|
| The Boeing X-32 was a multi-purpose jet fighter in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost to the Lockheed Martin X-35 demonstrator which was further developed into the F-35 Lightning II.
External links
| CREW | 1 |
| ENGINE | 1 x Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 17200 kg | 37920 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 10.97 m | 36 ft 0 in |
| Length | 15.47 m | 51 ft 9 in |
| Height | 5.28 m | 17 ft 4 in |
| Wing area | 54.8 m2 | 589.86 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Max. speed | 1.6M | 1.6M |
| Range | 1570 km | 976 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 1 x 20mm cannon, up to 6800kg of weapons |
| Lawszepie, e-mail, 20.11.2010 15:23 Yip, F35 look much better reply | | 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. reply |
| 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. reply | | Ahmet Alegoz, e-mail, 21.06.2010 12:00 So ugly. reply | |
| | 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 reply | | 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. reply | | 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. reply | | dman, 17.01.2010 05:25 I can't immagen this thing flying instead of the F-22 reply | | chaiwat kosatanakom, e-mail, 15.08.2009 04:37 Whatsoevr design it is! I swear to make it in paper model for Christ sake! reply | | 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. reply |
| Ahmet Alegoz, e-mail, 09.01.2009 11:12 What an ugly plane! I'm glad to lost the race. reply |
|
Do you have any comments?
|
| 
COMPANY
PROFILE
All the World's Rotorcraft
|
Eric Bishop
20
reply