• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,068
Removed a number of posts about J-20 vertical tails being used differentially while manouvering that were annoying me. If you have an argument to make, please try to use words not post random images about how levers work or trigonometry.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Removed a number of posts about J-20 vertical tails being used differentially while manouvering that were annoying me. If you have an argument to make, please try to use words not post random images about how levers work or trigonometry.
why annoying did i say something false? Do you have evidence i was wrong? what is analysis for you? was i wrong about it? was my math wrong? were the picture not related? anyway i own a website where all those facts are shown, i do not think I posted things that are false, not even the trigonometry which pretty much exposes real facts if I was wrong prove it, If you are right prove it, other wise I know the only reason you deleted the posts, you are administrator, me just a user, the topic was right, it says analysis, and i did it, if you delete post like that it is not analysis, it is just your website, which is fine, but it is not exchange of Ideas, at least not for me in no moment i did insult or said any thing not related to aircraft, aircraft are made using math, if you can not accept that then it is pretty obvious this forum is not to exchange ideas, specially since you did not justify with reason, since pretty much i used math and i can prove I am right, it is basic physics high school physics, a little bit of vector nothing complex, i tell you honestly it is your website, it is supposed to exchange ideas, I own a website, well several, basically I know I was right regardless you deleted the post, if I was wrong you did not prove you are right and the only thing you can do is delete my post, but you can not delete facts, if I was wrong, prove it otherwise the only reason you did it is because you own the website, beyond that my websites use information from aerodynamic studies and the website have visitors, can you silence here me yes, can you hide facts? no i have my own public websites, if you are right prove it with math i used pretty simple math nothing complex, was i wrong? no why you delete them? well i have my theories and none is related to the fact you prove me wrong, prove with math i was wrong; you can erase my post, but that is not the reason for forums to be the point is exchange ideas, and if we can not agree, well learn to disagree in peace.


Honestly annoying me is not a reason, falsehood is one good reason, insults i agree, but having other points of view, no it is not good reason, specially if you suppose to exchange Ideas, i did not do anything different you have done, but of course here I am not administrator, just user, if you are like that then i can go to other forums and as long i use the truth my websites will have visitors . ;) and as long i tell the true i do not care if others get angry I live for the true, not for others like me or not the true should be the reason to live.

And it is sad, i did learn something from you in your DSI intake thread of J-20, the use of bleed system in JF-17 and the Ferri intake history, that i consider you were pretty smart, or at least you know about history of aviation but if you can not accept others have different ideas then you disappoint me, i thought you were a smart guy, any way you taught me something new, sadly you can not accept others have different ideas, but I think I owe you a new fact and i did learn from you.


Regards

1573128733457.png

1573128763910.png
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
961
Reaction score
90
You could have said that in half a line, quite a diatribe.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
You could have said that in half a line, quite a diatribe.
You could have said that in half a line, quite a diatribe.
I tried to say something like this http://www.geocities.ws/gi8u2racing/VTailvsConventional.html
check the link trigonometry has to do a lot when you cant a control surface, i did not say anything wrong i thought if you post pictures of trigonometry most people will understand quickly, i did learn from him that is true, but i can not understand why doing an analysis of differential deflection of J-20 vertical tails can not use basic physics, but okay each forum has limits what we can do?

Plus i try to be the most polite he is a person and as much i disliked his actions still deserves my respect, true i did not like that, but he still deserves my respects


1573128816070.png

1573129058157.png
1573214453887.png
1573129104238.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
961
Reaction score
90
Understood, I can have quite the diatribe myself and try to cut it down to concise. Less is more.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Understood, I can have quite the diatribe myself and try to cut it down to concise. Less is more.
see the F-35B and look at its tailerons and vertical canted fins
1573049781445.png

see now J-20
1573049814074.png

see both pictures look at the canards and at the vertical tails of J-20, consider on F-35B it has a fan ahead of the center of Gravity, and J-20 has its canards ahead of the center of gravity.
now see F-35A

1573050054980.png

consider the position of the F-35A tailerons and their AoA
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
745
Reaction score
80
Perhaps that could be best discussed under a different topic?
I could understand that other contributors may see Pegasus’s points above as tangential at best to this topic (J-20 news etc.)
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
42
Understood, I can have quite the diatribe myself and try to cut it down to concise. Less is more.
see the F-35B and look at its tailerons and vertical canted fins

see now J-20

see both pictures look at the canards and at the vertical tails of J-20, consider on F-35B it has a fan ahead of the center of Gravity, and J-20 has its canards ahead of the center of gravity.
now see F-35A

consider the position of the F-35A tailerons and their AoA
It simply comes down to you not understanding how advanced flight control systems work. Also, comparing pictures of a J-20 landing and an F-35 STOL performing a STOL take-off is comparing apples to carrots. Although the fact that one is a canard aircraft and the other isn't is a factor.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,527
Reaction score
89
Why do I have that strange feeling that here is someone ferociously discussing a topic to death, is posting pages of long text and images of IMO completely irrelevant issues, a member who has been banned at the SinodefenceForum for exactly this issue and now does the same at another forum I know on the same topic?

I at least find it most annoying.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,068
Pegasus, you have managed to derail two separate topics with lengthy image filled posts which appear to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the complexities of the subjects involved, and in both cases you seemed unwilling to accept feedback that your analysis might be incomplete or flawed.

I'm still not entirely clear what your posts in this topic were about, but you can't start from a single photo of a J-20 in flight showing differential vertical tail movement to conclude that the J-20 is a 'V-tail' design like the Beechcraft (whatever you think that means) using high-school maths and photographs of unrelated aircraft. You can write a really detailed book about flight control systems, and people have. It's a complex subject.

Maybe the J-20 uses differential vertical tail movement in a roughly analogous way to a v-tail in some specific flight conditions. If that is your point, then, OK. It could have been made much more succinctly. You can't "prove" it using analogy and basic maths.

If you can't see this, then I will have to take action. See forum rules - "Membership of this forum is a privilege not a right. The site administrator and moderators reserve the right to delete accounts, edit posts as appropriate, and ban users if abuse of this privilege take place."
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Pegasus, you have managed to derail two separate topics with lengthy image filled posts which appear to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the complexities of the subjects involved, and in both cases you seemed unwilling to accept feedback that your analysis might be incomplete or flawed.

I'm still not entirely clear what your posts in this topic were about, but you can't start from a single photo of a J-20 in flight showing differential vertical tail movement to conclude that the J-20 is a 'V-tail' design like the Beechcraft (whatever you think that means) using high-school maths and photographs of unrelated aircraft. You can write a really detailed book about flight control systems, and people have. It's a complex subject.

Maybe the J-20 uses differential vertical tail movement in a roughly analogous way to a v-tail in some specific flight conditions. If that is your point, then, OK. It could have been made much more succinctly. You can't "prove" it using analogy and basic maths.

If you can't see this, then I will have to take action. See forum rules - "Membership of this forum is a privilege not a right. The site administrator and moderators reserve the right to delete accounts, edit posts as appropriate, and ban users if abuse of this privilege take place."
You are right, membership is a privilege, true, i did not derail the topics, if you prove me trigonometry can not explain you the canting of tails and sum of vectors can not explain the differential deflection of the J-20 tails, then sorry, I know the real reason you say i derailed the threads, forums are full of passions people hate others not because of reason, but pride, they hate to be corrected, they hate to be proven wrong, there is envy and arrogance in forums.

remember i posted a beechcraft link from an aerospace manufacturer using sum of vectors, just remember that.


To me your explanation is not true, trigonometry does explain perfectly why there is canting of 65 degrees and the sum of vectors tells you why the are deflecting each and every surface, the complexity is not the deflection but the flight calculations that require a program and sensors, the deflections even a highschool student can understand it, you can apply your rules, it does not make you right, what makes you right is proof your decision to delete the posts were not emotional but scientific, by that you could have shown a document, something you did not, then i conclude your decision is pure emotional and such it comes from pride, power and is sad because i did learn from you, but i see here every one wants stardom, everyone has pride, if i did not use physics you can prove i was wrong not with your words but by a scientific document , then i conclude this forum is not for me, you can ban or do whatever, i did learn from you several factors, first the ferri intake thanks, the DSI can have bleed systems, thanks i appreciate that, communication sadly is both ways, if you want it unidirectional, is okay probably that is the most i will learn from you, then i will go to other forums, any way in forums even an idiot opines and thinks he is right, democracy does not make right, in real life facts make things, the trigonometry i used and the sum of vectors explain perfectly the differential deflection, sadly that is the most you want of communication between me and you, so be it, I never accept authority, over the truth, truth is always above authority, it is your site not mine, you can do as you wish, but truth is not yours, it does not belong to me or you, truth is proven by it self, aircraft use even more complex physics and math but the basic principles i used were right i posted documents, scientific documents, you can keep your club, but i want to grow learn more communication requires humility in both ways, i accept your authority since this is your site, but i do not accept your reasons to delete the posts.


Saludos
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Why do I have that strange feeling that here is someone ferociously discussing a topic to death, is posting pages of long text and images of IMO completely irrelevant issues, a member who has been banned at the SinodefenceForum for exactly this issue and now does the same at another forum I know on the same topic?

I at least find it most annoying.
I do not take things personal with you, I know your reasons, but i am a gentleman, i can forgive you, men we should learn to forgive, to have humility, thus i forgive you and if i did say something wrong to you forgive me humans we make mistakes, gentlemen should grow, wounds should be healed; and we should live in peace and harmony, so if i said something bad sorry, I am not perfect, also think you are not perfect, you do have like me passions, it is human we should always try to be nice, if not stay away but we should always live in peace.

1573129167914.png

1573129191551.png


Saludos
 
Last edited:

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
98
Reaction score
11
Pegasus, you have managed to derail two separate topics with lengthy image filled posts which appear to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the complexities of the subjects involved, and in both cases you seemed unwilling to accept feedback that your analysis might be incomplete or flawed.

I'm still not entirely clear what your posts in this topic were about, but you can't start from a single photo of a J-20 in flight showing differential vertical tail movement to conclude that the J-20 is a 'V-tail' design like the Beechcraft (whatever you think that means) using high-school maths and photographs of unrelated aircraft. You can write a really detailed book about flight control systems, and people have. It's a complex subject.

Maybe the J-20 uses differential vertical tail movement in a roughly analogous way to a v-tail in some specific flight conditions. If that is your point, then, OK. It could have been made much more succinctly. You can't "prove" it using analogy and basic maths.

If you can't see this, then I will have to take action. See forum rules - "Membership of this forum is a privilege not a right. The site administrator and moderators reserve the right to delete accounts, edit posts as appropriate, and ban users if abuse of this privilege take place."
You are right, membership is a privilege, true, i did not derail the topics, if you prove me trigonometry can not explain you the canting of tails and sum of vectors can not explain the differential deflection of the J-20 tails, then sorry, I know the real reason you say i derailed, forums are full of passions people hate others not because of reason, but pride, they hate to be corrected, they hate to be proven wrong, there is envy and arrogance in forums.

remember i posted a beechcraft link from an aerospace manufacturer using sum of vectors, just remember that.


To me your explanation is not true, trigonometry does explain perfectly why there is canting of 65 degrees and the sum of vectors tells you why the are deflecting each and every surface, the complexity is not the deflection but the flight calculations that require a program and sensors, the deflections even a highschool student can understand it, you can apply your rules, it does not make you right, what makes you right is proof your decision to delete the posts were not emotional but scientific, by that you could have shown a document, something you did not, then i conclude your decision is pure emotional and such it comes from pride, power and is sad because i did learn from you, but i see here every one wants stardom, everyone has pride, if i did not use physics you can prove i was wrong not with your words but by a scientific document , then i conclude this forum is not for me, you can ban or do whatever, i did learn from you several factors, first the ferri intake thanks, the DSI can have bleed systems, thanks i appreciate that, communication sadly is both ways, if you want it unidirectional, is okay probably that is the most i will learn from you, then i will go to other forums, any way in forums even an idiot opines and think he is right, democracy does not make right, in real life facts make things, the trigonometry i used and the sum of vectors explain perfectly the differential deflection, sadly that is the most you want of communication between me and you, so be it, I never accept authority, over the truth, truth is always above authority, it is your site not mine, you can do as you wish, but truth is not yours, it does not belong to me or you, truth is proven by it self, aircraft use even more complex physics and math but the basic principles i used were right i posted documents, scientific documents, you can keep your club, but i want to grow learn more communication requires humility in both ways, i accept your authority since this is your site, but i do not accept your reasons to delete the posts.


Saludos
Pegasus, your arguments are far too simplistic to justify a complex aircraft architecture decision.

Whilst the mathematics might be fundamentally correct (although, to be frank, I got bored of trying to understand your written english, glanced over the pictures and moved on, having decided it wasn't going to be worth my effort engaging with you) they do not, and can not explain the overall aircraft architecture/configuration decisions made considering a far wider range of factors.

I hope that you decide to stick around and grow with us. This is one of the best aerospace forums on the internet, in part because of how its run, and in part because of the very knowledgeable contributors.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Pegasus, your arguments are far too simplistic to justify a complex aircraft architecture decision.

Whilst the mathematics might be fundamentally correct (although, to be frank, I got bored of trying to understand your written english, glanced over the pictures and moved on, having decided it wasn't going to be worth my effort engaging with you) they do not, and can not explain the overall aircraft architecture/configuration decisions made considering a far wider range of factors.

I hope that you decide to stick around and grow with us. This is one of the best aerospace forums on the internet, in part because of how its run, and in part because of the very knowledgeable contributors.
I do understand that; the point what is complexity? give facts say it is to simplistic with respect what? I have studied J-20 from documents i found on the internet, i mean scientific documents, documents about canards, intakes, chines, I have read lots of documents written by aerodynamicists, from why the canard has this and that shape, why the intake needs pressure recovery, a throat size, why the tails need to be placed in booms, true make the aircraft require far more complex math, because you need at least differential equations to have all the variables in time and space, the control system follows a program true, but the deflections only follow vectors, it is only vectors, in fact the whole flight is a Sum of vectors, not complex in terms of understanding, the program in itself is another thing, but in reality is based in vectors, the program does calculate the different combinations of forces vectors and directions, but the basic flight is simple, the point is what is complexity and specify why and what are the complexities, expose them, show them but any one can say it is complex, but without being specific or at least name and explain why it is complex the concept is too vague, too ambiguous. What i mean the explanations i see on the thread do not go beyond at the most general knowledge of basic aerodynamics, is almost zero math, so I am surprised i used high school math and everybody jumps on me, judge me but every one did not present not a single mathematical explanation to prove their points but still claim i was wrong, that is what annoys me, because the quality of conversation is not high as claimed just viceral accusations.


Aircraft follow different levels of complexities, from basic aerodynamics to more complex calculations, but none are as complex to be not explained with simplicity, in fact explaining with simplicity is a proof of understanding, any thank you Saludos
 
Last edited:

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
98
Reaction score
11
Pegasus, your arguments are far too simplistic to justify a complex aircraft architecture decision.

Whilst the mathematics might be fundamentally correct (although, to be frank, I got bored of trying to understand your written english, glanced over the pictures and moved on, having decided it wasn't going to be worth my effort engaging with you) they do not, and can not explain the overall aircraft architecture/configuration decisions made considering a far wider range of factors.

I hope that you decide to stick around and grow with us. This is one of the best aerospace forums on the internet, in part because of how its run, and in part because of the very knowledgeable contributors.
I do understand that; the point what is complexity? give facts say it is to simplistic with respect what? I have studied J-20 from documents i found on the internet, i mean scientific documents, documents about canards, intakes, chines, I have read lots of documents written by aerodynamicists, from why the canard has this and that shape, why the intake needs pressure recovery, a throat size, why the tails need to be placed in booms, true make the aircraft require far more complex math, because you need at least differential equations to have all the variables in time and space, the control system follows a program true, but the deflections only follow vectors, it is only vectors, in fact the whole flight is a Sum of vectors, not complex in terms of understanding, the program in itself is another thing, but in reality is based in vectors, the program does calculate the different combinations of forces vectors and directions, but the basic flight is simple, the point is what is complexity and specify why and what are the complexities, expose them, show them but any one can say it is complex, but without being specific or at least name and explain why it is complex the concept is too vague, too ambiguous. What i mean the explanations i see on the thread do not go beyond at the most general knowledge of basic aerodynamics, is almost zero math, so I am surprised i used high school math and everybody jump on me, judge me but present not a single mathematical explanation that is what annoys me.


Aircraft follow different levels of complexities, from basic aerodynamics to more complex calculations, but none are as complex to be explained with simplicity, in fact explaining with simplicity is a proof of understanding, any thank you Saludos
Pegasus, the subject of overall aircraft design is a topic that reaches far beyond an aircraft specific thread.

Overscan will likely delete these posts too, because they fall outside of the scope of this specific thread.

If you want to learn something about the compromises involved in why aircraft look the way they do, please do start a thread and I'll contribute, as will others I'm sure.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Pegasus, the subject of overall aircraft design is a topic that reaches far beyond an aircraft specific thread.

Overscan will likely delete these posts too, because they fall outside of the scope of this specific thread.

If you want to learn something about the compromises involved in why aircraft look the way they do, please do start a thread and I'll contribute, as will others I'm sure.
thanks understood
1573214534122.png


1573214360972.png

1573214382359.png


1573129282992.png

1573129311422.png


1573129337407.png
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
1573214631088.png

1573214669847.png

a little bit of humour I found this in a Russian Forum

-And the fact that he is single-engine and very kosher at the same time, unlike this lop-eared miracle.
Do not exaggerate the shortcomings of the F-35. It is quite adequate, in the role of an attack apparatus and a front-line fighter, especially in battle with any 4th-generation aircraft. Yes, and the speed of the dragon is unlikely to be faster than a penguin.
And in general, the main "drawback", or rather two "drawbacks", F-35, is that they curtailed the release of F-22, and also that it was not called A \ F-35, so there would be no complaints at all airplane concept.-:D:D:D


1573224714710.png
1573224789922.png
1573225466707.png
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
1573299037057.png

1573299310292.png


1573299410326.png

Airshow China 2018 - Day Two
ZHUHAI, CHINA - NOVEMBER 07: Domestically developed WS-10 Taihang turbofan engine is on display on day two of the Airshow China 2018 on November 7, 2018 in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province of China. Airshow China 2018 takes place from November 6 to 11 in Zhuhai. (Photo by Long Wei/Visual China Group via Getty Images)
1573299785929.png

1573301023695.png

1573345178938.png
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
286
Reaction score
16
Hmm How many variants does the WS-10 have ?

The one showed here have low mounted gearbox, would be compatible with J-10 or J-20, but Su-27 based J-11 may need one with top mounted gearbox.
 

Hyperwarp

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Hmm How many variants does the WS-10 have ?

The one showed here have low mounted gearbox, would be compatible with J-10 or J-20, but Su-27 based J-11 may need one with top mounted gearbox.
I am not exactly sure but I think J-11B and J-16 use the WS-10D. J-10B/C use the WS-10B and J-20A use the WS-10C. The J-10B TVC demonstator uses the WS-10B3. There is another version of the WS-10 series named the WS-10IPE but that does not seem have been adopted by the PLA.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Chinese pilot commented on the features of the J-20 fighter

On Chinese television, an interview with the pilot of the latest Chinese fighter J-20. We are talking about a military pilot Li Gang, who was the first to pilot a fifth-generation fighter (according to Chinese classification - fourth) in the PLA Air Force.




Li Gan noted that he was proud of the status of the first Chinese pilot to fly the latest combat vehicle adopted by the country's air force. He talked about the features of the J-20.

According to the pilot, the fighter is substantially modified in comparison with the prototype, which first flew into the sky a few years ago. Li Gan says that "fighter maneuverability is developed, flight and weapon control parameters are improved." The pilot noted that the most difficult thing for him is piloting the J-20 in a group, when, for example, preparations are under way for participation in a military parade. According to the military pilot, one often has to maneuver in order to prevent collisions with birds, which are very numerous in the sky over cities.

The Chinese officer attributes the unpretentiousness of a fighter to the merits of the J-20. According to him, a new generation Chinese fighter does not need to be kept in special tanks with constant temperature and humidity, as, for example, the American F-22.

From the interview:

The significance of this in a real battle is very important: if your stealth fighter every time needs a long-term specialized service before each operation, including the restoration of stealth coverage, then the speed of such an operation and its effectiveness may be low. Our aerodrome technicians prepare J-20 fighters in a short time. Stealth-coating J-20 does not require special conditions.

In addition, the Chinese pilot noted the "high-quality aerodynamic layout" of the fighter.

Recall that in the world so far only three countries are creating their own 5th generation fighters: the USA, China and Russia. At the same time, the fifth generation fighters are armed with the Air Force only in China and the United States.


https://vpk.name/news/340392_kitaiskii_ltchik_prokommentiroval_osobennosti_istrebitelya_j20.html
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,527
Reaction score
89
Dear @pegasus

We do not need to post any random found image of that type - the same in the Su-35 thread - since this is NOT a picture collection file.
For this, please post at the Key-forum or whatever.

For example You posted the first WS-10 powered one simple mixed with several others (some already posted, some not showing anything special at all and completely missed the significance and that's the point: "Chengdu J-20 news" is what matters in this Aerospace section.

So If there is something new to debate; a new development, deployment, a new observation and discussion on that matter, then it's fine, but we do not need to post each and every image found in the www.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
393
At the very least put them as attachments, so they show as thumbnails, instead of embedding them so we have to scroll through a wall of pictures.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,068
I don’t object to pictures which illustrate something of interest to the topic but it shouldn’t just be a wall of random images. J-20 is mainstream enough that not every pic is automatically interesting. Generally you should post why the picture is interesting in the post - is it from a new unit, does it have a new engine, does it show additional details...
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Dear @pegasus

We do not need to post any random found image of that type - the same in the Su-35 thread - since this is NOT a picture collection file.
For this, please post at the Key-forum or whatever.

For example You posted the first WS-10 powered one simple mixed with several others (some already posted, some not showing anything special at all and completely missed the significance and that's the point: "Chengdu J-20 news" is what matters in this Aerospace section.

So If there is something new to debate; a new development, deployment, a new observation and discussion on that matter, then it's fine, but we do not need to post each and every image found in the www.
let me see, no pictures too, so no discussion , but why the title?
Chengdu J-20 news, pictures, analysis Part III

Do you want me to do an analysis of every picture? i did before you said I am bad, I forgive you, you know I live in Asia, I am western person and I do sleep with my Asian family under the same roof, in fact I communicate in Japanese everyday, and at my school there are plenty of Chinese, in fact if I want a translation from Chinese a few ladies I know can do it for me, there is one thing different between me and you and you know it, I will forgive you are the owner of the thread, just let me remind you the pictures are posted in the same forums you moderate Sino defence or Pak def, and you do not say the same there about them, you are forgiven the thread is yours, you are expert, the owner of the thread, I am eager to hear your analysis, the only one that is good :D ;).
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
I don’t object to pictures which illustrate something of interest to the topic but it shouldn’t just be a wall of random images. J-20 is mainstream enough that not every pic is automatically interesting. Generally you should post why the picture is interesting in the post - is it from a new unit, does it have a new engine, does it show additional details...
why you do criticize? i feel it is pure rubbish, I i talk about analysis then I am bad, If i post pictures then I am bad, better say you are not welcome If you have a problem with the picture such you can not upload them so it might effect the website space let me know if not then ban me already, i do not like complains if I am not doing any thing bad it says pictures and you can do the analysis i did it you got angry at me
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,527
Reaction score
89
Well that escalated quickly...

... since it has a background story, in fact a long history and it always starts the same: "i do not like complains ..."

My point is, that simply posting images without any info is irrelevant. Just look at post #503, it starts with older WS-10A that are for the Flanker series, continues with the yet most recent number assigned to the 9th Brigade - but he probably did not even notice this, ... then simply yet another image without any relevance to the Taihang above and ends with yet another one from the 9th Brigade. This however would have been a true "news" and even worth a text, but most likely he did not even notice and only posted them simple since they are "nice".
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
263
Reaction score
135
Well that escalated quickly...

... since it has a background story, in fact a long history and it always starts the same: "i do not like complains ..."

My point is, that simply posting images without any info is irrelevant. Just look at post #503, it starts with older WS-10A that are for the Flanker series, continues with the yet most recent number assigned to the 9th Brigade - but he probably did not even notice this, ... then simply yet another image without any relevance to the Taihang above and ends with yet another one from the 9th Brigade. This however would have been a true "news" and even worth a text, but most likely he did not even notice and only posted them simple since they are "nice".
you are right, you are a nice guy I was wrong, it is your thread, are you happy now? you own the thread, post whatever you like, i was wrong sorry I will not do it again see you Saludos
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
193
For my taste, it's far too much "you have" and "I have" in the last posts, whereas the theme is the Chengdu J-20, so the
proper personal pronoun should be "it", shouldn't it ? ;)
A discussion doesn't always have to end with an agreement. "To agree to disagree" can be a reasonable result, too
and is always better, than turning around in circles.

... , but why the title?
Chengdu J-20 news, pictures, analysis Part III


A valid argument, I've modified the title, thank you !

And as a general reminder to all of us:

Pictures should always be posted as attachments, that makes a lot of scrolling unnecessary and reduces the build-up-time
of a page, especially for members using a slow internet connection. And there probably still are quite a lot of them ...
 
Top