J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[SDWatcher]

I started off responding quite politely to you. If someone responds negatively to another person's pejorative attitude it's not the former person that's the problem.

Of course, it is always the other person's "pejorative attitude" and the other person's "problem". What is new?

Ah, but you're definitely resolving the fiasco by extending this conversation to attack the authenticity of my Chinese. Maybe you should look to yourself before accusing others of derailing this thread.

At least, I don't pretend not to be part of the fiasco by now. I suppose the moderators will delete the messages soon enough.

If all the native Chinese you know don't use grammar then they must not have gone to elementary school. You do know that model sentences is *grammar* right? That's what it's meant to teach? Maybe the problem is not my Chinese, but your English, and you don't actually know what the definition of grammar is.

I learned Chinese in China, *because I was born in China*.

I was referring to your reciting grammar rules, not the grammar structure itself, which canbe acquired through model sentences, paragraphs, and essays. So you were born in China. Congratulations.

 

[SDWatcher]

@SDWatcher, I must say that it is very wrong to say Chinese language does not use grammar. Chinese language has its OWN grammar that is different from the Indo-European languages. That difference is not "no grammar" but different. Chinese language is analytical language, instead of using different word tenses and forms, Chinese use different qualifying words. In this case, Chinese is very unique among all languages on the planet.

I would agree and disagree. I was referring to grammar rules, instead of the grammar structure in Chinese. The model sentences, paragraphs, and essays, already illustrate the benchmark of how the languange are supposed to be used. So the rules canbe dropped and replaced with a more efficient natural feel for the language.

Also you need to be aware that, being a native speaker does not mean you know the language from a linguistic ground. For example, many native English speakers have no clue why they speak in a certain order and using certain tense, meaning they don't know that they are following or making mistakes of English grammar. On the contrary, foreigners who studied English as second language could be more accurate in English grammar even though they are less capable in speaking because of their smaller vocabulary and phrases.

Foreigners studying English would be more beneficial with grammar rules, because (a) English has a more elaborate grammar structure and (b) foreigners usually don't have enough exposure to absorb English, through model sentences, paragraphs, and essays. So this is a different situation than natively learning Chinese.

Your natural feel of Chinese is the same natural feel of a native English speaker, it doesn't mean either of you are aware of your grammars. Believe me, when I started to learn my third foreign language, I frequently asked the native speakers for right grammars, they could only tell me "just do this way, don't ask why".

I started with grammar rules in English and I don't need referencing to them for a long time by now. Just an instinctive feel of the language, is already working well, whether spoken or written. And more efficient too.

 

[latenlazy]

You were only reciting rules that native Chinese don't even use, which led to more confusion. Maybe this is how you learned Chinese?

Maybe if you want to explain some Chinese translations to non native speakers and non speakers of the language whether the explanation conforms to native Chinese isn’t very useful. That said I wasn’t reciting any rules. I was making explicit to non speakers of the language what was implicit to speakership of the language, and it seems some members here found that quite helpful, so no, I’m not adding to any confusion. Your theory that Gongke forgot or omitted a word is actually *more* confusing. You don’t need to assume he left out a word to comprehend what he meant in the original text.

 

[SDWatcher]

Maybe if you want to explain some Chinese translations to non native speakers and non speakers of the language whether the explanation conforms to native Chinese isn’t very useful. That said I wasn’t reciting any rules. I was making explicit to non speakers of the language what was implicit to speakership of the language, and it seems some members here found that quite helpful, so no, I’m not adding to any confusion.

If you say so, then to each their own. Really, it is tiresome by now.

Your theory that Gongke forgot or omitted a word is actually *more* confusing. You don’t need to assume he left out a word to comprehend what he meant in the original text.

The interpretation of the entire message, is different with or without {会}, a point that you still can't comprehend. And a simple typo or bad choices of words, are also common in forum messages. It is a probable and simplest reasonable explanation.

 

[Deino]

Can we finally come back to the topic??

 

[Tirdent]

I'll gladly oblige, Deino!

According to this drawing from the same person who first indicated we might see a J-10 with TVC and J-20s with sawtoothed nozzles, yes. There are supposedly two J-20s testing the WS-10 with sawtoothed nozzles, and another one testing TVC.

Interesting... though in that case I do find it notable that photos of both the TVC J-10 and WS-10 powered J-20 have since emerged, while the TVC J-20 has remained conspicuously absent. Which could mean the author of the cartoon misidentified the serrated WS-10 for the TVC variant on that one occasion and it doesn't in fact exist, or publishing a drawing pushes the limits of what he can release - which in turn would fit the pattern I'm postulating. It's ok to show the nozzle per se, but acknowledging its connection to the J-20 is considered sensitive and can at best be done indirectly.

It's not like the LOAN design used on the F-16 was exactly identical to what ended up being employed on the F135.

The F-16 nozzle lacks the RCS treatments round the airframe interface (but that's an airframe rather than engine-driven difference) and has a divergent section of conventional length (again related to the host aircraft, as VTOL was not required). Available imagery of the test nozzle makes it hard to be certain, but it *appears* as though it may have one petal less (14) than the production version on the F-35 (15). That could be engine related, as the F135 is significantly larger in diameter than the F100 - whether the same applies to the WS-10 and WS-15 is not such a clear-cut case though.

It's a question of specific thrust: in the former case, you have two engines with virtually identical bypass ratio (though somewhat mitigated by a 600-700K increase in turbine inlet temperature) where the final application delivers more than 1.8 times the thrust of the early-model F100. In the latter pairing the thrust ratio is more like 1.5 while the WS-15 may well *halve* the BPR (though the TIT increase will probably turn out to be less steep). In any case we know they are close enough to fit the same basic aircraft whereas I doubt a F100 can sensibly fit in a F-35 no matter the extent of the modifications.

And anyway, the hypothesis does not absolutely require the J-10 TVC-nozzle and the WS-15 nozzle to have exactly the same petal count - so long as the numbers differ from both the AL-31F and "stealthified" WS-10, it remains compatible with gongke's comments. I'm not sure we can take his statement as meaning the nozzle people have seen (without realizing that it is related to the WS-15) is absolutely identical to the final WS-15 design, rather than just the same in basic concept. I'm sure people have referred to the LOAN test nozzle and the final one on the F-35 in a similar way.

In fact, can't gongke's petal counts be interpreted to mean the TVC J-20 doesn't exist (at least not unless we accept the engine really is a WS-15 already)? The nozzle on the J-10 test bed almost certainly has fewer petals than he attributes to the WS-10 variant in the J-20.

 

[latenlazy]

I'll gladly oblige, Deino!



Interesting... though in that case I do find it notable that photos of both the TVC J-10 and WS-10 powered J-20 have since emerged, while the TVC J-20 has remained conspicuously absent. Which could mean the author of the cartoon misidentified the serrated WS-10 for the TVC variant on that one occasion and it doesn't in fact exist, or publishing a drawing pushes the limits of what he can release - which in turn would fit the pattern I'm postulating. It's ok to show the nozzle per se, but acknowledging its connection to the J-20 is considered sensitive and can at best be done indirectly.

Drawing error is always possible, but we had the same doubts when this person drew that TVC J-10 and it turned out to be on the spot. Discretion is also a possibility, but this specific person doesn't do photos. S/He seems to be getting their scoops due to being close to the airfield and having a good vantage point. CAC's not as welcoming to lay photographers as it used to be, so it's hard to say whether the lack of photos is due to hard controls on information or just a lack of good opportunities. FWIW I seem to recall this TVC version flew to Yanliang soon after we got the drawing, and Yanliang is much harder to photograph. This also happened with the supposed second J-20 mounted with serrated nozzles, where we got a drawing but not a photo before it flew off from CAC to Yanliang.

And anyway, the hypothesis does not absolutely require the J-10 TVC-nozzle and the WS-15 nozzle to have exactly the same petal count - so long as the numbers differ from both the AL-31F and "stealthified" WS-10, it remains compatible with gongke's comments. I'm not sure we can take his statement as meaning the nozzle people have seen (without realizing that it is related to the WS-15) is absolutely identical to the final WS-15 design, rather than just the same in basic concept. I'm sure people have referred to the LOAN test nozzle and the final one on the F-35 in a similar way.

Your hypothesis doesn't require the J-10 TVC nozzle and the WS-15 nozzle to have the same petal count, but the contention that started this particular line of discussion was precisely whether the WS-15's TVC nozzle mounted on the J-20 will be the same as the WS-10's TVC nozzle mounted on the J-10. It seems, from his other comments, that Gongke is reasonably confident that the specific nozzle he's talking about should be the one intended for production design, given that in other comments (if I'm recalling correctly) he draws contrast between this one to the prototypes, and given that he's explicitly saying that we will know the J-20 is mounting a WS-15 when we see this particular nozzle (and specifically when we find the petal count to not be either 18 or 16).

In fact, can't gongke's petal counts be interpreted to mean the TVC J-20 doesn't exist (at least not unless we accept the engine really is a WS-15 already)? The nozzle almost certainly has fewer petals than he attributes to the WS-10 variant in that aircraft.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[latenlazy]

If you say so, then to each their own. Really, it is tiresome by now.

Then maybe you should have left my comments alone rather than attack me over things I didn't do or blame me for this long tangent?

The interpretation of the entire message, is different with or without {会}, a point that you still can't comprehend. And a simple typo or bad choices of words, are also common in forum messages. It is a probable and simplest reasonable explanation.

What are you talking about? I comprehended the difference between his comments with or without your addition of that extra 会 just fine. You thought his comment meant "Many people (as in bystanders) *will* get a chance to see the nozzle of the WS-15 when it is installed on the J-20". I didn't read his comment that way at all. I read his post as saying "Many have already had a chance to see the version of the WS-15 nozzle that will be installed on the J-20". My original reply was to say that I don't think he forgot a 会 because I don't think he was referring to some future moment. He was saying many have *already* seen the nozzle, not that many *will* see the nozzle. 许多人 wasn't referring to common bystanders like you and me, but other people working in Chinese the aerospace industry. It's not that I misunderstood what you thought Gongke said. It's that you're missing context from Gongke's other comments about this nozzle in other threads.

Of course, it is always the other person's "pejorative attitude" and the other person's "problem". What is new?

The person who started it is the person with the problem.

At least, I don't pretend not to be part of the fiasco by now. I suppose the moderators will delete the messages soon enough.

Yeah, *after* you got called out for it.

I was referring to your reciting grammar rules, not the grammar structure itself, which canbe acquired through model sentences, paragraphs, and essays. So you were born in China. Congratulations.

Grammar structure *is the same thing* as grammar rules. The point of grammar rules is to describe grammar structure. And either way I wasn't reciting any rules. I was explaining the structure to people who didn't seem to understand it. No matter how many times you repeat "reciting grammar rules" it doesn't make it a true or accurate description of my comments over this translation.

You questioned where I learned my Chinese. Now you know.

 

[Tirdent]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Well, according to gongke:

16 petals -> AL-31F
18 petals -> WS-10
anything else -> WS-15

right?

Going by the photos we've seen to date, the J-10 TVC nozzle seems to have 15 petals (give or take perhaps one), which is at odds with the above. So either:

a) the TVC J-20 nozzle is not the same as the one on the J-10 (because it has 18 petals, like the non-TVC WS-10 variant), leaving open the possibility that it's the J-10 TVC nozzle which corresponds to the WS-15 design after all
b) the TVC J-20 already has a WS-15
or c) the TVC J-20 doesn't exist.

 

[latenlazy]

Well, according to gongke:

16 petals -> AL-31F
18 petals -> WS-10
anything else -> WS-15

right?

Going by the photos we've seen to date, the J-10 TVC nozzle seems to have 15 petals (give or take perhaps one), which is at odds with the above. So either:

a) the TVC J-20 nozzle is not the same as the one on the J-10 (because it has 18 petals, like the non-TVC WS-10 variant), leaving open the possibility that it's the J-10 TVC nozzle which corresponds to the WS-15 design after all
b) the TVC J-20 already has a WS-15
or c) the TVC J-20 doesn't exist.

I don't think he was referring to the TVC version of the WS-10 when he said 18 petals -> WS-10.

I don't think A is out of the question, and Gongke's comments alone don't disqualify it as possible, but as I've mentioned in my earlier replies I have other reasons for doubting this to be the case. B, I hope I've already clarified as a misunderstanding of what he was saying. I'm not sure how you arrived at C though...a TVC J-20, unless the drawing is wrong, almost certainly exists now (but with the WS-10, not the WS-15), and at least based on Gongke's comment TVC for the WS-15 that's meant to be installed on the J-20 also very much exists.