- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,868
- Reaction score
- 10,901
DonaldM said:Nothing more useless than a handsome vehicle that doesn't perform.
Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*
DonaldM said:Nothing more useless than a handsome vehicle that doesn't perform.
sferrin said:DonaldM said:Nothing more useless than a handsome vehicle that doesn't perform.
Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*
chuck4 said:I am a sucker for under chin air intakes and thrust vectoring nozzles
SpudmanWP said:I would say the same about the Boeing design. The airflow to top-mounted intakes would be very limited in high AOA.
sferrin said:Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*
Abraham Gubler said:sferrin said:Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*
Doesn’t perform? It lost the contest but this doesn’t mean it didn’t perform.
Of course there is the ‘amateur’ level analysis of having to remove some exterior doors in order to hover for the STOVL requirement. Which would be all well and good if the X-35 wasn’t carrying around a crap less weight, like not a single bomb bay component, in order to meet its own hover requirement.
But just like this “its ugly” level of analysis its based entirely on looking at a couple of photos and thinking that is all one needs to draw a conclusion. Ahh its an amazing relativist world we live in.
DonaldM said:Heaven forbid that the services would buy an aircraft that pilots would be embarrassed to fly.
SpudmanWP said:I would say the same about the Boeing design. The airflow to top-mounted intakes would be very limited in high AOA.
sferrin said:Had to leave parts on the ground, had to go down to sea-level even then (the X-35 did it's work at Edwards at 2,300ft),
sferrin said:had to go with a completely different configuration to even pretend to meet the requirement,
SpudmanWP said:At high AOA?
Sundog said:SpudmanWP said:At high AOA?
Yes, at high AOA. It has to do with the interaction of the vortices coming off the strake at high AOA; They draw air into the inlet. But you have to work out the aero such that yaw angles don't cause the same vortex to be sucked into the inlet.
Abraham Gubler said:The real aircraft design related reasons Boeing lost to Lockheed were risks associated with hot air recirculation,
dark sidius said:THis design can fly mach 3? Because the Fa/xx or F/x is multiple mach in order of mach 3 in the last iterations.
dark sidius said:Daryl Davis Boeing Phantom Works Director says on Defense tech, it will be capable to fly at higher mach number than today fighters. Today most of fighters fly at mach 2, so higher mach number says at minimum mach 3.
dark sidius said:Today most of fighters fly at mach 2, so higher mach number says at minimum mach 3.
dark sidius said:Why it can't do mach3, why we stay forever at mach 2 , no evolution in forty years.
sferrin said:dark sidius said:Why it can't do mach3, why we stay forever at mach 2 , no evolution in forty years.
Going much past Mach 2.5 and now you have to start using things like titanium and stainless steel for your structure, both of which make composites look cheap. Add to that your engine cycle needs to change to one that isn't exactly fuel efficient at low speeds. Lastly, if you're cruising around at Mach 3 your time on station for CAP isn't going to be very long.