Working for a decade with the people who lived it in the UK and the US whilst being on the same program intimately involved in the STOVL variant myself. It was also taught as the “history” of F35 on several international STOVL technology courses. But you’d have had to attend them yourself, rather than being “at school with people” who did. I believe the older history of gas/shaft driven lift fan work is public and there were (years ago) a lot of images floating on the internet even then.
Understanding what HGI is (and I note you ignored the if not more important inlet and jet effects so presume you dont even know what they are) and accurately accounting for it in design and development are two enormously different things. As the many (10s of) millions spent during F35 SDD showed LM. Fortunately X35 had the potential and LM used the expertise (and DoD had the pockets...!)
The point, if it wasn’t clear enough - was Macair had that experience but Boeing didn’t, and then didn’t listen very well. That’s why X32 failed on basically every STOVL issue.
TomS - your dates are wrong, you’ve confused the concept demonstration phase of LM (incl. BAES as became) vs Boeing (incl MDD) which was from 1996. Downselect to SDD where the X32 proved, to borrow an adjective, absolute “crap”*, was late 2001. Those 5 years were that key period.
Why hasn't a tandem fan been built? It seems very attractive at a surface level. Vought and BAE both had designs for them.Also, a shaft driven fan wasn't the only way to get the propulsion layout of the F-35. A tandem fan could have offered that as well. If you had known as much about STOVL as you proclaim, you probably would have known that. Of course, there would have been problems with the losses at the front fan due to the two ninety degree bends and it wouldn't be able to operate at optimum RPM being directly tied to the powerplant. Of course, it also wouldn't have had as much of a weight penalty since it wouldn't have required the lift fans gear box.
Why hasn't a tandem fan been built? It seems very attractive at a surface level. Vought and BAE both had designs for them.Also, a shaft driven fan wasn't the only way to get the propulsion layout of the F-35. A tandem fan could have offered that as well. If you had known as much about STOVL as you proclaim, you probably would have known that. Of course, there would have been problems with the losses at the front fan due to the two ninety degree bends and it wouldn't be able to operate at optimum RPM being directly tied to the powerplant. Of course, it also wouldn't have had as much of a weight penalty since it wouldn't have required the lift fans gear box.
From Air Force 2000/2.
From Air Force 2000/2.
Also from it.
AvPro Stealth Trimaran Aircraft Carrier (STAC)Great find Hesham, I have seen that aircraft carrier that is featured in that photo from somewhere but I cannot for the life of me remember where? I can remember it doing the rounds back in the late 1990's early 2000's but that is all.
AvPro Stealth Trimaran Aircraft Carrier (STAC)Great find Hesham, I have seen that aircraft carrier that is featured in that photo from somewhere but I cannot for the life of me remember where? I can remember it doing the rounds back in the late 1990's early 2000's but that is all.
From Air Force 2000/8.
https://youtu.be/8gkCguE3ADE
Fabulous art.Hello,
Here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine I think last year. One 3-Views plan of the X-32A and an hypothetical 3-views plan of a F-32C. I based my work on excellent existing whatif illustrations that you can find on internet. I chose to depict a different squadron (actually I chose to draw the first squadron that deployed the F-35). I wanted to draw also some external payloads to make a sexier render (JSSAM and JDAMs, but I considered AIM-9X and AGM-159). The chief editor asked to have a shark teeth on the air intake. I added a few details, based on the F-35 detailed photos.View attachment 657304View attachment 657305
Enjoy!
Regards
Alain
Do you still have it, can you share it? Nasa link is no longer active.hesham said:Hi,
the Boeing Model-988.
This report is a gem - I was not aware of its existence. Thank you for sharing it.
--M
Do you still have it, can you share it? Nasa link is no longer active.
Thank you!Do you still have it, can you share it? Nasa link is no longer active.
NASA-CR-195079
Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design
Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
The Agility Design Study was performed by the Boeing Defense and Space Group for the NASA Langley Research Center. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of agility requirements on new fighter configurations. Global trade issues investigated were the level of agility, the mission...ntrs.nasa.gov
Always include the report name, as links can change.
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
I do recall they pursued some advanced thermoplastic material for their wing skin - a giant one piece assembly to be fitted to the wing structure. That however failed and they had to revert to a more conventional composite. The result was a wing skin 1500lbs heavier than the one planned for in a prototype that couldn't be redesigned to lower its weight. Not a gigantic amount added, but it is approaching a ton increase in weight (680kg) so it will be upsetting things if you were marginal as a start... Stripping parts probably brought them back to where they where.Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
Boeing always knew if the shaft driven lift fan worked, they wouldn't win. Their design changed (Adding the horizontal tails) because the U.S. Navy changed their requirements regarding the load the aircraft had to bring back to the carrier. That was no fault of Boeing's. Being able to take off vertically and then fly supersonically was never part of the requirement. It was just show boating, because no fighter will ever be used in that manner, unless the people operating it are idiots. The intake lip removal was a result of being marginal in the hover. Also, they suffered from hot gas re-ingestion, which was the more egregious problem. What I would like to know is why they were marginal in the hover. Was the development power-plant under thrust? Was the prototype overweight? We're the thrust losses in the system higher than expected? All of the above?
The fan in the F-35B shields the inlets with cold hp flow.
The 32 didn't have the mass cold air flow to do the same.
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
The fan in the F-35B shields the inlets with cold hp flow.
The 32 didn't have the mass cold air flow to do the same.
The jet screen off the fan tried to do that.
But a 2 poster in a parallel arrangement is bad for many reasons apart from HGI, e.g. no fountain effect. Should have had a fully rotating rear nozzle as well for a 3 post arrangement.
But everything is a compromise: like X-32 actually being big enough to have weapon bays unlike the X-35...
Could have been second coming of A-7 Corsair II.Hello,
Here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine I think last year. One 3-Views plan of the X-32A and an hypothetical 3-views plan of a F-32C. I based my work on excellent existing whatif illustrations that you can find on internet. I chose to depict a different squadron (actually I chose to draw the first squadron that deployed the F-35). I wanted to draw also some external payloads to make a sexier render (JSSAM and JDAMs, but I considered AIM-9X and AGM-159). The chief editor asked to have a shark teeth on the air intake. I added a few details, based on the F-35 detailed photos.View attachment 657304View attachment 657305
Enjoy!
Regards
Alain
Internal payload in AA missions = 6*AMRAAMGuys! What the specs of CTOL F-32?
It did look like a streetwalker offering services. But it was that little “pop” that did them in.He suspects that the large inlets could have met whatever mach requirements that could be set later.