I believe there is more the moderator can do. Especially unsustainable rumour and I do not wish thread start divert into some fanatasy things.
Last edited:
J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
- Status
I believe there is more the moderator can do. Especially unsustainable rumour and I do not wish thread start divert into some fanatasy things.
broadsword
Brigadier
i.e.'s source, in this case his father, was a first person who witnessed the jet, not some third party like wantchinatimes.com or even sina.com that have been known to spew misinformation. That's the difference. If i.e's source has that kind of habit, he probably won't bother to quote -- just to save his father's reputation. 
I think i.e has been a very good poster so far and is not someone who just randomly goes into unsustainable rumours. So, let's just leave this alone and get back to J-10.
Yes there is more, but not everytime it is necessary or a good solution to do more.
You are correct that posting each and every unsustainable rumour from whatever source is way against our ideals here at the SDF, but like 't2contra' already explained: it is not a simple unsustainable rumour which were here posted quite often via Lenta, Rian, Nowosti, wantchinatimes, or some obscure Japanese "sources". It is the father of a well respected member here who worked at that time in this sector.
This alone does not make this report a fact but it gives it rigth away a completely different status especially with the added remark that he himself questions that report.
So what I really don't understand why You make such a fuss out of this report ??
Deino
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Those are your words.. he never claimed them to be true or as fact and even stated so himself.
If I say my dad once told me he saw BigFoot and I repeated it here there is nothing wrong with it however if I claim that Big Foot is 100% real based solely on what I heard than yes I would be held accountable and responsible for my words and be judged accordingly if I don't substantiate my claims.
Sorry, I hope Your statement is ironic. If not just read the first line in the header ... wantchinatimes.com = Knowing China through Taiwan !
So much on independent think tank ... I'm actually not sure if they even think about what they publish, esp. if You read such rubbish like this report:
CHeers, Deino
Neither want china times, nor the "sina military network" that they quote, are particularly reliable on military matters. In fact, I would hesitate if you asked me to find two worse places to go to for chinese military info.
Want china times, like deino has said, is Taiwan based. And their PLA "reports" are hilariously bad. They are possibly the worst out of all the places to be honest, because they literally don't seem to know what they are talking about and their crappy reports aren't even the result of any desire to disparage the PLA either.
sina "military network," is a mostly user submitted site where anyone can submit posts and blogs and pictures and is primarily the realm of fanboys. This is the kind of site where posts such as the quoted one are among predictions of PLA space fighters, flying aircraft carriers, and list fighters such as J-23, J-24, J-25, J-26... Etc, as all being under development.
The site hosts some decent military pictures now and then, but that is all they are good for. Quoting SMN is like going to your local hobo for stock market advice. Actually no, that would be insulting hobos.
It is actually kind of sad to see even some more reputable western defense sites quote "SMN" as if it is some kind of news site or even more tragically, state media or a government organ. I'm not sure if their reporters are charmed by SMNs slightly more user friendly user design and thus think it is more credible or something, but anyone with a gram of PLA awareness knows the majority of their own written content is BS.
So I'm not sure if you are saying SMN is a "think tank," because if you are, then you are massively misinformed.
Last edited:
you can dig around in the C919 post. its way back. or search my postings.
anyways back to J-10/J-9
I have a personal theory. the yanliang crashed canard airplane could have been a larger scale glider model used for aerodynamic research.
Glider models are usually subscale model, radio controlled. powerless, usually not smaller than what they can correct for Reynolds number effects, hoist up by a helicopter. dropped and glide them to the ground or open a parachute.
this method is usually resorted to when low speed characteristics are not certain, and to test out Stability and Control characteristics at lowspeed. or they can't afford wind tunnel hours on the program. In the lowspeed tunnels the reynolds number affects are not good. and high reynolds number cryo tunnels are expensive and china didn;t have them until the 90s, I think.
its not done often now because the data they get is very limited... models are hard to instrument well and subject to the whimps of wind. and usually today a full program gets funding for tunnel hours.
good side is it is cheap.
If they resorted to a glider model, it would fit the J-9 program as an underfunded research program.
---
the latest big program that used a glider model for supporting a real program I think is kawasaki C-2 I think. I could be wrong. read somewhere back that they had built a glider to do some research. I thought it was bit odd but then again aerodynamics side on a Japanese project tends to be conservative and with limited in tunnel budget. (as oppose to chinese programs which usually gets an unlimited tunnel budget... but they never seem to be able to align their results with CFD, go figure
)
Last edited:
Pinkov, David Axe, average Yahoo writer who has zero knowledge of his subject matter...
- Status