Well, this isn't part 3 as promised (that will be part 4).

*First, I wanted to apologize for the terrible edits I made with Paint...*

***And above all, I want to give credit to Adam Burch, who made the original PIC 1, and to FiniasK for the 3D model in PIC 4 to 6.***

Here are my thoughts on the “what if” of the X-32 and its “production” version in its two versions...

To clarify everything: I watched the documentary “***NOVA - Battle of the X-Planes***” (it's on YouTube, I left the links in parts 1 and 2).



**POINTS:**

**POINT 1**—Dennis Muilenburg, who until a few years ago was CEO of Boeing, appears in that documentary. He was young then, and just an engineer.

**POINT 2**—The X-32 was born dead. While they were building it, Boeing decided that for a future “production” model, it would set aside the “one-piece” wing design. There would never have been an X-32 fighter jet (like the X-35 to the F-35; visually, they are almost identical).

**POINT 3**\-When the requirements for the JSF changed... Boeing decided to adapt its proposal... There was intense debate among Boeing engineers, with some defending the design in **PIC 1 - LEFT SIDE** (more conservative)...and others defending the V-tail design (YF-23 style) see **PIC 1 - RIGHT SIDE**...the latter argued that this tail was more “stealth” (but more difficult to develop). 

Muilenburg, as CEO, supported the V-tail... but Boeing's senior management ultimately decided on the “traditional” version (**PIC 1 - LEFT SIDE**).

**POINT 4**\-The V-tail moves as a single piece...including a horizontal section...see **PIC 2.**

\-PIC 3 (previously published in part 2) is not the mockup, but rather the model that Boeing “refined” from its model already chosen as “production”...(in fact, it was undergoing testing to refine its radar section).



***Thoughts:***

So...it can be said that there are three versions of the Boeing model

\-**The X-32,** the only real one, as it flew, and of which two models were built

\-**The “F-32”** that Boeing proposed as the “production model” (PIC 1 - left side and PIC 3)

\-**the “F-32”** that some Boeing engineers and the young Muilenburg wanted with a **“V” tail** (PIC 1 - right side and PIC 2)

There is a huge *“what if”*: **what if the JSF requirements had not changed?** It meant that Boeing would continue with the X-32 design AS THE PRODUCTION MODEL (the actual prototypes that flew)... and that's the version *I like best*...more camouflage paint or 5th generation aircraft paint **(PIC 7 and 8)** (let's assume it's “aggressor” squadron paint, *OK?*)

I can only comment on aesthetics...

even so, ***for ME, the X-32 is more beautiful*** (yes, believe it or not, I love it, I find it VERY exotic... next to it, the F-35 looks like a Cessna in terms of “exotic”). followed by the proposed model with a “V” tail... I think the “conventional” version is good, but not as exotic...

Many say that the “production” version looks like an F-86 SABRE converted to STEALTH (PIC 4), mainly when viewed from the side.



***Thoughts on the JSF (and the documentary):***

I think they were unfair to Boeing:

\-It is a FACT that the X-32 would never have amounted to anything; it was dead on arrival (which is why Boeing was already planning the mockup/production model while they were building them)... because the rules were changed on them... (I would even dare to say that Lockheed knew this long before and so made a more “complete” or “coincidentally better adapted” model)...

\-The F-32 model (PIC 1- RIGHT SIDE) is more STEALTH than the F-35 (it has fewer exposed surfaces, see POINT 3. But Boeing did not choose it).

\-Furthermore, the choice was between the X-32 and the X-35, when the X-32 did not reflect almost no resemblance to the proposed model (pic 3). It should have been compared with the model proposed by Boeing... Of course, it is difficult to “imagine” what that would have been like.

\-The F-35 turned out to be terribly expensive, and although Boeing does things badly, perhaps if they had maintained the “make it cheap” approach, they would not have fallen into the cost spiral of the F-35.

***Hey!!! What about the problems with the one-piece wing (it had cracks)... and the problems with vertical takeoff?***

\-Boeing wasn't going to use that wing, as you can see in the proposed images. only made for x-32.

\-The X-32 doesn't reflect the hovering dynamics that the “production” model would have... (it had a deflector in the air intake to solve this)...***even*** *the Harrier has the problem of sucking in its own air* (watch the documentary)... Boeing's technology was simply to copy the proven Harrier technology...that's cheaper (and LIGHTER in weight) than designing a shaft to turn another fan (f-35)...as well as being heavier

***Hey! But having the Harrier's exhausts makes it more detectable to heat...***

\-The Harrier's exhausts are exposed, the X-32 kept its exhausts when flying normally (the production model too) and used the normal rear nozzle.

It seems like I'm defending Boeing... but no, in reality everything would have been the same (cost overruns).

Well, that's it for today. I hope part 4 will be the end...there will be the *“how the hell did I end up researching this?”*

X-32 and its unproduced "final" version- PART 3...."WHAT IF"