It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Boeing X-32 really ugly?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:17 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
I actually like the look of some U.S planes considered ugly the A-10 (Warthog) and the B-52 (B.U.F.F).

I have to say Im no fan of the X-32 design now but if it could do its job as good as the A-10 or B-52 have done I could grow to love it.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:26 PM
Yeah, but the BUFF is just an amazing airplane considering that the YOUNGEST ones are 40 years old, and they're still performing their mission quite reliably. And the A-10 is just the A-10. How can you NOT love an airplane that can do a 360 in the width of two runways? The X-32 has a face only a mother could love.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And the A-10 is just the A-10. How can you NOT love an airplane that can do a 360 in the width of two runways? The X-32 has a face only a mother could love.

Your statement right there though is all A-10. the thing looks ugly to alot of people that are used to smooth areodynamic planes. The ability of A-10 is what made me love it even more. The power the agility etc. If the X-32 would of had all those things plus SVTOL of just VTOL i'm sure I would of come to like it in time.

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:19 AM
The F-32 would also bring the Mig style nose intake back in fashion. It could probably be nicer if it had a larger nose section and the intake narrower like the F-16 so it would not suck up the flight deck crew members. Was the A-7 Corsair called the sailor inhaler once?

The F-32 JSF would look nicer if it had a 'nose job' but at the moment- no one likes it becouse the thing is so ugly the pilots would not want to fly it and it would suck up the ground crew and the pilot would be responsible for thier deaths. He would then say in the military court 'the plane ate the sailors not me'

Poor old F-32 has no where to go, no one likes it,

You never know it may come useful when it comes to ground support situations, it will literally hoover up hostile troops and clean the battlefield. After all, It may end up a hero that served our country!.

It does quite suit Japanese JASDF colors though.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Browno]

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:35 PM
I don't think it's ugly, I think it's actually a pretty cool looking aircraft, and the one version on the top, reminds me of a bird with its mouth opened, which I think makes it cooler, nature and artifice mixed is good in my book.

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:36 PM
The only thing I could think of at first when I saw the pics was "*schlurp* There goes another crew chief."

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:56 PM
It's a dump truck. Guess it's not supposed to be pretty. It's job is ground attack, and carry lots of ordnance and fuel, and hang around as long as possible in the battle zone.

Most feared aircraft in a combat zone = B-52 BUFF, OV10 Bronco, A1 SkyRaider "Sandy", A-10 Thunderbolt "Wart Hog".

All carry a huge ordnance load and hang around a long time. That just ruins the day for a enemy ground troop. (Ok, the OV10 didn't carry much, but it could stay all day, and made a terrible screaming sound when it dive bombed. Not to mention that it's job was Forward Air Control)

The B-52 has the additional "flys so high it can't be seen or heard".
I guess we could add the B-1B Lancer to that group now too.

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Browno
You never know it may come useful when it comes to ground support situations, it will literally hoover up hostile troops and clean the battlefield. After all, It may end up a hero that served our country!.
[edit on 23-11-2005 by Browno]

Thats genius browno, been enjoying your posts lately. Laughed out loud at that one.

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:16 PM
Something that came to mind after i saw several pics of this plane was how broad it was. Bigger target is easier to hit by ground forces. The silouette of the boeing is twice that of the F-16 or A-10, both from the front or side. Might not make a difference but just a thought

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:20 PM
Not so bad in JASDF colours but the thing is still ugly unless it gets a 'Nose Job'.

Out of the JSF Fighters, Giz an F-35 anyday.

Waz happenin with the Russian PAK FA up to now?

Iran is actually making a JSF fighter from an abandoned Russian project. It is called the SHAFAGH stealth fighter.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Browno]

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:20 AM
If main argument was against air intakes, here is one alternative proposal from mid 1995...

BTW: "sailor inhaler" is one of the best jokes I heared last time

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:04 AM
Air intakes once again. What do you think about this? Sukhoi PT-7...

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:11 AM
Looks like it will give you a nasty bite if it runs out of ammo!

This aircraft is featured in the new book 'Soviet Secret Projects - Fighters since 1945' by Yefim Gordon and Tony Buttler. Do you have it?

I recommend it to anyone interested in this subject as it illustrates every known fighter project from the S U right up to the Pak Fa concepts we have on here.

For example, I always knew that the West believed the Fencer was called the Su-19 and that was a mistake because it was really the Su-24. What I never knew was that there really WAS an Su-19! However, this was no VG strike aircraft but a precursor of the Flanker which married the wing that was later seen on the T-10 prototype to the fuselage of the Su-15!!!

There are some remarkable designs in there including a 'Skyray' like near flying wing fighter that looked far superior to anythig actually built which dates from as far back as 1947! So much for the Russians copying America!

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:54 AM
I always thought the Boeing X-32 looked sort of like a pelican with it's mouth open. Yeah, I know I'm weird.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I think its looks was probably a factor in its demise.

I hope people in the decision making board were saner than that!!

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:43 AM
I don't care for the idea "Form follows Function", I prefer to believe "Form is a factor of function".

The 32 is ugly.

The A-10 looks ugly at first, but it's like saying a body builder hasn't got the prettiest face. Step back, and you see the A-10 is pretty musclebound for an aircraft. The B-52 was widely considered ugly at first, but I have to say it's aged gracefully.

The -32 is still ugly.

I wouldn't add the B-1B to the list of most feared aircraft. Either you don't know there's one incoming to be afraid, or it's already gone and you can get on with your life. Everyone knows if there's a B-52 around on a clear day, just look at those ominous vapor trail circles up in the sky. A-1s and A-10s are a lot like sharks. You may not know they're in the area till a little too late, but once they show up, they'll probrably be there longer than you will.

yep, still think the -32 is/was ugly

I wonder why helicopters such as the AH-1 and AH-64 weren't included in the list of feared ground attack platforms?

and yes, I still think the -32 is an ugly design.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:16 PM
Form does NOT follow function. Function (F-for-Fighter not A-for-Attack) follows power installed.

And the X-32 (unlike the A-10, B-52, A-1, /any/ helicopter -or- the X-35) had power in spades. Probably too much power in fact.

As such, despite some embarrasingly predictable difficulties with the short distance from inlet to fan, the Boeing CDA had superior up and away performance in all areas compared to the X-35 except perhaps combat radius.

Having said that, what killed the X-32 is what is killing the X-35. STOVL.

Remove the STOVL and you can shift the engine back of the CG like it should be and stop trying to pull it out the belly like a mother delivering twins, simultaneously (what makes the jet 'fat' looking from the frontal area standpoint).

It also means you can rake the inlet the right way from the start (no need to translate the damn cowl) even as there are also no more tailpipe extensions and separate burner/vectoring gear plumbing. Another big weight savings.

No engine-up-front means a much more svelte (cubist F-16) inlet area as you can readily accomodate the NLG without having to reverse hump the belly to clear a partial inlet serpentine (90% of the Boeings VLO was assured by a readily removable 'device' integrated with the engine front).

The weapons bays can either stay where they're at or you can shift to a Small Diameter Weapon and AMRAAM casepoint across the belly which means you can submerge the MLG struts at least partially in the main fuselage (admittedly, wide-track is better for carrier compatibility and crosswind landing reasons, just ask any F-16 pilot who has bunny hopped halfway down the runway...).

The sadness about the X-32 (other than the fact that team Boeing COULD have been retained in the game as another 'one off' PWSC flight test comparitor to keep Lunchmeat honest), is that it truly does represent a more advanced aerodynamic AND manufacturing design.

Largely because of the work put into that 'unibody' wing with all the structural members and skins essentially autoclaved as a single piece so that the necessary holes and openings in an open boxframe fuselage could be present without compromising overall airframe integrity or weight.

While the larger area, cropped delta, super critical, high-taper, anhedralled airfoil configuration worked like a Tomcat wing:glove combination to provide reasonable cruise drag and trap a lot of around-the-boat lift.

In a span that DID NOT need wingfolds.

Similarly, Boeings' airliner contacts would have provided a 'better' (politically more flexible and quickly integrated, unlike Lunchmeat who are at risk of losing even their Tier 1 British commitment because they think coproduction means fuzzy dice not FACO) system of remote subcontracting and total systems integration experience by which to make a cheap jet from foreign sourced components. Very Fast (6 weeks per airframe was once thrown around).

Though SDLF would never work on any X-32 configuration, it is just 'typical' of the corrupted design process that they assign the high risk, high payoff (snicker) propulsion concept to one contractor and give the other the airframe challenge.

Before choosing the wrong powerplant/airframe combination because the LEAST PRODUCED version wouldn't work the otherway.

So that WE, collectively, lose on what was never a concept (technology) demonstration but always a production prototyping competition.

And so the literally 'better plane' lost as Boeing met their half of the deal with a 24,000lb machine that was pushed along by 32-34,00lbst _military_ thrust.

While, Lunchmeat (Baloney Inc.) is still in the process of defrauding the taxpayer on an entirely conventional configuration (lots of time, lots of fasteners, lots of airframe subassemblies HEAVY) F-35.

As such, the Just So Fracked will never make the grade on STOVL or export-Stealth and that will induce a domino effect failure which means it will never make the numbers on the CTOL necessary for it to be 'profitably cheap' export fighter in competition with established Rafale/Flubber and presumably Pak-FA alternatives.

For which you can reasonably thank the Bloody Brits and the All-Rock-Above-Adams-Apple USMC for their obsession with independent naval airpower without supercarriers.


posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:35 PM
You know the X-32 was called Monica? As in the intern...

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by ch1466
For which you can reasonably thank the Bloody Brits and the All-Rock-Above-Adams-Apple USMC for their obsession with independent naval airpower without supercarriers.


I just wish Harriers could be operated from destroyer decks!

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:23 PM
I love planes like rhe x32 and the f23 because they bring something new in the design. I am really disapointed by the f22 it looks so conventional.

BTW the Sukhoi pt is fabulous

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in