YF-22 vs YF-23

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post11 Oct 2018, 18:06

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ened-33116

While the Raptor has evolved into the single most capable air superiority fighter ever built, the YF-23 design—especially when combined with General Electric’s YF-120 variable cycle engines —was arguably more advanced. Compared to the YF-22, the YF-23 was faster and stealthier, but many have argued that it was less maneuverable than the thrust vector controlled precursor to the Raptor. However, the difference in maneuverability between the two designs was far slimmer than many might have imagined.

“Interestingly the YF-22 and YF-23 had exactly the same trimmed AoA [angle of attack] of 60° [degrees],” Paul Metz, who was Northrop’s test pilot for the first YF-23 prototype and who later became Lockheed Martin’s chief test pilot for the F-22, told me in an email in 2015. “The YF-23 could do it without thrust vectoring. Those V-tails are very powerful especially when coupled to an unstable airframe.”
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 640
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Oct 2018, 10:06

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:F-22 lost volume over YF-22 especially in rear fuselage and is also a bit shorter.

But is still 10,000 lbs heavier
disconnectedradical wrote:F-23 is actually longer than YF-23 and looking at cross sections the fuselage volume increased especially at middle.

Hence will be much heavier.
disconnectedradical wrote:Why are you obsessed with making F-22 best at everything? It's a great aircraft but it's not magically unbeatable.


the YF-22 prototype beat the YF-23 and post above clearly says why. I'm not saying its undefeatable but it is better than than anything in service in A-A and better than a fictional F-23 variant.


F-22 and YF-22 material wise are similar, F-23 and YF-23 aren't. F-23 would be plastic plane (over 50% of plane weight would be composites). YF-23 was metal plane. So we can't use F-22 and YF-22 analogy.

YF-22 was more agile that is sure but YF-23 had much better supersonic range, this was confirmed by Northrop ATF folks, YF-23 could do whole sortie flying supersonic and F-23 would be even better because it would carry more fuel then YF-23.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 02:20

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... ompetition

Modeler used the F-23 diagrams to show what the production aircraft would've looked like.

Unlike F-22, F-23 tails are placed far back so are not blanked out even at high AOA, which is why it can reach 60 degrees AOA even without thrust vectoring. F-22 is a fine aircraft but F-23 would've been better in most cases. Shame that McDonnell Douglas dropped the ball with the manufacturing and management plan.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2679
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 14:33

This debate will never die, and it's easy to see why - both are eye watering aircraft.

Whether you prefer one or the other, the fact is the US was flying not 1, but 2 stealth fighters more capable than anything flying today, almost 30 years ago!. We wound up with the F-22, without question the most capable air dominance fighter today, and likely for the next 20 years. The F-23 would have been equally capable, probably better suited to the SCS scenario but also might have been more expensive, resulting in even fewer than 187 airframes.

I do believe the F-23 would have been as maneuverable, even without the thrust vectoring. Look at the F-35, performing thrust vector like maneuvers without thrust vectoring. The F-23 had massive control surfaces and outrageously powerful engines. The very ingredients needed for such.

You always remember fondly the one that got away...
Attachments
YF-23A-324x160.jpg
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1854
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 15:00

I agree with nearly everything you said except for this last line
mixelflick wrote:I do believe the F-23 would have been as maneuverable, even without the thrust vectoring.


On the documentary about the YF-23 Even Northrop executives were quick to admit that Lockheed's design emphasized maneuverability much more than they did.

Like the F-35, I think there will be parts of the envelope where the F-23 will closely match the F-22 in maneuverability. However what sets the F-22 apart is the maneuverability it has in the extreme ends of the envelope. According to Paul Metz

All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability.


No matter how exceptionally well designed the YF-23 is, it will still suffer the same trim drag increase caused by the tail surface deflection. It'll be better than F-15s and Flankers but not as good as the Raptor, not in my opinion
Previous

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests