J-10 Thread IV

[manqiangrexue]

Unfortunately, your 'PhD in biological sciences' won't get you far here. I've seen plenty of PhD who are too narrowly focused on their field of studies to lose touch of the wider real world.
And in the real world, when an engine, whose reliability is suspect to begin with, causes multiple crashes, it will be questioned again & compared unfavorably with contemporaries which are doing well.
If you're upset with WS10 doing well, come up with proofs it's not. We're in the real world, not your lab.


And all I can say is apparently you do not follow PLA news close enough. I've seen plenty of such news. Maybe you're spending too much time on your 'PhD'.

OK, man, that's cool; that's cool. I've been giving you quite a complex logic course considering that you reason on the level of a 4-year old who apparently thinks that PhDs don't know logic. "If I saw it, then it happened; if I didn't see it, then it didn't' happen," right? LOL That's OK, man. We've been stuck because I've been trying to nail "complex" logic into you when there was a much much simpler way right before our eyes.

Luckily, the PLAAF are running their Flankers not only on WS-10A, but also on AL-31. So NOW we really have a comparable platform; both twin engine flankers. We will only compare Chinese flankers for this purpose because Chinese conditions and maintenance are roughly equal between the J-11s running on AL-31 and those running on WS-10A (can't bring in the numerous MKI crashes cus India has a different atmosphere and different maintenance procedures). So... I don't recall any recent crashes of either AL-31-powered Chinese flankers or WS-10A flankers. There haven't been any at all with the WS-10A; the last crash of a Chinese flanker was in 2013 when an old Su-27UBK crashed. So, at least in 2014 and 2015, the safety records of AL-31 and WS-10A are equal, both scoring 100% in bringing Chinese Flankers back down safely. You cannot conclude that either is more reliable than the other. Simple enough this time?

In the end, I think we want to see the same thing: for Chinese engines to thrive and succeed. I love Chinese engines and nothing would please me more than to tell my children that when I was young, Chinese engines were a bottleneck and constantly derided, but now, as you grow up, you take it for granted that they lead the world in technology. It would break my heart to see a Chinese fighter crash with WS-10A (though I realize that it's unavoidable with any program for that to eventually happen). Despite this I accept no illusions about how wonderful they are either.

 

[vesicles]

OK, man, that's cool; that's cool. I've been giving you quite a complex logic course considering that you reason on the level of a 4-year old who apparently thinks that PhDs don't know logic. "If I saw it, then it happened; if I didn't see it, then it didn't' happen," right? LOL That's OK, man. We've been stuck because I've been trying to nail "complex" logic into you when there was a much much simpler way right before our eyes.

Ok, I think you need to calm down a little. I am glad that you are proud of having a PhD. And you should be. It's a lot of hard work to get one. With that said, you need to dial it down a notch. Although getting a PhD requires extensive training in logic, it is not the only way. Many professions, such as various disciplines of engineering, legal, accounting, and IT, etc, require high level of training in logic. imagine how much logic you'll need to write a computer program. And you'd be surprised how convoluted accounting can be.

I believe majority of the members here have engineering background. All the math and physics provide them with in-depth training in logic.

 

[Blitzo]

Ok, I think you need to calm down a little. I am glad that you are proud of having a PhD. And you should be. It's a lot of hard work to get one. With that said, you need to dial it down a notch. Although getting a PhD requires extensive training in logic, it is not the only way. Many professions, such as various disciplines of engineering, legal, accounting, and IT, etc, require high level of training in logic. imagine how much logic you'll need to write a computer program. And you'd be surprised how convoluted accounting can be.

I believe majority of the members here have engineering background. All the math and physics provide them with in-depth training in logic.

Just my 2 cents, I don't think manqiangrexue is boasting about PhDs or saying PhDs are somehow the only demonstration or evidence for logic. He merely mentioned his background as an aside in the importance for using logic and evidence based experiments for fair comparisons.

And throughout this whole chain of discussion I wholeheartedly agree with manqiangrexue's position -- basically that comparing the "reliability" of engines using J-10s with Al-31s with SAC flankers with WS-10s is no fair comparison at all given one aircraft is single engined and one aircraft is twin engined. If we really wanted a fair comparison of "reliability" then at the very least we should be comparing aircraft which are both twin engined... such as Su-27SKs or J-11As or Su-30s with Al-31s, versus WS-10 equipped SAC flankers.

 

[vesicles]

Just my 2 cents, I don't think manqiangrexue is boasting about PhDs or saying PhDs are somehow the only demonstration or evidence for logic. He merely mentioned his background as an aside in the importance for using logic and evidence based experiments for fair comparisons.

And throughout this whole chain of discussion I wholeheartedly agree with manqiangrexue's position -- basically that comparing the "reliability" of engines using J-10s with Al-31s with SAC flankers with WS-10s is no fair comparison at all given one aircraft is single engined and one aircraft is twin engined. If we really wanted a fair comparison of "reliability" then at the very least we should be comparing aircraft which are both twin engined... such as Su-27SKs or J-11As or Su-30s with Al-31s, versus WS-10 equipped SAC flankers.

I don't hold any position in this matter of engines. I don't know enough to have a position. Manqiangrexue's comments seem to imply he holds the authority on logic because of his PhD and sound a little degrading to those without such degree. My feeling is that if he is confident about his position, he should be able to argue using logic not his degree. I apologize if I misunderstood him. Again, I have no position in the matter of fighter engines.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't hold any position in this matter of engines. I don't know enough to have a position. Manqiangrexue's comments seem to imply he holds the authority in logic because of his PhD and sound a little degrading to those without such degree. I apologize if I misunderstood him. Again, I have no position in the matter of fighter engines.

Well I do think the discussion had become unnecessarily personal (and I do not think he is the one at fault)... and while I also think mentioning his PhD was not entirely necessary,it did suitably demonstrate his position on the need for fair comparisons in determining a conclusion.

In this case, I think it should be clear to any observer that if one was intending to use the number or frequency of crashes of different aircraft to judge the "reliability" of a type of engine, then at the very least we would have to compare aircraft with the same number of engines for a comparison to be fair... comparing an aircraft with one engine versus an aircraft with two engines simply would not be fair in such a comparison, because single engined aircraft tend to have higher failure and crash rates than twin engined aircraft because they have no additional engine for redundancy and if failure of the engine occurs then the single engine aircraft is going down regardless... whereas a twin engine aircraft has an additional engine for redundancy to get home under power if one engine fails.

In the case of WS-10 vs Al-31, obviously comparing SAC flankers with WS-10s versus J-10s makes no sense, given J-10s are single engine and thus would have a higher crash rate inevitably. So any fair comparison should compare single engine vs single engine aircraft (such as WS-10 powered J-10s vs Al-31 powered J-10s -- however at present only two J-10s are powered with WS-10s for test purposes while every other J-10 flying is powered by Al-31s, therefore any comparison of the two WS-10 powered J-10s vs the hundreds of Al-31 powered J-10s obviously is not a fair comparison either) or twin engine vs twin engine aircraft (such as WS-10 flankers vs Al-31 powered flankers), and they should also be of similar sample size and have been in operation for a similar duration of time under similar conditions.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't hold any position in this matter of engines. I don't know enough to have a position. Manqiangrexue's comments seem to imply he holds the authority on logic because of his PhD and sound a little degrading to those without such degree. My feeling is that if he is confident about his position, he should be able to argue using logic not his degree. I apologize if I misunderstood him. Again, I have no position in the matter of fighter engines.

Vesicles, my degree is in biological sciences so it gives me no authority over engine quality, HOWEVER, I do need solid logic to draw conclusions and design experiments. If you read my posts, I had put forth much logic and explanation; it seemed Schumacher simply could not follow the obviously principled logic. He was stuck on thinking that if Flankers don't crash, then that means that WS-10A surely functioned with 100% reliability and that was proof they were more reliable than AL-31. You cannot compare engine reliability by mounting 1 to a single engine-fighter and another to a double-engine fighter because this introduces a huge extra uncontrolled variable, which invalidates the experiment from drawing meaningful conclusions. Also, you cannot rely on absence of crash report to say that neither of a twin-engine fighter's 2 engines have ever failed because that is a faulty test indicator due to the ability of flankers to land on 1 engine. I'm not familiar with the physics of engines but I am very familiar with logic behind testing. Only after exhausting my logical reasoning on Schumacher did I finally resort to telling him my degree, hoping that since he could not understand the logic, he'd at least understand that the likelihood of my being wrong and him being right is very very low considering what I do. I did not enjoy resorting to such a lowly way to make my point as arguments should stand on their merit, not on their origin, but I did not see any other way because, once again, he could not follow the logic itself. Interestingly, it did not get me anywhere either because he believes that if a PhD disagrees with him, then a PhD knows nothing LOL. Fortunately, I thought of comparing just Flankers with the AL31 vs. those with WS-10A, but I thought of this later. I really hope that gets through to him.

Blitzo, thanks for understanding me perfectly.

 

[tphuang]

alright, let's stop it here and get back on the topic of J-10 please.

 

[AssassinsMace]

More J-10C shots.

 

[Dizasta1]

I don't care what others say, but looking at this aircraft .... It has Pakistan Air Force written all over it. Call it a gut feeling, I just know that J-10C will be the best aircraft suited for Pakistan Air Force alongside the JF-17 Thunders. It'd be an awesome combo to see J-10C formations flying with JF-17 Block-llls in PAF colors ....

 

[timepass]

Agreed...remember PAF have signed an agreement with CAC for 36 FC20s.