F-16.net

Ok, so what does everyone think about this one- some people have claimed the YF-23 was a better airplane than the YF-22. If we can look strictly at the prototypes (YF models), which do you guys think was the better airplane? I know there will be talk of "well they saw down the road the -22 could do this and this and this and this while the -23 could only do this and this", but when they were going head to head, what was really the better jet?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

I was working for McDonnell Douglas during the competition. The refusal of the YF-23 was a direct result of the political move on the part of John McDonnell who sold his family name and lost 57,000 jobs to acquire additional stock after Boeing purchased McDonnell Douglas. The YF-23 was a better airplane, same weapons dispensing capability, better stealth, and better maneuverability. Take a look at both airframes, which one looks more dynamically unstable? Of course, requiring better FCC's. It was a better airplane, Boeing is part subsidiary of the F-22. I'm afraid thats the story guys and reality.

I know politics played into it, just like the F-16/F-20/F-17 thing-they always do :-/ . I have heard the -23 was faster and more stealthy, they seemed about equal on maneuverability, but I don't remember anything about weapons capabilities.

They both got the job done, both were comparable with regards to weapons delivery. I feel really bad about the outcome of this competition, I'd probably have a job today.

I can't verify the accuracy of this so take it for what it is worth:

I was living near Wright-Patt when the demval for these two planes was taking place. A guy who was near the program told me the GE engined version of the F-23 was by far the better version of the four models tested. He said as far as acceleration, top speed, rate of climb and stealthiness the F-23 was the better plane but the F-22 had a slightly better instantaneous turn rate. But he said it did not matter, that politics would take over and the F-22 P&W would take the cake.

As I said, I cannot tell you this was accurate - I was not in the military or a civilian working on the project. The one thing he did say that seems to be held up nearly 15 years later is that the F-22 would be as big an advance over the F-15 as the F-15 was over the F-4 in total capability.

Personally, I think the F-23 is one bad-a$$ looking plane...would like to own one!

When I was in grad-school at Riddle while working at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach (the class was held at the base near Perris, it's closed now), I wrote a paper on the YF-22 in Aircraft and Spacecraft Development. I distributed the paper to all the officers in my class. In that paper I discussed the Pratt Engine and when I called them to get some data on the engines, they were very hush/hush about it.

This was after the competition. I tried to get N1 and N2 values, idle RPM, MIL PWR setting, and they wouldn't tell me anything. After additional research, I found out that the turbines may be made of ceramic material (single cell casting) with cooling air holes at the tips and slots at the leading edge. The compressors and turbine combinations of N1 and N2 were thought to have been capable of revolving at past sonic velocity. This may be reasonable, hence the supercruise. How is this possible? Perhaps variable position blades to keep from compressor stalls occuring. They are unique engines thats for sure. The GE engines on the YF-23 I don't know anything about except the fact they may have been superior. I have analyzed wind tunnel pictures and data of super-sonic airflow around the inlet and the data does indeed show compressible flow going into the intakes, (not much, but probably enough to allow the variable inlet guide vanes from the first stage vane and between compressor stages to allow diffusion to take place and not destroy the engine). After building several 1/32 scale models of the YF-22 aircraft (Testors), I have concluded that the inlet and intake do not diverge/converge very much further postulating that super-sonic flow may indeed enter the inlet and hence to the engine.

Wright Patterson supplied me with much data on the YF-22 and may still be available by contacting Public Relations. I still think the YF-23 should have won the competition for the reason I stated in an earlier post in this forum. Occamsrasr, thanks.

The 23 actually outperformed the 22 at the flyoff. One of the driving factors in the Raptor's favor was a lower maintenance cost prediction.

Last edited by allenperos on May 10, 2005 - 12:06 AM; edited 1 time in total

The YF-23 did not have vectored thrust? Did it not? Even now that I've checked, the triangled wings and twin boom tailplane could not provide for the maneuverability the YF-22 had with Vectored Thrust?

At high alpha units, compressorbility flow over the Vertical Stabs on the YF-22 only passed the upper 20%, completely over the rudder, whereas on the YF-23, the entire tailboom assemblies moved covering that problem at high alpha, vectored nozzles were not really necessary. I do believe superior flight control surfaces could override the absence of vectored thrust on the YF-23. Lets continue this while I research some more.

allenperos wrote:

The YF-23 did not have vectored thrust? Did it not?

No, the YF-23 was not designed to have vectored thrust. Here is a quote out of the book "Lockheed Stealth":

"The YF-23 did not use vectoed thrust. The simple-expansion-ramp nozzelswere built into thermally shielded trenches above the flat tail and between the V-tails, where they were protected against detection from below."

I realize they've stopped purchasing, however there are squadrons at Tyndall, Elmendorf, and either Lakenheath or Bentwaters. It's a shame, I'm not against the Viper, not by any means, besides we stopped purchsing them also. The YF-23 does not have vectored trust, only converging diverging nozzles, OOPPSS!!!

Author Bill Sweetman's book, "F-22 Raptor", does mention an attempt to provide the YF-23 with Vectored Thrust on an experimental F-15 with short-field-take-off capability, however the experiment was scrapped due to much added weight and cost. After looking at the superior view of the YF-23 on page 25 it doesn't appear that the YF-23 ever had Vectored Thrust.

allenperos wrote:

I realize they've stopped purchasing, however there are squadrons at Tyndall, Elmendorf, and either Lakenheath or Bentwaters. It's a shame, I'm not against the Viper, not by any means, besides we stopped purchsing them also. The YF-23 does not have vectored trust, only converging diverging nozzles, OOPPSS!!!

F-22 squadrons? If so, you are a bit off. I doubt the UK will ever get them. Alaska currently doesnt, but is tentatively scheduled to recieve them.

Where are the two F-23s today? In storage or being used by someone like NASA for tests? If they need a home my neighbor said he would go halves on the new garage...

Last edited by allenperos on May 10, 2005 - 01:24 AM; edited 1 time in total

After checking the web site on the F-22, the very first article on the forum shows an article for the commencement of F/A-22 to start in December 2005 at Langley.

As far as the YF-23 is concerned, one crashed and the other is at Wright Patterson on static display, enjoyed the evening with you guys!

allenperos wrote:

After checking the web site on the F-22, the very first article on the forum shows an article for the commencement of F/B-22 to start in December 2005 at Langley.

As far as the YF-23 is concerned, one crashed and the other is at Wright Patterson on static display, enjoyed the evening with you guys!

There is no such thing as the FB-22 at the moment. Langley will begin IOC with F/A-22s this December.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

YF-22 vs YF-23