4 ms·
Lots of differences with the x-59, no wing canards, one engine on the x-59 vs 3 on the XB-1, the XB-1 seems much shorter. On the plus side the X-59 was develop
by ChuckMcM 6y ago
Lots of differences with the x-59, no wing canards, one engine on the x-59 vs 3 on the XB-1, the XB-1 seems much shorter.
On the plus side the X-59 was developed by Lockheed and one of their advisors, Dr. Johnson was a CTO at Lockheed so there could be some cross pollination there.
That said, its kind of picking nits. If everything's a remix[1] is true, that is even MORE true in aviation.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
- nl 6y ago> Lots of differences with the x-59, no wing canards, one engine on the x-59 vs 3 on the XB-1, the XB-1 seems much shorter. Um yeah of course? My point was the the long nose + wing shape (which defines much of the aerodynamics) is much more similar than the X-3 where the wing shape is completely different. See pics here: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-077-DFRC.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-07... (Also hopefully the XB-1 is much better than the X-3 which was not a great plane!)