J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[siegecrossbow]

Well, I agree we shouldn't out words in people's mouths, but SB has also expressed more skepticism than one would expect at a variety of different J-20 photos that were quite real.

I still remember posting a stream of different high res J-20 photos to show SB who didn't accept that one of the higher resolution J-20 landing photos taken from below wasn't a PS or CG.

I don't understand what the point of the posts is, since we all know for a fact that J-20 is real and some CG photos have no bearing on the performance of the aircraft. Maybe to show off photography skills?

 

[kyanges]

Was this edge always like this?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Was this edge always like this?

I pointed this out several posts ago, but somebody dismissed it as canard deflection angle.

 

[tony0989]

I pointed this out several posts ago, but somebody dismissed it as canard deflection angle.

Is this structural or aerodynamic concerns? anyone knows?

 

[drunkmunky]

can this bird still fly w/ one of those front canards gone?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Is this structural or aerodynamic concerns? anyone knows?

It is probably RCS reduction related, since the canard integrates better with the fuselage at a neutral position after this feature is added.

 

[tony0989]

can this bird still fly w/ one of those front canards gone?

Your question let me recall one accident happened to Alaska airliner's DC-9 (horizontal stabilizer's out of control). But this is a different design and different function. So I guess yes.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Actually, I have not seen anywhere where SB said they were all fake, and nothing like it...so let's not put words in his mouth.

He has taken issue with a couple of pictures...and many of us have. There si absolutely no doubt that the J-20 and its flights for the three prototypes are real. The J-20 2011 jas been anticipated to fly for quite some time now, and people all over the world have been watching.

So, before we speak for someone, let's here it from them. In the mean time, he has indicated that in that one picture he felt the tree branches were added. perhaps it would be better to ask why he thinks that instead of saying something like this that will only lead to arguments, accusations and counter accusation.

Well like I've mentioned before I know SB from visiting in another forum that has nothing to do with politics or geo-politics but he certainly brings it in. I'm not a member in that forum so I don't engage with him but visit plenty for the subject matter. BD I see visits that forum too. So I'm not going by his history in this forum but I know what he does over there which would clearly violate the rules over here. I already know what he's doing in this forum and it isn't for intellectual discussion.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Well like I've mentioned before I know SB from visiting in another forum that has nothing to do with politics or geo-politics but he certainly brings it in. I'm not a member in that forum so I don't engage with him but visit plenty for the subject matter. BD I see visits that forum too. So I'm not going by his history in this forum but I know what he does over there which would clearly violate the rules over here. I already know what he's doing in this forum and it isn't for intellectual discussion.

Give me a break, talk about accusing without proof.
Read my last post I stated the branches were fake and have not mentioned anything about the plane itself. If you look closely, you'll find a second watermark in the center of the photo with another on the bottom left hand side suggesting it is a secondary usage.
For you information I have never suggested that this prototype plane does not exist. I do reserve some doubts on how the whole program is progressing especially concerning the indigenous engine which is said to be developed but that is another story altogether.
So please keep your speculations about fellow members to yourself.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Give me a break, talk about accusing without proof.
Read my last post I stated the branches were fake and have not mentioned anything about the plane itself. If you look closely, you'll find a second watermark in the center of the photo with another on the bottom left hand side suggesting it is a secondary usage.
For you information I have never suggested that this prototype plane does not exist. I do reserve some doubts on how the whole program is progressing especially concerning the indigenous engine which is said to be developed but that is another story altogether.
So please keep your speculations about fellow members to yourself.

I'm just summing up what you're saying to everyone else so you don't have to play coy. And you don't have to tell me you have doubts. I already knew that before you even became a member in this forum.