J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

latenlazy said:

...Well, technically the purple is aligned with the yellow, and the red is aligned with the white...

Click to expand...

No. Red is clearly not aligned with White. The angles must be exact; otherwise it creates a new direction for radar reflection. If you draw a horizontal line across both engines, the Red is approximately 60 degrees from the horizontal and the White is only about 30 degrees.

There is also a clear difference between the Dark Red and Yellow. The Dark Red is much steeper in angle from the vertical axis of the plane.

Martian said:

No. Red is clearly not aligned with White. The angles must be exact; otherwise it creates a new direction for radar reflection. If you draw a horizontal line across both engines, the Red is approximately 60 degrees from the horizontal and the White is only about 30 degrees.

There is also a clear difference between the Dark Red and Yellow. The Dark Red is much steeper in angle from the vertical axis of the plane.

Click to expand...

Zoom in. Your white line is off.

latenlazy said:

Zoom in. Your white line is off.

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you want. I worked on the analysis for hours. I have seen all of the pictures in great detail. You are dead wrong. My lines are not perfect, but they are close.


Magnified picture of wing edges for Pak-Fa/T-50.

To the naked eye, the two wing edges are clearly not parallel. In addition, I have drawn line segments between the two wing edges to show that the two line segments are of significantly different length, which would not happen if the two lines were parallel. I have proven through geometry that you are incorrect.

^ Touchy.

I'm also interested why you didn't include the v tails of the respective aircraft, which would seem to show J-20's not aligning with the wings (nor the canards?) while T-50 and F-22s do. I'd also hesitate to come to a conclusion like "With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions," from only talking about the "main wings and winglets."
I mean you can say the alignment of x and y on aircraft a is good compared to x and y on aircraft b but there are other things you can miss out invalidating a entire claim like that. For instance the LERX/LEVCON of PAK FA and F-22, and the rounded LERX of J-20.

Bltizo said:

^ Touchy.

I'm also interested why you didn't include the v tails of the respective aircraft, which would seem to show J-20's not aligning with the wings (nor the canards?) while T-50 and F-22s do. I'd also hesitate to come to a conclusion like "With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions," from only talking about the "main wings and winglets."
I mean you can say the alignment of x and y on aircraft a is good compared to x and y on aircraft b but there are other things you can miss out invalidating a entire claim like that. For instance the LERX/LEVCON of PAK FA and F-22, and the rounded LERX of J-20.

Click to expand...

Typical endless criticism. You go draw the V-tails. These things take forever. I made the post to educate the majority of readers on planform alignment. That is the purpose. I don't care whether the reader concludes which plane is better. That is not the point.

After an objective analysis, the Pak-Fa/T-50 clearly had more reflective angles than the J-20 and F-22. It is silly to withhold a conclusion to be "politically correct." The value of the post is to shed light on the topic of planform alignment.

Martian said:

You can believe whatever you want. I worked on the analysis for hours. I have seen all of the pictures in great detail. You are dead wrong. My lines are not perfect, but they are close.

Magnified picture of wing edges for Pak-Fa/T-50.

To the naked eye, the two wing edges are clearly not parallel. In addition, I have drawn line segments between the two wing edges to show that the two line segments are of significantly different length, which would not happen if the two lines were parallel. I have proven through geometry that you are incorrect.

Click to expand...

Your new line segments correct for the white line, but are not parallel to the red. I'm not asserting any belief here, just going by what I see. You set the paradigm that the planform must be aligned perfectly. I'm just trying to get measuremt errors out of the way.

Edit:another thing I just noted. There's a gap on the horizontal stabilizers. They might be deflected in the picture.

Martian said:

Typical endless criticism. You go draw the V-tails. These things take forever. I made the post to educate the majority of readers on planform alignment. That is the purpose. I don't care whether the reader concludes which plane is better. That is not the point.

After an objective analysis, the Pak-Fa/T-50 clearly had more reflective angles than the J-20 and F-22. It is silly to withhold a conclusion to be politically correct. However, the value of the post is to shed light on the topic of planform alignment.

Click to expand...

Well then post the information in the military FAQ thread or something, because what I see is superficially blowing J-20s horn while prodding T-50 with a stick. The premises are fine, the conclusion from them isn't. It's not like people don't have access to wikipedia themselves either...
You should join key forums and post these analyses up there, I'd be interested to see some of the members' reactions over there.
And I believe line black is parallel to purple/scarlett and light blue.

EDIT:

It might've been wiser to use this picture as your PAK FA case study, given there's less of an tilt of the actual aircraft from the camera. I think in this case it's still hard to tell if red is indeed parallel with white. But black is definitely parallel to purple.

This thread is about J-20 and stealth technology. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. How many times do I have to keep saying that? And I couldn't care less what you think, I'm going to keep posting until a moderator tells me that I have violated a forum rule, which has never occurred.

Got it? I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again.

Latenlazy's criticism was wrong. Since he magnified the picture, his eyes should have easily seen that my analysis was correct. Instead, he tried to inject uncertainty into my analysis and wasted my time to prove him wrong. He already knew the truth. The answer is easily discernible with his eyeballs.

You two are constant burrs on my tail. I'm trying to illuminate the topic of stealth for the majority of the readers and you two keep posting comments with no insightful information. Go bother someone else.

Martian said:

This thread is about J-20 and stealth technology. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. How many times do I have to keep saying that? And I couldn't care less what you think, I'm going to keep posting until a moderator tells me that I have violated a forum rule, which has never occurred.

Got it? I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again.

Click to expand...

Getting back on topic, in the latest image that Blitzo posted, the black does look aligned with the purple, and you're right that the red still doesn't look aligned to the white.

Martian said:

This thread is about J-20 and stealth technology. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. How many times do I have to keep saying that? And I couldn't care less what you think, I'm going to keep posting until a moderator tells me that I have violated a forum rule, which has never occurred.

Got it? I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again.

Click to expand...

It's not that you shouldn't post, but that if you post you should be mindful of accuracy. These are valid and constructive criticisms, and good things to think about to get a broader understanding of a subject.