Italeri

[PR19_Kit]

Bloody awful !!!! 

https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/jsf/jsf.htm

After reading that, and the linked review of the X-35, I'm not sure I'd want to build either of them! 

Mind you, built OOB it seems they're both 'Whiffs-in-the-box'! 

[kitnut617]

Bloody awful !!!! 

https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/jsf/jsf.htm

After reading that, and the linked review of the X-35, I'm not sure I'd want to build either of them! 

Mind you, built OOB it seems they're both 'Whiffs-in-the-box'! 

Both the kits were released 'before' photos of the real end result appeared.  Same scenario as the fable F-19 stealth fighter, B-2 bomber etc, nobody really knew what they looked like for real.  It was a long time after the F-117 was in service that it was finally revealed as to what it really looked like. As an aside, it was in 1996 that I saw my first F-117 and even though it was before my eyes, I still couldn't believe it really flew. That wasn't until 2002 0or 3 when I saw one fly at Abbottsford BC.

[rickshaw]

As a pure STOVL design, I always preferred the X-32:

I like single-engined vectored-thrust (nothing to stop/start/clutch/declutch in flight)
I like deltas
I like V-tails
I like ugly-ducklings 

I'd be the first to admit however, that it was easier to meet the requirement for CTOL and STOVL versions of the same airframe with high commonality with the X-35 design.

There was only one real problem with the X-32 design - weight.  Boeing had banked on their belief in being able to control the weight of the developed aircraft into production.  Knowing the past history of weight growths in prototype aircraft compared to production aircraft, I somehow doubt they'd have been able to stick with the same engine throughout the development cycle.

While I agree the idea of a single-engined thrust vectoring aircraft has a lot more appeal than the X-35's lift-fan concept, it does face the problem that it has to lift not only the aircraft's weight but also what ever the aircraft is carrying.

The X-35 looked to be a easier development path.  All you needed to do was make sure that the lift-fan system worked easily and there was sufficient power to use it and the engine thrust to lift the aircraft.

My problem is that there is no training version of the aircraft.  The USMC believed it was possible to go straight onto the AV-8A without a training aircraft when they purchased it.   They learnt their lesson quickly and introduced a training version to cover the difference between a simulator and the real aircraft.   I've often wondered why there isn't a training version of the F-35.   I believe it would be fairly easy to introduce a rear cockpit by extending the nose, in front of the lift-fan.   Alternatively, for the F-35C, it would be possible just to put the instructor's cockpit in the space vacated by the lift-fan.

The X-32 would be easier to create a training version.  You might not be able to lift as much/any munitions but there would be space for an instructor's cockpit.  The nose might need to be extended a little as well.

[jcf]

There's no training version because one isn't needed, simulators and other
training aids are far more advanced, and accurate, than the time period of
the AV-8A/Harrier. The world has moved on.

Neither of your notions of how to add a second cockpit are doable, your
first notion is not "fairly easy" and would require massive structures
redesign, plus a $hitload of systems redesign and rerouting. Adding
a cockpit in place of the lift-fan has it's own boatload of complications.

[Spey_Phantom]

well, if you seen "Battle of the X-Planes" on National Geographic, there were many issues with the X-32 development.
first of, as said before, is weight. Boeing has proposed a redesign for the production version, but it only exsists on paper. also ther were issues with the aircraft, first off, during in-flight refueling trials, there was a problem with the IFR probe that didnt connect to the hose.
second was the fact that they had to remove parts to use the hover mode, they had to remove the landinggear doors & engine cowling. there was also an issue with the complex direct lift system (causing pop-stalls, a common event in harriers, but they claimed to have worked it out the production version). also, the aircraft was as hideous as a klingon burn victim.

but lets get back on topic 

Italeri has also recently released a 1/48 SAAB Viggen (ex-esci).

[Thorvic]

Bloody awful !!!! 

https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/jsf/jsf.htm

After reading that, and the linked review of the X-35, I'm not sure I'd want to build either of them! 

Mind you, built OOB it seems they're both 'Whiffs-in-the-box'! 

Yeap both kits are not great, then again neither is the Italeri F-35A either 

I can think of other re-releases I would have rather seen such as the H-19A/B which could be marked up as a Whirlwind HAS21 and/or HAS 22

[PR19_Kit]

The control system of the X-35/F-35 is much more user tolerant than that of the Harrier variants.

The software was developed over a long period on the VAAC Harrier T4 XW175 at RAE Bedford specifically to enable the higher performance VSTOL aircraft following on to be a lot less complex to fly.

[rickshaw]

There's no training version because one isn't needed, simulators and other
training aids are far more advanced, and accurate, than the time period of
the AV-8A/Harrier. The world has moved on.

Neither of your notions of how to add a second cockpit are doable, your
first notion is not "fairly easy" and would require massive structures
redesign, plus a $hitload of systems redesign and rerouting. Adding
a cockpit in place of the lift-fan has it's own boatload of complications.

Oh, I'm aware of that but in Whiff-land we just wave a hand and say that is all covered, Jon.   

I was talking more from a modelling perspective, than real life.  Adding extra length to either model would be fairly easier.  Much easier for the X-32 than the X-35 'cause the shape is easier to duplicate.   

[Martin H]

The control system of the X-35/F-35 is much more user tolerant than that of the Harrier variants.

The software was developed over a long period on the VAAC Harrier T4 XW175 at RAE Bedford specifically to enable the higher performance VSTOL aircraft following on to be a lot less complex to fly.

I know the guy who wrote the software for the autoland system. An ex cadet from my old air cadet squadron.
He got his then girl friend to proof read the code. He got her the proper clearances. It helped she is an RAFVR officer.  Her qualifications for the task? she worked as a engineer for Nokica at the time......................

[elmayerle]

There's no training version because one isn't needed, simulators and other
training aids are far more advanced, and accurate, than the time period of
the AV-8A/Harrier. The world has moved on.

Neither of your notions of how to add a second cockpit are doable, your
first notion is not "fairly easy" and would require massive structures
redesign, plus a $hitload of systems redesign and rerouting. Adding
a cockpit in place of the lift-fan has it's own boatload of complications.

Actually, the F-35A and F-35C have a fuel tank where the F-35B lift fan is.  To do a trainer, you would really need a new forward fuselage section since the break is just aft of the present cockpit.  For weight and balance purposes, I think this one could definitely use side-by-side seating for the trainer.

[jcf]

Actually, the F-35A and F-35C have a fuel tank where the F-35B lift fan is.  To do a trainer, you would really need a new forward fuselage section since the break is just aft of the present cockpit.  For weight and balance purposes, I think this one could definitely use side-by-side seating for the trainer.

Side-by-side would really make it look like a fat budgie. 

[kitnut617]

Actually, the F-35A and F-35C have a fuel tank where the F-35B lift fan is.  To do a trainer, you would really need a new forward fuselage section since the break is just aft of the present cockpit.  For weight and balance purposes, I think this one could definitely use side-by-side seating for the trainer.

Side-by-side would really make it look like a fat budgie. 

Actually not by much Jon, I'm working on one now. I've found that the bulkhead that the cockpit forward end attaches to, is actually quite a bit wider than most side by side jet trainers in the past. Using the F-35B version as a base makes it much easier to blend in a side by side arrangement too.

[Thorvic]

You could always they the Tuning Fork Harrier concept 

[PR19_Kit]

You could always they the Tuning Fork Harrier concept 

Hmmm, a Tuned Lightning then? 

[Weaver]

The X-32 plus X-35 kit is in at Hannants now: https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/IT1419