The paper talks about other maneuvering issues just means the paper is comprehensive. It doesn't diminishing the fact that your point regarding loitering duration has been addressed.
It doesn't just talk about other issues also, it is - that one sentence apart which doesn't even exclusively deal with the subject - almost completely about other issues. Loitering/endurance meanwhile isn't touched upon *anywhere* in it - stop lying.
All in all, there are 10 figures - how many relate to subsonic cruise or loiter? That's right, zero. From start to finish, the paper consists of some 140 sentences - how many refer to subsonic cruise? One. Must be of absolutely critical importance for sure, if 99.3% (95% if we're very generous and count half of section 3 as applicable to this rather than to turning, or 100% if we consider loiter) of the text and 100% of the diagrams have nothing to do with it.
LOL! This coming from the person who:
makes bold claims about variable geometry wing while not knowing the design conflicts that variable geometry was invented to solve,
The only one here who has proven he doesn't know that is you, even though there were nice, concise explanations staring you in the face.
sees "streamline traced" get mentioned and automatically assumes that is an inlet category,
Streamline tracing is a method of deriving aerodynamic shapes (including intakes). What's wrong with categorizing intake types which are based on this technique together? I mean, "category" quite literally means simply a collection of items that share a characteristic of some kind.
Oh, I get it - this was an attempt to start another terminology debate based on the contrived assertion of yours that it is not "technically" allowable to do so unless there is some mysterious reference which says so
Meanwhile you'll blithely ignore manifold perfectly technical counter-examples and eventually get so confused by your own logical gyrations that you begin to contradict yourself at every turn.
Let's spare everyone another futile exercise of that sort.
doesn't understand why the technical term variable geometry inlet exists and insists on using the term movable ramp inlet instead,
Between the two of us, I'm actually the one who didn't insist on anything regarding intake terminology. I merely played along with your hair-splitting for a while to expose how absurd it was and watch you get increasingly tangled up in your own web of semantic deception.
I'd much rather discuss these gems which I missed earlier, if you insist on a mud slinging match:
Look at your first source, and check out the patent filing date. The patent was filed in 2006, whereas DSI first flew in December 1996. DSI exists long before your so called "category" does.
What about the references in several of those sources to the 1985 work by Seddon and Goldsmith that you are so conveniently ignoring? But I can do even better than that, here's a patent which explains what your so-called 1950s "bump theory" is in fact all about:
It proposes a mixed compression inlet combining the bump with an internal supersonic compression diffusor (DSI fighter intakes are external compression only for stable subcritical operation, AFAIK), but clearly the approach for constructing the bump geometry is the same. So streamline tracing existed as far back as that, and as did the basic principle behind what today is called DSI.
Not that I expect you to accept this, since you've demonstrated time and again that you are incapable recognizing a concept if it's not called by the name familiar to you personally, which then means it's not the "technical term"
Also, look at your own source to see what is a streamline. Streamline is basically the path traced by a particle. That sounds just like CFD.
So according to Tirdent, anything that involves analysis of streamline falls under a category of "streamline traced design". Modern automobile — streamline traced automobile category. Modern buildings — streamline traced building category. LOL!
LOL, indeed. This has to rank as one of the most stupid things I've ever read from somebody claiming to have a knowledge of fluid dynamics.
A streamline is NOT generally the path traced by a particle. It
can be under certain circumstances, and in flow fields which are to be used for generating geometry by streamline tracing it even
must be, but this is NOT the case per se.
CFD does NOT equate to streamline tracing - which is why the distinction above isn't mere sophistry, since CFD is widely used to analyse flow phenomena where streamlines most certainly do not correspond to particle trajectories (very important in building aerodynamics, for example).
You could (barely) have gotten away with equating streamlines and particle paths, since for the purpose of creating shapes from streamline tracing this has to be the case, but going on to say CFD is the same as streamline tracing is just embarrassing.
You are also using weasel word again. "Likely" to be the most unstable in yaw?
Not weasel words - honesty and rigour (alien concepts to you, I know). I don't have comprehensive data on yaw stability margins, so I can't be absolutely certain and I reflect that in my choice of words.
Let's see some numbers on stability margin compare to F-22, F-35 and the J-20. Adopting a configuration with yaw instability is not a worthy accomplishment when compared to other 5-th generation designs, as the J-20 configuration is also unstable in yaw.
By all means, let's see numbers. Do you have any? Or are you just bluffing and hiding behind an element of doubt which however applies to your own position *at least* equally? Something which you, unlike me, refuse to even acknowledge though - and then even have the gall to accuse me of using weasel words when I'm simply being more honest.
Remember how I said the paper A Study of Low Aspect-Ratio High-Lift Aerodynamics Layout will addresses your points raised in the future?
As you've already admitted yourself, a certain degree of yaw instability is common - the issue is how much. The presence of ventral strakes on the J-20 and the fact that even without them the tails on the Su-57 are still about 20% smaller in area make it quite likely that the latter is more unstable. So not only does the paper not even begin to address the points I made about VG wings (which is what you originally said), it is unable to prove me wrong on yaw instability as well.
BTW, we do have approximate numbers on *longitudinal* instability - the J-20 paper gives a desired goal of going to "around 10%" from low single-digits in legacy designs and cautions against higher values due to flight control challenges while the Su-57 is reportedly (Butowski) in the 15% ball park. Apparently Sukhoi is ready to tackle greater flight control system challenges, which makes it rather plausible that they'd be able to achieve a higher yaw instability margin.
