Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 2/11/2005 11:41:57 AM EDT
Look at it - its UGLY. Looks like a flying Catfish to me!












Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:42:48 AM EDT
[#1]
its ugly but loveable, kind of like an AK
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:42:52 AM EDT
[#2]
if it'd better than the F18, 16, 15, etc, then there is no problem.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:44:01 AM EDT
[#3]
It looks Happy.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:46:06 AM EDT
[#4]
The A-7 stealth corsair!
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:47:22 AM EDT
[#5]
It was an ugly duckling....never had a chance against the X35...
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:48:45 AM EDT
[#6]
No, it's not ugly, it's "mission optimized".

The production version would have looked pretty good from the plan view.

For ugly airplanes, do a search for airplanes designed in England; with the exception of the Spit and the BaE Hawk and some Slingby sailplanes, there aren't any great looking British airplanes I can recall.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 11:58:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Check anything made by France in the 1930s, especially their "heavy" bombers, and the term aerial monstrosity will probably be redefined for you.  

The TSR and English Electric Lightning weren't awful looking in my book.  Neither was the Gnat, and the Hunter was sometimes called one of the best proportioned aircraft ever.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:02:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:14:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Ugly and too damn heavy. IIRC the STOLV aircraft was too heavy to take off vertically with its landing gear doors on. The F-35 is suffering weight problems too in the STOLV version, but imagine how bad it would have been to have a design that started out heavy.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:14:40 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:
No, it's not ugly, it's "mission optimized".

The production version would have looked pretty good from the plan view.

For ugly airplanes, do a search for airplanes designed in England; with the exception of the Spit and the BaE Hawk and some Slingby sailplanes, there aren't any great looking British airplanes I can recall.


Here's another nice looking Brit.

Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:16:00 PM EDT
[#11]


How about the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin?
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:20:46 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:


How about the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin?



Holy crap, the local Wally World has one of those things out front!  Pay a quarter, and you can ride in it for a minute or so.  Of course, is is painted yellow...
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:25:02 PM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
The F-35 is suffering weight problems too in the STOLV version,



That problem has been resolved, for awhile now.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:30:50 PM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The F-35 is suffering weight problems too in the STOLV version,



That problem has been resolved, for awhile now.



Apparantly not good enough, next year's budget cuts back on the STOLV program due to weight problems. This is as of this week.

Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:32:41 PM EDT
[#15]
I saw the X-32 flying when it was going thru flight testing at Edwards AFB, it looked cool from the ground but it was ugly as hell when it was on the ground.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 12:34:28 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
The F-35 is suffering weight problems too in the STOLV version,



That problem has been resolved, for awhile now.



Apparantly not good enough, next year's budget cuts back on the STOLV program due to weight problems. This is as of this week.




I am not going to say anymore that is not public already about the STOVL (B) version....keeping in mind that the -22's were cut down from 330-something to 190-something in total acquisition in Bush's proposal.
Link Posted: 2/11/2005 1:44:50 PM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
The F-35 is suffering weight problems too in the STOLV version,



That problem has been resolved, for awhile now.



Apparantly not good enough, next year's budget cuts back on the STOLV program due to weight problems. This is as of this week.




I am not going to say anymore that is not public already about the STOVL (B) version....keeping in mind that the -22's were cut down from 330-something to 190-something in total acquisition in Bush's proposal.



From what I read in an article posted somewhere here on arfcom, the USMC version will have reduced funding and the reason was the weight issues. Whether or not that was going to be picked up on the back side of the program wasn't stated. Although, it was worded in such a way as to present the reader with the impression that the weight problems produced an opprotunity to save money now and possibly buy later.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top