Boeing JAST / JSF / X-32 /PWSC F-32 projects

Pole model
 

Attachments

  • X-32 pole model.jpg
    X-32 pole model.jpg
    215.4 KB · Views: 785
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.
 
Are they any good overviews of how the thrust on the X-32B was directed for VTOL purposes? I understand it had two lifting nozzles near the center of the aircraft, and have seen this in many videos. However I always figured there was a third lift nozzle at the rear, just before the main 2D engine nozzle. Can't seem to find it however, were there only two lift nozzles and the smaller pitch/yaw ducts?

I have read that one significant advantage Boeing had was the manufacturing process they would have used to produce their JSF. Did we get anything out of that to implement into the the current Lockheed F-35 program?
 
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


It always reminded me of the A-7 as well. But, then again, I liked the A-7 and was pulling for the X-32 in the JSF competition. Lots of hoots about its appearance but personally I enjoyed the way it looked and there's no doubt that if flying today (only if :'() it would be one of the most distinctive looking aircraft in the skies.

As for Boeing owning any LTV assets, just this past year that a portion of Vought's operation but prior to that they had no connection with them. NG owned them for a bit in the 1990s however.
 
I preferred the x-32 over the x-35 and never thought it was ugly.

I really think the NASA m2-f1 and all the other lifting bodies were really neat aircraft and the x-32 always reminded me of a clipped delta winged lifting body. I also liked the curves of the highly swept thick delta which held a lot of fuel, and the fact that the AF version x-32 wouldve been a great dogfighter in its own right and had a pitch vectoring nozzle.

I like the Corsair name idea but how about the f-32 Saber2 or strikesaber (for the f-86 saber)
 
Both boeing ATF and JSF bids look very familiar, with a giant inlet run straight from the center. However, this is due to the fact that their concepts are built around the weapon bays. I don't think the a-7 has anything to do with it.
 
err...I remember that F-32 PWSC model went for about 900+ bucks...
 
Nice X-32 walkaround from forum member Bill Spidle

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle4/x-32b/
 

Attachments

  • x-32b_06_of_65.jpg
    x-32b_06_of_65.jpg
    150 KB · Views: 789
  • x-32b_09_of_65.jpg
    x-32b_09_of_65.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 701
  • x-32b_39_of_65.jpg
    x-32b_39_of_65.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 688
  • x-32b_64_of_65.jpg
    x-32b_64_of_65.jpg
    134.1 KB · Views: 831
Something a bit different:

[link no longer active]

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • cockpit11.JPG
    cockpit11.JPG
    39.9 KB · Views: 587
Second model is particularly great... but "sweet"????? Not only do I find it strange when words such as "sweet", "lovely" or "cute" are applied to aircraft... but the X-32 in particular doesn't strike me as anything but WEIRD!
 
Complete NOVA episode "Battle of the X-Planes"

Program description:
NOVA follows the battles and backroom deal-making between Lockheed and Boeing in their race to win the largest defense contract ever, worth $1 trillion. Follow four years of decision-making regarding test flights, aviation engineering and contract negotiations that resulted in the Joint Strike Fighter -- a plane made to be adaptable, affordable and stealthy.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw



NOVA episode website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/
 
Just call me Ray said:
...if I was Boeing I'd pressure YouTube to take that down.
They probably signed an agreedment with PBS more than a decade ago, so they probably can't do crap now (if this does not preach the agreement).
 
It was more of a bad, lame joke than anything else - maybe even an in-joke. A friend of mine (who happens to be as big an aviation nut as I am) and I were watching this when it was new in Feb '03, and both of us thought, despite its best efforts, it just didn't paint a very pretty picture of the Boeing JSF development process. If anything it made Boeing come off as cocky, self-assured, and, we thought, made them look like they thought all they had to do was show up and they would automatically win because they had slightly better money management and no shaft-driven lift fan compared to the Lockheed entry.

I remember this program quite well and I enjoyed it a lot - I thought it was very informative, and I think a lot of the most informative things it had to show was the behind-the-scenes stuff, especially on the Boeing side. In fact if I were a program manager I'd probably make it required watching.

Well, I guess hindsight is wonderful like that. I especially like the assertion the program makes as its final conclusion, that Boeing has a definite edge over Lockheed in the unmanned arena, and that the future unmanned market might very well be Boeing's to conquer.

6a00e008d663eb8834012876199796970c-500wi


Lockheed said:
SURPRISE!
 
Is that supposed to depict the fanblades or radar blocker?
 

Attachments

  • jsf_model.jpg
    jsf_model.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 785
I think the Yak design bureau was an early successful proponent of the vertical lift engine. I recall they went through 3 generations of aircraft and their planes used 2 small lift engines forward and a big engine for normal forward thrust, as well as deflecting it for tail lift.

It was my understanding that Lockheed Martin bought a large amount of data from Yakolev of their experience with this type of VTOL arrangement for a fighter. Their designs were fuel thirsty with 3 engines, so Lockheed went with a driven lift fan instead of the extra engines. Apparently, this arrangement gives very good lifting thrust, if it can be kept working.
 
emoorman said:
I think the Yak design bureau was an early successful proponent of the vertical lift engine. I recall they went through 3 generations of aircraft and their planes used 2 small lift engines forward and a big engine for normal forward thrust, as well as deflecting it for tail lift.

It was my understanding that Lockheed Martin bought a large amount of data from Yakolev of their experience with this type of VTOL arrangement for a fighter. Their designs were fuel thirsty with 3 engines, so Lockheed went with a driven lift fan instead of the extra engines. Apparently, this arrangement gives very good lifting thrust, if it can be kept working.
LM did have a few meetings with Yakolev - but they didn't really bring anything new to the table. This idea that LM got 'something' from the Yakolev design bureau that made them go with a lift fan is a farce. And yes, of course driving the lift fan with the engine is much better than carring around gas for multiple engines!
 

Attachments

  • cdp_boe_misc_004.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_004.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 805
  • cdp_boe_misc_007.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_007.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 699
  • cdp_boe_misc_006.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_006.jpg
    72.7 KB · Views: 657
  • cdp_boe_misc_030.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_030.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 322
  • cdp_boe_misc_027.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_027.jpg
    456.7 KB · Views: 326
  • cdp_boe_misc_016.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_016.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 348
  • cdp_boe_misc_025.jpg
    cdp_boe_misc_025.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 344
I know it is here at SP somewhere so please don't yell at me but wasn't there a "funky" third JSF competitor that did not make it past the drawing/model stage?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom