F-32 vs F-35

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
this may be.

How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
numbers than the F-35?

The thing Raven seems to be missing is that any additional R&D spending
(of which there will be a lot) will be amortized over a much smaller unit
count. Meaning you'd have to strip a boat load of feature off an FX-32
to get the unit cost down to F-35 levels.

Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?

Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence. Sure
they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
that POS".

That is a bit of an over statement.
Boeing built a fair number of fighters some time back. The last one that
required more than the fingers of one hand to count (the P-26 Peashooter)
marked the introduction of a fabulous innovation to US fighters: the mono-
wing.
That and you may want to give some credit to the MacAir part that was
assimilated a few years back.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:53:39 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
hardware was that it had to look good.

Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
come about for nothing.

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.


You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
staring back at you.


--
Errol Cavit | | It is currently fashionable to speak
of the histories of a nation, as if there are many versions of national
history (which there are), and many ways of approaching such histories
(which there are), and as if they were all of equal value and validity
(which they are not). Michael King The Penguin History of NZ

In article ,
"Errol Cavit" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.


You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
staring back at you.

....and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

[ concerning ugly warthogs...]

...and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

Double bonus for a birdstrike on trailing edges...

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:21:35 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

At an SETP Symposium many, many years ago, the A-10 test pilot who
complained that the classically graceful lines of the A-10 were ruined
by a tested gun gas deflector also opined that the A-10 looked like
the result of a menage a trois between a hyper bomber and two cement
trucks.

It's kind of hard to top that.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:


Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Why am I reminded of formulaic relationships
between "angle of dangle" and the "mass of ass"?

;-)