Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Last edited by jayraptor on Aug 24, 2012 - 03:24 PM; edited 1 time in total

SpudmanWP, Wrightman, h-bomb, megasun and sferrin,
The lift fan is entirely new idea but the turning exhaust nozzle is Russian invention. Don't have to be too ego in terms of science. It's the effort placed by Russian engineers that lost their source of income since Russia has cancelled their V/STOL R&D.

The X-32 is constructed with largely carbon fibre materials that makes it lighter like EF2000. Having fat fuselage doesn't mean it's less aerodynamic. F-22 is way fatter than F-15, F-35 is way fatter than F-16/18, if the speed limitation removed, the F-22 could fly faster than F-15 and the F-35 could fly faster than F-16/18 but risk damaging the stealth panel layers. Please note that the F-22/35 are way heavier too. It's less conventional weapon bay design allows the X-32 to carry more weapons than the F-35. Mc'D/Northrop had this in mind where their YF-23 scored low in internal bay influenced Boeing/Northrop to build bigger internal bay. This is the shortie 45ft variant, the extended variant 47ft production model would be better.

I am not sure where you get the news that X-32 lost to X-35 in all aspects, probably this plane is rejected and they wanted everyone to forget it, so they posted everything opposite the results that was reported in news, magazines, etc back then fresh at that time. Main point is to eliminate the doubt in the JSF investors.

warwolf1,
Perhaps you would like to start new thread entitled F-23 or YF-23 over F-22 forum for me as well? Since F-22 is that expensive today, why not consider YF-23? The blueprint, tested/proven prototypes, feasibility analysis & everything are all still with them. It's another halfway through to production model like X-32. Maybe it'll even the score. The USAF used to operate few types of fighters together in active service. F-104, F-102/106, F-105, F-4, F-5, F-8 in the 60's. So why not having F-23 and F-22? Reviving rejected fighter happened before, example the YF-17 Cobra revived to become F/A-18 and won the contract for USN and later on USMC. They should have affordable F-32A for shortie variant and premium F-32C for the extended length variant. F-32C for US and close Allies while F-32A mainly for export market available to friendlies.

F-16.net Sponsor

I'm real glad that this YAK-41 pilot survived and that not too much was licensed from it to the F-35B:

YAK-41 Crashes On Carrier landing Test Rare video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29d_1256477821

jayraptor,

First off, I re-watched Nat’ Goe's "Battle of the X-Planes" last night. Even Bill Sweetman admitted that the X-32 Delta was not good for maneuverability and agility, that's why the Rafale, Grippen and Typhoon all have canards (which are inherently bad for stealth and is part of why Boeing left them off the X-32). Also notice that the proposed production model added horizontal tails, meaning even Boeing knew that there was an issue with maneuverability.

Yes, the X-32 was lighter and as a result likely cheaper, but based on the issues Boeing has had with the 787 I wouldn't bet on it being significantly cheaper. I don't know about which one was faster, but often deltas have less drag, so it is possible that it was faster.

The fire was a result of hot gas ingestion, end of story. With the type of system the X-32 uses, Hot gas ingestion will always be a potential problem. The hydraulic leaks could be a result of the attempted fuselage expansion. Do you have a source for the attempted expansion as I have never heard of it before; I would have thought something like that would have been on “Battle of the X-Planes.”

Your supposition about time is interesting too; X-32 first flew more than a month ahead of the X-35, meaning they had time to change if they wanted to. Additionally the YF-22 crash was several months after the ATF winner had been announced and not only did the pilot not die, but he was one of the pilots of the X-35.

No one claimed the exhaust nozzle was LM’s idea, they only claimed that the lift fan and drive shaft were. The carbon fiber actually didn’t happen the way Boeing wanted it too because they messed up on the lower wing skin, so they used other composite for the aircraft, same as the X-35. No, the F-35 is not faster than a clean F-16. As for the conspiracy theory about wanting to hide the fact that the X-32 was really better, it gave me a good laugh. Please produce the news, magazines, ext that prove the X-32 was better.

You will find, that around here evidence is king. My evidence is “Battle of the X-Planes.”
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnQROVm ... ature=plcp
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbr2Utz ... re=related

Sufa Viper

Three-bearing nozzle patents predate the Yak-141. So no, Russia did not invent that idea either.

spazsinbad wrote:

X-32 JSF transitions into Vertical (hover) mode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0P0ckhQg2g
__________________________

X-32 JSF first vertical (hover) landing FLAMES at END

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16EdXpk2SkU
__________________

X-32 JSF hover tests at Pax River

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb-OEyOtb2Q

Looks like it's missing a few parts. LMAO

jayraptor wrote:

SpudmanWP, Wrightman, h-bomb, megasun and sferrin,
The lift fan is entirely new idea but the turning exhaust nozzle is Russian invention. .

Nope. The 3-bearing nozzle concept was invented back in the 60's.

Please stop feeding this mor@&c troll. It was entertaining for a while but has grown pretty old at this point. Clearly he has much brighter insight to these programs than those within the programs. Obviously the USG should immediately scrap it all and just whip up simple non-stealth versions. That would be so much cheaper and much faster, to essentially start over... LMAO

jayraptor wrote:

The X-32 is constructed with largely carbon fibre materials that makes it lighter like EF2000.

And 35 isn't?

jayraptor wrote:

Having fat fuselage doesn't mean it's less aerodynamic.

Actually, yes, fat is bad for aerodynamics... but your list of which planes are and aren't fat doesn't reflect reality.

jayraptor wrote:

It's less conventional weapon bay design allows the X-32 to carry more weapons than the F-35.

Come on now, you know that lie didn't fool anybody here the first time, so why bother repeating the same lie again to the same audience?

jayraptor wrote:

Perhaps you would like to start new thread entitled F-23 or YF-23 over F-22 forum for me as well?

There is already at least one fairly recent YF-23 thread there.

jayraptor wrote:

Since F-22 is that expensive today, why not consider YF-23?

Restarting development & testing and then later production of an already-dead plane/program would be far more expensive than restarting production of one that's already been through all of that and been in production before. You're proposing pretty much the most expensive of all things they could possibly do, and trying to justify it as a way to save money. That's insane.

jayraptor wrote:

Reviving rejected fighter happened before, example the YF-17 Cobra revived to become F/A-18 and won the contract for USN and later on USMC.

YF-16 and YF-17 had competed for an Air Force contract. Later, there was a Navy contract to compete for. The company behind YF-16 went with what they already had. The company behind YF-17 changed it a bunch and entered the competition with a new different design from before, which got a new name, YF-18. They could have entered YF-17 if they'd wanted, but thought the new different design of the YF-18 was more likely to win. Today, there's no new contract from the government to compete for, and if there were, there's no clue of how similar or different the plane entered by the company/companies behind YF-23 this time would be.

Bottom line, Boeing/Northrup could not deliver a competion winning design within the constraints of the competition. They lost, it's done and gone, get over it.

The DOD was so in love with the X-32s it owned that it couldn't find an unused carport or tent to park them in. They deteriorated for years under the punishment of the elements until they were shipped off to museums.

On a related note the PaxRiver Museum X-35C is going to be housed inside a new museum building soon. Good Oh.

New Naval Air Museum on track to start construction soon 17 Aug 2012 By JESSICA GOOLSBY

http://www.somdnews.com/article/2012081 ... rnMaryland

"Construction of the new and improved Patuxent River Naval Air Museum is on track to kick off as soon as next month, with contract approval from the state level the only piece of the puzzle missing...."

http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/pax ... 35/x35.htm

JetTest wrote:

Bottom line, Boeing/Northrup could not deliver a competion winning design within the constraints of the competition. They lost, it's done and gone, get over it.

^^^This. I can't believe there is somebody actually complaining that the X-32 lost. Laughing

X-32B VSTOL is already confirmed less feasible compared to F35B. Wonder why some of you kept pointing the X-32B. The title here is to revive the X32A CTOL variant. Internal bay of the X-32 is confirmed larger, why still insist that it is just as big as F-35? YF-18 is further development of YF-17 still. Aren't Boeing tried to do the same by lengthened and redesigned the X-32 to have rear elevators? Why not give them a chance?

would it not be better if the f35b is dropped and go for f35c for carriers.x32a for ctol.

warwolf1 wrote:

would it not be better if the f35b is dropped and go for f35c for carriers.x32a for ctol.

Better for who??? It wouldn't be better for the customers, because they are ordering what they WANT. Is it that you don't want them to want it?

OK -- I think I get it now warwolf and jayraptor.
Your monitors are both broken, and all you can do is type but not read???
Aren't you seeing what is in the responses already??
X-32 is dead dead dead.

jayraptor wrote:

why not give them a chance?

I can't tell if this is serious or not?
No one is holding anyone back. Boeing doesn't want to build the X-32 because there is no buyer. That is smart business. Boeing has buyers for other products in their vast lineup of products, and they are hard at work trying to deliver those on time and to requirements. See how that works? Now they could take your advice and pull a bunch of their top people off projects with customers to pursue an incredibly expensive pipe dream for a product that nobody is asking for.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Making the X-32 fly-worthy