Boeing X-32 for FSX?

[ce_zeta]

Someone knows if a model of the Boeing X-32 for FSX exist?

:santahat:

[thunder100]

No only them-->would fly in FSX

1 (http://simviation.com/1/search?submit=1&keywords=Boeing+X-32&categoryId=&page=0&filename=)


http://simviation.com:8000/150boeX32.jpg-thumb.jpg
http://simviation.com:8000/151boeX32.jpg-thumb.jpg
Boeing X-32 (Category: FS2004 > Military)
Zip file preview (http://simviation.com/1/preview?fileId=42539)
1.90Mb (2394 downloads)
X-32 BR FAB next-generation fighter. Model and textures by J R Lucariny
Posted Dec 13, 2012 16:43 by JRLucarinyFS2004Models



http://simviation.com:8000/150boeX32V.jpg-thumb.jpg
Boeing X-32 MBR (Category: FS2004 > Military)
Zip file preview (http://simviation.com/1/preview?fileId=42348)
1.02Mb (1986 downloads)
X-32 STOVL Short take-off and vertical landing version. Model and textures by J R Lucariny
Posted Nov 23, 2012 12:06 by JRLucarinyFS2004Models



http://simviation.com:8000/X-32A.JPG
FS2004/2002 Boeing X-32A Test Version (Category: FS2004 > Military)
Zip file preview (http://simviation.com/1/preview?fileId=17862)
0.35Mb (3759 downloads)
FS2004/2002 Boeing X-32A Test Version It began to make this X-32A according to other people's recommendations. However, it is what given up for a difficult airframe to make very much on the way. I decided to upload it at the thought end because it was possible to play to some degree though a detailed part was not accurate. Please give it up though it is Texture etc. and there are a lot of imperfect parts, too. This file doesn't include the panel etc. by Kazunori Ito. 356K

Best regards

Roland

[Mach3DS]

I've been "requesting" one for a while... :) going to make one myself at some point as it's a pretty niche aircraft...although to be quite honest, a marry up of Dino's VC would work perfectly as they are "Supposed" to essential perform the same tasks...so it's not really a stretch. Just need the external done really...:chuncky:

[Sundog]

The reason we haven't seen a really good one is good drawings with accurate cross sections are nowhere to be found. I've seen some drawings for rc models, but they aren't very accurate and Boeing isn't known for releasing drawings like that, unlike many of their competitors. I would love to have a good rendition of the prototypes that flew as well.

[Bjoern]

I've been "requesting" one for a while... :) going to make one myself at some point as it's a pretty niche aircraft...although to be quite honest, a marry up of Dino's VC would work perfectly as they are "Supposed" to essential perform the same tasks...so it's not really a stretch. Just need the external done really...:chuncky:

As long as you keep the result to yourself, you could convert JR Lucariny's model with ModelConverterX into FSX native format and then just alias Dino's F-35 VC. The exterior model seems simple enough so that you won't lose much, if any, special visibility-tagged stuff during the conversion process.

[ce_zeta]

Thank you very much Roland.
Yeah Rick, a merge with the Dino's F-35 Cockpit is a great idea.

[Bjoern]

Because of this thread...
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?95181-YF23-PAV-1-800-v3

...I ran J.R. Lucariny's X-32 model through ModelConverterX so people can merge it with a VC in FSX.
The model is simple enough and the conversion process seems to have caused no damage.

This is just the .mdl and requires the base pack for the textures, etc... (Google!)
Edit the model.cfg according to the new filename.

I don't intend to lift another finger for this, so love it or leave it. :)

[ce_zeta]

Because of this thread...
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?95181-YF23-PAV-1-800-v3

...I ran J.R. Lucariny's X-32 model through ModelConverterX so people can merge it with a VC in FSX.
The model is simple enough and the conversion process seems to have caused no damage.

This is just the .mdl and requires the base pack for the textures, etc... (Google!)
Edit the model.cfg according to the new filename.

I don't intend to lift another finger for this, so love it or leave it. :)

Thank you very much Brotha. :encouragement:

[Bjoern]

Not your brother or any kind of brother, but you're welcome.

[Mach3DS]

Thank you! :applause:

[Bone]

Not your brother or any kind of brother, but you're welcome.

Thanks, sonny (haha). I can live with the drooping trim tabs, just need to figure out a glass fix. I've got basic to mid painting skills, but I'm a complete failure at glass.

[Dino Cattaneo]

...believe it or not, when I started the F-35 project I considered modeling the X-32 instead.... a the "Fugly Fighter" was a cool aicraft indeed.
Anyway, the actual cockpit of the X-32 prototype was actually closer to the Harrier...

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25508&stc=1

[ce_zeta]

Interesting Dino. I guess that the F-35 Cockpit had an evolution since the X-35? The X-32 cockpit looks more conventional than the F-35's cockpit.


Not your brother or any kind of brother, but you're welcome.
Oh Bjoern, you misunderstood. This is urban slang from the States, cuz. Homie, Brotha, Dawg, bro, dude, pal, gangsta, buddy....

[Bjoern]

Thanks, sonny (haha).

I can live with that. ;)




Oh Bjoern, you misunderstood. This is urban slang from the States, cuz. Homie, Brotha, Dawg, bro, dude, pal, gangsta, buddy....

From what I know, "brother" is almost exclusively used by blacks. The white version of the term is "bro" (also spelled as "brah" or "breh").


But I probably should have replied in South Park fashion in the first place...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

:D

[Dino Cattaneo]

...both the X-32 and X-35 had more "traditional" cockpits. After all there were just prototypes.
Most probably the F-32 would have cockpit technology and interface similar to the F-35 (which is awesome IMHO).

[Sundog]

The "F-32" would have had systems similar to the production F-35. Also, as I noted in the other thread, the X-32 was faster and more maneuverable than the X-35, thanks to the tandem fan engine, the large delta with TV for pitch, and lighter weight. It just couldn't hover. Of course, considering the only time it will hover is landing on an LHS, I think Boeing should have tried to void the vertical landing and used it as a super STOL. What really impressed me about the X-32 was the single piece, thick, highly swept wing. It really was a low cost design.

In fact, they continued down that path with their "Black Diamond" program. Go look that up, it sounds really interesting. I would like to see how Northrop-Grumman is advancing their manufacturing techniques, as we're seeing what Boeing is doing with the "Black Diamond" program and what Lockheed Martin is doing with the X-55. It's definitely going to make the LRS-B down select revelation quite interesting.

[SkippyBing]

I seem to remember the X-35 doing a STOL take off, supersonic flight and VTOL recovery at Edwards, something the X-32 never managed. So I'm not convinced it was faster, especially with such a thick wing.

[Sundog]

I seem to remember the X-35 doing a STOL take off, supersonic flight and VTOL recovery at Edwards, something the X-32 never managed. So I'm not convinced it was faster, especially with such a thick wing.

It's a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you're convinced. It did have a thicker wing, but it was also more highly swept, so it had a much lower critical mach number than the X-35s, and the longer chord meant the the thickness wasn't a problem due the t/c ratio. Granted, it wasn't able to pull the stunt the X-35 did, but that was due Boeing's vertical lift system not being much more than a modified version of the Harriers.

[SkippyBing]

It's a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you're convinced. It did have a thicker wing, but it was also more highly swept, so it had a much lower critical mach number than the X-35s, and the longer chord meant the the thickness wasn't a problem due the t/c ratio. Granted, it wasn't able to pull the stunt the X-35 did, but that was due Boeing's vertical lift system not being much more than a modified version of the Harriers.

I'm sure you're right, I just always thought the 32 looked like a brick! At the time of the competition I think the Boeing aircraft wasn't as successful at meeting a number of the performance requirements, to the extent the F-32 if it had been produced would have had a tailplane to meet USN deck landing requirements. So I've always just assumed it was inferior across the board, which of course was unlikely to be the case!

[Sundog]

I'm sure you're right, I just always thought the 32 looked like a brick! At the time of the competition I think the Boeing aircraft wasn't as successful at meeting a number of the performance requirements, to the extent the F-32 if it had been produced would have had a tailplane to meet USN deck landing requirements. So I've always just assumed it was inferior across the board, which of course was unlikely to be the case!

I think what happened, with regard to the horizontal tail, is the Navy changed the bring back weight requirement to the carrier and they couldn't meet that with TV. Also, I liked the X-32 for what they were able to accomplish from an engineering perspective. I never thought it looked good. It might have if they stretched the forward fuselage and moved the cockpit forward and swept the inlet back like on the tailed version. Of course that would have added weight and made it's hover performance worse. For some reason, every time I saw it, I couldn't help thinking of those slab sided bulky Saunders Roe designs from the '50s.

[Jafo]

Thanks, sonny (haha). I can live with the drooping trim tabs, just need to figure out a glass fix. I've got basic to mid painting skills, but I'm a complete failure at glass.
I had to poke and prod the model file with MDLMat to convince it to be transparent...it's not an issue with the painting.

Now if we can just convince Bjoern to see what happened to the droopy elevators it'd be all spiffy...;)

[Bjoern]

Now if we can just convince Bjoern to see what happened to the droopy elevators it'd be all spiffy...;)

Wrong animation tag, probably. But that's something that you can easily DIY with MCX. I'm through with this model.

[Jafo]

Wrong animation tag, probably. But that's something that you can easily DIY with MCX. I'm through with this model.
Except I've never delved into MCX. Now I'm going to have to spend an age ****ing to do the 'easily' thing.

Guess it makes a change from painting Albatrossi ....;)

[Jafo]

Managed to crash the proggy...so things are going well....;)

[Bjoern]

Use the development release as it has much better capabilities.