The X-32 would have made a good USAF/Marine solution, provided that they resolved problems with the inlet (and possibly hot-gas ingestion). The quad-tail version eventually proposed, driven by the Navy requirement, was just horrible.
Of course it turned out that the LockMart proposal couldn't be executed as planned either, as it turned out to be based on some very optimistic weight forecasts. However, they were right to reject the canard, which IIRC was done specifically to ensure that the wing could be resized for the carrier requirement: the F-35C now has 50 per cent more wing than the A and B.
 
Nice shot, especially pilots' faces expression...
 

Attachments

  • DF-SD-02-09805.jpg
    DF-SD-02-09805.jpg
    500.1 KB · Views: 873
LowObservable said:
Of course it turned out that the LockMart proposal couldn't be executed as planned either, as it turned out to be based on some very optimistic weight forecasts.

As I recollect, the final production standard F-35 is closer to the X-35 prototype in its use of titanium than anyone originally would have predicted during the JSF contest?
 
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
This is only half-joking...

One other consideration in why Boeing's design lost is,

What self-respecting, macho fighter pilot would want to be seen in a plane that ugly?

(e.g ,look at BoeingF-32small5.jpg again)

You'd have to ask A-10 drivers. :D

A-10 drivers take pride in the fact that they're not fighter pilots. Also, don't forget that until Desert Strom, the Air Force was phasing out the A-10.
 
The question that pops into my head when I look at the F-32 designs is, does Boeing now own the assets of LTV? Because the design suggests rather heavy inspiration from the A-7, to the point where they could probably have called it the Corsair III or something and have it stick.

The X-32 is not that ugly, in my opinion - most of the "problem" is in the too tall front gear which gives it a nose-up attitude on the ground. Shortening that leg would give it a meaner look, better suited to a fighter...

SP
 
I got these X-32 pics at WPAFB restoration tour.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0790-1.jpg
    IMG_0790-1.jpg
    260.4 KB · Views: 1,071
  • IMG_0794-1.jpg
    IMG_0794-1.jpg
    293.6 KB · Views: 919
One more X-32.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0799-1.jpg
    IMG_0799-1.jpg
    173.9 KB · Views: 943
flateric said:
BTW, on the way from delta-wing (Configuration 372) to four-poster tail Configuration 374 shown above (PWSC - Prefered Weapon System Configuration), so-called Pelikan Tail was considered (it was named after former MDA guy, Ralph Pelikan). Archibald, I highly advise you to obtain a copy of great NOVA documentary, "Battle Of X-Planes" - source of attached captures.
I took your advise and bought the DVD. It was pretty interesting. I won't hide that I like the Boeing design - the final version configuration 374 - more than the LM design. True, the delta configuration of Boeing's demonstrator does look kind of ugly but certainly has it's advantages - like greater internal volume for fuel and ammo. Plus it was supposed to be s STRIKE fighter. A-10 isn't exactly a beauty queen either but does the job. I think had the Boeing design been elected, and had all the technical problems been resolved then the boeing bird would have made a pretty credible strike platform. By the way if anyone has anymore unpublished photos, pdfs or any other material regarding the Boeing design I would greatly appreciate them sharing it with me. I am also very interested in the above mentioned version with the Pelikan tail. In the movie they show a scaled model of this particular version. It looked like a smaller and uglier YF-23. All this being said, I for one like the beauty of ugly.
 

Attachments

  • cdp_boe_misc_005.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_005.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 993
F-14D said:
This is only half-joking...

One other consideration in why Boeing's design lost is,

What self-respecting, macho fighter pilot would want to be seen in a plane that ugly?

(e.g ,look at BoeingF-32small5.jpg again)
It's like they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Besides aesthetics is a very subjective matter, especially when it comes to airplanes.
 

Attachments

  • cdp_boe_misc_002.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_002.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 1,046
Absolutely. One captured in Iraq.
 
F-14D said:
What self-respecting, macho fighter pilot would want to be seen in a plane that ugly?

Apparantly the nickname for the Boeing X-32/F-32 in the lead up to the 2002 downselect was the "Monica". And after the loss Boeing paid up for a French designer to come in for some post eval and talk about how ugly the design was and that's the entire reason they lost. As if the geographic location of Fort Worth had nothing to do with it. At least according to some Boeing people I know...
 
I like a pretty plane as much as anyone, but even I have to admit that the top down view on both the X-32 and the proposed production version didn't look too bad at all. From the side though... no comment.
 
Matej said:
elider said:
I got these X-32 pics at WPAFB restoration tour.

Looking at the left bottom corner in the first photo - this is clearly Russian wheel. What is it - MiG-25?

That giant afterburner is kind of a give-away too. ;)
 
flateric said:
Absolutely. One captured in Iraq.

Is that one of the MiG-25s captured by Australian SF in OIF and taken by the US who gave us a freaking MiG-21 as if that was as good?
 
flateric said:
BTW, on the way from delta-wing (Configuration 372) to four-poster tail Configuration 374 shown above (PWSC - Prefered Weapon System Configuration), so-called Pelikan Tail was considered (it was named after former MDA guy, Ralph Pelikan). Archibald, I highly advise you to obtain a copy of great NOVA documentary, "Battle Of X-Planes" - source of attached captures.
Is the Pelikan tail the same as the yf-23 tail? What I mean is does it work the same way? If not, what's the difference?
 
The Pelikan Tail is totally different to the YF-23 tail configuration. It’s a tail configuration that provides both yaw and pitch control through the use of two rear control surfaces. Basically each tail unit has both a vertical and a horizontal surface.

It’s explained with graphic detail in this paper for a design competition aircraft that utilizes it:

www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/PostalPenguinFinalPres.pdf
 
The Pelikan Tail is totally different to the YF-23 tail configuration. It’s a tail configuration that provides both yaw and pitch control through the use of two rear control surfaces.

The YF-23's tail provided pitch and yaw control as well. The main difference between the YF-23's tail and the Pelikan Tail, as has been discussed elsewhere at this site, is the manner in which the Pelikan Tail uses a hinge to more effectively transfer the loads to the fuselage, as opposed to using a trunion which isn't as efficient, structurally, like the YF-23 used for mounting it's tails.
 
An article that gives a quick overviews over each submitted concepts with their respective pros and cons over at accessmylibrary.com:

Some pros and cons of the three JSF competitors.(joint strike fighter; Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., McDonnell Douglas Corp.)


In June, the three teams led by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas now competing for two Joint Strike Fighter development berths submitted their proposals to the Pentagon for evaluation.

The teams were asked to develop three versions of a common aircraft that would replace Air Force F-16s, Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18s and Marine and Royal Navy Harriers, and be capable of conducting both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The JSF would enter service in 2013.

The Air Force version would take off and land on conventional runways, the Navy version would be able to operate from aircraft carriers, and the Marine Corps/Royal Navy version would be able to take off and land vertically. The Air Force versions would carry air-to-air weapons or two 1,000-pound bombs internally, while the Navy version would carry anti-air missiles or two 2,000-pound bombs, also internally.

All of the planes would be stealthy, powered by a single engine--planned to be the Pratt & Whitney F119--and have a supersonic capability. In addition, the planes are supposed to be relatively low cost, between $28 million and $32 million apiece, and be economical to operate. To help control cost, the military stipulated that all three would share at least 80 percent of the same parts and structures.

With those marching orders in hand the companies bent to the task of creating aircraft that would meet all the requirements and have invested tens of millions of dollars on their designs.

Here is an alphabetical look at the three proposals and their pros and cons:

BOEING

JSF History: Boeing originally was to have been teamed with Lockheed Martin as an extension of the F-22 program on which the two are now working. But Boeing was pressing for an entirely new approach to the aircraft, while Lockheed wanted a less risky approach, so no deal was struck and the two became competitors.

Pros: Boeing's design is considered the most advanced of the three with novel design features that could yield the largest life-cycle cost savings--such as a one-piece thermoplastic wing--a key aspect of the program. It also has the greatest commonality between the three versions of the aircraft, thanks in part to the one-piece wing. Some believe the plane is so promising that a Boeing-based JSF would not be dated before it begins its service life in 2013. Proven commercial design and production techniques would be used on the new fighter. One engine would generate both forward and vertical thrust.

Cons: The design could cost more than $1 billion allotted for development to bring to fruition, analysts say. Engine thrust for vertical lift is vented through a complex series of ducts along the underside of the aircraft. In addition, Boeing has not been a prime fighter contractor since 1930s. Also, the plane's appearance--reminiscent of the chunky A-7 Corsair II--is considered by some pilots, who favor sleek aircraft, to be ungainly.

Impact: A JSF victory would return the company to the fighter business after a 60-year hiatus and position it well for the 21st century. A JSF loss would be painful, but not jeopardize the company largely because of its preeminence in the global commercial jetliner market in which it has a 70 percent share, and extensive military programs.

LOCKHEED MARTIN

JSF History: The Lockheed Martin JSF is essentially a single-engine variant of the company's F-22, sharing similar avionics, subsystems and powerplant.

Pros: The Lockheed Martin design is widely regarded as the least risky and potentially the lowest cost approach. The company has vast fighter and advanced aircraft design experience, as well as efficient production facilities. The aircraft would be built at the company's Fort Worth, Texas, plant which now builds the F-16, a factor that would help reduce production costs because the company does not need to facilitize a new plant. One engine would generate both forward and vertical thrust.

Cons: Design characterized by some as "dated," a condition that would only worsen with time, especially by 2013.

Impact: A JSF victory would give Lockheed Martin a lock on the U.S. fighter business, ensuring decades of business on multiple fronts--the F-22, F-16 support and the JSF. A Lockheed Martin win could, however, raise serious industrial base questions, a factor the company is willing to mitigate by allowing a losing contractor to build one of the plane's versions. A JSF loss would be damaging, but the company would survive given its broad product base, F-22 production and F-16 sales and support.

McDONNELL DOUGLAS

JSF History: McDonnell Douglas' design based in part on the company's YF-23 proposal that lost to Lockheed Martin's bid for the Air Force F-22 contract. The MD aircraft was said to have lost because it was more advanced than the F-22 but also was more risky. To bolster its team, MD recruited Northrop Grumman for its stealth and systems integration skills, and British Aerospace, designer of the Harrier and the pioneer in short-takeoff and landing aircraft.

Pros: The McDonnell Douglas design is considered a moderate risk solution with good stealth and low-speed handling characteristics thanks to a near "tail-less" design. Also, open avionics architecture--whereby all systems are designed to a common standard--cuts avionics and systems integration time and costs. Novel bomb-bay allows all versions of the plane to carry either 2,000-pound or 1,000-pound bombs with minor modification. Competing planes can either carry one or the other. Promising YF-23 technologies have been refined over the past several years.

Cons: ASTOVL version has two engines, one in the tail for forward power, another down-ward pointing one for vertical thrust, an arrangement that is said to concern the Marines who fear increased fuel consumption, complexity and maintenance.

Impact: A win would be a major boost for McDonnell Douglas, giving it a valuable and highly profitable franchise for the future as other programs wind down. A loss would have severe long-range repercussions, more so than for Lockheed Martin and Boeing because McDonnell is a prime aircraft contractor with a limited number of major programs, analysts say. But a loss would not put the company into immediate jeopardy because it would continue building F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy and Marines, as well as C-17 transports and T-45 trainers, along with a massive Air Force T-38 upgrade.
 
Very nice, and it is fine in this topic. The Patents forum is for patents which don't directly relate to an "unbuilt project".
 
Thats an excellent NASA report, Hesham, with lots of interesting drawings. I had already downloaded it but not posted it yet :)
 
Full-scale wooden mock-up of early Boeing JSF configuration.
 

Attachments

  • snapshot20081128215323.jpg
    snapshot20081128215323.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 1,089
2 more images of the inlet and engine
 

Attachments

  • jsfspool.jpg
    jsfspool.jpg
    168.3 KB · Views: 932
  • jsfnozzle.jpg
    jsfnozzle.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 885
Does anyone have a good picture or illustration of the mechanism on the X-32 that extended the front of the inlet to allow it to function as a bellmouth for VTOL flight? It appears that there were two actuators in the lower lip of the inlet but I would expect there to be something at the upper outboard corners as well. However, I don't see any indications of actuators or extension guides anywhere other than the lower lip.
 
Hi all,
interesting about X32 (very nice and unconventional design....i think), i search some pictures of cockpit interior with martin baker mk 16 seat...please

Thank you

gery
 
Matej, can you say the source of ther last two pictures (evolution chart)? Very interesting.
 
Yes - my hands and my Corel :) I used materials that you gave me (from Ian Maddock?) and remade the black silouettes a bit more interesting. Models 988-371 and C 230 are in fact actual views of the real prototypes X-32 and X-35.
 
CammNut said:
Everyone remarks on how ugly Boeing's JSF was - but it didn't start out that way (in my opinion). The unusual delta-wing X-35 CDA and ungainly tailed PSWC design had their origins in the AVX-70, which I think was a very cool design.

The problem with any direct-lift STOVL design - Hawker, McDonnell or Boeing - is that the engine has to be in the middle of the aeroplane for balance, which makes it very hard to do a good supersonic design.

My favourite solution, certainly in terms of whackiness, was the RIVET concept, which mounted the engine backwards so the thick bit was at the back...

Was the AVX-70 developed at McDonnell Douglas prior to the Boeing merger? Was this aircraft being developed exclusively for the Marine Corps or was the Navy interested in it as well?
 
AVX-70 is the Boeing design and has a lot of common details with their ATF design. It has nothing in common with the MDD design philosophy. Final JSF proposals from MDD and Boeing were developed separately and during that time they were competitors. Ironically when they published the information, that they are preparing for the merge, it was one of the reasons why the MDD design was terminated.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

the Boeing Model-988.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf

From the same source.
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    89.5 KB · Views: 1,415
I'm looking for an image showing the complete history of the JSF program and what other programs merged to form it. I remember seeing one here but now I can't find it, can someone help?
 
...
 

Attachments

  • Hist_ProgMgt.gif
    Hist_ProgMgt.gif
    14.2 KB · Views: 948
  • Hist_Prop.gif
    Hist_Prop.gif
    11.1 KB · Views: 804
  • Hist_WSC.gif
    Hist_WSC.gif
    17.2 KB · Views: 821
hesham said:
Hi,

the Boeing Model-988.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf

This report is a gem :eek: - I was not aware of its existence. Thank you for sharing it.

--M
 
Pole model
 

Attachments

  • X-32 pole model.jpg
    X-32 pole model.jpg
    215.4 KB · Views: 830
The pole model has already been posted in the first page ;).

Anyway, anyone know the max internal fuel of the air force and navy version? To my understanding, because of the one piece, very thick wing (the high sweep allows this feature without causing drag problem), the marine version, which has smaller wing area than the other two, has an enormous 20,000 lbs of fuel.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom