Posted on 07/22/2025 9:26:38 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The Boeing X-32, derided for its “ugly,” cartoonish appearance, was a formidable contender in the Joint Strike Fighter competition but ultimately lost to what became the F-35. Despite its superb handling qualities, which one test pilot compared to an F/A-18, the X-32’s downfall was its flawed and complex Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) design.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Yes.
People, the A-7 did not have a wing that could be raised for slow speed.
V/STOL is so very asinine for a fighter aircraft, especially stealth.
But is EXTREMELY good for MIC and Congress.
The era of big fat agape air intakes is OVER in the age of stealth.
“Upon closer inspection I agree with the AI, the A-7 at that angle would show the aerial refueling probe.”
Both have tilting wings. Supersonic F-8.
Good to know. I spent my preteen years on an F-8 flight line, never been up close and personal with an A-7.
To tilt or not to tilt, that is the question.
TexasGator, The A-7 does not have tilting wings, they are fixed. But there is some shared heritage for sure between the F-8 and the A-7.
Both of those aircraft in the post above are F-8s, which was a pretty hot plane. Pilots loved flying it.
The A-7 was very capable for its day.
“To tilt or not to tilt, that is the question.”
That was never a question for F-8 pilots.
“TexasGator, The A-7 does not have tilting wings, they are fixed. “
Sometimes one needs to understand the on-going conversation before jumping in with a “correction”.
“Both” refers to “both photos”.
“Both of those aircraft in the post above are F-8s, which was a pretty hot plane. Pilots loved flying it.”
I think I have three posts to that effect.
Never mind. Sorry to “jump in” and “correct” you.
referring to the Osprey death machine ?
Engine fails everyone dies..
Provide evidence of A-7 tilt wing.
No, I just included the F-8 twice. The F-8 had a tilt-up wing.
looks like a ninja’s throwing star/blade.
from the top.
Intakes are necessary, obviously, and two for a twin engine but in the case of the F-22 they are integrated into the body and not “agape” as the others discussed.
And, intakes, inlets, really, must be sized to the engines to which they're connected, obviously.
I think you'd agree that the engines of today are more powerful than the engines of the 1960s. As such they require a larger volume of air be delivered to them. Because of this, the inlet size for modern engines are going to be larger than older designs.
Not sure what you mean about being 'integrated' as any non-integration would result in aerodynamic inefficiency.
While the X-32 has a single inlet feeding a single engine, the F-35 has bifurcated inlets feeding its single engine.
I can understand that many folks do not like the looks of the X-32, but its aerodynamic efficiency and stealth capabilities are right up there with the F-22 and F-35.
What it lacked, and probably why it lost out to the F-35 was in STOVL testing. The Lockheed-Martin F-35 vertical take-off and landing system was more technically advanced and therefore, superior to the Boeing system which copied the Harrier design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.