Boeing JAST / JSF / X-32 projects

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
29
Hello!

Well I've discovered that I knew rather bad the loser of the JSF contest, the Boeing X-32. This is one is well documented on the web, but drawings of the
- aborted- operational variant are less known... Seems a mockup was build by Boeing and showed at Farnborough in july 2000.

Someone has a 3-view of this tailed F-32 ?
Link to a pick of the mockup... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Boeing_JSF_X-32_on_tarmac.jpg

What happened to this mockup ? Did it ended into a museum like the X-32A and
X-32B ?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
144
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.
 

Attachments

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
256
Reaction score
11
You know, I never thought that the X-32 looked like it had enough room in its nose for a proper radar assembly. It just looks to me like the emitter array would be awfully constrained.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
144
Mark Nankivil said:
The last one I've not been able to find any other drawing remotely similar to it.
This is one of Boeing's multipurpose fighter studies from very early 90s. Pre-ASTOVL/CALF/JAST.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
144
This one really nice pic of PWSC mock-up Matej have sent me once)
 

Attachments

Gavin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
59
Reaction score
2
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.
If I remember correctly, the NOVA documentary includes a fascinating scene in which the Boeing engineers agonize over the decision between a four-poster tail and the "Pelican" design. Ultimately, they choose the Pelican, because it saves weight. But Boeing's upper management over-ruled their choice because they considered the four-poster to be a lower-risk design.

I was one of the few aviation fans -- indeed, it seems, very few -- to be rooting for the Boeing JSF. It might not have been the prettiest bird to ever fly, but it was one of the most creative.

--Gavin.
 

Ogami musashi

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
303
Reaction score
1
I saw the full scale mockup at Lebourget i think in 2003, it was impressive, i thought the plane would look like quite good despite de horrible design of the X-32.

By the way, the integral wing structure on the X-32 was very good, it definitly showed lower bending moments and the 3D aerodynamics showed great span-lift repartiion.

The high lift agressive thick ratio was balanced with the sweep and the 3D aeros i would have loved to see more flight tests.

I didn't know for the pelican tail, this system is very interesting it offers movements on all axis and they can be combined if i recall correctly.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
3
The issue of "flight internatioinal" for 5th September 2000 contained a 40 page supplement called "Joint Strike Fighter- inside the 21st century warfighter"


cheers,
Robin


Please do not offer to scan entire publications on this site. Thanks - Moderator
 

Rafael

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
128
Reaction score
1
I am one of the few, like Gavin who are enamored of the fat, big-arsed, big-lips girl. Though I am aware that the X-35 had some advantages worthy of exploiting the design.
By the way, does anyone has a depiction of how the front nozzles arrangement worked?

Rafa
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
3
robunos said:
The issue of "flight internatioinal" for 5th September 2000 contained a 40 page supplement called "Joint Strike Fighter- inside the 21st century warfighter"


cheers,
Robin


Please do not offer to scan entire publications on this site. Thanks - Moderator
apologies, as this was/is a separate supplement, mot available wiithout the magazine, and as far i know, is no longer available (it being nearly seven years old), i thought it should be ok. i am. of course aware of the recent situation regarding copyright, etc. Maybe in due course, it will be posted on the flightglobal archive.

cheers,
Robin
 

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
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...
 

Attachments

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
97
Indeed AVX-70 is a sharp looking design. I've not seen that before - thanks for posting it. Any other info on it?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
1
Actually, this engineer always thought the RIVET design made a whole lot of sense, just sufficiently unorthodox to work well.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
Sheesh, CammNut, that takes me back a ways...
The point about the original AVX was that it was small - in fact it was designed around an F100/F110, not an F119 derivative. As the size went up the attractiveness of that solution declined, and the Navy CV requirement killed it. The four-tail STOVL version with the cropped wings was one of the fugliest things ever to come out of anywhere, and I'm including the Lavochkin bureau on a Friday afternoon.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
40
the Navy CV requirement killed it
I always wondered why it was not possible to produce a CV version with a 'deflected thrust' system, derived from the STOVL variant but without the reaction controls etc. The same idea was to be used on the RN version of the Saro SR.177.

Regarding RIVET, although CFD might now deal with pressure loss issues in the inlet, the structural design of the inlet/engine area would prove heavy IMHO, and extra weight is the last thing you need while trying to do supersonic STOVL with a dry/unboosted engine. Just ask Boeing. But it does look cool in the artwork in Raymer's conceptual design book!
 

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
Here's what Ian Maddock of Anser, who is described as the F-35 programme historian, has to say in his paper on the evolution of JSF:

Boeing’s participation in the DARPA ASTOVL studies was
funded internally until the company signed an agreement with
DARPA in the spring of 1994 for a 50/50 cost sharing.
Boeing realized early on that the primary design driver for
ASTOVL/CALF/JAST would be affordability.

Boeing considered a variety of planforms when the company
entered the ASTOVL program and settled on three main
planforms, a delta wing, delta with tail and wing/body/tail.

After further trade studies, the Boeing ASTOVL concept
matured into a modified delta wing with twin fins and a chin
inlet located underneath the cockpit. The concept evolved
from a wide range of Boeing tactical aircraft configurations
including those from the ATF, MRF and A/F-X studies. The
44.9ft long ASTOVL aircraft had a 36ft span delta wing
planform with wing-tip fins and a two-dimensional
vectoring nozzle. The ASTOVL aircraft would be
powered by an F119-derivative engine (SE614) and was to be
based on the direct lift concept.

It was a modular design with only three major assemblies:
forebody/inlet, wing/tails/control surfaces, and the fuselage.
The continuous, one-piece wing was 797ft², carried the loads
across the top of the fuselage, and contained 18,000lb of fuel.
The wing was designed to be constructed of welded thermoplastics
(i.e. no fasteners) and composed 57% of the weight of the aircraft.
Composites would be used throughout the aircraft (greater than 50%
of the structure) for weight reduction.

Following more trade studies in 1992, Boeing settled on a
blended delta wing body that was dubbed AVX-70. Attributes
of the AVX-70 included a lower signature, a large internal
payload/fuel capacity, lightweight structure, low
supersonic drag, good high-alpha characteristics and a low
aspect ratio offset by low wing loading.

In early 1993, Boeing selected a derivative of the Pratt &
Whitney F119 engine as the preferred powerplant. The design
was referred to as the 988-201. Towards the end of 1993,
Boeing added an aircraft carrier (CV) capability to the
ASTOVL 988-201 design, and also created the first JAST
specific design, known as the 988-300.


He includes this geneology of Boeing's JSF design:
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
21
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
The definitive (or better to say the last developed) variant of X-32 was the configuration 988-374. And a bit off-topic question - can someone give the RIVET concept to some connections? I mean which program it was related or so.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
144
Matej said:
The definitive (or better to say the last developed) variant of X-32 was the configuration 988-374. And a bit off-topic question - can someone give the RIVET concept to some connections? I mean which program it was related or so.
RIVET theme was here already but didn't cause much of enthusiasm.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,238.0.html
RIVET was patented by Dan Raymer in his Lockheed's times, in 1989, but don't think anything went further than paper concepts.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,620
Reaction score
599
Hi,

the Boeing designed a tandem-fan aircraft in 1995,please see; [its Boeing JSF - Moderator]

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1995/1995%20-%200833.html
...........
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1995/1995%20-%200837.html

Boeing is developing a delta-shaped aircraft similar to the Northrop M2-F2 lifting body. A direct-lift-propulsion concept is used for the STOVL role. "With a compact shape like that, the STOVL penalty is very small and it gives us a simple transition from jet-borne to wing-borne flight," says Mark Burgess, analysis and integration manager of Boeing Defense & Space's ASTOVL effort.

"We prefer a direct-lift solution, because it offers a lot of advantages to the [shared airframe] concept. Pratt & Whitney with their F119 teamed up with us in March 1994, as did Rolls-Royce, which has 30 years experience of direct-lift systems," says Burgess. Rolls-Royce will only be involved in the STOVL version and not the CTOL. The Boeing aircraft is described by JAST programme manager, Brig Gen George Muellner as the most interesting design in the competition. It consists of a one-piece wing, with twin vertical endplates canted inwards, to provide stability and reduce infra-red signature. The plates can be moveable in-flight.

"We were driven by the need for volumetric efficiency and a compact design. This led us to a lighter weight, which is a first-order driver on cost. We're working the hell out of the weight requirement — the empty weight has to be less than 24,0001b [11,000kg] and [our design] is substantially less. It's also got to have a spot factor [size on the deck of an aircraft carrier relative to the F-18] of less than 1.0. Cost, in turn, was a major design driver on vertical landing capability," says Burgess. "We recognised the need for a large internal volume for fuel and payload. Vertical lift is a constraint for us, not like those with lift fans. But, on the other hand, direct lift does provide more agility and manoeuvrability."

Boeing is building a 94%- scale powered model, to be tested at a purpose-made site in Seattle. "We will start tests in June," says director of advanced tactical programmes Mickey Michellich, who adds that the purpose-made test site was constructed "...because of the problems we ran into noise-wise at NASA".

A series of three sub-scale windtunnel and component tests was completed at the end of 1994. Testing of jet effects on a model in a NASA 4 x 6m windtunnel was also completed in mid-January 1995. Tests scheduled for the second quarter of 1995 include measurement of aerodynamic forces and moments at transonic speeds at NASA's Langley Research Center. Transonic and supersonic inlet tests are due in the third quarter of this year. Inlet tests at low-speed and static conditions follow in the first quarter of 1996. Boeing has also requested use of the 24 x36m windtunnel at NASA Ames for the first quarter of 1996.

"One of the things that R-R has done for us is to bring considerable hot-gas re-ingestion expertise. In tests so far, we're showing an inlet-temperature rise during landing, but we're currently running at levels well within those of the Harrier and we're keeping a close watch on that," adds Burgess.
 

Attachments

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
Boeing was very secretive about how their JAST design worked, so a lot of people assumed that the idea was similar to REX (remote exhaust) pursued by Macs and RR. Indeed some of the REX guys thought they'd been ripped off. Nobody guessed at the forward-located engine.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
5
LowObservable said:
Boeing was very secretive about how their JAST design worked, so a lot of people assumed that the idea was similar to REX (remote exhaust) pursued by Macs and RR. Indeed some of the REX guys thought they'd been ripped off. Nobody guessed at the forward-located engine.
Would the engine location have been shifted aft in the F-32A/C? I would assume a fair bit of internal structure wouldn't have been shared if the engine location had differed between the B and A/C variants?

The "forward-located engine" of the STOVL X-32B would have been less than optimal for the CTOL variants?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
No, the engine was always forward (but the augmentor aft). They used to claim the IR signature was wonderfully low, with the long jetpipe and the big fan.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,620
Reaction score
599
Like the project from dear flateric;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1995/1995%20-%201735.html?search=stovl%20aircraft%201995
 

Attachments

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
Love those pics, always prefered the Boeing design in all it's forms. It may have had some performance drawbacks in certain areas but I always thought it was the neatest solution to the JSF program.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Boeing done better with its demonstrator design. As it was, the fact that they could not do VL, even at Pax River and sea level, without removing landing gear doors and the hippo-jaw inlet.

http://www.youtube.com/v/4_ICP9HfQyA&hl
 

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
My impression of the Boeing design was that it was the cheaper of the two JSF contenders in meeting the Air Force requirements. But it's pretty clear that the X-35 beat the Boeing plane hands-down for the USMC & RN requirements. I'm not sure which design really had the edge for the USN requirements, but it was this requirement which led to the redesign of the Boeing plane to begin with.

The overall lesson in my mind is that the shaft-driven lift fan was a high-risk, high-payoff gamble on the part of the LockMart team. It won the competition for them, but it could have easily broken them if it didn't work out.
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
CFE said:
The overall lesson in my mind is that the shaft-driven lift fan was a high-risk, high-payoff gamble on the part of the LockMart team. It won the competition for them, but it could have easily broken them if it didn't work out.
The overall lesson in my mind was that V/STOL should have been kept seperate :-\
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
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)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
121
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
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,132
Reaction score
72
CFE said:
The overall lesson in my mind is that the shaft-driven lift fan was a high-risk, high-payoff gamble on the part of the LockMart team. It won the competition for them, but it could have easily broken them if it didn't work out.
I remember a quote, possibly in AvWeek, from the Boeing JSF lead, to the effect that once Boeing saw that LM had made the lift fan work, they knew they had lost. The much larger mass-flow of the X-35's fan just has to make for better up-and-away performance than the remote nozzles on the X-32.
 

Thorvic

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
597
Reaction score
4
sferrin said:
You'd have to ask A-10 drivers. :D
Oh i dont know, its aint pretty but it sure is macho with a Big gun firing big rounds with a pair of bulbous engines aft, so i think they would be happy. however the X-32 does look like a basking Shark and the SVTOL version is probably the worst of the lot ! :-\
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
144
It's beautiful in its own ugliness as my friend used to say.
 
Top