Talk:Grumman X-29

Conclusion

One thing the article would benefit from is a short paragraph explaining what the programme achieved, and why it came to an end. Presumably the X-29 was never supposed to be an actual operational fighter jet, but it's not clear from the article what came of all the research (I assume that NASA and Grumman concluded that swept-forward-wing designs were more trouble than they were worth, but of course this kind of thing is probably tricky to research). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article lacks avionics, communication, and ground control

The article needs more on avionics, communication (data), and ground control. The plane was not flyable solely by the pilot. This also limited range. 198.123.53.107 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft had (I believe) triple redundance fly by wire that assisted the pilot in flying the aircraft. This aspect has nothing to do with the aircraft's range.

If you see a void in avionics, comms, and/or GC info, please feel free to add properly referenced information to your heart's content. Ckruschke (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Bit of a lack of balance to this article?

This is a very positive article. All of the wonderful things that the X-29 achieved. So ... why are there no commercial or even military FSW planes in existence? After all of this positive stuff, is there after all something flawed with the design? Are there hidden difficulties in building this on a larger scale? Difficult to believe that if there were no negatives about the X-29, that we don't have lots of FSW planes around. Think that there needs to be something at the end of the article about why this design never took off (if you'll pardon the pun). Coz at the moment the whole thing reads like a Grumman sales promotion. Old_Wombat (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many X-planes that did not end up as production aircraft in any shape or form. This should not be construed as a knock on either the X-29 specifically or the X program in general or the purpose behind creation/flight testing of these aircraft. I would wager that DARPA, Grumman, NASA, and the aircraft community at large learned alot about how carbon-fiber aircraft members react in flight and advanced fly-by-wire controls (just to name two things that the aircraft was testing) that were then utilized in later production airframes.

As far as your comment about the article being a Grumman promo piece, I would ask that you point out specific items in the article that you feel are puffery or blatant promotion. Ckruschke (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Some of the operational service was written in a slightly flowery style, but I think I've sorted that. I don't see any particular puffery. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

One must wonder if there was any connection between the X-29 and the Gripen programme? The swedish light fighter jet was developed in about the same mid-1980s timeframe, made use of the same F-404 engine and canard wings and the fuselages look quite similar. 82.131.128.123 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen anything about a connection between the two programs of any kind. Yes, both use the same engine type, but it doesn't appear that the engine choice was in any way related, or a joint decision. One must assume the similarties are coincidental in the absense of any evidence of a connection between the two designs. By the way, talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic, but for how to improve the article itself. Your question itself is OK, but we really can't go into a detailed analysis of the similarities and differences between the designs here. - BilCat (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)