Funny article thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomboy

Tomboy

Captain
Registered Member
1747649379903.png
Sometimes, the coping gets so hard it's just laughable. I mean like I can't even respond to this with a straight face lmao

Also, this guy:
gambit said:
Bullshid...You know next to nothing about this issue.

The SR -71 was shaped that way partially to reduce RCS. The problem was that Lockheed did not have the predictive math so they did the best they could and hoped their attempt worked.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The above source showed how the SR-71 body was radar tested before Ufimtsev's math. What it means is that reflected waves behaviors were already known but we had nothing to deal with said behaviors. Until Ufimtsev came along and unwittingly helped US, not the Soviets.

So yes, the US is the rightful 'father of stealth'. Not the Soviets. Not the Germans.


This means you know nothing about airplane design. More like the most you know of aviation is being a passenger in an airliner.

Granted, the line between 'innovation' and 'invention' can be difficult to discern, but we can use prior examples to guide us.

The stirrup is an invention.

The machine gun is an invention.

The airplane is an invention.

In each example above, there are elements of prior inventions, but to be a genuine invention, the device would have to some things that was never done before.

Are there tailless airplanes before? Yes.

Are there supersonic airplanes before? Yes.

What China did was married to the two and gave the final airplane improved flight controls laws. Innovative, yes. But invention? No.

Now, just in case you think I made up the phrase 'flight controls laws', think again...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you have a stick that is one meter in length, that is a law, specifically, a hard mechanical law. It means your reach is only one meter.

In the age of fly-by-wire, flight controls laws are software codes that dictates how mechanical devices moves to make possible controlled flights. Ultimately, the hard mechanical laws of hydraulics and flight controls surfaces are the limits of software codes. But within those hard limits, software based flight controls laws offers greater flexibility than cockpit-to-tail mechanical linkages that has governed aviation since the Wright Brothers.

Did everything I said above went 'whoooooshhh' over your head? Of course, it did went over your head. %99 percent of the people do not know that there is such a thing as 'flight controls laws'.

You are treading into areas you know nothing about. Since 2009, I have informed this forum, through its various incarnations, of these technical issues. Long before you came on and thought you have something to show up the Americans. You do not.

So, just post copious amount of pictures and boast about how awesome is the Parade Line Army (PLA). Just do not violate the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
And my response:
Tomboy said:
You already admitted to the fact that without Ufmetsev's research stealth today would still be in the stone age of "eyeballing it" and empirical data. The fact still is the soviets basically invented the entire theoretical framework for which is the backbone of modern stealth as we know it.
gambit said:
Now, just in case you think I made up the phrase 'flight controls laws', think again...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you have a stick that is one meter in length, that is a law, specifically, a hard mechanical law. It means your reach is only one meter.

In the age of fly-by-wire, flight controls laws are software codes that dictates how mechanical devices moves to make possible controlled flights. Ultimately, the hard mechanical laws of hydraulics and flight controls surfaces are the limits of software codes. But within those hard limits, software based flight controls laws offers greater flexibility than cockpit-to-tail mechanical linkages that has governed aviation since the Wright Brothers.

Did everything I said above went 'whoooooshhh' over your head? Of course, it did went over your head. %99 percent of the people do not know that there is such a thing as 'flight controls laws'.

You are treading into areas you know nothing about. Since 2009, I have informed this forum, through its various incarnations, of these technical issues. Long before you came on and thought you have something to show up the Americans. You do not.

So, just post copious amount of pictures and boast about how awesome is the Parade Line Army (PLA). Just do not violate the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Truly a man of understatement. I'll bet your understanding of flight control laws is at best "it exists", why don't you do some actual reading about the difficulties of getting an AMW to work at all on a flying aircraft. Nonlinear action that is coupled with all three axes, I mean as knowledgeable as you claim to be surely you must know the difficulties in getting that to work reliably, right? Especially on a tailless supersonic aircraft. Also surely, you'll know about the structural difficulties of making sure it wouldn't rip the surfaces right off the wings when deployed. Solving aeroelasticity issue that comes with AMW is another thing to be done, the latter paper shows AMW can causes an extreme amount of wing flutter that can cause "tiny" issues like ripping the wings off the aircraft. I guess in your opinion solving these problems is just child's play or something.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By your logic of "Well it uses digital flight control so nothing new". Not all FCS is made equally, by your logic ChatGPT is at best an incremental improvement upon a 1990s chatbot. Or do you claim just because AMW rely on the same basic aerodynamics so suddenly now all a copy of whatever came first? In fact, if you read the research you'd understand how differently AMW works when compared to more conventional control surfaces and the difficulty in writing a viable flight law for it that doesn't involve ripping the wings off.

PS: Don't even start about how getting something with no tails to fly stable supersonically is trivial or "nothing new"

Now why don't you go back to where you came from and pray that NGAD doesn't get delayed for the third time in a row.
Click to expand...
@Schwerter_ you might wanna teach this guy a lesson in aerodynamics, I'm afraid Aerodynamics I lectures only gets me so far.

Funnily enough they keep saying that J-XDS and J-36 is not innovation and is of no interest to the "great mighty Americans" but when I ask them to show a single other blended body tailless aircraft that could even go supersonic they just cleverly ignore the question.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
Tomboy said:
View attachment 152524
Sometimes, the coping gets so hard it's just laughable. I mean like I can't even respond to this with a straight face lmao

Also, this guy:

And my response:

@Schwerter_ you might wanna teach this guy a lesson in aerodynamics, I'm afraid Aerodynamics I lectures only gets me so far.

Funnily enough they keep saying that J-XDS and J-36 is not innovation and is of no interest to the "great mighty Americans" but when I ask them to show a single other blended body tailless aircraft that could even go supersonic they just cleverly ignore the question.
Click to expand...
siegecrossbow said:
Don’t know, but imagine if the situation were reversed. Xi showed an oil painting of something like F-47 (J-47) in his office and claimed that it is better than anything out in the world and is the only sixth gen in the world and that it has been flying for five years, and something like the J-36 (F-36) flew over the Mojave desert with no fanfare but got captured by civilian passerby. What do you think the reaction on Twitter would be? What about the TWZ comments section or F-16.net?
Click to expand...
 
Tomboy

Tomboy

Captain
Registered Member
1747653845055.png
When the fool can't think of any actual argument he resorts to personal attacks, what a joke. But sure, I guess he does have a point with the fact that the soviet's didn't see purpose in Ufmetsev's research.


"Bullshid. I 'admitted' no such thing. It is only your feeble attempt to save face in the face of your ignorance. It is a made up 'fact' or as we call it 'fake news'.

The word 'invention' %99 of the time implies purpose, intention, and GOAL. Ufimtsev's work revealed nothing of the sort. The real fact that his work passed Soviet military review did not mean it was useless but only that the Soviet military could not envision an eventual GOAL for his work. One can even make an accidental invention when pursuing a different goal, some examples are penicillin and the microwave oven, both came other goals and both changed irrevocably changed some aspects of the world.

Even today, there is next to zero civilian applications for being low radar observable, the technically correct descriptor for 'stealth'. I said zero implying there are limited applications, and I will leave that up to you to learn how to think before you comment on something you diddly-squat about. That means being low radar observable is primarily a military application. If the Soviets missed what they had while we searched for the solution and we found the tools then applied them, we get the credit. If Lockheed was actively searching for the solution, they would have found someone in the West who did something similar or develop the solution on their own. Lockheed already had more than 1/2 progress towards the solution with an actually flying platform and all the testing facilities.

So no, the US, neither Soviets nor Germans, get the credit. But I have no doubt, some internet Chinese will eventually claim China as 'inventor' of 'stealth'."

Also, Jesus Christ this guy is obscenely patriotic or something. Won't even acknowledge Ufmetsev's work in Have Blue but "nah credit all goes to the US".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top