MiG-29
Banned Idiot
for me its important technical based analisys, here i hear a lot of analisys based on personal desires rather than in honest technological and realistic realities
tech demostrator or fully fledge prototype
- Thread starter MiG-29
- Start date
for me its important technical based analisys, here i hear a lot of analisys based on personal desires rather than in honest technological and realistic realities
Speak for yourself. When we ask for technical data (like measurements) you don't provide it. You don't carefully read and consider the articles you quote, and we have to quote them back to you (which you so conveniently ignore afterwards), and you can't even get your math right.
airsuperiority
Captain
Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
-----------
-----------
Last edited:
airsuperiority
Captain
Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
------------
------------
Last edited:
You haven't answered any of my questions, while I have replied to yours.
The problem is that you underestimate the technological and realistic realities, and ignore multiple reliable accounts on J-20 as well.
If anyone is basing an opinion on personal desires, it's you.
Your technical analyses on J-20 are almost always inherently flawed logically, you almost never reply to questions with relevant answers, and make numerous assumptions about J-20 which is inconsistent with reliable accounts we have heard before, not to mention making technical proclamations with such conviction while we do not even know its length.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
look i will be utterly honest, most of your comments i read have no technical insight, i have read a lot about canards, a lot about forebody chines to know basics that allow me to say statements, i have read russian accounts, in russian about T-50, and i can tell you with honesty, most of the analisys i read here are not based in technical aspects, but personal desires, most russian literature about T-50 is based on technical aspects such as the engine troubles and difficulties.
Now i have a prety good idea what kind of design is the J-20 and why it needs TVC nozzles and what problems the program my face, i do not base my arguments on fallacies as most people here think, but on crude and simple design realities.
i am of the idea, it can be a technical demostrator as the YF-22 was, nothing wrong with that.
You don't think we've read a lot too? The only difference is that we bother to examine just how much we can actually extrapolate from what we read. We don't make far reaching generalized claims when we read something about how canards work because we understand that there's only so much you can figure out without actual measurements. Science and engineering rely on measured outcomes and you constantly ignore that. Reading a lot is important, but knowing how to interpret the information is equally as important, and we've pointed out several times where you've failed to interpret even basic things like the drag equation correctly.
Oh? Okay then. Tell us the sweep angle of each control surface, the overall area of its control surfaces, the overall lift generated, the overall drag, the lift and drag coefficients, where the center of gravity is located (a precise number please), where the aerodynamic chord is located, how much it weighs, etc. If you don't have the raw data for those things, there's no way you can "know" anything. Your crude and simple design realities is as good as me saying "your tall so you must be good at basketball" or "Look, it's a gas giant so it must have the same density as Jupiter". While the rest (or at least a good number) of us await information that lets us find these basic factors, you just go around making assumptions with no backing behind hard data.
When an engineer says "we know that the plane is so and so" he says that after having doing numerous calculations and testing. He doesn't go around citing papers that have nothing to do with what he's examining. Good science and engineering is about admitting what you don't know, not about assuming what you do.
And I am of the idea that no matter what we call it, we already have an official expected timeline.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
studies say quatitatively what features are better to achieve some results, i can know more than you simply by using those studies as a reference point while you can not say a thing beyond we do not know.
that is the difference, i do not use internet rumours to draw conclusions but aerodynamic studies and history of aviation to see realities of aircraft programs
Did you ever learn what all else held equal means? The results of the study are derived from having controls (constants) and tests (variables). When those constants change, as when you're comparing two different designs, you cannot use differences in tested features (variables) from a study to do comparative results. The lack of constants introduces intervening variables, and you need to account for those before you can draw anything out of those studies. Your studies are useless if you don't know how to use and interpret them, and so far you've done a poor job of both.
I have used studies you've provided as a reference point as well, and I have specifically quoted instances where you've misinterpreted or completely ignored very important points and caveats in them. Whenever I have done so you have not responded. For example, when I asked you to quote specific instances that backed very specific assertions you've made, like "the so and so is better than so and so" you have ignored those requests. When I have quoted instances that indicate the very opposite of your claims from your own studies, you have ignored those points. It is not a problem of me saying "we don't know enough", it's a problem of you using unfounded assumptions to fill what you don't know.
I do not use internet rumours either (if you think I have I would gladly have you point them out). In fact, I have not drawn any conclusions (please name conclusions you think I've drawn in this long discussion. because I do not seem to remember asserting anything beyond a length argument). I also do not draw conclusions without adequate data. That however hasn't stopped you.
Last edited:
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The T-50 as of now has demonstrated neither TVC nozzles or the ability to supercruise. Guess it's not a "true 5th generation fighter", then.
The key word is "prototype". You are not going to install production engines and avionics on a testbed that will only be used for test flying and to try out its airframe. You are going to have to look at its production specifications to get a picture what its capabilities really are.
The key word is "prototype". You are not going to install production engines and avionics on a testbed that will only be used for test flying and to try out its airframe. You are going to have to look at its production specifications to get a picture what its capabilities really are.