F-16.net

ok, but wasnt the Widow heavier? and is it true that it could carry twice as much fuel as the F-22? Shocked

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1092

Tinito_16 wrote:

ok, but wasnt the Widow heavier? and is it true that it could carry twice as much fuel as the F-22? Shocked

What does that have to do with comparing the wing loading of the YF-23 to that of the YF-22 or F-22? If you want to compare the (empty) weights of two different aircraft, compare the (empty) weights. If you want to compare the internal fuel loads, compare the internal fuel loads. Comparing wing loadings of two different aircraft is not a valid analytical technique. There was an entire thread on this topic that you, I believe, started. If you still don't understand why, I don't know what else to say. Go re-read that huge wing loading thread and perhaps things will sink in a bit deeper.

Raptor_One wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

ok, but wasnt the Widow heavier? and is it true that it could carry twice as much fuel as the F-22? Shocked

What does that have to do with comparing the wing loading of the YF-23 to that of the YF-22 or F-22? If you want to compare the (empty) weights of two different aircraft, compare the (empty) weights. If you want to compare the internal fuel loads, compare the internal fuel loads. Comparing wing loadings of two different aircraft is not a valid analytical technique. There was an entire thread on this topic that you, I believe, started. If you still don't understand why, I don't know what else to say. Go re-read that huge wing loading thread and perhaps things will sink in a bit deeper.

Ok, I've been misunderstood. I put that I read somewhere that the YF-23 had lower wing loading, twice as much fuel etc., because someone else was taking about the Widow and why it wasn't chosen for production. I make no assumptions that wing loading (or fuel for that matter) is the defining factor in a fighter design. I just put it there because it was what I read, and I wanted to paraphrase it i.e. give the complete info. That was all. I do agree that wing loading is not the best way to compare fighter designs; in the article I read they compared many other things too, and focused on those in which the Widow excelled. I've read in fencecheck Dozer's posts, and he says wing loading doesn't tell the whole story. So I do agree with you, Raptor_One.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1092

I don't care if you agree with me or not to be honest. See, you've discovered for yourself that wing loading doesn't tell the whole story (from F-22 pilot, callsign Dozer). But the wing loading issue isn't something that you should decide to agree upon or not... it's just fact. There are clear equations showing how wing loading never comes into play without some other significant aerodynamic coefficient like CL.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

I've read that the YF-23 actually had a higher thrust to weight ratio, lower wing loading, and could carry about twice as much fuel as an F-22A. Would be good to know how those numbers would've changed had the Black Widow gone into production.

Well, yeah its possible about the wing loading since those wings on the 23 were same god damned big. But bear in mind this: for example, I can draw up plans for a plane the size of 747 with the same wing loading ratio, but that don't make it a fighter. Also, I don't see how the YF-23 was lighting that the YF-22... It was simply a larger airplane, with more surface area. May have been fast because ot aerodynamics... But a true blue dyed in the wool fighter, it was not. It was a heavier airplane... and its engines were spread apart which aint too cool for maximizing roll rates... It also had no post stall abilities...

Regardless of what people say about the stacked missile launchers being one of the reasons why the 23 was not selected ain't true. The 22 was simply a better fighter that could out turn it, probably out accel it, and still met the requirements for RCS and supercruise.

The 23 would have made an excellent replacement for the F-14, and its a shame that was never pursued as the 23 would have made an excellent long ranged interceptor to knock down enemey airplanes and cruise missiles at long range: it would have provided excellent top cover for our naval fleet (not to mention a long ranged LO supercruising bomber that would not have to worry about basing rights). All they needed to do to the 23 is do what they did to YF-17 and navalize it... Give it folding wings, beafier carrige, and a lo tailhook.... Maybe some wiring upgrades too to take into account salty air and the like (I'm not up on that stuff though).

But alas, the Navy as bogged down in the flying Dorito chip, which we all know what happened to that. Its too bad the Navy chose to upgrade the Hornet rather than to go to Noprthrop for a navalized 23. But I suppose that was a strategic decision based on the Navy essentially being able to "sneak" in the SH under everyone's radar.

As mush as a I dislike the F-35, a Navy air force composed of F-35s and F-23s would have been a hell of a Navy.

fox100 wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

I've read that the YF-23 actually had a higher thrust to weight ratio, lower wing loading, and could carry about twice as much fuel as an F-22A. Would be good to know how those numbers would've changed had the Black Widow gone into production.

Well, yeah its possible about the wing loading since those wings on the 23 were same god damned big. But bear in mind this: for example, I can draw up plans for a plane the size of 747 with the same wing loading ratio, but that don't make it a fighter. Also, I don't see how the YF-23 was lighting that the YF-22... It was simply a larger airplane, with more surface area. May have been fast because ot aerodynamics... But a true blue dyed in the wool fighter, it was not. It was a heavier airplane... and its engines were spread apart which aint too cool for maximizing roll rates... It also had no post stall abilities...

Regardless of what people say about the stacked missile launchers being one of the reasons why the 23 was not selected ain't true. The 22 was simply a better fighter that could out turn it, probably out accel it, and still met the requirements for RCS and supercruise.

The 23 would have made an excellent replacement for the F-14, and its a shame that was never pursued as the 23 would have made an excellent long ranged interceptor to knock down enemey airplanes and cruise missiles at long range: it would have provided excellent top cover for our naval fleet (not to mention a long ranged LO supercruising bomber that would not have to worry about basing rights). All they needed to do to the 23 is do what they did to YF-17 and navalize it... Give it folding wings, beafier carrige, and a lo tailhook.... Maybe some wiring upgrades too to take into account salty air and the like (I'm not up on that stuff though).

But alas, the Navy as bogged down in the flying Dorito chip, which we all know what happened to that. Its too bad the Navy chose to upgrade the Hornet rather than to go to Noprthrop for a navalized 23. But I suppose that was a strategic decision based on the Navy essentially being able to "sneak" in the SH under everyone's radar.

As mush as a I dislike the F-35, a Navy air force composed of F-35s and F-23s would have been a hell of a Navy.

Indeed. Theoretically speaking, if the YF-23 had had Vectoring engines, the roll rates would've been more than sufficient. I like the Raptor; I just wish the research and dollars Northrup spent on the YF-23 hadn't gone down the drain. Imagine an Air Force with both planes Drool

Too bad cost comes into play, but that's reality =(

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

If you look at the design of the YF-23's tail section, it never would have had thrust vectoring.

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2007 Posts: 29 Status: Offline

True... I don't see how they could install TV without ruining the LO charactics from below that the tail design was made to improve in the first place.

Look again, TV would have been possible, but in only one direction. The exhaust could have been deflected up, thus pushing the aft end of the airplane down and the nose up. Is that useful? I don't know.

Thrust vectoring would have been possible... If the engineers could've figured out a way to make it light enough while keeping the stealth. That means redisigning the nozzles.... Oh boy, it gets complicated...

Anyway, I think we got an amazing product in the F-22A.

Newbie Joined: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

That article is full of nothing but oversimplifications and assertions that are just plain wrong. Long wave radar is no magic counter to stealth as claimed in the article.And all those things such as bi/multistatic radar have their own problems.
Ignore russian trolls like rusky.

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Tinito_16 wrote:

Seems like they'll never stop....

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/milita ... -know.html

Ah, there's nothing like the smell of fear! Twisted Evil

Except when it involves brown pants. Shocked

Tinito_16 wrote:

The only thing I think he Raptor should use more of is rearward visibility.

It looks like the pilot can see directly behind him, except when the plane is on the ground (its nose is lower then), so I don't think there is even an issue at all.

Tinito_16 wrote:

However, that also depends on what other things would need to be sacrificed for the rearward view.

Yes, it's hard to change something without affecting something else. For one thing, there's a big fuel tank behind the cockpit.

fox100 wrote:

In all honesty, if you want to get to the heart of the sad ongoing debate about the YF-23 versus the YF-22, it was the YF-22 more fit in with Boyd's ideas on what made a fighter a fighter. The YF-23 didn't have post stall capabilities,

For what it's worth, Northrop claimed that the YF-23 could maneuver well at high alpha, and they were probably right, although they didn't demonstrate it like Lockheed did with the YF-22 (not that this matters much outside of airshows, in my opinion).

From the public's point of view, I suppose the ATF demonstrations could loosely be compared to picking puppies out at the pet store. The YF-23 was like a well-groomed puppy who sits in a corner and performs all of the basic tricks when told, while the YF-22 was like a scruffy puppy who does all of the same tricks and also bounces around, does flips, and licks your face, communicating in no uncertain terms "Pick me! Pick me!" Which one would you choose? Razz

fox100 wrote:

and its engines were so far apart that it affected its roll rates

Quite possibly, and the arrangement of the flight controls probably didn't help, either. However, its authority in pitch, at least in the upward direction, was said to be superb, which also seems pretty apparent from looking at the aircraft and its flight controls (not that you can always tell just by appearance by any means).

fox100 wrote:

enough for the USAF to out weigh the YF-22s super maneuvering (along with meeting the LO and supercruise requirements) to the YF-23s higher cruise speeds and lower RCS/IR. Not too mention the 23 most likely was more heavy, and ie, had a lower t/w ratio.

According to the USAF, both the F-22 and F-23 proposals met requirements, and honestly I would have been satisfied with the selection of either at the time, although I did prefer the F-22.

Tinito_16 wrote:

I've read that the YF-23 actually had a higher thrust to weight ratio,

It depends on how much the production F-23 would have weighed, which we'll never really know.

Tinito_16 wrote:

and could carry about twice as much fuel as an F-22A.

I seriously doubt it.

Tinito_16 wrote:

wasn't the YF-23 bigger than the YF-22 and even the F-22A? And therefore it must've been heavier too?

The YF-23 was a little longer than the YF-22 (which was in turn very slightly longer than the F-22A), and it was a flatter design that covered a greater area within its extremities, but the demonstrators were fairly equivalent in size overall. The F-23 probably would have been even longer than the YF-23, depending on which modified weapon bay configuration would have been chosen. As for weight, I don't even want to guess--let's just say that they were comparable in many respects, and leave it at that.

fox100 wrote:

The 22 was simply a better fighter that could out turn it, probably out accel it, and still met the requirements for RCS and supercruise.

The way I look at this, while both proposals are said to have met the requirements in all areas, in comparison to its potential adversaries--what really counts in the end--the F-22 would more likely be superior in a greater number of areas. The USAF said that criteria other than these were used to determine the winner, but this is why I favored the F-22, anyway.

Tinito_16 wrote:

Anyway, I think we got an amazing product in the F-22A.

I think that even if I had favored the F-23 originally, at this point there is no way I'd wish to go back in time and have the USAF change their decision.

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2007 Posts: 29 Status: Offline

Not to beat a dead horse, but wasn't the YF-22 further on its way to production than the -23? Perhaps the YF-23 was lacking some hardware that the 22 already had installed (ie weapons systems) and this contributed to the claim that the YF-23 had a better TW ratio during the flyoff. Once all of the avionics and weapons systems were crammed on the shoulda woulda coulda F-23 I doubt that it would have carried twice the fuel and had a higher TW than the production Raptor.

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Afterburned wrote:

Not to beat a dead horse, but wasn't the YF-22 further on its way to production than the -23?

All the public really knows for sure is that the YF-22 was to some degree a more complete demonstrator, being able to fire missiles from its bays, for example, and that the Lockheed team's demonstration was the far more aggressive of the two. However, what we have to keep in mind is that these were just demonstrators that were intended to validate some of the more important ATF requirements and provide some idea of the amount of risk involved--it was not a true fly-off between production-representative prototypes (obviously that would have been way too expensive). Since both demonstrators were successful, the selection was primarily made between the two proposed designs--the F-22 and F-23 "on paper"--as well as the programs themselves in terms of planning, cost estimates, and the concepts they embodied. The USAF did not ask Lockheed to test all of the things they did, including post-stall maneuverability, but they did it anyway, and while it was said that this was not a factor in the selection per se, it might have helped the F-22's case in that Lockheed had tons of data with which to validate their models and predictions, which reduced the risk of the program (one of the key criteria).

As for the "maturity" of the proposals, if I remember correctly, the F-23's basic configuration had been largely finalized much earlier, while the Lockheed team still struggled to come up with something workable. This meant that the YF-22's design had to be "frozen" at an earlier stage so that they had enough time (barely) to build the demonstrators, which is why they lacked many of the visible refinements made to the proposed F-22, while the YF-23, at the time, looked more like the proposed F-23. Put another way, the YF-23 was further along in design (at first), while the YF-22 was a more complete machine--two totally different things. That said, the way things worked out in the end, I believe that the USAF required more changes to be made to the proposed F-23 than the proposed F-22, with the risk of the latter being further mitigated by how closely the YF-22 matched its own predictions.

Afterburned wrote:

Perhaps the YF-23 was lacking some hardware that the 22 already had installed (ie weapons systems) and this contributed to the claim that the YF-23 had a better TW ratio during the flyoff.

Perhaps, but the bottom line is that both proposals met the key performance requirements, and the demonstrators performed satisfactorily in light of everything else the USAF knew (most of which the public doesn't), so minor differences in performance between the YF-22 and YF-23 should not be construed as representative of how the final production aircraft would have compared to one another.

Afterburned wrote:

Once all of the avionics and weapons systems were crammed on the shoulda woulda coulda F-23 I doubt that it would have carried twice the fuel and had a higher TW than the production Raptor.

It's natural for human beings to wax whimsical over what could have been, and we'd all be doing that now if the F-22 had failed, but this mean machine kicks butt like it was meant to, and that's what really matters in my view.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Another article dissing the Raptor