Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Kratzer on October 26, 2001, 03:33:00 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/646985.asp?0na=21046J2L (http://www.msnbc.com/news/646985.asp?0na=21046J2L)
-
Go Lockheed Martin Go!!!!!
Hope my stock goes up!!!
:)
-
Is that the plane the UK is supposed to be buying for its future carrier fleet? Or am I just confused?
-
whoopeeit.
I'm sure it won cause it looks more attractive to the eye.
-
Yes Dowding, thats the future plane for your country to replace the Harrier.
-
Animal is spot on, the panel that decided this was made up primarily of ex-fighter jocks, and we all know they don't drive sleek looking fast cars now don't we? Looks is everything to them. Functionally, the aircraft were identical.
Bad year for Boeing, actually beginning in 1998, when from 98-2000, we laid off 48,000 workers, then 9-11, another 30-40,000 will get pink slips between now and next year. Then losing the contract...we're talking almost 100,000 people will be laid off out of 250,000 world wide since '98.
If there is a silver lining in Boeings future, its the fact that it will be the major sub-contractor for the JSF.
-
WHAT? You reckon these people choose looks over everything else?
God I wish that was true.. maybe we'd be seeing this (http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf234.jpg) thing flying then.. but they chose the F22 instead. It's a crime :(
Maybe they've learnt from their mistakes though :)
-
DUMA! good to see ya mate! Boeing learn from the past? You don't know Boeing and its new age management. :)
-
looks are not the only reason it won ripsnort
the lifting fan of the lm design is better since it is a big chunk of volume in 1 area that when not being used for svtol can be used for extra fuel to have a longer range air force/navy variant
also Boeing had big problems with their wing and i think they were oging to have to totally redesign it. their proposed jsf wasnt anything resembling the jsf that participated in the quals.
plus i dont understand how that thing was stealthy at all, the fan was visible as hell from the front and the fan makes a helluva big signature on radar.
-
Actually Zig,
I'm pretty sure you know more than me about the project, but from what Ive read, the Boeing model excelled Lockheeds in one important thing: simplicity.
Now I dont have data to back my big mouth on this, but I will search for my sources tonight if I am able to (I.E: If I dont get drunk)
The one big advantage I see to the LH JSF, is its similarities to their F-22, maybe some of their parts are interchangeable? being from the same company, maybe it could make manufacture and mainteinance costs down?
-
My god....that "fighter" is even uglier than the F-22! It looks like something that escaped from the 1950's.
Yuck!
J_A_B
-
Ok, more fuel for the rumor mill.
The Boeing JSF has a simpler lift system, but it uses more fuel in the hover than the Lockheed one. Boeing JSF has two lift nozels like the Harrier (harrier has four nozzels), though the nozzles are only used in the hover mode with the tailpipe closed off. The two nozels only point down.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/propboeing.jpg)
The Lockheed JSF rotates the tail nozel down, and fires up a shaft driven lift fan behind the cockpit. It is more complex, but is more efficient. The Navy and Airforce versions have no vertical take off system at all, and the space the lift fan takes up is an additional fuel tank.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/img_3ceef510.jpg)
I'm concure with Zigrat. The Boeing JSF used in the trials is NOT the same design they were going to actually build for production. The next Boeing JSF would have dropped the delta wing and gone with a more traditional layout of wings, twin tails and stabalators.
Before (http://www.jast.mil/Gallery/Images/Boeing/First%20Flight/boe_ff_5.jpg) After (http://www.jast.mil/Gallery/Images/Boeing/Artistrenders/boe_ar_16.jpg)
The reason was the delta wing had center of gravity problems when you sling external weapons on them.
The Lockheed JSF on the other hand bassically never had any problems of any kind from start to finish and has been one of the most trouble free prototypes the USAF has ever seen. There really has not been any changes from the initial concept to the final prototype. Boeing only had two advantages over it. The simpler lift system, and vectored thrust. The Lockheed JSF does not have vectored thrust in any configuration, other than to point the tailpipe down for short take off and landings.
Hans.
[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]
-
s that the plane the UK is supposed to be buying for its future carrier fleet? Or am I just confused?
Yes, it is. Britain has been involved with the JSF project with the USA. Our US Marine Corp and your Royal Navy are getting the same plane.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf-rn.jpg)
By the way. The test pilots for the JSF program are all British Harrier pilots.
Hans.
[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]
-
Well, to correct my brother, not all were royal navy, but some of them were.
My vote was for the lockheed design as well.
It has shorter landing gear which is better for carrier operations (shorter ought to mean sturdier). Boeing unfortunatly put thiers in the wings and has to get past that rather large belly of the X-32. they were also retracted into the main body of the plane, which would seem to me allow the wing use more space/weight for more bombs (always a good thing : ) ).
The hover system on the X-35 has 2 points of lift, "front" and back. The X-32 does have 2 points as well. but they are right next to each at the center of gravity making for less stability, and more work for the balance nozzles. Lift a book by the edges and then by the middle, which are you more likely to drop (read: crash)?
Now I did like the thrust vectoring ability of the X-32. And reliability of a simpler hover system is nice, but so is longer range. The X-35 has either a more efficiant hover or a fuel tank witch means it can fly farther on the same gallon of gas.
As for stealth, I think the X-35 was probably still stealthier than the re-worked X32 prefered weapon concept.
Boeing has the F-18E/F as well as the B-2, B-1B, the on the way out the B-52(?) and F-15.
Lockheed has the F-22, JSF/F-35, F-117, and on the way out the F-16.
If someone gets laid off at boeing, Probably they could get a job at lockheed.
[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: LtFrans ]
-
i am an aerospace grad student and the 2nd in command of the jsf program was just at georgia tech begging us to come working for him. he needs to hire like 3000 ae engineers in the next year. i would not worry about jobs.
-
then why dont you get all shirtless and sweaty, take off in a 2/3 P-51D replica and land in the Skunkworks runway, and get to work?
J/K :D
-
Because we're having so much fun dumping scorn on the ugly planes you like so much, Animal. :D
Hans.
-
As a laid off employee from Lockheed in 1986, I can tell you, its a miracle they make a airworthy aircraft.
Not that it’s why I have that opinion; in fact, that’s why I do.
In retrospect, that’s the worst company ever, and the people I worked with there make me look up in amazement at C5B’s and C130’s how they are flying.
SCAREY stuff.
However, Boeing aircraft are simply a joy to work on.
Especially the 737-800. She is a sweet ass, modern, avionic marvel, squeak! :)
(http://www.charleskremer.com/plane.jpg)
Sexy, no? And well built.
I like.
____
[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Well, I work on corporate jets, not passenger planes.
The crap planes in that field are the Learjets (far too small for the ammount of crap people put in them), and the biggest coporate jets, the Gulfstreams from Grumman.
But, I speak for the electrical systems, not the mechanical ones.
Junkstars....excuse me....Jetstars from Lockheed are indeed crap with wings stuck in it.
Maybe your right.
But I think Boeing dropped the ball on the JSF because they didn't get the right prototype up and ready for the military. Why test a prototype if it is NOT the one your actually offering to the military?
Hans.
-
Polished floors, clean low hour airplanes, little tikes you can tow with a motorized push tug. Hmmm, I see no burden there. Your doing all right.
The 737-800 is a beast. Big and beautiful, that needs a bit of takin’ care of, but a benchmark marvel of modern aircraft.
Unlike a DC-10, she is just FINE without being a big pig.
Those corporate runners are cool, but the beauty is in the beast. She is perrty.
-
if lockheed had lost this contract it was only a matter of time before they were downsized to the point of being worthless as a defense contractor. That would have left the USA with one true defense contractor and I am pretty sure that was at least a partial reason why they went with lockheed.
-
I still go with the looks :) Unfortunately, you couldn't just see the boeing example from that top forward view all the time. From lower angles it looked like a flying billy bass :)
Charon
-
Would have been nice to let the teams work on both projects, like it happened with the F-16 & F-18. Then we would see wich of the two JSF would have been a better plane.
This, of course, will never happen :(
I have this feeling in my gut that the JSF was gonna be a great plane, ugly maybe, but great plane.
-
It has been said Boeings model looked like a frog with it's mouth open. It was given the nickname "Monica" Sadly, the looks of the plane was a factor. Maybe a minor one, but a factor never the less. I have seen vidoes of the X35 in hover, very impressive and very stable.
-
If the US Military doesn't want the General Dynamics' JSF, I'll take it. I mean.. its not like they're doing anything with it anyways.
I shouldn't have a problem with external ordinance... so it meets my needs.
AKDejaVu