F-32A

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,908
Reaction score
433
I've always liked delata-wings and tailless designs and found the X-32A interesting, but it looked too much like a bullfrog to be really cool IMHO. So I moved the cockpit forward, which gave the plane a higher fineness ratio and made it look infinitely better, cool even. I would like to 3D model this one day, but getting detailed drawings of the X-32 isn't likely something likely too happen soon ;)

As such, my version is a Super-STOL, since the X-32B was marginal anyway in the vertical regime and suffered from hot gas re-ingestion. Therefore, all of my service F-32A 's would have been built with the nozzles in the center of the fuselage for STOL performance, but all of them would be the same greatly increasing comonality.

I didn't make this from scratch, I scanned a profile from a book, then modified it and added the camoflauge and markings to it. But it's the F-32 I would have wanted. The funny thing is, based on the development tree drawings in the modern project forums, it would appear they looked at a similar design earlier in the process for the X-32A.

I chose JASDF colors because of the wide range of schemes available, including one Anime' for the fun of it. ;) Also, there's a link to the larger image here.

PD-F32-JASDF.jpg
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
122
Website
theavgeeks.com
Better quality image: http://www.sdwaypoint.us/pics/PD-F32-JASDF.jpg

Very nicely done. The F-2 style camo looks good. Interestingly enough it looks a lot more like Boeing's early ATF designs than the F-32!
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,614
Reaction score
192
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Sundog said:
I would like to 3D model this one day, but getting detailed drawings of the X-32 isn't likely something likely too happen soon ;)

This is the best I have. And regarding the drawing, it looks cool, bud has not much in common with real F-32.
 

Attachments

  • X-32A.JPG
    X-32A.JPG
    71.8 KB · Views: 1,278

shivering

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Excellent work, as always, Sir Sundog. ;)

But where is that F-108 Rapier in the Keith
Ferris splinter-camo I requested soooooooo
long ago? ::)

happy trails,

shivering
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
286
Well, I'm predjudiced, but I think the swept-back inlet of the F-32 is more aesthetically appealing on this design that the swept-forward inlet of the prototype and the tail-less delta wing is a right pain for carrier landings, requiring a higher AOA on approach which makes catching the ball that much more difficult.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,908
Reaction score
433
The carrier requirement is why Boeing redesigned their their proposal and added the horizontal tail IIRC, and it was done to meet the WOD for the bring back weight, I think, don't quote me on that. ;)
 

tomcat1974

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
Call me a nut or whatever...but I still think that X-32 looked nicer than the "F-22 clone"... It looked like something from the future..
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
286
Sundog said:
The carrier requirement is why Boeing redesigned their their proposal and added the horizontal tail IIRC, and it was done to meet the WOD for the bring back weight, I think, don't quote me on that. ;)

Well, I've heard the same thing from the aerodynamicists here. They muttered something about the original design reflecting CFD results rather than wind tunnel/real world data.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
259
The original wing was intended to give maximum volume for low weight. For supersonic flight it needed a high sweep angle as it was so thick, and for STOVL it did not need to generate lots of low speed lift as the engine made up for it. Which all adds up to the 'optimum worst' shape for carrier landing - high nose angle to generate lift from a low aspect ratio delta etc. The use of overwing vortex flaps on the CV version was the original 'fix', but then the requirement went up in terms of bring-back payload, and the delta wing could not generate sufficent lift without using the full authority of the elevons and robbing them of any control function, hence the tails got added.

I always wondered why they did not propose a 'STOL' CV version, using the STOVL nozzles but with higher weights allowed with added wing lift.
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
5
Fascinating discussion here. I always wondered why the X-32 couldn't meet the carrier landing requirements when an aircraft like the Douglas Skyray & Skylancer could (albeit with a "widowmaker" reputation.) I didn't take the wing thickness into account.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,908
Reaction score
433
Harrier said:
The original wing was intended to give maximum volume for low weight. For supersonic flight it needed a high sweep angle as it was so thick, and for STOVL it did not need to generate lots of low speed lift as the engine made up for it. Which all adds up to the 'optimum worst' shape for carrier landing - high nose angle to generate lift from a low aspect ratio delta etc. The use of overwing vortex flaps on the CV version was the original 'fix', but then the requirement went up in terms of bring-back payload, and the delta wing could not generate sufficent lift without using the full authority of the elevons and robbing them of any control function, hence the tails got added.

I always wondered why they did not propose a 'STOL' CV version, using the STOVL nozzles but with higher weights allowed with added wing lift.


Yes, I did like the way they used the highly swept thick wing. I also agree with you about using it as a SuperSTOL. If they had known about all of the issues with the F-35's heat from the main nozzle back then, they may have been able to make an argument for all of them using the nozzles for comonality reasons, though the USAF may have balked since they expect to always have plenty of concrete available to them. It also would have been hard to convince the Marines to use them as a Super STOL for landing on the LHS, even though that's how they will use the F-35B's on land.
 

Similar threads

Top