Choice of Names for JSF Narrows

Glider · 07-15-2006, 10:47 AM

I was going through some of my old Aircraft magazines this morning and found one that announced that the name for the F22 whilst not confirmed, was to be the Lightning II.
The mag is one that I normally find to be accurate and its unlikely to have made such a statement without some guidance. Goes to show what goes around comes around, eventually. No doubt also shows a massive lack of imagination.

As an aside. Some of the posts talk about how unatractive the F35 is, well she is a picture of beauty when compared to the Boeing alternative. I saw a full size mock up at Farnborough once and just knew that it wouldn't get the contract. I had never seen such a pug ugly aircraft in my life.

Nonskimmer · 07-15-2006, 10:55 AM

You must mean the X-32. It's an ugly mother alright.

(Pic source: globalsecurity.org)

Glider · 07-15-2006, 11:10 AM

Thats the one, Take it away, it reminds me of a basking shark without the elegence

Gnomey · 07-15-2006, 01:42 PM

Could they of designed a worse looking aircraft... Doesn't matter about it's performance (although they say if it looks good it will fly good) I would reject on the basis of it's pure ugliness...

FLYBOYJ · 07-15-2006, 05:28 PM

I think the US government gave both contractors some money for the JSF development. Boeing's was so ugly and performed so poorly I think I would of demanded my money back for building such a piece of crap!

Glider · 07-15-2006, 07:11 PM

Couldn't agree more.

This may be unique, something that everyone without exception agrees on. Its horrible.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-16-2006, 09:15 AM

awww look, it's happy to see us

but yes even i must agree that's one damn ugly aircraft......

evangilder · 07-16-2006, 01:56 PM

102first_hussars · 07-17-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think the US government gave both contractors some money for the JSF development. Boeing's was so ugly and performed so poorly I think I would of demanded my money back for building such a piece of crap!

Yeah the original design was, , now the reason its so ugly in my opinion is the wing design but they were trying to make a Delta wing fighter capable of quick manouverability at high-speeds thats why the wings are so contorted with f**ked-upness but they drew updifferent design for the wings which made it easier to look at, I watched the program about the competition between the two companies, the X-32 seemed to have an edge over the F-35 in the hover department, the one problem with this plane that stuck out was that it was too dangerous to do air to air refueling.

FLYBOYJ · 07-17-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

Yeah the original design was, but they had a different design for the wings which made it easier to look at, I watched the program about the competition between the two companies, the X-32 seemed to have an edge over the F-35 in the hover department, the one problem with this plane that stuck out was that it was too dangerous to do air to air refueling.

Dude, I don't know what you were watching, but the only thing the X-32 did first was fly. Aside from that it was inferior all the way and wasn't even close to the X-35 in anything!!! During the X-35s first flight it met 12 out of 15 flight test parameters, sucked the gear up and went supersonic!!! The X-32 flew months earlier and only met 8 of those parameters at the time the X-35 first flew. As a matter of fact, during the F-32s first flight, it blew a hydraulic line and landed at Edwards AFB under and IFE!!! Not too promising for the first flight of the supposedly most advanced fighter aircraft in the world!!! It never hovered when it was in Palmdale because it was too heavy and they had to take the landing gear doors off when it went through its hover test at Pax river.

BTW I was there during the X-35 test, it has the most advanced VTOL set up in world - period!

The building in the background is where they used to paint L-1011s

Glider · 07-17-2006, 10:23 PM

I admit to not having FJ's background but I remember weight being a problem on the Boeing. I saw some film and it seemed clear they had taken off anything they could to meet some of the parameters. When you consider that weight is almost guaranteed to increase as a plane goes through development process, it didn't bode well for the future.

The one thing that struck me when I saw the mock up, was how stealthy could it be. Just looking at it, it seemed to have the radar cross section of a couple of hanger doors.

evangilder · 07-18-2006, 09:52 AM

Good info Joe, and a great picture!

davparlr · 07-18-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Dude, I don't know what you were watching, but the only thing the X-32 did first was fly. Aside from that it was inferior all the way and wasn't even close to the X-35 in anything!!! During the X-35s first flight it met 12 out of 15 flight test parameters, sucked the gear up and went supersonic!!! The X-32 flew months earlier and only met 8 of those parameters at the time the X-35 first flew. As a matter of fact, during the F-32s first flight, it blew a hydraulic line and landed at Edwards AFB under and IFE!!! Not too promising for the first flight of the supposedly most advanced fighter aircraft in the world!!! It never hovered when it was in Palmdale because it was too heavy and they had to take the landing gear doors off when it went through its hover test at Pax river.

BTW I was there during the X-35 test, it has the most advanced VTOL set up in world - period!

The building in the background is where they used to paint L-1011s

You forgot to ad that the XF-32 had to have the configuration changed on the ground before it could hover. I understand that this configuration change (I believe it had something to do with the inlet) was required allow hovering and it would not perform horizontal flight requirements with it. Also, to my amazement, the military allowed the flight test to continue even though the XF-32 was not of the same design as the production model. The production model had to have a horizontal stablizer, which the XF-32 did not have. I am sure that that would have pushed a law suit had the F-35 not won. I suspect the military knew all along who would be the winner. The XF-32 was a disaster. I think the F-35 is going to be a great plane.

As for the comment on weight. I'm trying to think of a single program that did not not have a weight problem. Mmm, nope not one I have heard about!

FLYBOYJ · 07-18-2006, 11:53 AM

Yep - I did forget about that!!

102first_hussars · 07-18-2006, 07:09 PM

One thing I dont understand is, that Boeing had alot of experienced personell in their staff, carried over from Mcdonnel Douglas, they were capable of building a quality aircraft.