Military Review

Foreign press named "most impressive" aircraft in world history

80

The EurAsian Times has an article about the "most impressive" aircraft in stories aviation, which had extraordinary characteristics, but never entered mass production.


By the end of the 1970s. in the American military department, they became more and more clearly aware of the need to modernize military aviation, including taking into account the new opportunities that are opening up thanks to the use of composite materials and progress in the field of electronics. As now, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was responsible for the latest developments in the military department. His managers began to search for a company that would be able to fulfill the order for the production of 2 innovative aircraft. The order was valued at $ 87 million.

By 1981, DAPRA had decided on a contractor. It was Grumman Aerospace. It is now the Northrop Grumman Corporation headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. It is rightly considered one of the three pillars of the US aviation industry and competes on equal terms with such "monsters" of the aircraft industry as Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

It was Grumman in December 1981 that received a contract for the production of two aircraft and began to fulfill it. It took just three years for the company's specialists to develop a prototype of the aircraft, which the author of the EurAsian Times Mansij Astkhan called the most impressive aircraft in the history of world military aviation.

The experimental aircraft was named the Kh-29. It was made according to the "duck" scheme - an all-turning front horizontal tail of a trapezoidal shape and a negative swept wing. The root part of the wing in the tail part turns into an elongated influx, ending in flaps related to the aerodynamic control system of the aircraft.

Due to the complex geometry of the wings, the aircraft turned out to be extremely maneuverable and light. The air flow over the wings with a straight sweep was directed inward, towards the base of the wing, and not outward, towards the wingtip, as it happens on a wing with a rear sweep.

The X-29 was a vivid demonstration of unusual and, in some cases, promising design solutions: digital flight control system, aeroelastic design, front cleats, composite materials used throughout the aircraft,

- says American analyst Mark Episkopos.

In 1984, the Kh-29 made its first flight, after which it was tested for more than three hours for 2 years. In total, the Kh-29 performed 422 research flights, during which specialists studied and analyzed many indicators of the maneuverability and controllability of the aircraft.


However, the plane never entered mass production and, consequently, was never used by the American military aviation. The main reason why the military department abandoned the idea of ​​mass production of the X-29 was the high risk of structural destruction. The straight swept wing design was considered so dangerous that only now modern computer systems can ensure the performance of such an aircraft. At that time, it was extremely difficult to do this.

If all three on-board digital on-board computers went out of order at the same time, the X-29 would explode so quickly that the pilot would not even be able to eject.

- emphasizes the historian Christian Geltser.

However, although the X-29 was never adopted for service, some of the technologies first tested in it are now widely used in the production of modern fighters. In particular, it was the X-29 that launched the widespread use of composite materials to reduce the total weight of an air vehicle.

The prototype itself - the X-29A aircraft with serial number 82-0003 - can always be seen in the public display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / NASA; Wikipedia / US Air Force
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. poquello
    poquello 4 November 2020 19: 19
    +8
    Didn't ours in the golden eagle solve all the problems described above?
    1. Temples
      Temples 4 November 2020 19: 22
      19
      This one appeared before the Berkut.
      The mattresses had a good school.
      1. poquello
        poquello 4 November 2020 19: 42
        14
        Quote: Temples
        This one appeared before the Berkut.
        The mattresses had a good school.

        it appeared, but they could not bring it to mind, the golden eagle fell off due to lack of money and the prospect of UHT, and they are measured on the topic of the "most impressive" aircraft in world history
        1. JD1979
          JD1979 4 November 2020 21: 59
          16
          Quote: poquello
          the golden eagle fell off due to lack of money and the prospect of UHT

          EMNIP, it was originally created as a flying laboratory and was not planned for mass production.
      2. Anton Yu
        Anton Yu 5 November 2020 15: 29
        0
        Previously appeared among the Germans during WWII.
    2. Avior
      Avior 4 November 2020 19: 27
      +5
      ... The main disadvantage of the forward-swept wing design is the elastic divergence effect (twisting followed by destruction). This forced the designers to seriously modify the initial design of the fighter, which ultimately led to the creation of the S-37, which later received the designation Su-47 "Berkut". [5]

      Hard to say.
      In the series, like the American, did not go
      1. poquello
        poquello 4 November 2020 19: 46
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        ... The main disadvantage of the forward-swept wing design is the elastic divergence effect (twisting followed by destruction). This forced the designers to seriously modify the initial design of the fighter, which ultimately led to the creation of the S-37, which later received the designation Su-47 "Berkut". [5]

        Hard to say.
        In the series, like the American, did not go

        yes, I read somewhere that the problem of the material against twisting was solved, maybe lied
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 November 2020 20: 07
          +6
          Such questions are verified only by operation.
          And there was no series in any case.
      2. Eug
        Eug 4 November 2020 19: 57
        10
        Berkut did not go - the vortex from the junction of the planes with the fuselage caused oscillations of the vertical tail, did not tolerate all angles of the overload action (only in accordance with the direction of laying out composites), the non-repairability of composite structures. And cheaper and simpler technical means of ensuring maneuverability at low speeds appeared.
        1. Rusticolus
          Rusticolus 4 November 2020 20: 28
          +3
          Rather, all other things being equal, the classic scheme has the advantage in the same flutter over the reverse sweep. It is possible to create an airplane with a forward sweep, but such machines will only confirm the general rule that exactly the same but with a classic sweep will win. But with regards to the PGO and the Duck scheme in general, not everything is so simple.
    3. dgonni
      dgonni 4 November 2020 21: 45
      +6
      No! The stiffness of the forward-swept wing was never achieved with acceptable mass parameters! Unfortunately !
      P.S. The first experimental aircraft with a forward-swept wing in the USSR, in my opinion, was tested by Mikoyan on his 1945-1946 duck with a Po-2 engine.
      1. Sergey M. Karasev
        Sergey M. Karasev 5 November 2020 06: 00
        +1
        No. The "Ducks" (MiG-8) wing had the usual straight sweep.

        PySy. I can't insert a picture for confirmation
        1. Sergey M. Karasev
          Sergey M. Karasev 5 November 2020 06: 17
          +2

          Finally it worked.
    4. Crash
      Crash 5 November 2020 16: 12
      0
      No. Therefore, the project stalled
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 November 2020 19: 21
    0
    As always, if made in the USA, the best in the world! New, revolutionary, perhaps, but not only the Yankees moved the world aircraft industry, including the military! We, too, were not a bastard, and we had the same breakthrough machines that did not work for one reason or another!
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 4 November 2020 19: 28
      +6
      Quote: Thrifty
      We, too, were not a bastard, and we had the same breakthrough machines that did not work for one reason or another!

      good yes
      At least, the MiG-25 that Belenko hijacked ...
    2. Constanty
      Constanty 4 November 2020 20: 36
      +3
      Every era has innovative designs that inspire admiration. As for me, the X-29 is not such a design. They are among them. Ilya Muromets, Fokker F-13, Tupolev TB-3, Douglas DC-2, Heinkel He 178, Bell X-15, Boeing 747, F-16 (fly-by-wire), An-225 Mrija and finally , Spaceshuttle and many others.
    3. RealPilot
      RealPilot 5 November 2020 01: 56
      +8
      Colleagues, in my opinion, the title smacks of "clickbait", that is, a loud phrase that is clicked on. And this is exactly what the "foreign press" is trying to achieve - to peck and raise the rating on the network ...

      There is no "best" aircraft of all times and peoples! We compare by criteria ...
      The fastest, the most lifting, the highest, the most massive, the most expensive / cheapest, the least noticeable, the most reliable, the most power-equipped, the most produced, the most composite or titanium, the most recognizable or effective in battles, in the end ...
      And we will name many such "selves". And each one is impressive wink in your own way!
  4. Asad
    Asad 4 November 2020 19: 21
    +9
    What's impressive? What are the performance characteristics? I am not an expert, I want to find out everything interesting in the article. Instead of studying Wikipedia!
  5. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 19: 23
    +4
    https://history.nasa.gov/monograph31.pdf

    Monograph of all projects from X-1 to X-50
    1. seregin-s1
      seregin-s1 4 November 2020 19: 29
      +1
      And it translates exactly! Thanks for the link!
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 4 November 2020 19: 30
      +5
      For me, the X-15 is the coolest. Although it's hard to find comrades for a taste and felt-tip pens ..
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 19: 34
        0
        It depends on what parameters. I'm sure most of the UFO photos in the US are these planes. It is easy to confuse them with aliens.
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 19: 42
        +2
        Visually, I like the X-36 UAV

        One of the curious X-13

        The most "cute" X-24
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 4 November 2020 19: 56
          +2
          X-15! Faster - only rockets! Above - only space!
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 19: 59
            +3
            Well, he actually is a rocket smile
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 4 November 2020 20: 23
              +2
              Rockets only fly one way. And this is still an airplane - a rocket plane, piloted, reusable, capable of independent landing.
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 4 November 2020 20: 30
                +4
                Another cool device - X-24V
  6. AshPoseidon
    AshPoseidon 4 November 2020 19: 33
    12

    Technologies ahead of their time. For me, the SU-41 is better, it will be more beautiful.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 4 November 2020 20: 58
      +4
      Quote: Ash Poseidon
      For me, the SU-41 is better, it will be more beautiful.

      Not the Su-41, the Berkut is the Su-47, however. yes
    2. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 4 November 2020 21: 02
      10
      Quote: Ash Poseidon

      Technologies ahead of their time.
      Junkers 287
      Junkers Ju-287 ... 16 August 1944 first flight, 15 pieces made.
    3. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 4 November 2020 21: 40
      +7
      Duc and today there are interesting proposals. For example, our CP-10

  7. Nikolay Ivanov_5
    Nikolay Ivanov_5 4 November 2020 19: 41
    +2
    Why the most impressive aircraft in the world is the Kh-29, and not the MiG-31, An-124, Be-200, Tu-160, Yak-141, Su-35, MiG-35 and An-225 ???
    1. Rusticolus
      Rusticolus 4 November 2020 20: 35
      +3
      Due to the fact that all the others listed by you went into the series, and the article compares non-serial aircraft. Even the moment35 can be considered promisingly serial. But the Su-47 .. well, here's an excuse only that the Americans have all the best, only theirs, if at least theoretically you can pull an owl on a globe.
      1. Nikolay Ivanov_5
        Nikolay Ivanov_5 4 November 2020 20: 54
        +1
        It would be great if there were Yak-141 and An-225 production aircraft.
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 00: 21
      +1
      Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
      Why be amazed only at the achievements of foreign aircraft manufacturers, and not see our own at close range ???

      Duc here about the article EurAsian Times. they just see theirs wink
    3. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 5 November 2020 00: 28
      0
      Probably because the article is amerskaya-in the first place hi
  8. Rusticolus
    Rusticolus 4 November 2020 19: 44
    0
    If all three on-board digital on-board computers went out of order at the same time, the X-29 would explode so quickly that the pilot would not even be able to eject.
    They were there, they tied the pilot to the wings and tail, so that in case of something he would immediately be quartered? Here are the Russian barbarians, they came up with catapults for ejection, which is enough for only the cockpit to remain intact. smile
    Or maybe this was the ancestor of the penguin? Which seems to be like a bird, but it flies very low, low ... belly on the ground.
  9. Undecim
    Undecim 4 November 2020 19: 52
    11
    Foreign press named "most impressive" aircraft in world history
    Title in the style of yellow press. Firstly, not impressive, but mesmerizing, and secondly, Mansij Astkhan from The EurAsian Times is far from all the foreign press.
  10. APASUS
    APASUS 4 November 2020 20: 41
    +9
    Still, the Americans had an engineering school and knew how to make airplanes, not grandmothers! The most impressive achievement in engineering, I would say, is the SR-71B Blackbird, which cannot be replicated in the United States today.

    The X-29 was produced rather for a show (little kittens) and no more. The assigned tasks were partially solved, the aircraft was developed rather as a model for testing technologies
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 20: 51
      +3
      Quote: APASUS
      Now in the United States, such perfection cannot be repeated

      You are exaggerating. SR-72 unmanned continuation of SR-71.
      In November 2018, Lockheed Martin announced that the SR-72 prototype was slated to launch by 2025. The aircraft will be capable of firing hypersonic missiles.

      1. Rusticolus
        Rusticolus 4 November 2020 21: 01
        -3
        They need another 5 years to copy the design of the Chinese mouse? belay
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 4 November 2020 21: 07
        -1
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        You are exaggerating. SR-72 unmanned continuation of SR-71.
        In November 2018, Lockheed Martin announced that the SR-72 prototype was slated to launch by 2025. The aircraft will be capable of firing hypersonic missiles.

        That's when we will appear, then we will discuss. And the fact that the Americans lost some of the technologies used in the construction of this model, they themselves do not hide. There was a whole program dedicated to this device, they themselves recognize the car as perfect and drool, because even the engine is not able to repeat (there, however, a couple of lost technologies were also named)
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 21: 13
          +2
          There was infa about testing the next generation aircraft, maybe SR-72 was. Earlier there was information that it is planned to test it in 2017.
          1. akarfoxhound
            akarfoxhound 4 November 2020 21: 41
            +4
            About 15 years ago, through our organization, there was information about an attempt to restore the SR-71 with the modernization of the interior for modern technologies. But much of the minke whales turned out to be irretrievably lost at the moment - from stocks to some technologies. By the way, in our military aviation (in today's developments) we also have the same nuances of "irrecoverable losses". The factor of human bossy bungling is the most effective in terms of destructive efficiency, everywhere, regardless of the country
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 21: 52
              +4
              This is the norm. If something is not needed, it dies. Moreover, it was made in 60-70 years. People die, industries change, technologies change. Nobody will cannibalize production No orders? Workshops, people for other projects. So it is with subcontractors.
              1. akarfoxhound
                akarfoxhound 4 November 2020 22: 17
                +1
                I agree for the most part, but there is a nuance. Some technologies went away with people, and they are badly needed for development now! And these technologies (or rather applicable solutions) would be happy to restore, but physically they cannot - the developer has left (died), the drawings / technocards are lost, it is impossible to copy what has already been done (alloys, chemical composition, mathematics), that's all ... not exactly what you wrote. I understand what you mean. You understand this, as, for example, some "things" in physics and chemistry were described in detail by Lomonosov 2,5 centuries ago, and confirmation and application of his research are found only now, and even then not all of them discovered by him. And then physics and chemistry came into the load of calculated mathematics from people of the 60-70-80s (without analogies of IT development, not the same topic). And - "get a fascist a grenade", right now our Defense Ministry (and not only) in some matters is scratching the old rake, without brushing it off.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 22: 29
                  +7
                  That is life. I will give an example from my practice. I work as a software development manager.
                  We wrote the program 5-7 years ago, did the job perfectly, gave it to the customer and forgot about it. After these 5-7 years, the customer returns and wants to change the program to meet modern needs, pays for it well, but we cannot already. Those who did it either left, or in other projects, key employees, or simply do not want to return to the old project (that is still hemorrhoids), new employees do not understand anything about it at all, because it was written according to old technologies when they were still finishing school. As a result, it is faster and cheaper to do it again from 0 than to redo the old one. Naturally, the customer is called an unbearable price to get rid of or suffer for a good bash.
                  I'm sure it was there the same way. It's easier and more fun for Lockheed to start a new project than to rework an old one.
                  1. APASUS
                    APASUS 4 November 2020 22: 58
                    +3
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    That is life. I will give an example from my practice. I work as a software development manager.
                    We wrote the program 5-7 years ago, did the job perfectly, gave it to the customer and forgot about it. After these 5-7 years, the customer returns and wants to change the program to meet modern needs, pays for it well, but we cannot already. Those who did it either left, or in other projects, key employees, or simply do not want to return to the old project (that is still hemorrhoids), new employees do not understand anything about it at all, because it was written according to old technologies when they were still finishing school. As a result, it is faster and cheaper to do it again from 0 than to redo the old one. Naturally, the customer is called an unbearable price to get rid of or suffer for a good bash.
                    I'm sure it was there the same way. It's easier and more fun for Lockheed to start a new project than to rework an old one.

                    As i understand you
                  2. akarfoxhound
                    akarfoxhound 5 November 2020 10: 59
                    0
                    Absolutely agree. But now the customer also crushes to a tear in a "patriotic impulse" so that the developer would give his many years of work for the enormous (moral, and therefore priceless) gratitude of the Motherland and also having entered the necessary guys from their offices (transferring them) to the development of the budget of this topic , the second - more often. And it happens: "Here you will get it in the package! It works, tested, debugged (at your own expense), efficiently! Take it, release it, it’s necessary to cut it, the warriors endured the whole brain that they needed it!" - "She has no time, come back tomorrow when I retire, otherwise you have killed my coffee appetite at work"
                    Something our Soviet cartoon about Lefty immediately pops up in my memory ...
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 11: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: akarfoxhound
                      Something our Soviet cartoon about Lefty immediately pops up in my memory ...

                      Yes. He haunts the entire history of Russia.
    2. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 4 November 2020 21: 34
      -3
      Quote: APASUS
      The most impressive achievement in engineering, I would say, is the SR-71B Blackbird, which cannot be replicated in the United States today.

      Figase, "perfection"! He demanded refueling immediately after takeoff ...
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 4 November 2020 21: 41
        +6
        Quote: Vasyan1971
        Figase, "perfection"! He demanded refueling immediately after takeoff ...

        Yes, he does, and even when he stands in the parking lot, he pisses off from all the cracks. Only when he heats up in flight, all the gaps go away .............. can you imagine what the calculation should be, the technology of materials, accuracy assembly?
        1. Vasyan1971
          Vasyan1971 4 November 2020 21: 49
          -3
          Quote: APASUS
          Can you imagine what the calculation, materials technology, assembly accuracy should be?

          To be honest, it's weak. repeat It is enough for me to know that even the rich Yankees eventually gave up on such "perfection". If the stars are lit, someone needs it. If they are extinguished, then ...
    3. Professor
      Professor 4 November 2020 21: 47
      +5
      Quote: APASUS
      Now in the United States, such perfection cannot be repeated

      In the power. The science and engineering school is now much stronger in the United States than it was back then. The task would have been ...
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 4 November 2020 21: 52
        -2
        Quote: Professor
        In the power. The science and engineering school is now much stronger in the United States than it was back then. The task would have been ...

        And that the task for the F-35 was not set? The program has gone over a trillion dollars, and the plane (even taking into account the huge release) is far from without problems, namely problems, not shortcomings.
        1. Professor
          Professor 4 November 2020 21: 57
          +8
          Quote: APASUS
          And that the task for the F-35 was not set? The program has gone over a trillion dollars, and the plane (even taking into account the huge release) is far from without problems, namely problems, not shortcomings.

          Hmm ... I'm straining and can't remember a plane without "problems". Do you remember? And on the F-35 there is a queue. A trillion will be beaten off easily.
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 4 November 2020 22: 05
            -1
            Quote: Professor
            A trillion will be beaten off easily.

            Here is the KEY Phrase!
            You understand the problem correctly, this is primarily a commercial project (more money was poured into advertising invisibility than in R&D). That is why he went further to the Arabs and is sure that they will even sell to Africa if they pay.
            1. Professor
              Professor 4 November 2020 22: 13
              +2
              Quote: APASUS
              Quote: Professor
              A trillion will be beaten off easily.

              Here is the KEY Phrase!
              You understand the problem correctly, this is primarily a commercial project (more money was poured into advertising invisibility than in R&D). That is why he went further to the Arabs and is sure that they will even sell to Africa if they pay.

              Duc clients are not suckers. They check the goods before buying and, as a result, are ready to pay the requested money for the goods. However, this is not about that. Americans can do anything. But the golden age of aeronautics passed 50 years ago. There is simply no "demand" today.
              1. APASUS
                APASUS 4 November 2020 22: 26
                -1
                Quote: Professor
                Duc clients are not suckers.

                Americans know how to impose goods, often putting pressure on the governments of satellite countries, Turkey is an example for you
                Quote: Professor
                They check the goods before buying and, as a result, are ready to pay the requested money for the goods.

                Do they have a choice? After all, with an airplane, they buy rather an American roof.
                Quote: Professor
                Americans can do anything.

                Of course, but they loved money so much that they completely forgot about all technologies, rules, etc. The example of the Boeing 737 MAX is indicative.
                Quote: Professor
                But the golden age of aeronautics passed 50 years ago. There is simply no "demand" today.

                There is always a demand for quality equipment
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 23: 33
                  +4
                  Quote: APASUS
                  Americans know how to impose goods, often putting pressure on the governments of satellite countries, Turkey is an example for you

                  What example? Refused to sell the Patriot, then refused to give the F35? What weapons are they imposing?
                  Quote: APASUS
                  Do they have a choice? After all, with an airplane, they buy rather an American roof.

                  F-15/16/18 any to choose from, stealth version, new, used, production in your country, with modernization for any desire. You pay today delivery for a year, edge 2 years. Every whim for your money. Here are just a queue for the F35 5-7 years ahead.
                  1. APASUS
                    APASUS 5 November 2020 10: 01
                    0
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    What example? Refused to sell the Patriot, then refused to give the F35? What weapons are they imposing?

                    Just yesterday there was an article
                    Washington does not intend to sell fifth generation fighters until Jakarta purchases American F-16 fighters, CNN Indonesia reported.

                    US Senator Lindsey Graham, a close associate of President Donald Trump, said this week that he is trying to force Turkey back into its program of developing and operating promising F-35 fighters after its assistance was suspended due to the purchase of Russian anti-aircraft missiles C- 400.

                    Few examples of pressure or still need proof?
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    Every whim for your money.

                    So they buy a whim !!!
                    And Americans, after such purchases, surprisingly do not notice that in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, for example, they are not democracy at all, but they clearly trace civil rights in Korea.
                    Did not notice ???
                2. Professor
                  Professor 5 November 2020 13: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: APASUS
                  Quote: Professor
                  Duc clients are not suckers.

                  Americans know how to impose goods, often putting pressure on the governments of satellite countries, Turkey is an example for you
                  Quote: Professor
                  They check the goods before buying and, as a result, are ready to pay the requested money for the goods.

                  Do they have a choice? After all, with an airplane, they buy rather an American roof.
                  Quote: Professor
                  Americans can do anything.

                  Of course, but they loved money so much that they completely forgot about all technologies, rules, etc. The example of the Boeing 737 MAX is indicative.
                  Quote: Professor
                  But the golden age of aeronautics passed 50 years ago. There is simply no "demand" today.

                  There is always a demand for quality equipment

                  1. The Americans do not impose the F-35 on the Turks, but rather, on the contrary, they punish the Turks for bad behavior by refusing to supply the F-35.
                  2. There is always a choice. America does not provide any roof. She does not run to fight for anyone.
                  3. Americans really can do anything. The Boeing 737 MAX is much less raw than Russian passenger aircraft. How is the Boeing 787? How long do you have to wait in line to buy it for $ 150?
                  4. The greatest demand is for American aircraft.
                  1. APASUS
                    APASUS 5 November 2020 14: 10
                    -1
                    Quote: Professor
                    1. The Americans do not impose the F-35 on the Turks, but rather, on the contrary, they punish the Turks for bad behavior by refusing to supply the F-35.

                    It doesn't matter, the principle of pressure on the country's authorities, do you deny that there is pressure on Turkey because of the purchase of the S-400? And the refusal to supply the signed agreement is just an integral part of this pressure.
                    Quote: Professor
                    2. There is always a choice. America does not provide any roof. She does not run to fight for anyone.

                    Well then, can you easily explain the huge purchases of weapons from the United States by Saudi Arabia and why the US authorities do not notice the infringement of the rights of women, for example, in this country. The connection is direct.
                    Can you imagine if Navalny was killed at the Russian Embassy in Turkey? But everything came to naught for the Saudis during the murder of Jamal Khashoggi
                    What other proof of protection do you need?
                    Quote: Professor
                    3. Americans really can do anything. The Boeing 737 MAX is much less crude than Russian passenger aircraft. TO

                    And you do not take away from the essence! It's not about the dampness of the Boeing 737 MAX. The fact that the plane had technical problems, it became clear immediately, and the investigation showed a very unsightly picture. There are a lot of facts, namely technical
                    And no one is torn for Russian planes, the aircraft industry was cut into perestroika, and this can be safely admitted.
                    Quote: Professor
                    How long do you have to wait in line to buy it for $ 150 million?

                    How long should you wait?
                    Quote: Professor
                    ... American aviation equipment is in the greatest demand.

                    “It's a very challenging moment for Boeing,” new CEO David Calhoun said Wednesday after the company reported a full-year loss of $ 636 million, compared with a profit of $ 10.46 billion in 2018. Sales fell 24% to $ 76.6 billion. The loss was the company's first for a full year since 1997.

                    WSJ NEWSLETTER
                    Notes on the News
                    The news of the week in context, with Tyler Blint-Welsh

                    This is not me, this is https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-falls-to-full-year-loss-11580302091 writes, apparently Boeing shares fell to celebrate !!!
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 5 November 2020 15: 14
                      +3
                      1. The pressure on Turkey is that it was refused the sale of the F-35. It wanted to buy, and she refused.
                      2. The example of Saudi Arabia just confirms that America does not protect anyone. The Persians shelled Saudia and ... nothing. Where is the American roof?
                      3. Nobody disputes Max's flaws, but the one who does nothing is not mistaken. The Dreamliner is also a good example of what Americans are capable of today.
                      4 years customers have been waiting for deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_8_orders_and_deliveries
                      5. Boeing shares fell because of Max, but the company is taxiing.
                      1. APASUS
                        APASUS 5 November 2020 15: 47
                        -1
                        Quote: Professor
                        1. The pressure on Turkey is that it was refused the sale of the F-35. She wanted to buy, but she was refused.

                        Well, is it that simple?
                        For months, the administration has warned Ankara that it risks imposing U.S. sanctions under the Counter America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act if the S-400 system is activated.

                        Isn't that pressure?
                        The US excluded Turkey from the F-35 program in 2019 after acquiring the S-400. Turkey was producing components for the F-35 and was planning to purchase 100 stealth fighters. The United States is ready to soften its conditions if Turkey abandons the S-400

                        This writes the Military Times however ..............
                        Quote: Professor
                        2. The example of Saudi Arabia just confirms that America does not protect anyone. The Persians shelled Saudia and ... nothing. Where is the American roof?

                        The roof is kind, is that in relation to SA, the USA carefully turns a blind eye to the chaos with the same Khashoggi.
                        Quote: Professor
                        3. Nobody disputes Max's flaws, but the one who does nothing is not mistaken. The Dreamliner is also a good example of what Americans are capable of today.

                        And no one discusses the dreamliner, and at MAX it was just a disaster from a technical point of view.
                        Quote: Professor
                        ... Boeing's shares fell because of Max, but the company is pulling out.

                        Stocks fell because of technical problems that were revealed, not because the planes were bad, but because the problems were carefully polished by pressure on the regulatory authorities.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 5 November 2020 16: 04
                        +3
                        1. Everything is really simple. Turkey WANTED buy f-35, but she REFUSED... That is, they pressed on her rejection, not as you previously stated "coercion"to purchase.
                        2. The US turns a blind eye to cannibalism in Africa. Roofing cannibals? How did the "roof" of the United States prevent the Persians from attacking Saudia?
                        3. No, MAKS is not a disaster, but temporary losses. The malfunctions have been fixed and sales will resume after the Crown. The Dreamliner is an example of the fact that the Americans today are able to create something that they could not 50 years ago. That is, not that technologies have been lost, but completely new technologies have been acquired. This is what we are about.
                        4. Stocks tumbled as customers returned aircraft. Further, the shares crawled up again, but the Corona slowed down this growth by hitting the entire industry. This plane won't bury Boeing.
          2. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 4 November 2020 22: 16
            +6
            Calm yourself down. The F35 is a family of advanced fighters for relatively little money, and the F35B has no competitors in the world. He fulfilled the set goals, there are problems, they are solved and added, with new blocks (modifications). Now block 3 is coming, 4th is coming. The queue is until 2027, and the queue is from a select few, the desire to buy is not enough. The best plane in the world? Of course not. It was created for certain tasks and performs them, no more and no less.
  • tol100v
    tol100v 4 November 2020 21: 25
    0
    SU_47? ........
  • Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 4 November 2020 21: 32
    0
    Either "negative sweep", then "straight sweep" ... I got confused, in short ... recourse
    1. novel66
      novel66 4 November 2020 22: 01
      +2
      if the plane looks like an arrow in plan - straight sweep, if on a trident - reverse
      1. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 4 November 2020 22: 12
        0
        This is just understandable. It is not clear this:
        The straight swept wing design was considered so dangerous that only now modern computer systems can ensure the performance of such an aircraft.
        1. novel66
          novel66 4 November 2020 22: 28
          +2
          the wing with sharp maneuvers goes to a bend, the EDSU does not allow such maneuvers
  • Rokot
    Rokot 4 November 2020 23: 06
    +1
    The straight swept wing design was considered so dangerous ...

    Here and elsewhere in the text, does not the author confuse the forward sweep with the reverse? It was KOS that set a number of tasks for the engineers, which have not been fully resolved today.
  • ROMAN R
    ROMAN R 4 November 2020 23: 36
    +1
    Quote: poquello
    it appeared, but they could not bring it to mind


    It was originally an experimental model, no one was going to take it into service
  • ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 5 November 2020 00: 58
    +1
    The main reason why the military department abandoned the idea of ​​mass production of the X-29 was the high risk of structural destruction.


    Then the concept was changed to "stealth": B-2A Spirit flew in 1989, Lockheed F-117 Night Hawk in 1981. So they did not dare to bet on super-maneuverability. But now technologies may well allow the use of such solutions even on sports aircraft - small aircraft began to be equipped with parachutes to save the entire fuselage (Cirrus SR-22), therefore, if you provide such a parachute with a hardened pilot cockpit separated from the fuselage with a crack-resistant jumper for an athlete, then the gap part will cease to be so dangerous. High maneuverability can also be useful for new police low-flying cannon attack aircraft like the Supertukano, used against drug cartels and pirates.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 12: 43
      +1
      Below I wrote how they were "played" with supermaneuverability in the USA.
      Here, on the "Corner of Heaven" materials on ashtrays:
      http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/x31.html
      http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/f16sfw.html
      http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/f18harv.html
      http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/nf16dmatv.html
  • pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 5 November 2020 08: 02
    +1
    The wing curls. Then Composite materials were not used, but also how they will behave and how long the safety margin will last.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 12: 37
    +1
    It is strange that X-31 (the first "bourgeois" that "cobra" and "chakra" did) was not mentioned, it was really interesting .. And the X-29 is just a "Tigershark" with KOS. And there was also a bunch of LL in Dryden based on the F-15 and F-16 - both with UHT, and with PGO adaptive and so on.
  • Karen Khoreev
    Karen Khoreev 12 November 2020 20: 35
    0
    The golden eagle will be prettier ..)