It was internally nicknamed the Guppy. The "Monica" was a derogatory nickname given by test pilots who did *not* like it, and likened its large intake to the person at the focus of the Presidential scandal that just completed.
It's essentially a repackaged AV8 Harrier that turned out to be slightly too short to house the massive F119 engine, hence the strange air intake workaround :D
It was a parts bin special. Even the cockpit and canopy were straight out of an AV-8B. The main landing gear came from an F-14 with different wheels. The X32B was so under powered that for hovering tests they removed the intake scoop, and about 3 feet worth of wing on each side.
@@freddyrosenberg9288 yeah. Heard that X35 also borrowed main landing gears from A6. In retrospect, JSF should have been awarded to McD/BAE pelikan tail entry with LMT as the STOVL backup, imho.
In college I was fortunate enough to attend an AIAA lecture by Paul Bevilaqua, the inventor of the LiftFan system of the F-35B. I remember the general takeaway from his thoughts on the JSF competition was that in general, whatever looks right, usually flies right (among some other points about how we still need visionary aircraft designers, despite systems engineering and optimization going in the opposite way, taking the creativity out of the design). But anyway, one of the takeaways was that looks, while in principle should not be a criterion by which an aircraft gets accepted or rejected, it does play a psychological effect in the final decision. If A and B perform about the same, and A looks cleaner, A is going to be chosen. In the case of JSF, the X-32 actually lacked some capabilities that the X-35 had, like being capable of STOVL+supersonic in one flight without airframe modifications. Personally though, I believe elegant solutions and engineering excellence usually go hand in hand, and the LiftFan system does exactly that - like you mentioned in the video, it does increase payload, and plus you don’t have to remove the inlet cowl like on the X-32. It’s a cleaner solution, albeit expensive, complex, and ambitious. If it looks right, it flies right. And if it flies right, it usually also looks right too.
It's an old saying in aviation to the effect of, "If it looks good, it flies good." And while it's obviously not a hard and fast rule, it does generally seem to hold true. And as hard on the eyes as the X-32 was, it's a real looker compared to the XF-85 - which itself seems to go a long way toward proving the adage.
The YF-23 was one of the loveliest aircraft ever created and it still came in second to the (comparatively) stodgy YF-22. Perhaps it’s the exception that proves the rule? At least we have the prototypes.
@@jaybee9269 YF-23 had some major problems and disadvantages that most people don't mention or know about that contributed to it losing, despite having greater acceleration, cruise speed, and slightly better stealth than the YF-22. The Air Force did get the right plane, honestly. YF-23 would have turned into a financial disaster, not least because it was trying to be too advanced for its own good, but also because a number of key systems never worked and never made it to even the prototype stage. Notably, Northrop's entire aerodynamic layout was a gamble, leaving only a small narrow opening for weapons bays. As such they tried to devise a magazine system to manipulate a large number (around 11 I think) of missiles, by mechanical means, to the doors to be fired. The system never worked, and left nearly zero room for development in missile technology beyond the exact versions the magazine was designed for (if it had worked at all) and as such the prototype had to rapidly redesign the bays to accommodate three AMRAAMs and two sidewinders. This fell below the specified minimum armament of the ATF program, and was three AMRAAMs short of the F-22, a major flaw for a stealth fighter designed for BVR combat. To compound fears over safe weapons release from the bays, Lockheed demonstrated both types of launch method on their prototype, while Northrop (who had more to prove in thos regard) failed to perform any weapons releases. Production model F-23s would also have changed to a divertless supersonic inlet design, which would have actually removed the reported speed advantage the prototypes held over the YF-22, and made it around 0.2-0.3 mach slower than the production F-22A in service now. Basically, Northrop designed the better plane, Lockheed designed the better warplane. With so much cost and complexity, the Air Force wanted something that they knew would work, would present as few new issues as possible, and which was robust and well armed. Small differences in cruise speed and stealth didn't bother them as much as whether the new generation jets were fighting fit. Most likely the correct decision. I cannot see YF-23 even reaching the 187 produced of the F-22 before cancellation.
Since you seem to have a background here, would you mind telling us how much influence did the Yak 141's lift fan design have on the F 35 ? It is well known that Lockheed bought the 'flight data' of the Yak 141 from Yakovlev in the mid 90's ? Lookheed probably did refine the idea further, but would saying the 'inventor of the lift fan' be a bit of a stretch ?
The YA-9 was a decent airplane and as you say no slouch...I can work on a video about it, I need to locate footage I can use as I am sure no one wants to look at two pictures for 10 minutes....or does it not matter? Thanks for commenting and being a subscriber!
This is probably the most detailed, accurate account I have heard of this aircraft, with maybe one small exception: the reason the X-32B could not achieve supersonic flight after an STO and before a VL is that the intake cowl was fixed in place rather than actuated fore and aft as originally intended. The intake cowl was designed to translate forward, allowing higher intake airflow for slow takeoffs, hovering, and vertical landing. Boeing had to remove the actuation from the prototype to offset hundreds of pounds of tools left in the wing box by disgruntled technicians during production. As I recall, all the tooling was left in one side of the wing and ballast had to be added to the other side to restore the balance, but the added weight irreversibly threw off the design CG (fore/aft).
Holy shoot,really? I never knew it. So after they close the wingbox they couldn't fix it by opened again.... that technician must be felt very guilty...
I've never heard that explanation, and I have to say it seems extremely unlikely. Even 20 years ago tool control was enough of a thing that nobody was going to get away with leaving that much FOD in an aircraft, and the solution once discovered wouldn't be to add more to even it out. You'd open it up again and remove it. I've "been there and done that" for much less on other aircraft production lines. If it can be put together it can be taken apart, and in light of the risk to lives, program, and schedule - especially for one of only two prototypes - I just can't conceive of an aircraft with hundreds of pounds of FOD in it being knowingly pushed out the door. By then it was well known and documented that a single socket from a socket wrench set could bring down an aircraft and put lives at risk. There's no way they'd have allowed a FODded X-32 to leave the ground if they'd known. It's a good story, but it just doesn't make any sense.
FlyingBrickyard Truth is often stranger than fiction. I worked on the X-32 program, and all of the above is true. The wing box was the largest single bonded composite layup at the time, and after the upper and lower halves of the delta wing were joined, they couldn't be separated. Mechanics dumped huge hand tools inside the wing box just before joining, after final inspections of the upper and lower wing sections. Shortly after, they went on strike. The problem wasn't discovered until the completed wing was weighed, and it came up several hundred pounds overweight. X-ray analysis revealed the problem. Engineers decided to drill a few small holes and inject potting into the wing to stabilize the loose tools. Subsequently the balance issue was addressed by adding ballast to the opposite wingtip. Only the X-32B was affected.
That's absolutely insane. I still can't wrap my head around somebody actually doing that, and can only hope those mechanics never worked on anything in the industry again. I don't care what your beef with an employer is - you don't ever sabotage the hardware.
FlyingBrickyard the culture at Boeing is not very healthy. This incident on the X-32B was downright sabotage, and what's going on today seems more like carelessness, but the production issues are rampant. The USAF has refused deliveries of KC-46 aircraft due to tools, rags, and other FOD left in fuel tanks and other inaccessible areas. Similar issues on 787 and 737 Max programs.
PilotPhotog My other idea is the Canberra bomber, which was later modified into the B-57. NASA still has 3 of these amazing aircraft which have been modified as the WB-57F to fly higher than a U-2. The Canberra seems in concept like a 1951 jet powered de Havilland Mosquito.
The X-32 doesn’t look nearly as ugly in a clean configuration (of which there was little enough footage I guess). The last scene with the formation flying was lovely...the thing was all stealthed up and one could see its potential. I have to admit I’m a little disappointed the F-35 doesn’t have side weapons bays. I was promised side weapons bays! Anyway, excellent content! Thanks for making good videos.
@@RedXlV Well. The finished version would likely not look the same based on what Boeing had presented. It would of course have many of the elements. But it seems like the most ugly elements would actually have been removed. Not that it matters if it is ugly or not as long as it works. But it is still interesting that the later concepts of the F-32 look more elegant than the X-32 demonstrator did. And well, in the story of the ugly duckling that duckling grows up to be a beautiful swan. ;)
No its not just you, alot of people agree including myself. And personally i think the A-10 is gorgeous and undoubtedly distinct. Same can be said for the B-52
I'm not sure if the principle of "if it looks right it probably flies right" works in reverse in general but I bet it does with this thing. It looks like a bathtub with wings and it probably handled like one.
This is one 'unusual' looking bird. It almost looks as though it needs to regurgitate the over-burden of it's last meal, before being able to 'go for it'. For me, I'd have named it 'Gannet'. Whatever;, it was an experimental 'being' in it's own right. Than goodness that the Lightning came to pass selection! Stay safe, take care, and thank you for another top-drawer video!
Hard to say if the F-32A or a variant with a conventional tail would have been successful. You touched on changing program requirements and that was definitely an issue, but coupled with the disastrous "fly then fix" mentality and I think we would still be seeing problems that while different in nature, would be similar in scope to the ones that the F-35 is having as we speak. As usual, very good video and keep it up!
Agreed and the project is a good example of scope creep...while I think most of the issues have been resolved or mitigated, it was a complex undertaking. Thanks for commenting and being a subscriber!
You make it sound like the lift fan was a relatively simple evolution. In reality it was a huge technology risk which, when it paid off, made the F35 concept unbeatable.
I genuinely like it, even its appearance. Could have been a futuristic pseudo-successor to the Super Sabre. That, and I feel like the “smile” is more charming than ugly.
i am pretty sure the neutral hover issues were the downfall, and the non supersonic without modifications were the deciding factors not the tail. the ingest of hot air into engine was a danger in the harrier....... not just overheat but catastrophic accidents.
As the USAF X-32/X-35 Airframe Lead in the Summer of 2000, I gave a presentation to the Air Force Research Lab on the JSF program. At the end of the briefing, I conducted an informal down select. It was unanimous--everyone selected the X-35 because it looked more like a formidable fighter aircraft. To simply change the tail design on the X-32 to improve performance wouldn't have changed the outcome--it would still be a homely looking airplane.
Back at flight test, the pilot's bullroom had a picture that had the X-32 on one side and a Boeing big shot yelling on the other side. It was entitled SEPARATED AT BIRTH.
Honestly, the tail wasn’t the issue. The intake and the limitations it put on the STOVL variant was its undoing. It would have been a great carrier and land based fighter, but STOVL needed work.
If production and maintenance costs were factors of the 'Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter' part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' competition - meant to replace even the light F-16 - then they should also be part of the analysis. The obsession with vertical lift-off from small carriers should be looked into as well - considering that neither the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet (replaced by F-35Bs) nor the Yakovlev Yak-38M remained in super power service, and Bell Boeing V-22 Ospreys being limited to 30 minutes flights around their base...
I think the X-32 was a very alien looking craft which made it al the more interesting. And i would have loved to see what a fully devaloped F-32 would have looked. Like. However, my one consern that i never heared anyone else address was the seemingly small nose cone that must house a radar that would probably be not as powerful as one that was able to fit in a larger space. Just asking.
If you actually look at the plane without the intake it's very sleek. Could have been a good looking light fighter with two intakes and g404's. Doesn't look like they can accommodate a very big radar.
Another superb video! You get really good clips and your narration is great. Would any of the older X planes be a possibility for a video? Also, it may be a bit boring or cliche, but how about a two part video on the F-117? Part 1 could be about it's development and part 2 on its operational history and post-retirement use. I think a couple are being used as test beds for newer tech.
@@lucastekkan If you use it constantly then yes but it can be useful to just get a little bit more of that angle of attack to launch a missile but if someone would use it constantly then i agree it would be a very effective way to get killed.
I watched a show with the X-32 test pilot and he made a good point that both of these planes were to be "Concept" designs to accomplish stated goals. That was the reason that Boeing did not put much effort into how it looked. Lockheed however, did and when the two showed up side by side the X-32 looked ridiculous. Also, the X-35 VTOL model made a vertical TO, accelerated to Mach one, and returned and made a vertical landing at Edwards where the air is thinner which makes vertical flight more difficult. The X-32 had to go to Patuxent River in MD to accomplish this maneuver. As an old F-4 pilot, I would have been ashamed to fly the X-32!
I feel sorry for the outcome of the YF23 Black Widow II in the ATF program, but in the JSF contest that jury had no problem in selecting the X35 as the winner.
Any way one looks at it the X-32 was a very flawed design that failed to take lessons learn from previous designs like the Harrier and why a forward mounted engine was such a detriment to its performance. Simply looking at the original wing you could see problems that would arise from it's selection. Boeing simply way over reached their ability to deliver what was asked for in favor of unproven design concepts. In the original STOVL tests it was found to be far too heavy with a combat load to hover and bits and pieces were removed to see what it would take in order to hover, then more redesign work. On it's final flight the thing started blowing oil all over the right side of the fuselage resulting in an emergency return to base. These and many more sound reasons as too why in the end the Lockheed/Martin X-35 was chosen. But the conspiracy theorist will never accept that, because if they did they'd have nothing to talk about.
If the X-35 has shown anything, the premise of the JSF program was severely flawed. The X-32 never had a chance. The notion of making either of these birds replace an A-10 is laughable. The do-everything concept turns into a cargo plane very quickly. As much as I despise these two planes, I quite enjoy the content. Keep up the good work.
Nah It could have replaced the A-11 easy. Put a bigger wing on it, with armor. Based on that intake, and the delta wing it would have had excellent low speed stability.
The "jack of all trades" clowns arrived in full force. Someone tell the F-16 it can't be so good at dogfighting that's used as the stand in for the MiG-29 in aggressor squadrons and it can't be so good at bombing to be used for Operation Opera.
It was internally nicknamed the Guppy. The "Monica" was a derogatory nickname given by test pilots who did *not* like it, and likened its large intake to the person at the focus of the Presidential scandal that just completed.
It's such a funny nickname. Especially if your buddy doesn't get it at first
The F-35's nickname is "Fat Amy" from the "Pitch Perfect" movies.
hahahahahaha
I was wondering Where they got Monica from.🤔
@Brad Sinacore The F35 is sexy as hell. Especially the C model.
Look at the x32, he smiles every second, what a happy boy!
I like the picture of the X-32 & X-35 together it looks like the X-35 just told a joke to the X-32.
🛁
😃 4:30
They both look like a joke. Thats why the military is canceling the rest of the f 35 order and replacing it with new badass f 15s.
@@zacharydevan4107 Will they also be replacing the orders with F/A-18s? Cause I really hope so.
@@anincompetentmoron8497 lmao no
The X-32's intake "smile" makes it look like it was just happy to be there and participate. The Miata of fighter jets.
Shut up, the F-16 is a intake smile.
These videos make me feel like I'm a kid again, watching Great Planes/Wings on the Discovery channel on Wednesday nights.
Thank you much appreciated!
Same! I used to watch those all the time when I was younger and still will when I can find them online. Great shows and great content!
Bro! Me 2! As a kid I loved watching wings. Too bad Discovery channel is unrecognizable today.
Same 🍻
X32 engineer: ey boss how big should we make the intake?! Boss: yes
Your mom. Haha
Intake: hehehe
F 16, had the same thing. At least F16 is beatiful
It's kind of incredible that they can produce one-off (or I guess two-off in this case) prototypes like this that actually work reasonably well.
It's essentially a repackaged AV8 Harrier that turned out to be slightly too short to house the massive F119 engine, hence the strange air intake workaround :D
It was a parts bin special. Even the cockpit and canopy were straight out of an AV-8B. The main landing gear came from an F-14 with different wheels. The X32B was so under powered that for hovering tests they removed the intake scoop, and about 3 feet worth of wing on each side.
@@freddyrosenberg9288 yeah. Heard that X35 also borrowed main landing gears from A6. In retrospect, JSF should have been awarded to McD/BAE pelikan tail entry with LMT as the STOVL backup, imho.
It's actually not a bad plane, but they should have reworked the air intake, A LOT!
F-8/A-7 anyone, fugly plane
@@nightlightabcd No, the air intake is a homage to the F8 Crusader and A7 Corsair
Government: Make the ugliest aircraft imaginable.
Boeing: Here, hold my beer.
It looks good from directly overhead... That is all LOL
It looks like a whale
@@jmstudios5294 looks like that whale pokemon wailord or something i dont rememeber
It looks like they took a stealth drone and added a canopy and cockpit for a pilot..
The "government" did not request the ugliest aircraft imaginable! Boeing done that all on their own!
In college I was fortunate enough to attend an AIAA lecture by Paul Bevilaqua, the inventor of the LiftFan system of the F-35B. I remember the general takeaway from his thoughts on the JSF competition was that in general, whatever looks right, usually flies right (among some other points about how we still need visionary aircraft designers, despite systems engineering and optimization going in the opposite way, taking the creativity out of the design). But anyway, one of the takeaways was that looks, while in principle should not be a criterion by which an aircraft gets accepted or rejected, it does play a psychological effect in the final decision. If A and B perform about the same, and A looks cleaner, A is going to be chosen. In the case of JSF, the X-32 actually lacked some capabilities that the X-35 had, like being capable of STOVL+supersonic in one flight without airframe modifications. Personally though, I believe elegant solutions and engineering excellence usually go hand in hand, and the LiftFan system does exactly that - like you mentioned in the video, it does increase payload, and plus you don’t have to remove the inlet cowl like on the X-32. It’s a cleaner solution, albeit expensive, complex, and ambitious. If it looks right, it flies right. And if it flies right, it usually also looks right too.
It's an old saying in aviation to the effect of, "If it looks good, it flies good." And while it's obviously not a hard and fast rule, it does generally seem to hold true.
And as hard on the eyes as the X-32 was, it's a real looker compared to the XF-85 - which itself seems to go a long way toward proving the adage.
The YF-23 was one of the loveliest aircraft ever created and it still came in second to the (comparatively) stodgy YF-22. Perhaps it’s the exception that proves the rule? At least we have the prototypes.
@@jaybee9269 YF-23 had some major problems and disadvantages that most people don't mention or know about that contributed to it losing, despite having greater acceleration, cruise speed, and slightly better stealth than the YF-22. The Air Force did get the right plane, honestly. YF-23 would have turned into a financial disaster, not least because it was trying to be too advanced for its own good, but also because a number of key systems never worked and never made it to even the prototype stage. Notably, Northrop's entire aerodynamic layout was a gamble, leaving only a small narrow opening for weapons bays. As such they tried to devise a magazine system to manipulate a large number (around 11 I think) of missiles, by mechanical means, to the doors to be fired. The system never worked, and left nearly zero room for development in missile technology beyond the exact versions the magazine was designed for (if it had worked at all) and as such the prototype had to rapidly redesign the bays to accommodate three AMRAAMs and two sidewinders. This fell below the specified minimum armament of the ATF program, and was three AMRAAMs short of the F-22, a major flaw for a stealth fighter designed for BVR combat. To compound fears over safe weapons release from the bays, Lockheed demonstrated both types of launch method on their prototype, while Northrop (who had more to prove in thos regard) failed to perform any weapons releases.
Production model F-23s would also have changed to a divertless supersonic inlet design, which would have actually removed the reported speed advantage the prototypes held over the YF-22, and made it around 0.2-0.3 mach slower than the production F-22A in service now.
Basically, Northrop designed the better plane, Lockheed designed the better warplane. With so much cost and complexity, the Air Force wanted something that they knew would work, would present as few new issues as possible, and which was robust and well armed. Small differences in cruise speed and stealth didn't bother them as much as whether the new generation jets were fighting fit. Most likely the correct decision. I cannot see YF-23 even reaching the 187 produced of the F-22 before cancellation.
@@AllThingsCubey Thanks for that info.
Since you seem to have a background here, would you mind telling us how much influence did the Yak 141's lift fan design have on the F 35 ? It is well known that Lockheed bought the 'flight data' of the Yak 141 from Yakovlev in the mid 90's ? Lookheed probably did refine the idea further, but would saying the 'inventor of the lift fan' be a bit of a stretch ?
I would love to know more about the Northrop YA-9. The YA-9, YA-10 competition gave us the A-10 Warthog but it's competitor was no slouch.
The YA-9 was a decent airplane and as you say no slouch...I can work on a video about it, I need to locate footage I can use as I am sure no one wants to look at two pictures for 10 minutes....or does it not matter? Thanks for commenting and being a subscriber!
When you look at the YA-9 and then look at the Frogfoot.
Danne Cuttler I mean I’d have to say the Concorde. It also holds a few more people too 😎
Item too when I say the YA9 I couldn’t help but notice how much the SU25 looks like it.
@@MeanLaQueefa Yup.
I really like this X32, looks more futuristic than F35. And she's really cute.
The happiest fighter aircraft of all time
The Monica! Shot coffee right out of my nose with that. It was an interesting aircraft and I am enjoying your channel.
Glad you enjoyed that and my condolences to your keyboard if it was on the receiving end of the coffee lol.
@@PilotPhotog Thank you, but I usually watch on my TV and use my phone to comment. Getting the aircraft up on the larger screen makes it even better.
This is probably the most detailed, accurate account I have heard of this aircraft, with maybe one small exception: the reason the X-32B could not achieve supersonic flight after an STO and before a VL is that the intake cowl was fixed in place rather than actuated fore and aft as originally intended. The intake cowl was designed to translate forward, allowing higher intake airflow for slow takeoffs, hovering, and vertical landing. Boeing had to remove the actuation from the prototype to offset hundreds of pounds of tools left in the wing box by disgruntled technicians during production. As I recall, all the tooling was left in one side of the wing and ballast had to be added to the other side to restore the balance, but the added weight irreversibly threw off the design CG (fore/aft).
Holy shoot,really? I never knew it. So after they close the wingbox they couldn't fix it by opened again.... that technician must be felt very guilty...
I've never heard that explanation, and I have to say it seems extremely unlikely. Even 20 years ago tool control was enough of a thing that nobody was going to get away with leaving that much FOD in an aircraft, and the solution once discovered wouldn't be to add more to even it out. You'd open it up again and remove it. I've "been there and done that" for much less on other aircraft production lines.
If it can be put together it can be taken apart, and in light of the risk to lives, program, and schedule - especially for one of only two prototypes - I just can't conceive of an aircraft with hundreds of pounds of FOD in it being knowingly pushed out the door.
By then it was well known and documented that a single socket from a socket wrench set could bring down an aircraft and put lives at risk. There's no way they'd have allowed a FODded X-32 to leave the ground if they'd known.
It's a good story, but it just doesn't make any sense.
FlyingBrickyard Truth is often stranger than fiction. I worked on the X-32 program, and all of the above is true. The wing box was the largest single bonded composite layup at the time, and after the upper and lower halves of the delta wing were joined, they couldn't be separated. Mechanics dumped huge hand tools inside the wing box just before joining, after final inspections of the upper and lower wing sections. Shortly after, they went on strike.
The problem wasn't discovered until the completed wing was weighed, and it came up several hundred pounds overweight. X-ray analysis revealed the problem. Engineers decided to drill a few small holes and inject potting into the wing to stabilize the loose tools. Subsequently the balance issue was addressed by adding ballast to the opposite wingtip. Only the X-32B was affected.
That's absolutely insane.
I still can't wrap my head around somebody actually doing that, and can only hope those mechanics never worked on anything in the industry again.
I don't care what your beef with an employer is - you don't ever sabotage the hardware.
FlyingBrickyard the culture at Boeing is not very healthy. This incident on the X-32B was downright sabotage, and what's going on today seems more like carelessness, but the production issues are rampant. The USAF has refused deliveries of KC-46 aircraft due to tools, rags, and other FOD left in fuel tanks and other inaccessible areas. Similar issues on 787 and 737 Max programs.
Ahhh... such a happy looking plane :)
I would like to suggest a possible subject for this series. How about the new Project Skyborg, including the XQ-58 Valkyrie from Kratos?
I like this idea and am actually working through all the X planes in a series. Thanks for commenting!
PilotPhotog My other idea is the Canberra bomber, which was later modified into the B-57. NASA still has 3 of these amazing aircraft which have been modified as the WB-57F to fly higher than a U-2. The Canberra seems in concept like a 1951 jet powered de Havilland Mosquito.
Would also like to see some videos on the century series fighters & info about the entire project/series. Also the B-2.
Marty Mardell F-16 MATV or F-15 Active
The Darth Knight both excellent topics and I have plans for the century series and a whole series on bombers as well.
You do good work brotha ...thank you ,God Bless..
Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video.
The X-32 doesn’t look nearly as ugly in a clean configuration (of which there was little enough footage I guess). The last scene with the formation flying was lovely...the thing was all stealthed up and one could see its potential.
I have to admit I’m a little disappointed the F-35 doesn’t have side weapons bays. I was promised side weapons bays!
Anyway, excellent content! Thanks for making good videos.
Watched this with my eyes half closed. Nice video as always. But damn is it an ugly duckling.
Imagine the memes if this thing had won the competition.
@@RedXlV Well. The finished version would likely not look the same based on what Boeing had presented. It would of course have many of the elements. But it seems like the most ugly elements would actually have been removed. Not that it matters if it is ugly or not as long as it works. But it is still interesting that the later concepts of the F-32 look more elegant than the X-32 demonstrator did. And well, in the story of the ugly duckling that duckling grows up to be a beautiful swan. ;)
yup but we would have gotten 3x more of them if they went with this design.
Thanks for making this video! I like the X32 cause it looks so much like a lifting body craft.
Glad you like it!
I love it. It looks revolutionary and the wing looks incredibly strong. Maybe too far ahead of it's time.
Thats one neat jet. BTW, they removed parts for the STOVL rather than for super sonic. The intake lip section was removed for better air flow.
Thanks for the info!
X23 is at next level
X-32 would’ve been a disaster. On another note, you’re killing it with these videos, awesome content PilotPhotog!
Thank you so much! You can just call me Tog as I realize PilotPhotog is a long name to write out.
why would it've been a disaster?
Agreed! 👍
Because Boeing, of course.
You mean it would be just like the F-35?
People talk about the A-10 and B-52 being "ugly" planes, but the X-32 looks like it was intentionally hideous. Maybe that's just me
No its not just you, alot of people agree including myself. And personally i think the A-10 is gorgeous and undoubtedly distinct. Same can be said for the B-52
Michael L Rakes big ugly fella?
I'm not sure if the principle of "if it looks right it probably flies right" works in reverse in general but I bet it does with this thing. It looks like a bathtub with wings and it probably handled like one.
A10 is the most beautiful plane
A10 is a beauty!!!
It looks pretty cool from above
yes it's beautiful from above , I have built 2 of them in 1:72 and in 3 D they look good .
Great video, 'Tog! I learned a lot about the X-32 this morning. Interesting to see what difference that conventional tail would have made!
Thank you and glad you learned something from the video!
@PilotPhotog Thanks for posting mate, I love learning about experimental aircraft
AWESOME thanks for the info 👍🏻
No problem 👍
Too nice clear explaining of X32.aircraft with three versions thanks for sending ..yes its be successful once
This is the best analysis and comparison of these 2 that I have seen. Well done.
Dude you are making some seriously great videos
Thank you much appreciated!
Enemy pilots will die laughing when they fight this plane in a close up dogfight
That's just it. The point is not to get into dogfights.
The enemy pilot is dead in that point
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Fascinating to see the design choices made and how they played out for each company.
This is one 'unusual' looking bird. It almost looks as though it needs to regurgitate the over-burden of it's last meal, before being able to 'go for it'. For me, I'd have named it 'Gannet'. Whatever;, it was an experimental 'being' in it's own right. Than goodness that the Lightning came to pass selection! Stay safe, take care, and thank you for another top-drawer video!
Thanks Tim, as always appreciate your comments, feedback, and support. Stay safe!
Roughly the only time the anti F-35 crowd would agree the F-35 looks better.
There you have it...
the reason for it's existence.
Throw it into the bag with the rest of the puppies.
Hard to say if the F-32A or a variant with a conventional tail would have been successful. You touched on changing program requirements and that was definitely an issue, but coupled with the disastrous "fly then fix" mentality and I think we would still be seeing problems that while different in nature, would be similar in scope to the ones that the F-35 is having as we speak. As usual, very good video and keep it up!
Agreed and the project is a good example of scope creep...while I think most of the issues have been resolved or mitigated, it was a complex undertaking. Thanks for commenting and being a subscriber!
You make it sound like the lift fan was a relatively simple evolution. In reality it was a huge technology risk which, when it paid off, made the F35 concept unbeatable.
If this had been chosen , this would have been INVINCIBLE.
No enemy pilots would have guts dare to shoot missile or
bullets in the smiling face.
Another excellent and detailed video.
Glad you liked it!
I genuinely like it, even its appearance. Could have been a futuristic pseudo-successor to the Super Sabre.
That, and I feel like the “smile” is more charming than ugly.
It looks like a very happy pelican !
i am pretty sure the neutral hover issues were the downfall, and the non supersonic without modifications were the deciding factors not the tail. the ingest of hot air into engine was a danger in the harrier....... not just overheat but catastrophic accidents.
X32 can deceive enemy with a big smile.. 😂
As the USAF X-32/X-35 Airframe Lead in the Summer of 2000, I gave a presentation to the Air Force Research Lab on the JSF program. At the end of the briefing, I conducted an informal down select. It was unanimous--everyone selected the X-35 because it looked more like a formidable fighter aircraft. To simply change the tail design on the X-32 to improve performance wouldn't have changed the outcome--it would still be a homely looking airplane.
Beautiful fighter jet
It's cute and seems to have fewer moving parts which is nice.
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
not sure why but I fine the looks of the x32 more fascinating than the x35, maybe bc it looks so alien, out of this world kind of vibe
Nice video
Thanks John!
4:28
F35: Knock knock...
X32: Who's there?..
F35: Steath.
X32: Steath who?
F35: Boom I just killed you!
X32: LOL you're funny (LMAO face).
I just subscribed to you. Many thanks for trying out the new DLC planes in Ace Combat 7. I didn't even know about these 2 before. Very interesting.
The most Happy plane ever even during the war
I think it was comedian Nipsy Russel who said: "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all da way to da bone."
Me encanta este caza .
Monica is a fantastic name for that jet.
Back at flight test, the pilot's bullroom had a picture that had the X-32 on one side and a Boeing big shot yelling on the other side. It was entitled SEPARATED AT BIRTH.
Also the convair model 200 reminds me of the Swedish jas-39 Gripen
Pentagon: New requirement: JSF technology demonstrator MUST be ugly looking.
Lockheed: Wait. WHAT?!
Boeing: NAILED IT!!!
Honestly, the tail wasn’t the issue. The intake and the limitations it put on the STOVL variant was its undoing. It would have been a great carrier and land based fighter, but STOVL needed work.
Every fighter-type acft need NOT have a VSTOL variant.
Needed a different design to best the 35 in vtol probably. That lift fan is choice 👍
Stovl is kind of a silly requirement. You have 11 CVN's. Do you really need these things on LHA's?
@@appa609 To supply a STOVL fighter base you need a runway big enough for a C130 so yeah it's silly.
@@appa609 It's the Marine requirement and the Marines have tremendous support on Capitol Hill.
It looks like a big smiling airplane from a different angle
Good video, sick.
Honestly I think it looks very futuristic, going against the grain with regards to it's shape.
Noone may love this jet but I love this little bug baby. I know I'm in the minority but I find it cute enough to keep.
Every other firm : Making new gen jets slim
Boeing: BIG CHUNGUS!
it's beautiful...and looks like a corsair or intruder
Would’ve have preferred to have seen the stealth f14 concept replacement as that look awesome
Can you imagine? Thanks for commenting
Yeah top gun would never be the same again, no problem fantastic video
AYYY THICC JET
Another good video, would like to know what happened to missing x planes, gaps, in x numbers
Enemies would have died laughing at this.
Its really amazing how much better the X35 looks than the X32
If production and maintenance costs were factors of the 'Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter' part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' competition - meant to replace even the light F-16 - then they should also be part of the analysis.
The obsession with vertical lift-off from small carriers should be looked into as well - considering that neither the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet (replaced by F-35Bs) nor the Yakovlev Yak-38M remained in super power service, and Bell Boeing V-22 Ospreys being limited to 30 minutes flights around their base...
Excelent vídeo !!!!!!! 👍👍👍👍
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!!!
I think the X-32 was a very alien looking craft which made it al the more interesting. And i would have loved to see what a fully devaloped F-32 would have looked. Like. However, my one consern that i never heared anyone else address was the seemingly small nose cone that must house a radar that would probably be not as powerful as one that was able to fit in a larger space. Just asking.
If you actually look at the plane without the intake it's very sleek. Could have been a good looking light fighter with two intakes and g404's. Doesn't look like they can accommodate a very big radar.
Excellent point on the radar and thanks for commenting!
Que bueno sería contar con este avión para España.
Another superb video! You get really good clips and your narration is great.
Would any of the older X planes be a possibility for a video? Also, it may be a bit boring or cliche, but how about a two part video on the F-117? Part 1 could be about it's development and part 2 on its operational history and post-retirement use. I think a couple are being used as test beds for newer tech.
I'm glad they chose the f35
How is that stealthy with such a large fuselage profile?
Can you please do a video on the a-12 avenger_ your channel is amazing
But does it have super maneuverability?
Can it execute a post stall maneuver (cobra)?
No, it doesn't have supermaneuverability nor is it capable of doing a cobra maneuver. It's not an airshow
@@lucastekkan supermanuverability is not only for airshows you know...
@@xneri772 it's good for bleeding energy in a dogfight, making it easier for an enemy jet to get advantage
@@lucastekkan If you use it constantly then yes but it can be useful to just get a little bit more of that angle of attack to launch a missile but if someone would use it constantly then i agree it would be a very effective way to get killed.
@@xneri772 considering modern advancements in things like stealth and off bore-sight missile launches, yes, maneuverability is mostly for airshows
The thrust number is wrong for the engine. It's about 160 kN, not 190 kN with afterburner.
It has a leading edge device I’m not familiar with. Its inboard and deployed during landings. Anyone know what they are and what they do?
They didn't just change the tail setup, they changed the wings too. No more delta wing.
If the X32 had been selected the jokes would never stop😲👍
always loved that plane, such a shame
It may be ugly but it reminds me of a lifting body where the fuselage adds to the planes lift.
_Ahhh, it's _*_THE JOLLY MOTH!!_* 🤣👏
Flying Big Mouth Bass...🐟
If it was produced, it would be named the F-32 Laughing Lightning II
Nice
Happy Guppy
The F32 Mockingbird
F-24 rather, unless that same someone made the same silly mistake and called it "F-32" prematurely 😉
Monica
I watched a show with the X-32 test pilot and he made a good point that both of these planes were to be "Concept" designs to accomplish stated goals. That was the reason that Boeing did not put much effort into how it looked. Lockheed however, did and when the two showed up side by side the X-32 looked ridiculous. Also, the X-35 VTOL model made a vertical TO, accelerated to Mach one, and returned and made a vertical landing at Edwards where the air is thinner which makes vertical flight more difficult. The X-32 had to go to Patuxent River in MD to accomplish this maneuver. As an old F-4 pilot, I would have been ashamed to fly the X-32!
I have a question. Are they currently working on a 6th gen plane and if so do they already have it built? So we can see what the concept looks like?
As far as anyone can tell, the US has at least begun flying tech demonstrator aircraft
The x-32 is beautiful
Said nobody ;)
@@ludeman i said it
@@zebraro2852 Come on that is one ugly bird. Looks like a guppy
always preferred this plane , cleaner simpler solution . F-35 looks like a collection of flaps and doors flying in formation . aaaah well .
Is your wife one of those BBWs?
I feel sorry for the outcome of the YF23 Black Widow II in the ATF program, but in the JSF contest that jury had no problem in selecting the X35 as the winner.
ah yes, the epitome of chunky fighter jets.
Any way one looks at it the X-32 was a very flawed design that failed to take lessons learn from previous designs like the Harrier and why a forward mounted engine was such a detriment to its performance. Simply looking at the original wing you could see problems that would arise from it's selection. Boeing simply way over reached their ability to deliver what was asked for in favor of unproven design concepts. In the original STOVL tests it was found to be far too heavy with a combat load to hover and bits and pieces were removed to see what it would take in order to hover, then more redesign work. On it's final flight the thing started blowing oil all over the right side of the fuselage resulting in an emergency return to base. These and many more sound reasons as too why in the end the Lockheed/Martin X-35 was chosen. But the conspiracy theorist will never accept that, because if they did they'd have nothing to talk about.
SIR YES SIR, U GET THAT SIR, ETC...
X32 is the happiest aircraft after 744F
If the X-35 has shown anything, the premise of the JSF program was severely flawed. The X-32 never had a chance. The notion of making either of these birds replace an A-10 is laughable. The do-everything concept turns into a cargo plane very quickly.
As much as I despise these two planes, I quite enjoy the content. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the comment and agreed, it is very challenging to come up with one air frame that can do it all.
Nah It could have replaced the A-11 easy. Put a bigger wing on it, with armor. Based on that intake, and the delta wing it would have had excellent low speed stability.
The A-10 fan boy noise needs to stop. The record doesn't match the hype. Smart weapons let many planes do the CAS mission.
The "jack of all trades" clowns arrived in full force. Someone tell the F-16 it can't be so good at dogfighting that's used as the stand in for the MiG-29 in aggressor squadrons and it can't be so good at bombing to be used for Operation Opera.
@@WALTERBROADDUS so much so that the F-15 was an excellent CAS platform during the Gulf War