Pyroflash Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 The poster that referenced that 98kN number conflicts with the performance numbers for the FC-1 which rate it at 19,000 lbs (wet). If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
almonds Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) Is the finished plane supposed to be painted black? I cannot read chinese. edit: :doh: I thought it was the F60. All these new planes look so similar Edited September 20, 2012 by almonds "The art of simulation design is about understanding limited fidelity... ...compromises must be made. Designers have to consider cost vs. fidelity and processor time vs. fidelity. Additional trade-offs must be made between graphics, AI, flight models, number of units and more... ...never ask the pilot what he wants to learn because he too will end up building an airplane. Instead, ask the pilot what he needs to learn." -Gilman "Chopstick" Louie
EtherealN Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 That's a Japanese plane, not chinese. ;) (Mitsubishi ATD-X) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
almonds Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 That's a Japanese plane, not chinese. ;) (Mitsubishi ATD-X) :doh: I wish I could read Chinese or Japanese "The art of simulation design is about understanding limited fidelity... ...compromises must be made. Designers have to consider cost vs. fidelity and processor time vs. fidelity. Additional trade-offs must be made between graphics, AI, flight models, number of units and more... ...never ask the pilot what he wants to learn because he too will end up building an airplane. Instead, ask the pilot what he needs to learn." -Gilman "Chopstick" Louie
Pyroflash Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) :doh: I wish I could read Chinese or Japanese Don't hold your breath, the Kanji alone will take you ages, though usually you have the grammar and syntax down before that. The good news is that if you learn Kanji (Japanese) or Simplified Chinese (Chinese), it makes the other easier to start learning as many of the characters have very similar meanings. Though personally, I have absolutely no interest in learning Chinese. One language at a time, you know? At any rate, that Mitsubishi is probably a lot closer in function to the F-22A than the F-60 or J-20 are. Seeing as how a lot of technology transfers were done between Lockheed Martin and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. This is especially important since congress banned the export of the F-22A, which Japan REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted. Some of the tech transfers probably included advanced machining techniques (along with the equipment I'd imagine), formulas for radar absorbent coatings, technical algorithms for designing aerodynamically efficient stealth surfaces, and a lot of internal design specs among other things. It may not seem like it on the surface, but Mitsubishi and Lockheed Martin work really closely with each other. IHI is also working with GE to develop engines if I am not mistaken. At least past experience would point to it, IHI did some subcontracting work on making stuff for GE and Boeing. (Did I add enough "REALLY"'s?):D Edited September 20, 2012 by Pyroflash If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
Agiel7 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Given how astoundingly similar the PAK T-50 and this beast look to the F/A-22, perhaps the issue of friendly fire in WVR engagements wasn't given much consideration.
marcos Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Given how astoundingly similar the PAK T-50 and this beast look to the F/A-22, perhaps the issue of friendly fire in WVR engagements wasn't given much consideration. That's not how things work. In an engagement, NATO fighters know where all their counterparts are via several means, including AEW. On a separate note I found this aircraft, which appears to be Chinese. It's not a J-20 because the intake is wrong. It looks very similar to a MiG 1.42. May be a photoshop. Edited October 4, 2012 by marcos
ogata321 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 That's not how things work. In an engagement, NATO fighters know where all their counterparts are via several means, including AEW. On a separate note I found this aircraft, which appears to be Chinese. It's not a J-20 because the intake is wrong. It looks very similar to a MiG 1.42. May be a photoshop. 2nd pic i'm pretty sure is PS
Wolfie Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Personally, I think its just a big hunk of painted plaster of paris. "Isn't this fun!?" - Inglorious Bastards "I rode a tank, held a general's rank / When the Blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank!" - Stones.
Vault Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Between 2006-2009 The Chinese were by far the biggest consumer of high end quality materials. Don't make the foolish assumption that their military toys are made out of cheap low quality crud. Illegally copying or copyright infringement doesn't apply to the tools of war. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
marcos Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 People are forever underestimating foreign militaries. It's not all about military budget either, especially when exchange rates and labour costs are grossly mismatched. China have a lot of spare money right now.
Pyroflash Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Illegally copying or copyright infringement doesn't apply to the tools of war. Yes, it does, especially when you are copying stuff from people you rely on to help you with producing those tools of war. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
RglsPhoto Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 2012-10-31 First Flight I7-6700K OC 4.9G, 896G SSD, 32G RAM @ 2400MHz, NH-D15 cooling system,TM Hotas Warthog,Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals,TrackIr 5, BOSE M2
Antartis Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 Thank you for sharing more photos Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle
marcos Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_F60 While there have been no official reference to the aircraft, it has been speculated that the engines currently installed on the one revealed prototype aircraft are either WS-13s[citation needed] or RD-93s. So the engine is either an RD-93 or a Chinese knock-off of the RD-33. Edited October 31, 2012 by marcos
EtherealN Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 That's a bit extreme. You can have near-copies that are still worthy of a separate name; for example the RM12 powering the Gripen - it's a GE404, but sufficient changes were made that the names are not interchangeable. They did use RD-93's previously, but it would appear wanted enough changes that they replaced it through developing a derivative. Just like Volvo did with the RM12, and of course the EJ200 powering the Typhoon is just a knockoff of the XG-40... ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
marcos Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) That's a bit extreme. You can have near-copies that are still worthy of a separate name; for example the RM12 powering the Gripen - it's a GE404, but sufficient changes were made that the names are not interchangeable. They did use RD-93's previously, but it would appear wanted enough changes that they replaced it through developing a derivative. Just like Volvo did with the RM12, and of course the EJ200 powering the Typhoon is just a knockoff of the XG-40... ;) Rolls-Royce is part of the Eurojet consortium, so if they want to use their own technology, it's their choice. EJ230 is where it's at now anyway. Not quite the same as taking a Russian engine, changing a few bolts and saying it's Chinese. ss96tsbG5KY Edited October 31, 2012 by marcos
EtherealN Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Not quite the same as taking a Russian engine, changing a few bolts and saying it's Chinese. So is the Volvo RM12 a Volvo RM12? Or is it a GE RF404? It is, by and large, an RF 404, but there's good changes to it meaning that calling it a 404 would be wrong and misleading. Similar thing here: if they just wanted the same thing, they'd have used the same thing because they had it - and they had licenses for it as well. My point being: what you are railing against is something that everyone is doing. PS-05/A in the Gripen is a development on an older british radar. (Incidentally shares roots with CAPTOR.) It's not a "knockoff", it's a deal where they decided not to re-invent the wheel. :P China has come a long way and deserve respect for what they're making. It's not like there is any other country, anywhere, including even the US, that develops large combat aircraft systems with all components being their own. Even when they can, it's usually just impractical because somewhere someone already has what you need - or darn close to it. (Why design an engine from scratch when there's perfectly good engines out there that can easily be modified to fit your specification? That's just stupid.) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
Schizwiz Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 imitatio et aemulatio... To see your opponent for who he or she is,is to put your blade in front of their deepest secrets and make them come up front,outward with a defeat or a win.
112th_Rossi Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I'm confused. It's quite clearly an almost like for like copy of the Raptor from an external point of view. I think we all know that the Raptor's external appearance is a direct result of it's required capability. It's shaped like it is for a low radar cross-section and aerodynamics etc. So, the Chinese build an aircraft that looks almost exactly like it. What does this mean? Does this mean the design of the Raptor is so good that it would be pointless to design something to compete against it? Or have the Chinese worked out the the inner workings of the Raptor? Well, if we are going on what we all know, that Chinese 'copies' are always inferior to their original counterparts (theres no point arguing that they aren't) we can probably assume that this aircraft is inferior in all respects. If we take that stance then surely the Chinese government can see that it is tactically dangerous to produce copies of tools that help defend their country. The reason being that everyone can see that it can't possibly be as good or as capable as the F22, so what defense is it? It's either that, or they have designed an aircraft that IS superior and it's all just a ruse because of our pre-conceptions about chinese production. But I don't think so.
Vekkinho Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 American iPhones and Ipads all assembled in China, so reverse engineering is quite likely i wonder if same gore With modern aircraft [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
marcos Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 So is the Volvo RM12 a Volvo RM12? Or is it a GE RF404? It is, by and large, an RF 404, but there's good changes to it meaning that calling it a 404 would be wrong and misleading. Similar thing here: if they just wanted the same thing, they'd have used the same thing because they had it - and they had licenses for it as well. My point being: what you are railing against is something that everyone is doing. PS-05/A in the Gripen is a development on an older british radar. (Incidentally shares roots with CAPTOR.) It's not a "knockoff", it's a deal where they decided not to re-invent the wheel. :P China has come a long way and deserve respect for what they're making. It's not like there is any other country, anywhere, including even the US, that develops large combat aircraft systems with all components being their own. Even when they can, it's usually just impractical because somewhere someone already has what you need - or darn close to it. (Why design an engine from scratch when there's perfectly good engines out there that can easily be modified to fit your specification? That's just stupid.) You may find that Russia didn't in fact allow them to produce their own version of their engine. The issue here is copyright infringement and is the same reason western engine manufacturers won't supply them anything. There's copying with permission and copying without permission. E.g. the AV-8B is a Harrier II built under license by McDonnell Douglas and an F-4K/M was a UK license built F-4J with better engines and avionics.
Weta43 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Well, if we are going on what we all know, that Chinese 'copies' are always inferior to their original counterparts (theres no point arguing that they aren't) we can probably assume that this aircraft is inferior in all respects. Fifteen years ago, Chinese goods were obviously inferior. five years ago they were inferior if you looked carefully. Now everything you think is "American" is made in China, so they have access to state of the art production facilities (to 'emulate'), and the quality of their 'high end' goods is now on a par with the production of western industry. These are exactly the comments that you would once have heard about the Japanese (poor production quality, only capable of derivation, no capacity for innovation), and time has shown how niave that was... Cheers.
Recommended Posts