It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese XXJ/J-14

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I'am very sorry, i can't read the qoutes I can only see strange symbols... Was this qoute taken from a "not english" source...???




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
hmm planeman interesting pic.. But the angle on the plane looks weird.. I'd say it's taking off in the direction of 2 o clock from where the photo is taken. And if you look at the cargoplane and runway it should be taking off in a more 3 o clock direction. You get my thought? Or maybe it's not taking off like I think it is?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clownface
hmm planeman interesting pic.. But the angle on the plane looks weird.. I'd say it's taking off in the direction of 2 o clock from where the photo is taken. And if you look at the cargoplane and runway it should be taking off in a more 3 o clock direction. You get my thought? Or maybe it's not taking off like I think it is?

hehe yeah! this I have thought, but please look at photos below two.




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
nothing is taking off anywhere in that pic!
very interesting and astonishing if those pics are real!
More research is required.
Planeman/CNAFUNs pics are truly intriguing..

especially this one:
seems legit enough to me..


Which other iranian pic you talking about Waynos?

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Plane taking off?????

Anyway, Waynos, if you’re volunteering to go undercover in Iran or China with zoom lenses to take high resolution close-up pictures of restricted aircraft projects, good luck. People seem keen to question the photos I bring to the table yet they buy those high res CGI ones. I don’t know why I bother.

Emile, what have your photos of age-old Russian experimental aircraft got to do with the Jxx?????? I assume you realize that the first is just a re-engined Mig 23 Flogger and the latter the T-58 Prototype for the Su 15 Flagon program? What is their relevance or are they not?


Daedalus3,
That pic is a CGI, no doubt about it –been around a while. It’s good though, but note that the canard cuts of an access panel. But pretty picture all the same. Real first pictures tend to be less sexy.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Anyway, Waynos, if you’re volunteering to go undercover in Iran or China with zoom lenses to take high resolution close-up pictures of restricted aircraft projects, good luck. People seem keen to question the photos I bring to the table yet they buy those high res CGI ones. I don’t know why I bother.


Why, whats the hourly rate? Should be worth more than I'm on now.


Anyway, whats with the bitter response planeman? It was aperfectly reasonable observation I made. Or do you think we should just believe everything without question?

May I ask where you got the pictures from if they are so secret? Sorry, but I smell a bit of a teen fanasy, posting the pictures and then getting petulant when their validity is questioned (which is surely the first thing ANY spy photos have to face - even real ones) doesn't do your standpoint any favours.


Emile, what have your photos of age-old Russian experimental aircraft got to do with the Jxx?????? I assume you realize that the first is just a re-engined Mig 23 Flogger and the latter the T-58 Prototype for the Su 15 Flagon program? What is their relevance or are they not?



Actually I think he was proving to the other guy that the plane in your picture was not actually taking off because of the similar ground angle of the two he posted.



Daedalus3,
That pic is a CGI, no doubt about it –been around a while. It’s good though, but note that the canard cuts of an access panel. But pretty picture all the same. Real first pictures tend to be less sexy.


Agreed



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
forget about this post i havent read all the thread.....looks fake, there are guys that are very talented in graphic programs.....i must fight with my autocad


[edit on 1-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
nothing is taking off anywhere in that pic!
very interesting and astonishing if those pics are real!
More research is required.
Planeman/CNAFUNs pics are truly intriguing..

especially this one:
seems legit enough to me..


Which other iranian pic you talking about Waynos?

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Daedalus3]


This pic is a fake and has been proven to be so on this site. It is a CG artists rendering.

If you look at it, you will notice a lot in common with the YF-23.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Waynos,
My frustration wasn’t directed at you. The pictures I’ve collected over the past few years are all ones doing the usual round of the Aviation press. Most come from civilian sources in-country. Typically they take a chance picture, realize it’s something special and pass it on over the internet to the western press. The photos then do the rounds of emails and newsgroups. Few if any seem to be making it into print lately which is why I came here to get them into public. One thing to remember though, taking that picture of the J-12(?) is a very serious offence in China. God knows what the Iranian who photographed their fighter could get if he were caught –these people are taking serious risks. To have them poo pooed on flawed grounds is a irritating.

I have maybe 15 to 20 more pictures that I think are worthy of passing on, although some are too subtle to be of interest to most people. But just finding them in the mess which is my email archives is a pain in the ass, so as and when.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
AMM, that pic have more relation with the 1.44 proyect, or an "stealthed 144"



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
AMM, that pic have more relation with the 1.44 proyect, or an "stealthed 144"


It does have a lot in common with that aircraft as well.


I was mainly refering to the tail section and wings.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by planeman
Emile, what have your photos of age-old Russian experimental aircraft got to do with the Jxx?????? I assume you realize that the first is just a re-engined Mig 23 Flogger and the latter the T-58 Prototype for the Su 15 Flagon program? What is their relevance or are they not?


Actually I think he was proving to the other guy that the plane in your picture was not actually taking off because of the similar ground angle of the two he posted.


Waynos: Only you who are very understand what I thoughts here
By the way, the photo posted by planeman showed jet that was much much closer to MiG-25 Foxbat which might China took it from other country for testing


[edit on 2-12-2005 by emile]

[edit on 2-12-2005 by emile]

[edit on 2-12-2005 by emile]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Planeman: it was not my intention to complain about your pics. I merely like analyzing and speculating around pics like these. I'm very happy you showed them to us and hope for more. I'll try to be more nuanced in my feedback



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
The Chinese transport looks fake. Looks out of colour in the picture

And it looks more like a Mig-25 from the picture emile provided



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Emile, sorry for my abruptness.

The Foxbat suggestion is a good one, I agree with the passing resemblance. But when you look closely, like my associate did, you find several key differences which rule out the Foxbat:
1- The tail fins are canted outwards much more
2- The engines appear slightly wider apart
3- The wing is too low compared to the fuselage
4- No tailplane visible
5- What appears to be canards forward of the wing


i22.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

But I can see where you were coming from.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
looks liek a mix of a rafeale, f16 and tomcat.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


This pic is a fake and has been proven to be so on this site. It is a CG artists rendering.

If you look at it, you will notice a lot in common with the YF-23.


Just because it might `look` like a YF-23 doesn`t in anyway shap or form make it a `fake`



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by American Mad Man


This pic is a fake and has been proven to be so on this site. It is a CG artists rendering.

If you look at it, you will notice a lot in common with the YF-23.


Just because it might `look` like a YF-23 doesn`t in anyway shap or form make it a `fake`


You are right, but the FACT that it is a COMPUTER GRAPHICS RENDERING does.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Emile, sorry for my abruptness.
The Foxbat suggestion is a good one, I agree with the passing resemblance. But when you look closely, like my associate did, you find several key differences which rule out the Foxbat:
1- The tail fins are canted outwards much more
2- The engines appear slightly wider apart
3- The wing is too low compared to the fuselage
4- No tailplane visible
5- What appears to be canards forward of the wing
But I can see where you were coming from.


Yes all you point was not able to prove that photo you posted was not just a PhotoShoped.
Could you tell me what's kind of canard will being like that photo showed if you have learned a little bit aerodynamics

someone who used skill of PS this pcture was really stupid

Although you may want to conceal that guy who make this photo, but you still couldn't told us where this photo was taken.


[edit on 3-12-2005 by emile]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
If you find a picture of the Typhoon or SAAB Gripen 'at rest' you will see that the canards do hang in the way you have drawn, for myself the picture is far too small to draw any firm conclusions in either direction.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join