Kurt occasionally makes some points I'd consider worthwhile, at least I think so. Some of his comments contradict themselves, or do they? His writing style is a little too much train of thought, with enough jargon to sound cool.
Anyway, I'll take a stab at some dialogue. It is frquently a good thing to have a product with a goofy appearance (A-10, F-117). It gives the marketing people something to talk about, i.e. "it has to look unusual to do what is required." You should be asking out competitor why his design looks so conventional". I am not a fan of the axiom "If it looks good, it will fly good". On the other hand, if it can't hover, the design is no good. The smartest marketing guy in the world can't sell that.
I still say Boeing did the X-32 hover tests at PAX because it gave them more thrust margin. Of course everyone is keeping track of the weight, and they know how it stacks up to the required operational weight, and they know it was deficient (the X-35 was probably deficient too, just not as bad). No matter. It was a prototype and they were getting good data to design a product that would work. If thet put ballast back in after taking the doors off, it was to move the c.g. back into controlable range. I'll bet there was still a net advantage in weight, and they did not need to be worrying about doors shaking off at a critical time.
As far as the CV version of the X-32 is concerned, I don't doubt that it could be landed on a ship. I just think they found out before the jet was built that its bring-back weight was too small and a new wing was needed to fix that (more area, more span, different high lift system, tails to trim the high lift) and that adversely affected the spot factor, mandating folding wings. Sorry Kurt, the design fell apart. If the X-32 was "faster" as is said in your post, the too small wing could be the reason.
As far as the internal structural arrangement is concerned, Kurt is really inarticulate about that, and wrong too. What is he talking about with "box frames", "edges" and "corners", huh? The X-32 wing was much simpler in concept and execution than the X-35, and the fuselage was also easier to arrange than the X-35, provided the wing is removed for engine swaps (like the Harrier). That is the best way to keep it light. That "sticks and canvas" comment about the X-35 is a little confusing. It sounds idiotic actually.
Kurt's configuration comparison of the X-32 & X-35 could have some valid points but who can tell? Overall, I think I have wasted my time trying to understand him. See ya later, Kurt.
THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
