfaces become ineffective. Laws of Aerodynamics don't change just because you fitted a pair of thrust-vectoring nozzles to the aircraft.

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

ROFL! Your desperation shows as you now cannot even come up with a coherent argument.

:

wow i am impressed hahaha the key is controlled lie hahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

In short, a pure vectoring fighter (PVF) would have a similar or greater advantage over a supermaneuverable, TV fighter (STVF) than a SF has (and has demonstrated) over a conventional fighter (CF). The primary reason for that advantage is very straightforward:
the SF or STVF remains controllable in the post-stall region, and can therefore perform maneuvers that a CF cannot; hence the combat advantages enumerated in the previous section. Likewise, while a SF or STVF is controllable in post-stall, a PVF theoretically would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow). Therefore, it would be able to outperform a SF or STVF in post-stall, and consequently would be the most capable fighter aircraft possible until a breakthrough in engine technology comes along.


hahaha these shows you only say lies because 2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated
flow over the wings and tail. means tailplanes because (since its controls are independent of the external air flow) means TVC nozzles
hahahah read man do not say fallacies that are easy to see are lies

Quite the opposite, the mention of "controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail" explicitly excludes the tailplane. This is said so in that statement directly because of "separated flow over the wings and tail". Your attempt at distorting the author's statement fails miserably.

Here is what the author said in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Hence the reason that the post-stall region has only been a fairly recent area of study: T/W ratios needed to increase, C[sub]L[sub]max[/sub][/sub] values needed to increase, and non-aerodynamic controls (such as TV) had to be developed before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight in this very adverse aerodynamic region.

Tailplane is an aerodynamic control, thus the mentioning of "non-aerodynamic controls" means the author is not referring to the tailplane. In the same statement, the mention of "such as TV" indicates clearly that the author is referring to thrust-vectoring. In short, the author disagrees with your claim that tailplane can be used at high AoA to provide control.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

this was expected since now you can not justify your great mistake upon the article you go to distractors what does it say

Quite the opposite, there was no distraction on my part since I always explain how your statement is technically incorrect after I have exposed your use of logical fallacies. An example of distraction would be your use of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, such as your pulling in of Cobra maneuver in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that canard is superior to tailplane at high AoA.

the first
is to increase the agility of a conventional fighter aircraft by pairing TV with standard aerodynamic control surfaces to improve the aircraft’s ability to rapidly change its orientation.

later

flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

hahaha

2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated
flow over the wings and tail.



hahahahaha you are comic


hahahahaha

the key word with your argument is "controlled lie" hahaha since Su-27 does not flat spin and Su-35 does hook without TVC nozzles hahaha

By "controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated", the author of that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is clearly referring to the thrust-vectoring:

Hence the reason that the post-stall region has only been a fairly recent area of study: T/W ratios needed to increase, C[sub]L[sub]max[/sub][/sub] values needed to increase, and non-aerodynamic controls (such as TV) had to be developed before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight in this very adverse aerodynamic region.

The mentioning of "non-aerodynamic controls" explicitly excludes the tailplane. In the same statement, the mention of "such as TV" indicates clearly that the author is referring to thrust-vectoring. In short, the author disagrees with your claim that tailplane can be used at high AoA to provide control.

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Quite the opposite, the mention of "controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail" explicitly excludes the tailplane. This is said so in that statement directly because of "separated flow over the wings and tail". Your attempt at distorting the author's statement fails miserably.

Here is what the author said in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:


Tailplane is an aerodynamic control, thus the mentioning of "non-aerodynamic controls" means the author is not referring to the tailplane. In the same statement, the mention of "such as TV" indicates clearly that the author is referring to thrust-vectoring. In short, the author disagrees with your claim that tailplane can be used at high AoA to provide control.

this is your second tactic never acknowledge the mistake, hahahaha

author says


a PVF theoretically
would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional
flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

he says 2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated
flow over the wings and tail.

and the first
is to increase the agility of a conventional fighter aircraft by pairing TV with standard
aerodynamic control surfaces to improve the aircraft’s ability to rapidly change its
orientation.

hahaha but you are the kind of person who says 3+2=9, yes somebody can say to you 3+3=6 but you will say 3-9=2 see this other books says it hahaha nice tactic engineer hahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

wow i am impressed hahaha the key is controlled lie hahaha

Thank you. I'm glad you are impressed with my ability at spotting your b.s. Knowing your typical tactic is to distort statements from papers, it is a simple matter to go actually read those papers to see what they actually say; no biggie. Indeed, I found that the author of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

clearly states that non-aerodynamic controls needed to be developed before of controlled flight in the post-stall region:

Hence the reason that the post-stall region has only been a fairly recent area of study: T/W ratios needed to increase, C[sub]L[sub]max[/sub][/sub] values needed to increase, and non-aerodynamic controls (such as TV) had to be developed before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight in this very adverse aerodynamic region.

The mentioning of "non-aerodynamic controls" combined with words "such as TV" indicates clearly that the author is referring to thrust-vectoring. It is also mentioned that these controls are needed "before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight", thus "controlled flight" is the keywords. Thus, attempt at distorting the author's statements in support of your false beliefs fails miserably.

---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

this is your second tactic never acknowledge the mistake, hahahaha

author says


a PVF theoretically would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

he says 2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail.

and the first is to increase the agility of a conventional fighter aircraft by pairing TV with standard aerodynamic control surfaces to improve the aircraft’s ability to rapidly change its orientation.

hahaha but you are the kind of person who says 3+2=9, yes somebody can say to you 3+3=6 but you will say 3-9=2 see this other books says it hahaha nice tactic engineer hahaha

For one to acknowledge his mistake, he must make a mistake first. For me, I did not made a mistake since the author explicitly mentions

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that "controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail" refers to TVC:

Hence the reason that the post-stall region has only been a fairly recent area of study: T/W ratios needed to increase, C[sub]L[sub]max[/sub][/sub] values needed to increase, and non-aerodynamic controls (such as TV) had to be developed before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight in this very adverse aerodynamic region.

This is indicated by the use of "non-aerodynamic controls" and "TV". The former statement excludes the taillplane as tailplane is an aerodynamic surface. The latter explicitly refers to thrust-vectoring as it is the short-hand for TV. Thus, the mistake is on your part as you falsely claim the author is mentioning tailplane when he is in fact talking about thrust-vectoring. This also debunks your pseudo-aerodynamic theories that tailplane can be used for control at high AoA, since if that's the case there wouldn't be need for TVC.

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Thank you. I'm glad you are impressed with my ability at spotting your b.s. :

wow you got me, wow third tactic you use claim victory


and repeat the same argument over and over
similar to goebbles you use this tactic

'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. ',



yeah engineer but you are wrong
since
PVF theoretically would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

he says 2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail.

thrust vectoring control nozzles do not become stalled only tailplanes or elevons and aerodynamic controls hahahahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

wow you got me, wow third tactic you use claim victory

and repeat the same argument over and over
similar to goebbles you use this tactic

'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. ',

If you don't employ the above tactic, I won't be posting the actual statements from the papers over and over. What I have done is pointing out facts in response to your statements. In any case, thanks to your

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, we now see the rule that you follow when you are posting.

yeah engineer but you are wrong

Funny, as you haven't provide an ounce of proof showing that to be remotely the case. Quite the opposite, I have been exposing your lies post after post. Perhaps you should stop

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

your attributes (that you are wrong) on to other people.

since
PVF theoretically would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow).

he says 2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated flow over the wings and tail.

thrust vectoring control nozzles do not become stalled only tailplanes or elevons and aerodynamic controls hahahahaha

Exactly. Tailplane becomes stalled at high AoA, hence they lose effectiveness in that situation. This is why the author of the thesis

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

explicitly excludes tailplane being used in the post-stall region:

Hence the reason that the post-stall region has only been a fairly recent area of study: T/W ratios needed to increase, C[sub]L[sub]max[/sub][/sub] values needed to increase, and non-aerodynamic controls (such as TV) had to be developed before an aircraft would be capable of controlled flight in this very adverse aerodynamic region.

Specfically, the mentioning of "non-aerodynamic controls" explicitly excludes the tailplane. It can also be seen that the tailplane loses effectiveness from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, thereby debunking your claim that tailplane can be used in control at high AoA:

It can be explained by loosing of effectiveness of control surfaces... In the range of AoA up to 35[SUP]o[/SUP] the normal increases approximately linearly, then stabilises and practically the tail surface losses its effectiveness.

Because of the above short coming of tailplane, canard is superior to tailplane for control in high AoA situation. This fact is pointed out in Dr. Song's paper:

Control surfaces placed in front of the center of mass, like the canards, are negative load control surfaces. Since the main wing's ability to generate lift tends to saturate under high AOA conditions, the positive load control surfaces' pitch down control capabilities tend to saturate under high AOA as well. Therefore it will be wise to employ negative load control surfaces for pitch down control under high AOA conditions. Figure 7 compares the pitch down control capabilities of the canards and horizontal stabilizers. From the high AOA pitch down control stand point, it will be wise to use canards on the future fighter.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Good Morning Sino Defense Bros., Welcome to the aerodynamics thread, its time to get this baby back up and running with an interesting discussion, question of the day? What has two wings and flies?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Good Morning Sino Defense Bros., Welcome to the aerodynamics thread, its time to get this baby back up and running with an interesting discussion, question of the day? What has two wings and flies?

Ok guys, this might be an interesting place to discuss aircraft capable of operating off of the PLAN Lioaning, Is there a two place chinese trainer capable of being upgraded with sufficient power to operate off the ramp?