| lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 07:01 20
|
| lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 06:50 20
|
| lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 06:50 20
|
| dick, e-mail, 19.06.2016 04:31 Sorry to disappoint all you guys with your so-called
copy of the Russians yahk-141. Have a look at the history
of the Harrier jumpjet. You will see that the Short sc-1
back in the 1950's hat four jet-engines installed vertically behind the cockpit and one in the tail. From this conception followed a series of planes manufactured
by France (Mirage-Balzac) and Germany and the Russians.
So don't go talking nonsense, just do a bit of recherche.
|
| ., e-mail, 21.03.2015 17:05 Also, the x-32 was different in every way to the 141, as the x-32 had a pair of nozzles that rotated down from the middle of the aicraft on the center of mass, while the 141 had what i said earlier, not to mention the x-32 has a delta wing for anyone who didnt notice. The second picture with a full tailplane was just a mockup and didnt actually fly. The reason this plane lost to the f-35 was that they never completed a hover test without removing parts to lighten it. Once these parts were removed, the aircraft couldnt safely go above mach 1, while the x-35 could do both with no modification.
|
| ., e-mail, 21.03.2015 16:57 For everyone saying the Americans copy the russians, all i have to say is Tu-4. Also, the F-35 doesn't really copy the Yak-141, as the Yak had twin lift jets while the F-35 had a single lift fan. Now, I'm not saying that these aircraft are better than the Russians other than the odvious avionics advances. I personally think every 5th gen American aircraft is sub par, and that the T-50 is better, and as an American that should end some arguments that we are brainwashed into thinking we are better than everyone else.
|
| Jose Sacramento jr, e-mail, 08.06.2014 07:30 The VTOL design of Boeing is more reliable than the Russian design of Lockheed martin. Lockheed won the aesthetic design but failed with the technology because it is a copy of a Russian design with so many moving parts that requires many hours to launch with so many technical problems after each flight. Jsf should have been a Boeing technology on a Lockheed design....the one who failed here were the jury... both Boeing and Lockheed should have won and built the jsf.
|
| BHH, 06.01.2014 07:50 Good God. Definitely the most hideous thing Boeing ever conceived.
|
| Theadore J Stone, e-mail, 01.05.2013 01:33 This was compared to the A-10 as being ugly. There is nothing about the A-10 that is ugly when one is flying a hundred feet over head and kicking ass. It was doing what the engineer designed it to do! Don't like it, change the design requirements.
|
| John, e-mail, 06.07.2012 03:20 Hind sight,the f22 is plagued with very costly problems,and i think the vtol version will be too. I thought the boeing design was better,and just needed a few adjustments.
|
| Migz, e-mail, 28.12.2011 01:01 Actually if you read the history of the Yak-141, Lockheed was on of the major supporters of the Yak-141 project. After Russia canceled it Lockheed used a lot of the Russian engineers in the F-35. One of the reason Boeing had problems was that on of the branches of military change requirements mid-build which gave them problems and the reason they had to do a redesign.
|
| Turkmenistan, e-mail, 10.12.2011 17:20 The Russians have nothing good to say about the design of Americans a/c. They have copied so many of our planes it remains most difficult to tell them apart. Is that a B757
or the Russian prototype.
|
| Fuck Americans, 20.10.2011 13:14 It's a fucking rip-off of the Yak 141!
|
| brahhhh, e-mail, 16.09.2011 16:09 this plane is awesome
|
| Ron, e-mail, 06.06.2011 20:11 This plane actually met most of it's performance targets durring flight testing but the air force does not fly ugly aircraft with the exception of the A-10. The Air force guys fondly named the x-32 the Monica after the famous Clinton mistress.
|
| Ron, e-mail, 06.06.2011 20:09 This plane actually met most of it's performance targets durring flight testing but the air force does not fly ugly aircraft with the exception of the A-10. The Air force guys fondly named the x-32 the Monica after the famous Clinton mistress.
|
| go!! direct lift (without hot , e-mail, 31.03.2011 19:47 fucking F35 just pirating yak 141 design, 1t`s made usaf looks forgery?
|
| VTOL_anthusiast, e-mail, 31.03.2011 19:43 hmm any way the direct lift was the great idea, do you think f35 just cupied russian`s yak 141, but x32 didn`t its realy brand new or my be iproved from harrier?
|
| deaftom, e-mail, 31.03.2011 02:00 What no one is mentioning here is that Boeing's original X-32 design was a compact tailless delta wing plane, and this is what was built and flown (as seen in the first photo above). Halfway through the flyoff evaluation with Lockheed's X-35, Boeing suddenly announced that any production version of the X-32 would be extensively redesigned to have a more conventional wing and tail, like the X-35. The second photo above shows Boeing's mockup of the redesigned form, which was never actually built as a flyable airframe. I have never seen Boeing's rationale for this rather major change, but obviously Boeing had to feel that its original design was distinctly inferior to Lockheed's in some way, and was attempting to correct this with a drastic change. Perhaps USAF also felt the same way, and maybe that is one factor in the final selection of the Lockheed design: Lockheed "got it right" the first time, while Boeing literally had to go back to the drawing board.
|
| Denis Seiglie, e-mail, 03.01.2011 01:07 One of the ugliest airplanes ever designed - no matter how well it performed!
|
| Lawszepie, e-mail, 20.11.2010 15:23 Yip, F35 look much better
|
| Charles P (Pat) Kelley, e-mail, 19.10.2010 20:25 What is not well known is why the Air Force preferred the XF-35 over the Boeing design. VTOL was not a requirement for the Air Force, but the Lockheed design used a robust power takeoff shaft to drive the vertical lift fan, unlike the Boeing design that achieved vertical thrust without a takeoff shaft. The Air Force is investigating a tactical laser weapon, and the power takeoff could be used to drive an electric generator to power the laser. Now you know the rest of the story.
|
| dr, 13.10.2010 17:30 Actually this plane out performed the Lockheed plane, in all requirements, well except for one, which all the other comments hit on. Looks. Though not designed nor required by Air Force to fly supersonic, the plane meant to perform excellent at high sub-sonic flight. One neat feature on this plane was the how the vtol capabilities (directing of thrust) were designed and operated. Compared with the x-35, the x-32 was a simplier design with a lot less moving parts along with a considerable weight savings. Probably a design we will see in future vtol aircraft.
|
| Ahmet Alegoz, e-mail, 21.06.2010 12:00 So ugly.
|
| Eric, e-mail, 15.06.2010 03:46 Lets not forget the perameter of this competition that started the contest- cost $$$$! Lockheed Martin was seriously over budget and almost got disqualified. Boeings plane performed just as well, the final production jet would be 1500 pounds lighter negating the removal of body panels. Looks should matter least compared to cost effective, air superiority. Just my 2 cents
|
| Maurice Sharpe, e-mail, 12.05.2010 23:12 This plane was never seriously considered because of its looks. It outperformed the Lockheed model in most important parameters.
|
| Igor, 28.04.2010 15:16 It wasn't ever up against the F-22 dman - it was up against the Lockheed Martin F-35 (both planes were X series during the development and selection phase). It is a very ugly airplane and I don't believe it ever met the primary selection specs set by US Defence Dept - take off vertical - fly supersonic - land vertical in a single flight. A poor period in boeing's history.
|
| dman, 17.01.2010 05:25 I can't immagen this thing flying instead of the F-22
|
| chaiwat kosatanakom, e-mail, 15.08.2009 04:37 Whatsoevr design it is! I swear to make it in paper model for Christ sake!
|
| Eric Bishop, e-mail, 10.03.2009 22:07 I think this is the most handsome aircraft there is too bad they could not get this aircraft to fly with-out removing the inlet scoop.
|
| Ahmet Alegoz, e-mail, 09.01.2009 11:12 What an ugly plane! I'm glad to lost the race.
|
