Boeing X-32A
- Thread starter johnbr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #2
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
net
- Thread starter
- #3
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
- Thread starter
- #4
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
The F-32a mock-up net
- Thread starter
- #5
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
- Thread starter
- #6
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
- Thread starter
- #7
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
The X-32 lost due to multiple shortcomings, the biggest being an inferior lift system to the X-35 (which would lead to hot exhaust being reingested by the intake), failure to iron out issues with making the upper surface of the wings out of a single piece of carbon composite (which would have provided significant weight savings), issues with reaching the top speed of the aircraft and making vertical flight in the same test flight (this meant that Boeing had two different aircraft in testing, the X-32A and X-32B), and a sudden Navy decision to modify low speed manuevring requirements, necessitating a change in planform for the X-32.
Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII
Boeing X-32 JSF contender, early design. The final X-32 used a trapezoidal wing with conventional horizontal stabilators. Apparently at the time, Dassault engineers (known for their Rafale and Mirage delta wing fighters) said Boeing was doing it wrong.
Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII
Boeing X-32 JSF contender, early design. The final X-32 used a trapezoidal wing with conventional horizontal stabilators. Apparently at the time, Dassault engineers (known for their Rafale and Mirage delta wing fighters) said Boeing was doing it wrong.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It looks weird enough to be British.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Nice photos but what a loser of an aircraft!
- Thread starter
- #11
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Last edited:
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 734
- Mar 16, 2014
A major part of the loss was that, in lieu of set performance parameters, the DOD had required "that the prototypes actually deliver the performance that the contractor's detailed estimates promise".
In other words, the winner would be whomever's aircraft performed most closely to what they designed it to do.
LM's X-35 met every estimate of performance, and even beat a few - Boeing's X-32 failed to meet Boeing's estimates on low-speed stability in turbulence (utterly vital for carrier landings) as well as in a couple of other areas - it was this that caused Boeing to come up with the proposed redesign with horizontal stabilizers... the Navy had NOT changed the stability requirements, Boeing had overestimated the stability of their design.
In other words, the winner would be whomever's aircraft performed most closely to what they designed it to do.
LM's X-35 met every estimate of performance, and even beat a few - Boeing's X-32 failed to meet Boeing's estimates on low-speed stability in turbulence (utterly vital for carrier landings) as well as in a couple of other areas - it was this that caused Boeing to come up with the proposed redesign with horizontal stabilizers... the Navy had NOT changed the stability requirements, Boeing had overestimated the stability of their design.
Nice shots!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
There's a saying (myth?) that if it looks good, it flies good. Does the XF-32 prove the corollary?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well it definitely doesn't look good, and it had issues during the fly-off so I guess the rest just falls into place.
