The Starship has been flying since 1986, that's 25 years now. Not a lot were made, but I'd think that should help build a track record.
Lancair has been building composite general aviation airplanes since the mid-1980s. Unfortunately in aviation, 25 years isn't considered to be much of a track record.
On a semi related topic, NOVA did a great jobs with Battle of the X-Planes. One thing I recall is the complexity of the CF that Boeing was trying to use which is one reason the Lockheed jet ended up winning the contract.
All convenient fiction. Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
All convenient fiction. Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
That show is fiction? Those quotes from Boeing are false?
Quote:
Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
So it?s only a cultural thing and has nothing to do with technological capabilities?
THEY, were. Not "we". You work there, you don't own the place.
Really? What are you? 12 years old or something? When I say "we", I am in fact, including all of the people who work there. Including myself. Further, maybe I do own the place. How would you know?
The product is too heavy. It needs to be the same size, but lighter.
This is far more important than "recycling", as you imagine it. (because you do realize that just making them out of aluminum and glass does instantly = recycling? k)
It's acquisition. It is very simple. There are a ton of rules for the program managers to follow, but as long as those get followed by the staffers during the "competition" the "competition" comes out how the strongest senior community rep want it. While "competition" data is never "cooked" or cherry-picked, the language of damning by faint praise has more to do with DoD decision-makling than many would ever guess.
The Fighter Mafia staked out it's territory immediately upon the first Goofy Grin renders of the Boeing prototype went public. Following that, I'm sure every micro decision from that point on was managed and spun with the intention of never having to fly that plane in service. It would have taken a VERY significant difference in performance during the flyoff to change that bias. And given they were contract specced to the same performance envelope with the same two prototype engines that difference was never going to happen.
Ever wonder why the USAF has the F-16? Col Boyd and Harry Hillaker.
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18? Captain to Admiral Riley D Mixson (I knew him when he was CO of the Midway)
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18E/F instead of the F-14D? Admiral Riley D Mixson (he really did not like Grumman aircraft)
Who was the sugar daddy of the F-22? Colonel to General Horner
The personalities change, but the process remains the same. They all make their decisions thinking in their own minds that it is the right one for their service, but they all have personal biases and aesthetics and the passionate ones with an influential billet always win.
That show is fiction? Those quotes from Boeing are false?
So it’s only a cultural thing and has nothing to do with technological capabilities?
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
Technically they were both close in capability and stealth. The differences were small and dispersed across the operating envelopes meaning the real decision comes down to ranking which of those advantages are weighted more and which disadvantages are weighed less. That's entirely subjective and defendable by a passionate briefer.
You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the perception of technically similar options in just about any course of action brief, and get the Boss to choose the one you support. And if he has a favorite, before you start building the PPT deck you already have direction to make the brief show that to his Boss.
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
Technically they were both close in capability and stealth. The differences were small and dispersed across the operating envelopes meaning the real decision comes down to ranking which of those advantages are weighted more and which disadvantages are weighed less. That's entirely subjective and defendable by a passionate briefer.
You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the perception of technically similar options in just about any course of action brief, and get the Boss to choose the one you support. And if he has a favorite, before you start building the PPT deck you already have direction to make the brief show that to his Boss.
Lockheed: (Beautiful airplane)
Boeing: (WTF?)
The Boeing looks like it would have a lousy User Experience. Nothing that ugly could possibly work well.
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn’t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that’s fine, but I’d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
The Boeing looks like it would have a lousy User Experience. Nothing that ugly could possibly work well.
Boeing probably got a raw deal, because the Lockheed-Martin version did look like a "real" fighter jet that folks were used to. Their lift-fan concept was ingenious, but has so many problems in implentation, that some foreign contracts for this variant have already been cancelled, due to complexity and cost overruns, even though the other variants will make it to fruition, even though the Pentagon will have egg on its face, and Congress is threatening to cut back the program dramatically. Who knows whether Boeing would have had the same problems, and maybe they are still silently working on their version. Don't forget that the F18 lost out to the F16, but years later became a very capable aircraft that is the mainstay for the Navy (interesting that both planes in this competition became the choices for the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds). Given enough time and effort, good designs will win out every time.
I just got back from Nellis AFB, and saw Aviation Nation again (fantastic airshow, 2nd only to Oshkosh in scope in the US). The F22 Raptor demonstration, and the Thunderbird annual farewell show are alone worth making the trip to Vegas, and the full range of Air Force aircraft are on display, many of which you aren't likely to see flying anywhere else.
Older than that, really. You'll find magnetos in cars from the 1910s. Actually, there's a logic behind the persistence of this primitive ignition systems in airplanes. Magnetos don't require an electrical system. It's nice to know that an electrical failure won't cause the engine to stop running.
Many, but I'm not sure about most. An awful lot of the newest general aviation airplanes coming on the market are all composite, and they are not a source of problems so far as I have heard. A conspicuous holdout is Cessna, but you have to know that they are extremely conservative and always have been. Some of the few times they've moved away from what they know works, and what their customers expect, they've been burned.
Now purely electric variants are being made, with all electronic ignition systems, but you have to have dual backup electric power, just to prevent such problems.
Cessna actually has not been a holdout at all. Their next Generation aircraft project was put on the back burner, when they bought Columbia (a Lancair design derivative which was certified as the Columbia 300, 350, and 400), which was bought out of bankruptcy for much less than what it would have cost them to certify their next-gen versions. So now they have renamed it the Corvalis, and it is all composite, whereas their new Skycatcher (their new light sport aircraft) is all-aluminum, as are their other lines of general aviation aircraft. Their jet line is also all-aluminum.
Piper remains all aluminum, and is developing an aluminum jet, whereas Beechcraft/Hawker has aluminum aircraft, except for the aforementioned Premier Jet line.
Cirrus, as has been mentioned, is all composite, as is Diamond aircraft, and they are both working on composite jets.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn’t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that’s fine, but I’d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
I saw the same show you did, and I remember the same things you did. The regular versions were competitive, but the VTOL super guppy wasn't as good as the winning VTOL version, and that looked like a pretty key failure. As I recall, Lockheed's version demonstrated going supersonic from a vertical take-off flight, super guppy needed to have several panels changed or removed just to be stable in vertical take-off and meant they couldn't demonstrate supersonic and VTOL in the same flight. The problems baking the wing didn't seem to be a factor in the rankings.
And personally, as an aside, I think the YF-23 looked better than the YF-22 did, the appearance seemed more future-looking and it presented two fewer fins to radar, but that might be what cost them some desired agility. The production F22 does seem to take some of the design cues from the YF-23.
It's acquisition. It is very simple. There are a ton of rules for the program managers to follow, but as long as those get followed by the staffers during the "competition" the "competition" comes out how the strongest senior community rep want it. While "competition" data is never "cooked" or cherry-picked, the language of damning by faint praise has more to do with DoD decision-makling than many would ever guess.
The Fighter Mafia staked out it's territory immediately upon the first Goofy Grin renders of the Boeing prototype went public. Following that, I'm sure every micro decision from that point on was managed and spun with the intention of never having to fly that plane in service. It would have taken a VERY significant difference in performance during the flyoff to change that bias. And given they were contract specced to the same performance envelope with the same two prototype engines that difference was never going to happen.
Ever wonder why the USAF has the F-16? Col Boyd and Harry Hillaker.
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18? Captain to Admiral Riley D Mixson (I knew him when he was CO of the Midway)
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18E/F instead of the F-14D? Admiral Riley D Mixson (he really did not like Grumman aircraft)
Who was the sugar daddy of the F-22? Colonel to General Horner
The personalities change, but the process remains the same. They all make their decisions thinking in their own minds that it is the right one for their service, but they all have personal biases and aesthetics and the passionate ones with an influential billet always win.
I'm not denying any of that. In fact, I agree with it. I've followed this for decades. But I was responding to the idea that looks are all that counts.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn?t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that?s fine, but I?d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
Read the whole post, don't cherry pick. I didn't say performance didn't matter. I said performance was close enough when compared across the ENTIRE envelope that it wan't going to override an aesthetic bias against a heinously ugly airplane. Both aircraft made all safety of flight and flight test performance goals as stated in the JSF demonstration spec. Boeing's airplane had a projected cost per airframe almost 50% lower then the X-35. Avionics costs were comparable.
VTOL made no difference to the Fighter Mafia, that was something only the Marines care about and they didn't get much of a vote. Plus both airplanes satisfied the letter of the JSF experimental demonstrator contract despite this late in the game "concern". Your point only made it easier for the Fighter Mafia, it wasn't something to kill the Boeing plane on it's own because most of those problems could have been designed out over another couple iterations. The X-35 went through two of them before becoming the F-35.
Boeing took a design risk, but unfortunately for them a risk that had essentially no payoff. They went ugly early and didn't look back, wearing it like a medal.
Read the whole post, don't cherry pick. I didn't say performance didn't matter. I said performance was close enough when compared across the ENTIRE envelope that it wan't going to override an aesthetic bias against a heinously ugly airplane.
I didn’t cherry pick, you clearly stated this was s driving factor and I stated that I recall the Boeing’s inability to do what the Lockheed jet could do without modification was claimed to be a much bigger factor.
I'm not denying any of that. In fact, I agree with it. I've followed this for decades. But I was responding to the idea that looks are all that counts.
Looks are all that counts is just about where the line gets drawn. For all intents and purposes, given two sets of engineers that don't suck designing two different airplanes, looks will win in the end.
If the comparison is intentionally skewed so one set of engineers design something that can't perform but is pretty, even the Fighter Mafia won't choose it, they aren't suicidal.
But that wasn't the case with JSF. Both sets of engineers delivered planes that met the spec.
But that wasn't the case with JSF. Both sets of engineers delivered planes that met the spec.
As I stated earlier, one of the few requirements was to do vertical landing -AND- supersonic speeds. Boeing only achieved it by, well, fudging the rules or whatever you wish to call it, but Lockheed found a considerably more desirable design. I don’t see how aesthetics played a part in that.
Quote:
BILL SWEETMAN: One of the biggest deciding factors in this competition, in my opinion, was that Boeing never managed to make a vertical landing with the aircraft in complete configuration.
They took the inlet cowl off. They took the landing gear doors off. Lockheed Martin made complete vertical landings with the aircraft in the same trim that it could go to supersonic speed in.
Of course, I’m going off a TV show, but it’s certainly not worse — and probably better in the case of NOVA — than going off an unknown posters comments on an internet forum based on an untestable hypothesis.
Comments
The Starship has been flying since 1986, that's 25 years now. Not a lot were made, but I'd think that should help build a track record.
Lancair has been building composite general aviation airplanes since the mid-1980s. Unfortunately in aviation, 25 years isn't considered to be much of a track record.
On a semi related topic, NOVA did a great jobs with Battle of the X-Planes. One thing I recall is the complexity of the CF that Boeing was trying to use which is one reason the Lockheed jet ended up winning the contract.
All convenient fiction. Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
All convenient fiction. Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
Ahh, if it were only that simple.
All convenient fiction.
That show is fiction? Those quotes from Boeing are false?
Boeing made an ugly airplane and fighter pilots hate ugly airplanes unless they are Brits. Brits will fly anything with acceptable performance, as will attack pilots (Just look at A-6's and A-10s).
F-18, EF2000, F-22, F-18, F-35 all use CF as the majority of the aerodynamic surface weight. Termoplastics is just another variation.
And none of that matters because the guys choosing the planes are Navy and AF fighter pilots who hate ugly planes.
So it?s only a cultural thing and has nothing to do with technological capabilities?
THEY, were. Not "we". You work there, you don't own the place.
Really? What are you? 12 years old or something? When I say "we", I am in fact, including all of the people who work there. Including myself. Further, maybe I do own the place. How would you know?
The product is too heavy. It needs to be the same size, but lighter.
This is far more important than "recycling", as you imagine it. (because you do realize that just making them out of aluminum and glass does instantly = recycling? k)
Because Apple says so?
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html
What is Apple going say when Greenpeace starts getting all over them for using materials that are less recyclable?
Ahh, if it were only that simple.
It's acquisition. It is very simple. There are a ton of rules for the program managers to follow, but as long as those get followed by the staffers during the "competition" the "competition" comes out how the strongest senior community rep want it. While "competition" data is never "cooked" or cherry-picked, the language of damning by faint praise has more to do with DoD decision-makling than many would ever guess.
The Fighter Mafia staked out it's territory immediately upon the first Goofy Grin renders of the Boeing prototype went public. Following that, I'm sure every micro decision from that point on was managed and spun with the intention of never having to fly that plane in service. It would have taken a VERY significant difference in performance during the flyoff to change that bias. And given they were contract specced to the same performance envelope with the same two prototype engines that difference was never going to happen.
Ever wonder why the USAF has the F-16? Col Boyd and Harry Hillaker.
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18? Captain to Admiral Riley D Mixson (I knew him when he was CO of the Midway)
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18E/F instead of the F-14D? Admiral Riley D Mixson (he really did not like Grumman aircraft)
Who was the sugar daddy of the F-22? Colonel to General Horner
The personalities change, but the process remains the same. They all make their decisions thinking in their own minds that it is the right one for their service, but they all have personal biases and aesthetics and the passionate ones with an influential billet always win.
That show is fiction? Those quotes from Boeing are false?
So it’s only a cultural thing and has nothing to do with technological capabilities?
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
Technically they were both close in capability and stealth. The differences were small and dispersed across the operating envelopes meaning the real decision comes down to ranking which of those advantages are weighted more and which disadvantages are weighed less. That's entirely subjective and defendable by a passionate briefer.
You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the perception of technically similar options in just about any course of action brief, and get the Boss to choose the one you support. And if he has a favorite, before you start building the PPT deck you already have direction to make the brief show that to his Boss.
Lockheed: (Beautiful airplane)
Boeing: (WTF?)
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
Technically they were both close in capability and stealth. The differences were small and dispersed across the operating envelopes meaning the real decision comes down to ranking which of those advantages are weighted more and which disadvantages are weighed less. That's entirely subjective and defendable by a passionate briefer.
You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the perception of technically similar options in just about any course of action brief, and get the Boss to choose the one you support. And if he has a favorite, before you start building the PPT deck you already have direction to make the brief show that to his Boss.
Lockheed: (Beautiful airplane)
Boeing: (WTF?)
The Boeing looks like it would have a lousy User Experience. Nothing that ugly could possibly work well.
No. Convenient fiction means they are telling you true technical details and the things that were cited as the reasons for why the flyoff went the way it did. But the real reason is the hidden one that wasn't talked about. The Boeing airplane was ugly, it wasn't radically better than the Lockheed airplane, so it lost.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn’t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that’s fine, but I’d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
The Boeing looks like it would have a lousy User Experience. Nothing that ugly could possibly work well.
Boeing probably got a raw deal, because the Lockheed-Martin version did look like a "real" fighter jet that folks were used to. Their lift-fan concept was ingenious, but has so many problems in implentation, that some foreign contracts for this variant have already been cancelled, due to complexity and cost overruns, even though the other variants will make it to fruition, even though the Pentagon will have egg on its face, and Congress is threatening to cut back the program dramatically. Who knows whether Boeing would have had the same problems, and maybe they are still silently working on their version. Don't forget that the F18 lost out to the F16, but years later became a very capable aircraft that is the mainstay for the Navy (interesting that both planes in this competition became the choices for the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds). Given enough time and effort, good designs will win out every time.
I just got back from Nellis AFB, and saw Aviation Nation again (fantastic airshow, 2nd only to Oshkosh in scope in the US). The F22 Raptor demonstration, and the Thunderbird annual farewell show are alone worth making the trip to Vegas, and the full range of Air Force aircraft are on display, many of which you aren't likely to see flying anywhere else.
Older than that, really. You'll find magnetos in cars from the 1910s. Actually, there's a logic behind the persistence of this primitive ignition systems in airplanes. Magnetos don't require an electrical system. It's nice to know that an electrical failure won't cause the engine to stop running.
Many, but I'm not sure about most. An awful lot of the newest general aviation airplanes coming on the market are all composite, and they are not a source of problems so far as I have heard. A conspicuous holdout is Cessna, but you have to know that they are extremely conservative and always have been. Some of the few times they've moved away from what they know works, and what their customers expect, they've been burned.
Now purely electric variants are being made, with all electronic ignition systems, but you have to have dual backup electric power, just to prevent such problems.
Cessna actually has not been a holdout at all. Their next Generation aircraft project was put on the back burner, when they bought Columbia (a Lancair design derivative which was certified as the Columbia 300, 350, and 400), which was bought out of bankruptcy for much less than what it would have cost them to certify their next-gen versions. So now they have renamed it the Corvalis, and it is all composite, whereas their new Skycatcher (their new light sport aircraft) is all-aluminum, as are their other lines of general aviation aircraft. Their jet line is also all-aluminum.
Piper remains all aluminum, and is developing an aluminum jet, whereas Beechcraft/Hawker has aluminum aircraft, except for the aforementioned Premier Jet line.
Cirrus, as has been mentioned, is all composite, as is Diamond aircraft, and they are both working on composite jets.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn’t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that’s fine, but I’d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
I saw the same show you did, and I remember the same things you did. The regular versions were competitive, but the VTOL super guppy wasn't as good as the winning VTOL version, and that looked like a pretty key failure. As I recall, Lockheed's version demonstrated going supersonic from a vertical take-off flight, super guppy needed to have several panels changed or removed just to be stable in vertical take-off and meant they couldn't demonstrate supersonic and VTOL in the same flight. The problems baking the wing didn't seem to be a factor in the rankings.
And personally, as an aside, I think the YF-23 looked better than the YF-22 did, the appearance seemed more future-looking and it presented two fewer fins to radar, but that might be what cost them some desired agility. The production F22 does seem to take some of the design cues from the YF-23.
It's acquisition. It is very simple. There are a ton of rules for the program managers to follow, but as long as those get followed by the staffers during the "competition" the "competition" comes out how the strongest senior community rep want it. While "competition" data is never "cooked" or cherry-picked, the language of damning by faint praise has more to do with DoD decision-makling than many would ever guess.
The Fighter Mafia staked out it's territory immediately upon the first Goofy Grin renders of the Boeing prototype went public. Following that, I'm sure every micro decision from that point on was managed and spun with the intention of never having to fly that plane in service. It would have taken a VERY significant difference in performance during the flyoff to change that bias. And given they were contract specced to the same performance envelope with the same two prototype engines that difference was never going to happen.
Ever wonder why the USAF has the F-16? Col Boyd and Harry Hillaker.
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18? Captain to Admiral Riley D Mixson (I knew him when he was CO of the Midway)
Ever Wonder why the Navy has the F-18E/F instead of the F-14D? Admiral Riley D Mixson (he really did not like Grumman aircraft)
Who was the sugar daddy of the F-22? Colonel to General Horner
The personalities change, but the process remains the same. They all make their decisions thinking in their own minds that it is the right one for their service, but they all have personal biases and aesthetics and the passionate ones with an influential billet always win.
I'm not denying any of that. In fact, I agree with it. I've followed this for decades. But I was responding to the idea that looks are all that counts.
What about the face that it could only do supersonic speeds, if I recall correctly, with an attachment that made it impossible to do vertical take offs, whilst the Lockheed jet didn?t have this limitation?
Rationally, if you are going to say that there was nothing technical about their choice, that is was all based on looks and this is what was bound to happen then it seems foolish that Boeing would make an ugly jet in the first place. The fact that they did tells me that there is something more to it that appearance for a multi-billion dollar contract.
If you want say that is was down to looks and not of the boeing jet being inferior, that?s fine, but I?d like you to back it up with some facts that show it was not inferior, which means disproving the results as seen in the show.
Read the whole post, don't cherry pick. I didn't say performance didn't matter. I said performance was close enough when compared across the ENTIRE envelope that it wan't going to override an aesthetic bias against a heinously ugly airplane. Both aircraft made all safety of flight and flight test performance goals as stated in the JSF demonstration spec. Boeing's airplane had a projected cost per airframe almost 50% lower then the X-35. Avionics costs were comparable.
VTOL made no difference to the Fighter Mafia, that was something only the Marines care about and they didn't get much of a vote. Plus both airplanes satisfied the letter of the JSF experimental demonstrator contract despite this late in the game "concern". Your point only made it easier for the Fighter Mafia, it wasn't something to kill the Boeing plane on it's own because most of those problems could have been designed out over another couple iterations. The X-35 went through two of them before becoming the F-35.
Boeing took a design risk, but unfortunately for them a risk that had essentially no payoff. They went ugly early and didn't look back, wearing it like a medal.
Read the whole post, don't cherry pick. I didn't say performance didn't matter. I said performance was close enough when compared across the ENTIRE envelope that it wan't going to override an aesthetic bias against a heinously ugly airplane.
I didn’t cherry pick, you clearly stated this was s driving factor and I stated that I recall the Boeing’s inability to do what the Lockheed jet could do without modification was claimed to be a much bigger factor.
I'm not denying any of that. In fact, I agree with it. I've followed this for decades. But I was responding to the idea that looks are all that counts.
Looks are all that counts is just about where the line gets drawn. For all intents and purposes, given two sets of engineers that don't suck designing two different airplanes, looks will win in the end.
If the comparison is intentionally skewed so one set of engineers design something that can't perform but is pretty, even the Fighter Mafia won't choose it, they aren't suicidal.
But that wasn't the case with JSF. Both sets of engineers delivered planes that met the spec.
But that wasn't the case with JSF. Both sets of engineers delivered planes that met the spec.
As I stated earlier, one of the few requirements was to do vertical landing -AND- supersonic speeds. Boeing only achieved it by, well, fudging the rules or whatever you wish to call it, but Lockheed found a considerably more desirable design. I don’t see how aesthetics played a part in that.
BILL SWEETMAN: One of the biggest deciding factors in this competition, in my opinion, was that Boeing never managed to make a vertical landing with the aircraft in complete configuration.
They took the inlet cowl off. They took the landing gear doors off. Lockheed Martin made complete vertical landings with the aircraft in the same trim that it could go to supersonic speed in.
Of course, I’m going off a TV show, but it’s certainly not worse — and probably better in the case of NOVA — than going off an unknown posters comments on an internet forum based on an untestable hypothesis.
So it appears Lockheed Martin will be making the next iPad then? Holy crap WTF happened to this thread...
It veered way off course, was lost in the Bermuda Triangle, potentially probed by aliens, but it looks like we’re back.