YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 19:47
by VPRGUY
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?

RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 20:28
by allenperos
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.

RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 20:31
by VPRGUY
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.

RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 20:35
by allenperos
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.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 20:54
by Occamsrasr
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-ass looking plane...would like to own one!

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 22:42
by allenperos
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.

RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 22:57
by calhoun
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.

RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 22:58
by allenperos
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 23:07
by agilefalcon16
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."

RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 23:10
by allenperos
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!!!

RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 23:31
by allenperos
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: YF-22 vs (hehehe)- YF-23

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2005, 23:51
by calhoun
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 00:03
by Occamsrasr
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...

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 00:21
by allenperos
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!

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 00:24
by calhoun
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 00:25
by allenperos
I know, just corrected that.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 01:04
by calhoun
Actually, we've been flying here since January.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 03:15
by Occamsrasr
Oh, I thought the P&W YF-22 crashed and the GE bird was at the museum dressed up to look like the P&W version. For some reason I thought the two F-23s were in storage or being used by NASA.

I heard we were getting F-22s here at Elmendorf but who knows how long that will take. Not sure if the 12th or 19th FS will get them. Less "Chucks" for me to watch in the pattern I guess.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 03:43
by calhoun
Occamsrasr wrote:Oh, I thought the P&W YF-22 crashed and the GE bird was at the museum dressed up to look like the P&W version. For some reason I thought the two F-23s were in storage or being used by NASA.

I heard we were getting F-22s here at Elmendorf but who knows how long that will take. Not sure if the 12th or 19th FS will get them. Less "Chucks" for me to watch in the pattern I guess.


YF crashed a back in 97 or 98. Elmendorf *might* get them, still up in the air.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 04:48
by F16VIPER
01 Mar 2005



The outline shape of Northrop Grumman's proposed F/B-23 "regional" bomber concept may have been revealed inadvertently in the form of a desk-top model recently advertised on eBay, the on-line auction house.

The model, which was suddenly withdrawn from sale on 23 February, is dubbed F/B-23 RTA (Rapid Theater Attack), and is therefore believed to relate to earlier concepts predating the US Air Force's more recent long-range-strike studies. However, the overall configuration retains the basic rhomboid wing, and outward- canted empennage of the baseline YF-23A, in addition to an enlarged fuselage that forms the basis for Northrop Grumman's interim bomber proposal.

Other features of the model that may distance it from the YF-23-based actual proposal include axisymmetric engine nozzles and larger, semi-circular engine inlets.

Northrop Grumman declines to comment on the model, or its appearance, but confirms continued pursuit of USAF bomber studies and says "we are definitely interested in all those possibilities".

The model's appearance coincides with the decision by the USAF's Air Combat Command to launch an analysis of alternatives (AOA) around the third-quarter of 2005 that could lead to a competitive development programme for an interim long-range-strike aircraft.

The revised USAF plan indicates an 18-month AOA phase, leading to the creation of a capabilities development document by the end of 2007.

This could pave the way for a later system development and demonstration phase aimed at 2018 initial operating capability.

The 2006 USAF budget includes money for the regional bomber study work, but there is currently no additional funding in the service's five-year budget plan. Another issue is that the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22, which forms the basis for a potential proposed F/B-22 interim bomber variant, is likely to be out of production by then under the current budget plans.

The long-abandoned YF-23A Advanced Tactical Fighter emerged as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the USAF's interim bomber requirement last July when Northrop Grumman retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes from the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California. The move, made ostensibly for repainting for display at an air fair that August, also included several cosmetic modifications believed to be linked to the bomber bid.

Under the original timetable, the interim bomber was intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for IOC by 2018 rather than 2015.



YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid
13th - 19th Jul 2004

Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum and could be heading for bomber contest

Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement.

The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications.

Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF "is interested".

Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2, X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".

Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22, the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept.

The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with an initial operating capability by 2015.

GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 04:53
by allenperos
I'll be dead by then, would like to see it re-emerge though. Thanks for the data.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2005, 17:01
by VPRGUY
Lots of good info in there about a 'regional' bomber, never thought this thread would generate something like that. Pretty interesting stuff, thats for sure. There was mention of the F/B-22, if it went to production, having 75% of the range of a B-2. I can't help but wonder how well that would work in a single-pilot aircraft? Seems an awful long time for one guy to sit in the seat for regular missions (U-2 buffs, I know your guys do it...).

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 03:28
by Bwadwey
didn't someone in this thread say that there are rumours that the YF-23 became a black project while the YF-22 became a white project or something. My eyes are too tired to find it and i can't seem ot find it.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 03:54
by TenguNoHi
I'll be dead by then, would like to see it re-emerge though. Thanks for the data.


Dont be so pessimistic, you might be in an iron lung at least :p (J/K)

Good stuff here... I remember an article in the Dayton Daily about the YF-23 being moved to Wright Patt not to long ago. IIRC, it is still in the shop on base and not in the museum yet. They are doing quite a bit of restoration work to it. Apparantly both YF-23s never got the luxary of storage. They just sat on a runway at their last location untill they decayed. IIRC in the newspaper article one of the museum curators was saying that it was almost as bad as restoring "older fighters" with an implication dating back to at least Vietnam era.

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 04:08
by allenperos
In 2037, I'll be 73, I hope to hell I'm not on this planet at that time. If so, I'll be flying again, guarentee you that. TenquNoHi, they really left the jets outside to rot?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 04:42
by F16VIPER

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 18:09
by VPRGUY
I had heard the same thing, about them letting the airplanes 'sit'. I can't open the above link, so I don't know if that addresses it. But, I had heard references that the airplane sat on a ramp near the end of a runway at the manufaturers airfield.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 19:30
by TenguNoHi
VPRGUY its basically just a picture of the F-23s wear caused by the weather decay from being exposed outside for so long. Paints all peeling and just, that kinda stuff.

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 19:57
by agilefalcon16
Great web site F-16VIPER :thumb: , it had alot of YF-23 pics along with some YF-17 pics to. Here's one of them.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 20:34
by Roscoe
Unless you sat in on the source selection, or were part of higher company management that got the USAF post-selection debrief, you won't know the reason for the F-22 winning over the YF-23. I heard that the YF-23 was faster and the YF-22 was more maneuverable. Both rumors make sense to me based on basic vehicle shape.

What folks may not realize is that selection is based on a multitude of factors:

1) Cost - this not only means purchase price but also long-term operating cost (fuel, manpower, spares, tools, tech manuals etc)

2) Risk - Each company is evaluated for its ability to produce what they propose for the cost they say and within the schedule they say. We all know overruns and slips will occur, we just try to estimate which bidder is more or less likely than the others. A big part of this is based on how much new technology is being implemented relative to that company's experience with those technologies.

3) Performance - Obvious, but you have to realize that the USAF Request for Proposal (RFP) asks for a certain level of performance...exceeding the requirement helps, especially everything else being equal, but won't necessarily guarantee a win if the other guys just barely meets the requirements (key is he DID meet them) but are better elsewhere (cost, risk, etc).

There can be other factors and usually are, but these are the big ones.

All that said, I had friends in the ATF program office who said that both were great, but overall the Lockheed Martin proposal was judged just a bit better.

As an aside, a reference was made above to a "flyoff". The "Dem Val" was NOT a flyoff. They were not compared to each other (In fact no pilot or engineer worked on both aircraft...that was intentional to ensure nobody got an edge). Each aircraft's performance was in reality compared to it's paper proposal to provide the USAF confidence in the design. Specifically, the aircraft were flown to demonstrate areas that the contractor or the USAF felt were risk areas to show that the risk was manageable. For example, one contractor (forget which) fired a missile from its internal weapons bay whereas the other did not see the need to do so. (one design was judged to be risky and it was deemed prudent to demonstrate that it would work).

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 02:22
by EBJet
Maneuverablity was very close, with the YF-23 having an edge at higher speeds (transonic), while the YF-22 was better in the slow speed regime. The YF-23 also had a much lower RCS than the YF-22. The GE powered PAV-2 "unofficially" supercruised at a bit better than M 1.8, and this was with pre-production GE YF-120 engines, which gave PAV-2 a much better T/W ratio.

The YF-23 also would have gone through a gestation somewhat similar to the YF-22. For example, the prototypes engine nacelles were squared off at the top, which were like that to accomodate the cancelled requirement for thrust reversers. The production aircraft would have had smaller nacelles rounded on the top which would have reduced its RCS even further. The inlets also would have been much different on production aircraft, and I won't be specific because it probably is still classified.

I saw Roscoe talking about the missile firings from the YF-22,and made me think of the first AIM-9 firing from the side bay. The rocket plume was ingested by the engine, forcing a shutdown and an emergency being declared. Someone posted earlier that one of the YF-23's crashed. Not true,they both performed very well in Dem/Val. It actually was a YF-22 that pancaked into the ground due to PIO (and a software glitch).

As far as I know, there are only two people to have flown both aircraft,one being (then) USAF Maj. Con Thueson during Dem/Val, and the other being Paul Metz who became Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot after leaving Northrop,where he was also Chief Test Pilot. If you ever meet him,ask him which he liked better. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 04:27
by F16VIPER
Only God knows why the YF-22 was selected. The main difference appeared to be that the -22 was more manoeuverable in some regimes, but supposedly manoeuverability is not as critical because of VBR missiles. The Yf-23 is a mean looking beast that I have the impression was far superior. We will never know.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 04:51
by calhoun
Maintenance cost was what we were told at the CTF. The 22 was cheaper to maintain and operate.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 15:30
by Roscoe
EBJet wrote:The YF-23 also had a much lower RCS than the YF-22.


I would be real interested in how you would know that, because if you were truly in a position to know, you would know better than to talk about it here. Besides, just because an airplane "looks" like it has a better RCS, that doesn't mean diddly squat. Too many subtle interactions and details that can overwhelm a return and make an otherwise cool-looking design be lousy.

...But let's say you're right and the -23 did have a smaller RCS (which is a misnomer, because "RCS" has so many facets (so to speak) that it is like saying an aircraft has better performance...too generic a statement to mean anything). Do you know what the RCS specification required? It's possible it may have been better, but the F-22 may have been good enough and cheaper, and I guarantee you the way that the US does competitions that good enough and cheaper will win every competition every time.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 20:31
by VPRGUY
Ease of construction plays a part too, I'm sure; look how quickly WWII grumman fighters got put into construction compared to hard(er)-to-build planes like the corsair. Ditto with Hurricanes vs. Spitfires, and ME109's against the 190.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2005, 16:09
by Roscoe
We couldn't care less about ease of construction except that it leads directly to lower production cost. Ease of maintenance is a totally different story however.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 17:48
by EBJet
"I would be real interested in how you would know that"


I'm sure you probably have a pretty good idea how I might know that..Having said the YF-23 had a lower RCS than the YF-22 without actually talking about numbers, reveals absolutely nothing which would be deemed inappropriate, and breaks no rules.

I do indeed know what the RCS specification called for in the proposal, and also how many different "facets" there are to coming up with an absolute number. As I'm sure you know, there are a huge number of aspects to RCS testing, both on the pole and in the air, which we shouldn't go into here.

I do disagree with you to a certain extent about the "looks" of an aircraft. When you are talking about low observable aircraft vs. non-low obeservables, then certain methods for signature reduction are plainly obvious. When you are talking about comparing two stealthy aircraft from the same generation however, the differences are much more subtle, and not as easily discerned, as you pointed out.

I agree with you about how "good enough and cheaper will win everytime" and it is an accurate assesment. It makes me wonder though,if the -23, if chosen, would have ended up being as expensive as the -22 is turning out to be, although some of the cost escalations are through no fault of the Raptor itself.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 23:13
by allenperos
Roscoe, thanks for jumping in, you always manage to clear things up alot. Glad you took a peak at this forum, it was a good one.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 23:59
by Polaris
I'm not sure if the information I'm asking for is classified or not, but: How did the YF-23's yaw rate compare to that of the YF-22?

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 01:03
by LazyTed
I'm not sure if the information I'm asking for is classified or not, but: How did the YF-23's yaw rate compare to that of the YF-22?


It's classified.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2005, 02:35
by allenperos
Have you heard of "Q" units, or artificial feel systems in a computerized flight control management system, let me tell you, the yaw rate was "adequate", whatever that means. Question is off-topic really, and irrelevant.

LazyTed; integrate the following: 3X^2, do that and I'll send you a check for a million, oh, by the way, differentiate the integration and, in essay, explain the relationship between the two functions along the "X" axis if X=2.

I've got your answer Ted, whenever you want it. Its been about a week now.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2005, 04:39
by F16VIPER
Northrop Gruman has responded quickly to the Pentagon's request for proposals for a next-generation long-range strike aircraft that could be ready for operations by about 2018. Company designers are offering four options. First is a stealthy, manned high-altitude, half-size B-2-like flying wing design. Second is an unmanned version with even longer range and endurance. Third is a bomber version of its F-23 fighter with only minor changes to the diamond wing, V-tail design.

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology 05/16/2005, page 22

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2005, 23:02
by Bwadwey
Is there a name to this program or the plane itself? Are there any other competitors?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2005, 01:10
by calhoun
The -23? Black Widow.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2005, 03:17
by TenguNoHi
Any reason the UCAV won't win?

From that article post; already sounds like its got the lead edge on both other designs...

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 08:29
by ximeno
First look at this site: http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/yf23a.htm

RCS is done best if the A/C is in a hopeless Diamond configuration, a hopless diamond is like taking 2 pyraminds, one biger than the other and point the pointy sides together. The F-23 has that, making it a better RCS than the f-22.

F-23 did loose to the F-22 because of politics and politics only but it is being reborn to fill the roll of the F-111 (first a NAVY bird gone air force before F-14) but it did everything to what the fly specs were, it did not have VT nor lauching a missle because it was not part of the fly off.

F-22 WAS gonna cost 30 mill a copy but is now a staggering 250 mill a copy after being from concept (1981) to now

The UCAV will not win because for one thing L/M has 2 contracts that are having some problems (F-22, F-35) (the NAVY will not buy F-35 because it is a single eng a/c) and the govt wants to share the egg basket with other manufacters than one.

In think the F-23 was and still is the better aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 10:29
by allenperos
Truthful post ximeno, you have excellent credentials with McDonnell Douglas and the USAF.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 23:27
by Bwadwey
(the NAVY will not buy F-35 because it is a single eng a/c)??

What's the F-35C for then?[/quote]

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 23:42
by apags27
As far as I know the F-35C is the the VTOSL version whis is being made specifficly for the Navy, so unless it wont go into production I think they will get it.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 01:58
by allenperos
The front exhaust is cold air drawn in from the fan rear of the cockpit, it is driven by the main engine with a shaft that runs with the RPM of N1.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 02:02
by TenguNoHi
I thought the marines got the VSTOL, the Navy's had different changes. Larger wing span for more controlled slower landings, better landing gear, etc.... ?

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 02:09
by allenperos
They both will get VSTOL, as far as the changes go I don't know the specifics. I asked the Navy about this, they declined to answer TenquNoHi.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 08:53
by VPRGUY
Correct, TenquHoNi, marines are getting the VSTOL B model, and navy is getting the C model with the larger wing and beefier gear/tailhook. The navy has no need for VSTOL; they got catapults and arrestor cables :)

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 09:06
by allenperos
Good point VPRGUY, didn't know that. The Marines will be using LPH's to go shipboard. The Navy will use the carriers. I can't wait to see the F-35C launch. How did we get on this topic?

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2005, 09:21
by VPRGUY
Personally, it happened for me while I was sitting here reading, drinking a beer...

:pint:


Gawd, 221 posts in under 20 days.... I really gotta get out of korea.....

:shock:

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2005, 08:58
by allenperos
Decided to clarify a subject I commented on regarding Vectored Thrust on the F/A-22 vs. Non-Vectored Thrust on the YF-23 Flight Controls better or just as good as the -22 configuration, apparently, now that I've read some information on the F119, it is true, Vectored Thrust does indeed augment instantenous turn rate, roll rate, and of course pitch. So I really think, the -23 still did an incredible job without the vectored thrust, if it had a different system, it would have been something indescribable, to the winner, goes the spoils.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2005, 19:31
by calhoun
TV only comes into effect past a certain AoA and the amount of force applied to the stick transducer.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2005, 05:57
by Northax
Hey guys, I'm new to this stuff myself, but I'm really enjoying the discussion about these two awesome jets. Personally, I always liked the YF-23's design way more than the F-22, except that I liked the F-22's TVC for better maneuverability.

The thing I wish is: Lockheed and Northrop both designed the jet together! The YF-23 would've probably been the main jet design, only with TVC! :D

But, that didn't happen. :x

Maybe they could've put canards on it also; that in 'stealth-mode' would be hidden, and in 'WVR-battle-mode' would pop out and the jet'd be even more maneuverable! :D

But, that didn't happen. :x

Maybe in 30-40 years it will? Eh? :roll:

A man can dream, can he not!? :wink:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2005, 10:32
by Shaker
There are 2 overwhelming reasons why the YF-22 won the competition and neither one of them has anything to do with performance or maintenance costs.

1) Northrup already had the B-2 contract. The USAF wasn't about to give Northrup ALL their money.

2) Sam Nunn, who at the time was on the Senate Armed Forces Appropriation Committe, voted for his constituants.. From Georgia. Where Lockheed-Martin is located.

Sadly it was all VERY political. The YF-23 had a lower RCS by not a small margin, was faster, and performed the 'intended' role of the ATF better by most people's opinion. I was an air traffic controller during the tests at LA Center and personally handled the traffic in the supersonic corridor northeast of Nellis AFB. While I can't give numbers anymore (too long ago for my brain), I can absolutely tell you without question that the YF-23 was faster. Acceleration rate in max military power had it running away from F-15's in full AB. The YF-22 was good.. don't misunderstand, but the Black Widow was hands down the better aircraft and fell victim to old tradition of our armed forces getting the second rate equipment for political reasons.

Shaker

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2005, 17:46
by allenperos
The YF-23 does have a future with the redesigning of wings and empennage. It will emerge in the next several years according to the "Dreamland" website. I know understand the allowance of the YF-22 winning the DEM/VAL competition over the YF-23 and understand the purchase of McDonnell Douglas Commercial and Jet Fighter sale to Boeing Aerospace and apologize for the comment I have made towards Jon McDonnell and his selling of his Corporation.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 06:05
by allenperos
Some photos of ship 042, the first F/A-22 to arrive at Langley.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 06:28
by sferrin
allenperos wrote:Some shots of the 1st F/A-22 ship (042) delivered to Langley:


where?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 06:33
by allenperos
Here are some shots enroute with F-15 escort.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 12:31
by checksixx
What Titanium??

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 13:28
by allenperos
Around the powerplant hot-section. Also, from what has been published, the fuselage sections also have titanium materials, about 39% of it.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 13:57
by Roscoe
This is gonna be fun...
Shaker wrote:There are 2 overwhelming reasons why the YF-22 won the competition and neither one of them has anything to do with performance or maintenance costs.

1) Northrop already had the B-2 contract. The USAF wasn't about to give Northrop ALL their money.

Having run and/or participated in multiple source selections for DoD contracts, I can tell you with 150% certainty that this is never a player. The source selection criteria MUST be documented with grading levels before the RFP is even released. (1) Do you think anyone would ever put something like this this in writing? And if it ain't in Section M of the Source Selection Plan, it ain't a factor (2) If Northrop were going to be excluded, it would have known this before contract award and therefore would never have let them bid. Leading them on to spend millions of their own money preparing multiple proposals is setting you up for a lawsuit. (3) Excluding a capable bidder would break so many laws it isn't funny.
Shaker wrote:2) Sam Nunn, who at the time was on the Senate Armed Forces Appropriation Committee, voted for his constituents.. From Georgia. Where Lockheed-Martin is located.

Wrong. Nunn had nothing to do with it BY LAW (although I will concede that he most likely played a role in placing the production line in Georgia rather than Texas) Source Selection Authority for DoD contracts were, are, and always will be DoD officials. Can you even imagine the number of protests that would result if senators and congressmen had this kind of power? It would paralyze the DoD (just like it has paralyzed congress... :))
Shaker wrote:Sadly it was all VERY political. The YF-23 had a lower RCS by not a small margin...

How would an air traffic controller have any idea of the relative RCS of the two designs? In fact, for competitive reason very few people were allowed to know both unless they were involved in the measurements or VERY top level decision making. And if for some unimaginable reason you did, you would have signed a non-disclosure agreement to NOT talk about it...ever...or face lengthy jail time. So STOP it already.
Shaker wrote:...was faster...

I'll buy that it may have been faster, but you obviously don't understand requirements. If the slower plane meets the operational requirement, then more speed by its competitor isn't necessarily a good thing if it sacrifices something else or costs more money. It's a balance of overall capability (“best value”), and that includes maintainability (of not just the plane but also the signature), cost, perceived risk/likelihood of success by the company and its leadership...
Shaker wrote:...and performed the 'intended' role of the ATF better by most people's opinion.

I love these kinds of comments…“by most people”. I would love to know who “most people” are. Certainly not anybody involved with the program. They were the folks who (1) were biased for Northrop (like employees) or (2) folks with only peripheral knowledge and base their opinions on rumor, pretty pictures, and limited areas of concern (e.g. ignoring all the factors that go into selecting a winner and focusing on narrow areas like top speed)
Shaker wrote:I was an air traffic controller during the tests at LA Center and personally handled the traffic in the supersonic corridor northeast of Nellis AFB. While I can't give numbers anymore (too long ago for my brain), I can absolutely tell you without question that the YF-23 was faster. Acceleration rate in max military power had it running away from F-15's in full AB.

The supersonic corridor was NOT northeast of Nellis but is in the R-2508 airspace over Edwards. I've flown in it, and I was golfing at Edwards in those days watching the tests overhead.
Shaker wrote: While I can't give numbers anymore (too long ago for my brain), I can absolutely tell you without question that the YF-23 was faster. Acceleration rate in max military power had it running away from F-15's in full AB.

Sure the -23 may have been faster, but unless you knew the test points and why they were doing those points, you have no clue about their relative performance by just watching radar tracks. And how does an air traffic controller know the throttle settings of an aircraft in a test range? Don’t think that data was available unless it was said over the radio, and in this environment I will bet a paycheck that they wouldn’t have said this over an open radio (OPSEC and all)
Shaker wrote:The YF-22 was good.. don't misunderstand, but the Black Widow was hands down the better aircraft and fell victim to old tradition of our armed forces getting the second rate equipment for political reasons.

BS, crap, and all that. The F-22 was selected because it WAS THE BETTER OVERALL SYSTEM.

out

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 14:09
by allenperos
Well Roscoe, if anyone around here would know about this competition, it be you. I have a great tendency to lean more towards what you have to say than anyone else, although I must admit I too have alittle bias towards the competition, but if you say so, then I know things are true. Great comments, great presentation, once again, thank you.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 14:17
by Guysmiley
Well formed argument Roscoe, thank you for approaching it reasonably. You DO have to admit the YF-23 looks cooler, and I think that plays a part in biasing the uninformed public. I know I was rooting for Northrop, but not for any quantatitive reasons.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 14:21
by Roscoe
ximeno wrote:First look at this site: http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/yf23a.htm

Yea, there is an authoritative source…
ximeno wrote:RCS is done best if the A/C is in a hopeless Diamond configuration, a hopless diamond is like taking 2 pyraminds, one biger than the other and point the pointy sides together. The F-23 has that, making it a better RCS than the f-22.

Utter nonsense. There are many ways to lower RCS. And you have NO way of knowing which plane was better other than “I read it on the internet”.
ximeno wrote:F-23 did loose to the F-22 because of politics and politics only...

Utter crap. The contract calls for requirements, and the proposals are graded based on how they met those criteria (which by the way include a whole lot more than just RCS and aero performance) against a standard that must be approved before the RFP is ever released.
ximeno wrote: ...but it did everything to what the fly specs were, it did not have VT nor launching a missile because it was not part of the fly off.

I won’t argue that it MAY have met all the specs…you or I will never know this one way or the other. But you also have to concede that you have no idea as to 1) how the F-22 did against the specs and 2) the proposed cost. Based on the source selection criteria, the better plane won.
ximeno wrote:F-22 WAS gonna cost 30 mill a copy but is now a staggering 250 mill a copy after being from concept (1981) to now.

You read the newspapers too much. $30M a copy (in today’s dollars) was never the projected cost. Besides, you are comparing apples and oranges...there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in flyaway or marginal cost (cost to built one more) and the total amortized cost that includes all the developmental expenses. LM recently announced that they had gotten the unit cost down to (warning...memory) about $130M and hope to eventually get it down to less than $100M.
ximeno wrote:...the NAVY will not buy F-35 because it is a single eng a/c)...

What ARE you smoking??? The Navy is a full partner in the F-35 program.
ximeno wrote:...and the govt wants to share the egg basket with other manufacturers than one.

To the best of my knowledge (and I’ve been doing this since 1984), this has never been a factor.
ximeno wrote:In think the F-23 was and still is the better aircraft.

You are entitled to an opinion, but at least make it an informed one.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 06:46
by ottleymonkey
how many weapon compartments does YF-23 have? As I recalled, all weapons are located in the belly, and in an event of a jam door, the plane could be useless. I wonder if the "V" tail configuration compromises it's agility.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 07:56
by allenperos
True, false.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 17:48
by Roscoe
Guysmiley wrote:Well formed argument Roscoe, thank you for approaching it reasonably. You DO have to admit the YF-23 looks cooler, and I think that plays a part in biasing the uninformed public. I know I was rooting for Northrop, but not for any quantatitive reasons.


As for looks...absolutely. I was at Edwards during the Dem-Val and we all thought he YF-22 looked more like Dumbo than a fighter with those HUGE tails. The 23 was certainly slicker, but I thought it looked awfully long and had vairly small control surfaces to be very nimble.

Some time later I worked with Northrop on an F-5 avionics upgrade program ("Tiger IV") and we wre provided a hangar at Edwards. Turned out one of the YF-23 birds was in there on a trailer. Was supposed to go to an airshow but the mountings (to the trailer) were judged to weak and concerned that a bump on the road would liberate the bird, it was parked...Sure was a damn cool looking airplane!

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 18:54
by VPRGUY
Roscoe wrote:
ximeno wrote:...the NAVY will not buy F-35 because it is a single eng a/c)...

What ARE you smoking??? The Navy is a full partner in the F-35 program.


Good point Roscoe, and I'll add one more that I've mentioned before; the navy won WWII with single engine aircraft. Two isn't always better, and with the reliability of modern jet engines (single engine AF jets fly accross the ocean all the time) having one or two engines is almost a moot point these days. My :2c: anyway.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2005, 02:46
by LWF
In my opinion, the YF-22 was the better of the two, because when Northrop designed the YF-23, they tried to make it as conventional as possible, quite simply put they tried to make an innovative, conventional plane. And also, according to my sources the YF-23's higher top speed was projected, and was never proven.

I say if the plane is a magnificent fighter but it costs the national treasury to maintain and takes a long time to service it may not be a good idea to buy it.

But truth be told, most of this discussion is all academic, because now that the Widow is rejected we have no idea how it would have performed in a war and the only basis we have to judge on is on how it performed under more or less optimal conditions.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2005, 02:23
by EBJet
I'd have to disagree with your opinion that the YF-23 was "conventional". Its design was anything but conventional,and this was due to an unprecedented set of requirements for the proposal.

The F-22 "looks" a lot more conventional in design than the YF-23,but to suggest the Raptor is a "conventional" fighter as compared to say,an F-15,would be highly inaccurate,and the same rationale applies to the YF-23 as well. I can't speculate on the Raptor's top speed as compared to what the YF-23 could achieve, but it's a well known fact (and long since unclassified for you touchy folks) that the YF-23 supercruised quite a bit faster than the YF-22. Heck, if I'm not mistaken,the F-119 powered YF-23 supercruised faster than the GE F-120 powered YF-22, and the F-120 had a good bit more thrust than the F-119.

BTW, the supercruise speed of the GE F-120 powered YF-23 is still classified, but is officially listed by Northrop and GE as "Very fast @ 41,000 ft." As for my opinion, that's the combo (-23/GE F-120) that shoulda won the contract. But then again, maybe I'm just a bit biased :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2005, 04:47
by allenperos
Not to fret, the aircraft will be back in some way shape or form.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2005, 06:56
by LordOfBunnies
Now that many of the major aircraft contractors were forced to consolidated in part due to this contract, is it viable to have major contracts like this again? I mean Northrupp and Grumman joined up, and Lockheed also absorbed someone didn't they? Oh well, with these major Design, Build, Test contracts they seem to costs so much that its almost insane to ask companies to do this again. Am I just insane for thinking this or will the AF offer more incentive next time around?

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2005, 09:00
by allenperos
Everyone is going to get involved in the restoration besides the Air Force, it is scheduled to undergo a bombing role and will be in part the responsibilty of Boeing if I'm not mistaken. Read the LA Times article by Guy Norris in a previous post.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 05:16
by ximeno
these are some new pics that I found. long live the F-23[img]

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 06:14
by Pat1
Hi ximeno,

Do you have dates to go with those pics?

Thanks in advance

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 07:22
by ximeno
PAT1 no I don't but what I can tell you is that from multiple sights (scramble.nl) and people that it was after they moved it this year or sometime last summer. (hence the leak)
but
from I did hear is that northrup is thinking of putting a scramjet or ramjet on it. I was told that this info was from "Aviation Weekly" but I don't know what issue it was from, all that I know that it was sometime this year. The article also states the intermediate bomber to fill the missing role of the F-111.[/quote]

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 07:44
by Sniper69
But the F-15E covers the F-111's old mission. That would be cool to see a YFB-22, YFB-23 flyoff though :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 08:35
by ximeno
no not really, it can't go as fast as the F-111 can
the F-111 can go around mach 3
yfb-22 flyoff don't count on it because----

LM has 2 contracts now, both overbudget.

AF want a new bomber to be able to go stateside to ?, fastser and cheaper than using the wing bomber.

and what is going to replace the jets in service now when there service life is met, when the earliest expectation for the JFS is when it is years away?

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 14:30
by Roscoe
F-111 going Mach 3? Not a chance. You're smoking that wacky weed again :)

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 14:43
by boff180
Maybe he means low level ability; the F-111 had a low level terrain following capability second only to the Tornado. I know the F-15E is equipped with terrain following radar however its huge wing area is a big negative factor in extreme low level ops... not only does it dramatically increase bufetting making weapon release more inaccurate but it also heightens crew fatigue from the buffeting. To quote one of my books that compares low-level intidictor aircraft it likens the F-15E to the Mirage-2000D/N "litteraly shakes your eyeballs out of their sockets".

Andy

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 15:19
by Safetystick
Quite, with the emphasis on medium altitude bombing the empasis has switched from low level speed/agility (that the Tonka and F-111 excelled at) to sensor capability and payload capacity. Certainly the F-15E has the F-111 beat on sensors (SAR, modern targetting pods, etc) although its pretty close between the F-111 and the F-15E on payload!

Of course, we are now approaching a new age where even raw payload capacity is less of a concern compared to stealth due to the introduction of SDB and the like. Without the penalty of reduced weapons carriage, an F/B-22 (or 23) becomes a very attractive project, replacing both the F-15E and the F-117 in one airframe!


But a Mach 3 F-111? Is that downhill, with the wind beind you, frictionless air and a rocket tied to the ****? :P

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 16:36
by Guysmiley
With the fuel dump on fire and 8 reindeer hitched to it...

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 22:50
by habu2
I have posted a few YF-23 pics in this thread that were taken at the USAF Museum annex in August of this year. Not a pretty sight.....

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2005, 23:03
by Guysmiley
Ouch. Poor girl. You'd think they at least wouldn't have taken a saw to the wings.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 05:32
by ximeno
Roscoe -your bois is THAT REALLY what you do if so you know more from a management pov not a mechanic pov, have you work on civi jets? If so what ?

Oh yes, I would like to know why the f-16 are not allowed to shoot their guns?

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 06:19
by Roscoe
ximeno - I have no idea what your last message is asking. But to clarify, I spent 20 years in the USAF acquisition business as a flight testers and program manager...

As for why the F-16 doesn't shoot the gun...every time it is fired there is significant maintenance required. So, firings are limited to required training or actual combat requirements.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 06:45
by Guysmiley
Uhhh, what? You're breaking up there a little X. What does "civi jets" have to do with an F-111 (not) going Mach 3? Or an F-16's cannon? I think Roscoe's gravitas speaks for itself reading what he's been kind enough to share with us here. He really IS a former FTE and PPM.

The YF-23 lost, its over and done with. It was a beautiful looking plane, but it is history now. It is painful to see one of them in such sorry shape though.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 20:31
by ximeno
Roscoe I'm not talking about maint, I'm talking about just why they cannot shoot their gun, what is the reason? What is it that depo has to do to fix the problem?

Also from the reply you gave, you may know about things on paper or in the office but NOT from a mech pov (we call them paper pushers). I've been in both civi and mil a/c from C-20 from the army to Air Force, Navy etc actually in the field working on it, do you remember scott o'brady? I was there recovering the a/c.

C-17 ship 1 what was the problen that is still there on every fwd major join area on every C-17.

F-111 there was a report in the 80's that a low level F-111 sank a local fishing boat from the rooster tail and shock wave, the electrician had to change the BROKEN mach indicator, the windscreen was hot and melted and the le had no paint. Mach indicator was stuck on mach 3. (I work with the guy)

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 21:06
by elp
Scott Obrady??? :lol: or O'Grady? :lol: recovered after his mission where his AIM -9 missed that St Valantines Day like massacre where the F-16s stomped those ExYugo Galeb figher jets??? I didn't know his jet was recovered after he punched out of the SAM hit at a later date. It was in pieces if I recall. :lol:

Combat reports indicate the the F-16 gun fires. What events has it not? ( just asking I am curious )

Maybe Gums or someone else will step in and give us a little engineering 101 on what happens to conventional skin when it gets to around Mach 3. :lol: Maybe...... maybe at high level... for a brief short short period, that is a reach. And as far as low level: No way at Mach 3.0 The F111 is fast down low but the air is just wayyy to dense at sea level for a conventional fighter jet.

ximeno... no offense but in the best kind of flightline humor where everyone takes hard shots against each other... the words and spelling of your last post looks like you were struggling a bit. Are you on your 2nd 6 pack or something? :D

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 21:07
by Guysmiley
So hard to not feed the troll... must... resist... Aahhh, I just can't.

Ok ximeno, every source I find has the F-111's top speed at sea level as ~910 mph, which is 790 knots. Mach 3 at sea level is 1800-2000 knots (depending on temperature). So where does the extra 1000 knots come from? And who is this "scott o'brady" you speak of? Never heard of him. And what exactly does a C-17 have to do with anything?

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2005, 23:46
by ximeno
o'brady /grady hell the 16 that got shot down in the serbs but I'm not talking about the plane I'm talking about the pilot coming back from ram germany.

GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.

no, on break being distracted and in a hurry.

C-17= roscoe "thinks" that I don't know what I'm talking about but I do from a mechanic pov not from a paper pusher pov like he is. I have worked on many a/c but it looks like he work mm no, he managed other people. If roscoe can answer just why the gun should not be fired, and not the "maint" answer since HE thinks HE knows it all, this discussion would be over,,,or will it.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 00:51
by parrothead
ximeno,

Have you looked at Roscoe's signature?

Roscoe
USAF TPS 92A
Former Viper Flight Test Engineer
Former Viper Production Program Manager


Something tells me that a TPS grad from '92 who was also a Flight Test Engineer might know what he's talking about.

If you disagree with someone, please consider a PM instead of an attack out in the open.

I don't see how your questions have anything to do with the original topic of the thread, namely the YF-22 and YF-23. Have you ever thought of starting a new thread???

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 02:30
by VPRGUY
ximeno wrote:o'brady /grady hell the 16 that got shot down in the serbs but I'm not talking about the plane I'm talking about the pilot coming back from ram germany.

GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.

no, on break being distracted and in a hurry.

C-17= roscoe "thinks" that I don't know what I'm talking about but I do from a mechanic pov not from a paper pusher pov like he is. I have worked on many a/c but it looks like he work mm no, he managed other people. If roscoe can answer just why the gun should not be fired, and not the "maint" answer since HE thinks HE knows it all, this discussion would be over,,,or will it.


Third grade grammer, I love it :)
Anyhow, Roscoe "thinks" he knows what he is talking about because he probably does. As a test pilot, he needs to know just a little about the mechanics of the airplane. Also as a test pilot, he does a little more than "push paper"- I spent four years in the test wing at Eglin, so I think I've seen a real-live test pilot before.

As for recovering the plane O'Grady was on in Ramstien- you mean you recovered the transport he was on? Here is what that says to me: "Heavy" crew chief= doesn't-know-hardly-a-thing-about-the-gun-on-a-fighter. Unless you happened to be TA, then I'll cut you some slack.

ximeno wrote:GUN sure they can fire the gun but what other thing is the gun doing.


What??? You really make no sense. Roscoe mentioned the maintenance angle for not shooting the gun. I'll be damned, he was right! THey don't shoot the gun regularly because it creates extra maintenance- we have to clean the gun port, inspect the gun, things like that. Plus, there is scheduled maintenance that needs to be done after X number of rounds fired- so they don't shoot too often. Plus, HEI ammo needs a little extra care in handling (at least at bases I've been to), so most places probably don't like to have it loaded unnecessarily. Plus, the stuff just costs money- so why shoot it off all the time? Same reason we don't always shoot off live AGM-65's and Mk-82's.

If you are on break and in a hurry when you do these posts, you need to invest in a home computer so you can clearly think out what you're trying to say before you post. You sound like an intoxicated grade schooler here.

I started this thread to get opinions on the YF-22 and YF-23; not to argue why the gun on and F-16 "won't fire". If you want to debate that one, go to the weapons forum. If you want to debate someone, go to the "off topic". If you want to attack the credentials of one of the more highly qualified people on this forum, do it while you're on the toilet taking a poop.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 03:01
by TenguNoHi
VPRGUY,

Please dont encourage any of our colleagues on this forum to post while they are on the toilette taking a crap. I dont want to think about that.

"So I agree the F-16 is an amazing urgghjhhhhhhhh fighting machine and it has uhhhhghghhghghgh a great ability to do mult aawwwwwwwwurrghghhghghghg missions and urhghghhghghghghghg!"

8) :lol:

Yeah, I posted earlier that Roscoe was a test pilot and prolly knew what he was talking about but then I decided not to help Ximeno with any evidence that was right in front of him. (That was the edit above) Anyways...

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 03:24
by Roscoe
You guys kill me :) but I love your style!

Those last two truly had me rolling!

TenguNoHi, sound like you're pulling g's :x

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 04:07
by Sniper69
Awww Tengu its EVERYWHERE!!! :x VPRGUY warned you about this.....and it sounds like your in an F-111 doing mach 3 on the deck talking to Scott O'Grady about the F-16's gun...IMHO...

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 06:40
by sferrin
Roscoe wrote:F-111 going Mach 3? Not a chance. You're smoking that wacky weed again :)


There was a guy some years back on r.a.m. that claimed an F touched 2.8 briefly. IIRC he was an F-111 pilot. Don't know if it was BS or not but ISTR him being a fairly reliable poster.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:17
by JR007
Roscoe,

ximeno - I have no idea what your last message is asking.

Neither does anyone else on this thread… :doh:

ELP,

“Sierra” gets hot and deforms at Mach 3, heck, Tom burned all the insignia off his Zipper doing 2.5 for two minutes!
:beer:

ximeno,
o'brady /grady and what the foxtrot does civi jets have to do with it, unless they are BLACK… :wtf:

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2005, 19:48
by AmmoCapt
I hope I don't get a sound beating for bring a little bit of life back to this thread.

First, I want to say, that I loved the -23 simply for its looks. I may be in the Air Force, but I am also one of the uninformed masses. I'll go with the old maxim of if the plane looks like it can do the job, it probably can. I was also happy to see someone else thought that the -22 prototypes had monster vertical stabs. How it could be low-observable with those things is way beyond me. But the good news is that the new ones are quite pretty.

X, to answer your question (in short form) about the -16 and not firing the gun, is that it is some rather serious maintenance each time it is fired, and if enough rounds are shot at one time, a complete teardown is required.

And NO, this is not something the depot could issue a TCTO to fix. A new gun would be required for that.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2005, 20:35
by Roscoe
Oh man, now you're gonna get the X-man all fired up again :doh:

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2005, 20:51
by AmmoCapt
I should have mentioned that I wrote about the gun and its needed maintenance over in the armament section.

As for X, I dont see why he keeps fighting after such a severe schwacking, but then again, I am not X

cracks

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2006, 20:54
by ximeno
It cracks the blkhead or frame at the gun mount point, thats why they cannot fire the gun. There are 2 other blkheads or frames that are cracking, the major one for the MLG and the major one for the vertical.
Listen to the mechanics, they can tell you things that are not reported on paper.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2006, 22:56
by Whiteman_B2
I could be mistaken, but didn't the YF-23 show up at the ATF competition NOT able to shoot Sidewinder, only a promise that it would "in the future"? That ultimately may not have had a lot to do with the AF's decision, but it couldn't have helped.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2006, 04:04
by ximeno
The launch of a SW was not part of the requirements for the fly-off.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2006, 04:43
by Roscoe
Wow...the X-man finally got one right!

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2006, 20:17
by SoCal_CJ
OK newbie I am;
but I was on the YF-23 team, then the F-22 team later (go figure aerospace), we at NG after loosing the ATF became everybody’s support and everybody’s best friend, I have ID badges from 4 companies....

ximeno, you do keep me amused! F-111 doing Mach 3 !!! BS I have been around a few Mach 3 aircraft….for the F-111 Outside the envelope, it would break…not just melt, but break, the airframe would not handle it….not a fan for the F-111 so am biased, drives like a truck…

on the YF-23 and SW was an issue but not a requirement, some concerns over inside wing tip con trail in a turn,

Main loss reason, no faith in Northrop (Not Northrop Grumman yet) management team to handle another big project, and B-2 was priority, if we had shifted management duties to MD, we would have had a much better chance, Gov does not mind putting all their financial eggs in one basket as mentioned before, as long as they have faith in the teams, here they did not have their faith in Northrop…

This is the main loss reason, not the only reason...

How fast was YF-23, can not tell ya, but a lot faster than YF-22

the photos from ximeno are PAV 2 undergoing a resurfacing about 2 years ago at the NG El Segundo plant, it was at the Western Museum of Flight for the last 10 years or so, I have heard talk of them sitting at Edwards etc....they were until 96 or so...since then the darker Pav 1 is at Wright Patt and as photos showed in not so good of shape, the lighter Pav 2 that had the GE engines, now has had no engine since 92 (?) Pav 2 went to the Western Museum of Flight a mainly Northrop museum that sits on Northrop Field at the end of the runway in Hawthorne...it got a sprucing up with grey paint (household paint) it lasted a few years, it was outside...a and then Northrop in a possible bid for a YB-23 took it back from the Museum and gave it a proper sprucing, and you can see it in ximeno's photos, note the Northrop Grumman logo in the back, so we know it was more recent than the ATF competition...

The speed is again classified, but again it was a considerable amount faster than YF-22,

Pail Metz the First Flight Pilot for YF-23 went on to move to Lockheed and First Flight the F-22 and is a hell of a great guy, as were both test teams, I still see them all regularly all 6 company pilots that is LM-Beesley, LM-Morganfield, LM- Ferguson, N-Metz, N-Sandberg, and MD-Lowe…

Want more??

See this DVD….I does not have anything to do with it but I liked it and it is a good product…

Web of Secrecy - YF-23 Black Widow II – DVD

http://www.wci-productions.com/

Enjoy

Image

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2006, 20:28
by SoCal_CJ
more pics

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2006, 22:31
by elp
Great photos!!! :)

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2006, 22:58
by snypa777
The`23 was a DAMN cool looking airplane! Especially from the angle shown in the "Northrop family" pic. Thanks SoCAL CJ!

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2006, 08:36
by SoCal_CJ
snypa777 wrote:The`23 was a DAMN cool looking airplane! Especially from the angle shown in the "Northrop family" pic. Thanks SoCAL CJ!


thanks guys....do appreciate the welcome, on the Family photo, Tony Chong from El Segundo NG Model Shop took this once in a lifetime shot while the LA Museum of Science was doing a re-model and loaned the F-20 to the Western Museum of Flight, the F-20 is back at the Science Museum and YF-23 is still at NG for resurfacing, he got up on top of the Quonset hut / hanger at the end of Hawthorne's runway and had all 4 pulled together...you can get a copy I think he wants like $10 for a 8x10, I got mine signed myself...

On the re-surfacing of YF-23 at NG, it has been there for 2 years. Why??? this lead to the FB-23 stories and YF-24 and all the other "things" out there on the internet...like "you know every plane since 71 was built with Alien technology" :roll: makes me think we did it wrong, all that sweat and all we had to do was place a few calls to Roswell and get all the answers...seriously just look at the aesthetics of both JSF contenders (X-32 and X-35 both fugly) and you can see alien all over them both :P

Attached you will see a "collectors data plate" from Aviation Collectables in Lancaster CA, cool and gives you the data as well

also attached is but one of the Lucites you have seen me gripe about I got heisted, anyone ever come across any of these please let me know, even one just sort of like it, any plane any project...I will pay a finders fee

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2006, 08:38
by SoCal_CJ
just got sent a restoration photo..

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2006, 08:49
by SoCal_CJ
there is 3 in front of the Pima Air Museum, do not know why??? or where they came from???
but they are there...

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2006, 13:11
by Scorpion1alpha
Those pics of the YF-23 are very good SoCal_CJ. No doubt it is a beautiful aircraft and a reason for pride for Northrop/Grumman.

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2006, 16:43
by SoCal_CJ
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Those pics of the YF-23 are very good SoCal_CJ. No doubt it is a beautiful aircraft and a reason for pride for Northrop/Grumman.



thanks man, did not mean to get carried away but figured I had a few pics folks had not seen before...

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2006, 20:19
by snypa777
Keep `em coming SoCal CJ, great pictures! Pity we can`t get some hi-res versions!

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2006, 02:21
by SoCal_CJ
snypa777 wrote:Keep `em coming SoCal CJ, great pictures! Pity we can`t get some hi-res versions!


I have many in high res PM me your email, and I will see what I can do, send a discription of what your looking for etc...

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2007, 07:34
by Tinito_16
From what I have read the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 mostly because of peripheral issues and not aircraft performance. One thing that did chew the YF-23's tail was the launch rails for the missles: these were arranged one on top of the other, and if one jammed, the plane couldn't fire the others.

....Or so the theory goes 8)

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 14:31
by Afterburned
I always thought that the YF-23 would make one hell of a strike fighter like the f-15E. I know there are concepts out there for enlarging the fuselage to make room for bomb bays on what could be the YB-23. While the F-22A would capitalize on its agility for air to air roles, the YB-23 could use its superior stealth and speed for deep strike missions. I wish it would be put into production because the cancellation of the YF-23 seems like a complete waste of time, money, and a cool lookin' airframe...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 01:18
by Tinito_16
I agree Afterburned. The YF-23 would be awsome for that role; and it probably wouldn't be a slouch at defending itself either! I think had Northrop put thrust vectoring and demostrated missile release in the DEM/VAL, it would've gotten the nod.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 05:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
TVC wasnt needed as it already exceeded the maneuverability requirements with that huge tail

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 17:27
by Tinito_16
Yeah but LM had other advantages as well 8) I think had the YF-23 really blown the YF-22 out of the water, it would be in production by now.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 20:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
part of the decision was political too, the B-2 was late and WAY over a reasonable budget, the F-117 was on time and on budget.

YF-22 vs YF-23 Visceral Reaction

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 21:11
by falconrep
I had the pleasure of working at Edwards at the turn of the Century, one of the YF23's was parked right beside the test cell where we tested all of the Pratt& Whitney Flight test engines. I was working the F100 program but spent a lot of my free time admiring the lines and beauty of the YF23. Far and away a better looking A/C than the F22. I did see a note in here that the F23 wasn't supposed to have vectoring nozzles, but my recollection was both flight test jets used the same engine which does have pitch vectoring nozzles. Nothing like we used in the F-15B Active Jet, which were Pitch and Yaw.
The YF23 just looked like you didn't WANT to see it when it was angry. The F22 dosen't have that look about it, maybe it was just time for a kinder gentler killing machine?
One day I went to work and the YF23 was gone, never knew where they took it, but I missed having it there.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 23:47
by Tinito_16
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:part of the decision was political too, the B-2 was late and WAY over a reasonable budget, the F-117 was on time and on budget.


The irony...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 12:13
by Afterburned
eh... I think the production raptor is a huge aesthetic improvement over the prototype... I thought that the YF-22 was ugly as sin, kind of dorky looking really, but now IMO the F-22A is up there in looks with the YF-23.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 14:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
so imagine how sexy a production F-23 could have been?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 16:14
by Guysmiley
Good thing the fly-off wasn't about looks. Can you imagine a group of generals sitting around arguing about which prototype looks cooler? "No! This one is totally more AWESOME than that ugly POS!" "Nu-uh, THIS one is the coolest!"

I have faith that the testing criteria was more involved than that. But the YF-23 was one bad-a#% looking machine.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 17:49
by Afterburned
hahaha yea imagine that... "the YF-XX supercruises at mach six... but the YF-YY looks siiiiiiiiick... YF-YY it is!"
seriously though a lot of yf-23 fans out there, while probably not on this forum, base their opinion on looks alone. $hits weak.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 18:07
by parrothead
Hey, I know it's a bit, :offtopic: , but I was hoping the'd base the JSF competition on looks - imagine if we'd wound up with the Boeing :shock: !

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 20:18
by Tinito_16
parrothead wrote:Hey, I know it's a bit, :offtopic: , but I was hoping the'd base the JSF competition on looks - imagine if we'd wound up with the Boeing :shock: !


You know, they called the X-32 the "Monica". I wonder why... 8)

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2007, 04:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
well, it did have a gaping mouth

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2007, 21:17
by slicktry
After going thru this thread, does anyone know which plane has the longest range, i/e carries more fuel and/or uses less? Just from the stuff viewed here, it looks like the military is completely political. Sad, but I guess that is what freedom allows.

God Bless
Jer

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2007, 11:59
by fox100
VPRGUY wrote: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?


Ok, its a hangover morning... So what the hell, lets beat this dead horse into bloody dog food...

YF-22 = more balanced aircraft; good at turning at low and high airspeeds, exceeded cruise velocity reqirements, could fend off anything from F-16 to the latest SAMs. Met the LO requirements in both EM and IR.

YF-23 was optimized for high altitude turning and airspeeds and for RCS and IR supression. Its obvious since the wings are god damned big on that thing, that at really high altitudes it can turn tighter than most anything else flying even today (F-22 may be able to do so because of tv nozzels). In that 10-30k.ft altitudes it could probably play with anything else flying at the time except for the YF-22.

The USAF took a gamble on devloping the ATB (by Nrthrp) and they didn't want to gamble on their frontline fighter. Much like the catarmaran USN carriers that were being drawn up circa 1984-5, the USN didn't want to gamble on their carriers and go with an entirely new design, and the USAF didn't want to gamble on its fighter. Personally, the USN I beklieve should have picked up on that YF-23 rather than fool around with flting dorito chip.

Essentially, the F-22 is a "stealthy" F-15 with supercruise, better turning, & longer legs. We all know the success of the F-15, so think of the F-22 and F-15 for the 21st century. The air foce wanted a conservative design since about 1983 and the F-22 of today looks "exactly" like USAF released artwork from 1983.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2007, 12:58
by ANYTIMEBABY!
Can we bring back th F-23 and NAVALIZE IT! We need a real frontline fighter so the world will fear and respect us once again...lol.... FLY NAVY....18 isnt cuttin it........

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2007, 06:52
by awin266
ANYTIMEBABY! wrote:Can we bring back th F-23 and NAVALIZE IT! We need a real frontline fighter so the world will fear and respect us once again...lol.... FLY NAVY....18 isnt cuttin it........
One more point on the selection of the YF-22 over the YF-23; the naval requirement. The U.S. Navy was part of the selection process as the NATF program was still active and tied to the ATF. It is understood the U.S. Navy personnel were NOT happy with the idea of an F-23 coming in slow, high AOA, high sink rate for a trap on the carrier. The F-22 was deemed as more suitable to carrier operation, with its more conventional tail surfaces and better low-speed handling qualities. As it was, the U.S. Navy abandoned the NATF not long after selection of the winning design, leaving the U.S. Air Force to foot the bill for delevopment and production of the ATF. The U.S. Navy took their funds and sunk them into the ATA stealth attack program, which was eventually killed by Dick Cheney after BILLIONS in development money got the U.S. Navy not even a prototype aircraft. So, the U.S. Navy took what funding it could scrape up (beg for) and developed the "Super"Hornet, all the U.S. Navy could afford after blowing the NATF and ATA programs. Although the F-22 is a great fighter, I believe Northrop got hosed with the ATF selection, and as usual, we taxpayers get to grin and bear it with the reduced production run getting the U.S. Air Force each Raptor at the bargain price of $339 million with development costs included. I just shake my head is disbelief that the U.S. Navy could screw the tactical aircraft procurement pooch this bad.

RE: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2007, 18:58
by avon1944
fox100 wrote:Personally, the USN I beklieve should have picked up on that YF-23 rather than fool around with flting dorito chip.

I am a fan of the YF-23 but, the USAF did not want another project with Northrop that has real cost over run problems like the B-2 had. Lockeed did a lot more extensive testing than Northrop and the USAF had more confidence in Lockeed's ability to meet the objectives.

fox100 wrote:Essentially, the F-22 is a "stealthy" F-15 with supercruise, better turning, & longer legs.

The F-22A is more than an F-15 on steroids! The F-22 brings a whole new way of aerial warfare. It not only brings the elements of surprise back to aerial warfare but, it allows the USAF to enter the fight quickly and exist before the bad guys can respond.

fox100 wrote:The air foce wanted a conservative design since about 1983 and the F-22 of today looks "exactly" like USAF released artwork from 1983.

In July of 1987 Lockeed redesigned the F-22! Previously the YF-22 looked like a modified F-117. After October 1987, the YF-22 looks like the F-22A that we know today.
The USAF was not looking for a conservative design, what they wanted was an aircraft that could deal with any future opponent, any potential altitude or, speed. If their new fighter could not fight effectively and low speed and or altitude.... there could be a perceived weakness that could be exploited.

Sorry the photo came out to large.

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2008, 23:13
by _Viper_
If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2008, 02:21
by RobertCook
_Viper_ wrote:If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)


This model simply looks like a YF-23 with an F-22-like paint job. From what I've heard and read, the production F-23 would have had a slimmer, possibly more rounded aft section, modified intakes, and a rather different weapon bay configuration (most likely an additional short-range AAM bay ahead of a reduced-depth main bay).

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2008, 10:19
by end
here is an interesting one
Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2008, 10:34
by _Viper_
RobertCook wrote:
_Viper_ wrote:If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)


This model simply looks like a YF-23 with an F-22-like paint job. From what I've heard and read, the production F-23 would have had a slimmer, possibly more rounded aft section, modified intakes, and a rather different weapon bay configuration (most likely an additional short-range AAM bay ahead of a reduced-depth main bay).
That is true. I remember reading that Northrop never realeased any official info about the final production unit. But I would expect that these things that you mentioned are correct.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2008, 13:50
by cywolf32
http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part06.htm

This is pretty old, but still gives a good explanation for the USAF picking the 22 over the 23 and the balance between stealth vs. abilities. :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2008, 17:13
by ChairRepair
I remember watching the fly offs at Edwards during my time there. I do not recall an F-23 crashing, I do remember watching an F-22 doing the Porpoise into the runway on a bright and early Saturday morning.....due to the heat coming up off the runway and the over corrections of the flight controls. One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2008, 13:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ChairRepair wrote:I remember watching the fly offs at Edwards during my time there. I do not recall an F-23 crashing, I do remember watching an F-22 doing the Porpoise into the runway on a bright and early Saturday morning.....due to the heat coming up off the runway and the over corrections of the flight controls. One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!


Much like how for JSF the X-35 did a STO-supersonic-VL transition and the X-32 COULD NOT.

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 07:11
by Scorpion1alpha
ChairRepair wrote:One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!


"One" is an understatement.

Certainly there were quite a few factors that favored Lockheed/Boeing/(and then) GD and their design. I'm not saying Northrop isn't a good company and didn't design a great ATF, but I believe then SECAF Don Rice made the right decision.

All other talk about coulda/whadda/shoulda is pointless.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2008, 02:46
by theheik
hmmm...

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2008, 03:14
by Corsair1963
The YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 because it offered lower risk. Much like the P & W F-135 was choosen over the GE F-136.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2008, 03:28
by theheik
Tinito_16 wrote:From what I have read the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 mostly because of peripheral issues and not aircraft performance. One thing that did chew the YF-23's tail was the launch rails for the missles: these were arranged one on top of the other, and if one jammed, the plane couldn't fire the others.

....Or so the theory goes 8)


The reason why the F-22 won out over the YF-23 was because the F-22 was designed for more types of battle, and reliability. The Yf-23's jam-possible design meant that if you were in a firefight and your missle jammed, then you're going to eat missle. But don't worry, even though the F-22 won out on the YF-23, the Air Force is still in need of a long range stealth bomber, and the YF-23 fits the bill perfectly. It's designed for long-range, high altitude, maximum stealth flight, with a high capacity for weapons, and since it's already been designed, the Air Force doesn't need to make another plane, or to redesign the F-22 into the FB-22 so we may be seeing the YF-23 again soon. Does anyone agree? 8)

The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 23:15
by fakaro
I was an air traffic controller at LA Center during the flight testing of the two ATF concept aircraft, and at least from my perspective, the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 rather significantly in terms of acceleration, supercruise speeds, and top speed.

I remember vividly watching the YF-23 literally walk away from the F-15 chase aircraft during supercruise testing in the supersonic corridor NE of Edwards AFB. The F-15 pilot in max AB, while the YF-23 was at max military power. Ground speed numbers were also quite different between the two prototypes during maximum speed testing as well, with the YF-23 showing a sizable advantage over the YF-22. While this was only a portion of the capability, at least in this arena, the YF-23 was the better aircraft. While I can't remember the winds aloft at that time, I DO remember seeing ground speeds above 1800 kts from the YF-23.

Personally, I think Northrup got screwed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, with at least a fair amount of political backroom bargaining by Chairman Sam Nunn, who at the time was the senator from GA, where not surprisingly, a large portion of the F/A-22 program would be built. I also suspect that after the B-2 program was awarded to Northrup, that the Gov't didn't want to give them even more money for the ATF contract.

RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 23:47
by Guysmiley
:roll:

Here we go again. Without knowing any details about the program, what or how they were performing any tests, your perspective is as valid as the person saying that the YF-23 should have won because it looks "sooooo much cooler".

RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 00:49
by Prinz_Eugn
As long as we're throwing in anecdotal evidence...
My grandfather worked for Northrop (but in a different division) and basically said that the Air Force gave tons of breaks in terms of time limits to the F-22, extending them so that the Lockheed team could participate, which makes sense given how much they changed the design afterwards (YF-22 vs F-22A).

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 03:06
by biffbutkus
Guysmiley wrote::roll:

Here we go again. Without knowing any details about the program, what or how they were performing any tests, your perspective is as valid as the person saying that the YF-23 should have won because it looks "sooooo much cooler".


Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? Isn't this the kind of thing that should be encouraged here? If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.

Re: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 04:16
by theheik
fakaro wrote:I was an air traffic controller at LA Center during the flight testing of the two ATF concept aircraft, and at least from my perspective, the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 rather significantly in terms of acceleration, supercruise speeds, and top speed.

I remember vividly watching the YF-23 literally walk away from the F-15 chase aircraft during supercruise testing in the supersonic corridor NE of Edwards AFB. The F-15 pilot in max AB, while the YF-23 was at max military power. Ground speed numbers were also quite different between the two prototypes during maximum speed testing as well, with the YF-23 showing a sizable advantage over the YF-22. While this was only a portion of the capability, at least in this arena, the YF-23 was the better aircraft. While I can't remember the winds aloft at that time, I DO remember seeing ground speeds above 1800 kts from the YF-23.

Personally, I think Northrup got screwed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, with at least a fair amount of political backroom bargaining by Chairman Sam Nunn, who at the time was the senator from GA, where not surprisingly, a large portion of the F/A-22 program would be built. I also suspect that after the B-2 program was awarded to Northrup, that the Gov't didn't want to give them even more money for the ATF contract.




Well the speed of an aircraft doesn't matter if it's fighting a plane that can out maneuver it. Also, while the YF-23 was blackballed by the government, the thing was that the Raptor gave the US everything it needed in terms of stealth, cause you can't see it until your eating shrapnel, and even though the YF-23 did rival the F-22 in maneuverability, the Raptor edged out on it, which matters more if it comes to a fair fight against other fifth generation planes like the Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 04:19
by lampshade111
To be honest most of the YF-23 fan seem to love the aircraft based on looks more than anything

Both were great designs, and if we had a ton of money perhaps we should have gotten both. The YF-22 had the advantage of thrust vectoring which Northrop decided against for increased stealth, but when the USAF made their choice they favored the somewhat more conventional YF-22.

Right now we should just focus on getting more F-22As, and perhaps hope that the F-23 design is developed into a FB-23.

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 05:24
by sferrin
biffbutkus wrote:
Guysmiley wrote::roll:

Here we go again. Without knowing any details about the program, what or how they were performing any tests, your perspective is as valid as the person saying that the YF-23 should have won because it looks "sooooo much cooler".


Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? Isn't this the kind of thing that should be encouraged here? If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.


If the guy was for real he wouldn't be shooting his mouth off like he is.

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 08:35
by biffbutkus
sferrin wrote:
biffbutkus wrote:
Guysmiley wrote::roll:

Here we go again. Without knowing any details about the program, what or how they were performing any tests, your perspective is as valid as the person saying that the YF-23 should have won because it looks "sooooo much cooler".


Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? Isn't this the kind of thing that should be encouraged here? If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.


If the guy was for real he wouldn't be shooting his mouth off like he is.


Shooting his mouth off?? Are you kidding?

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 10:07
by Raptor_claw
biffbutkus wrote:
Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? .... If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.

An air traffic controller from LA center is not "involved in the testing". That was G. Smiley's point. As a simple example: While he could likely get a gauge on groundspeed, he would have no idea what the aircraft power setting was, making any claims about supercruising ring more than a little suspicious.

Pretty much all the LA guys do is say "No, you may not fly through our airspace to get to the ocean". :wink:

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 11:15
by biffbutkus
Raptor_claw wrote:
biffbutkus wrote:
Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? .... If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.

An air traffic controller from LA center is not "involved in the testing". That was G. Smiley's point. As a simple example: While he could likely get a gauge on groundspeed, he would have no idea what the aircraft power setting was, making any claims about supercruising ring more than a little suspicious.

Pretty much all the LA guys do is say "No, you may not fly through our airspace to get to the ocean". :wink:


If you say so...guess I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Just figured that he was entitled to give his opinion that's all :shrug:

Re: RE: The Better ATF

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 17:13
by sferrin
biffbutkus wrote:
sferrin wrote:
biffbutkus wrote:
Guysmiley wrote::roll:

Here we go again. Without knowing any details about the program, what or how they were performing any tests, your perspective is as valid as the person saying that the YF-23 should have won because it looks "sooooo much cooler".


Huh, so your chastising a guy who possibly had first hand knowledge of the testing for posting his observations and opinion on an internet forum? Isn't this the kind of thing that should be encouraged here? If fakaro is legit, then he was actually involved in the testing. This is alot more than can be said for any of us, so his opinion is at least as valuable.


If the guy was for real he wouldn't be shooting his mouth off like he is.


Shooting his mouth off?? Are you kidding?


Divulging information that if true is obviously classified stuff? Yeah, that would qualify as "shooting your mouth off".

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 20:25
by wrightwing
I don't think anyone would argue that the YF-23 was faster, and perhaps a bit stealthier. The YF-22 was more manueverable and had less risky weapons layouts, while still being very fast/stealthy. This combined with a more mature design played a large role in the decision.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 03:31
by theheik
wrightwing wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the YF-23 was faster, and perhaps a bit stealthier. The YF-22 was more manueverable and had less risky weapons layouts, while still being very fast/stealthy. This combined with a more mature design played a large role in the decision.


another thing is that the f-22 had a more familiar design overall, so pilots could adapt to it more easily and use it better in battle

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:14
by Scorpion1alpha
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the YF-23 was faster, and perhaps a bit stealthier. The YF-22 was more manueverable and had less risky weapons layouts, while still being very fast/stealthy. This combined with a more mature design played a large role in the decision.


another thing is that the f-22 had a more familiar design overall, so pilots could adapt to it more easily and use it better in battle


This reasoning had nothing to do with it. Even now, they're still learning how to employ the F-22 to it full potential.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:19
by theheik
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the YF-23 was faster, and perhaps a bit stealthier. The YF-22 was more manueverable and had less risky weapons layouts, while still being very fast/stealthy. This combined with a more mature design played a large role in the decision.


another thing is that the f-22 had a more familiar design overall, so pilots could adapt to it more easily and use it better in battle


This reasoning had nothing to do with it. Even now, they're still learning how to employ the F-22 to it full potential.


Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:29
by Scorpion1alpha
In terms of these two protoypes, I'd choose the one with the most proven level of capabilities and higher level of maturity. That's just on the flying qualities side. I could care less if the aircraft looks like a familiar design (i.e. evolved F-15) or a completely radical looking design (YF-23).

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 07:55
by F16guy
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I could care less what the plane looks like. (Okay, I love the F-16 and how it looks but...) I'd fly a freaking ugly airplane (X-32) or flying saucer for that fact if it gave me better turn, faster accel, or better all round performance, than a conventional plane. Oh and for comfort affecting how I fly, I use a piddle pack for that.

If the YF-23 had performed better than the YF-22 and the USAF decided the competition on the fact one looked more conventional than the other, then the selection team should be shot. Since they haven't and I've seen how the F-22 flies, I'm thinking the best plane won.

Not to discount what some of the posters here heard from their cousins' uncle who overheard a guy talking about a magazine article that said the YF-23 was better. I'm sure they think they have valid points.





edited for spelling stupidity

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 12:44
by Pilotasso
theheik wrote:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


YF-23 had fly-by-wire controls, therefore it was just as easy to fly as any other. beside the pilot wont care less how the plane looks like once inside the pit.

Had the black widow won the competition Im almost sure it would have been cancelled by now. It was much more maintenance intensive. for example the engine exaut tiles were by the hunderds and each had to be meticoulsly checked and repaired each time it flew.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 13:27
by Maks
@ "It was much more maintenance intensive. for example the engine exaut tiles were by the hunderds and each had to be meticoulsly checked and repaired each time it flew."

I assume this is information on the prototype and would not be valid for the production configuration.

@ cancelled: well, probably to the same extent as the F-22 program has been cut.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 13:52
by Viperalltheway
Isn't Mach 1.8 the max speed at which RAM coatings are effective? Even if the YF-23 was a bit faster and a bit stealthier what would it have changed since the F-22 can already supercruise at M1.8? The F-22 can probably even reach M2.4 or so on AB.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 03:23
by theheik
Pilotasso wrote:
theheik wrote:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


YF-23 had fly-by-wire controls, therefore it was just as easy to fly as any other. beside the pilot wont care less how the plane looks like once inside the pit.



Fly by wire doesn't change the characteristics of the plane's flight. it just smooths out the bumps. if your plane drops out of the sky because it doesn't have enough lift, fly-by-wire won't do a thing to help

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 04:09
by theheik
F16guy wrote:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I could care less what the plane looks like. (Okay, I love the F-16 and how it looks but...) I'd fly a freaking ugly airplane (X-32) or flying saucer for that fact if it gave me better turn, faster accel, or better all round performance, than a conventional plane. Oh and for comfort affecting how I fly, I use a piddle pack for that.

If the YF-23 had performed better than the YF-22 and the USAF decided the competition on the fact one looked more conventional than the other, then the selection team should be shot. Since they haven't and I've seen how the F-22 flies, I'm thinking the best plane won.

Not to discount what some of the posters here heard from their cousins' uncle who overheard a guy talking about a magazine article that said the YF-23 was better. I'm sure they think they have valid points.





edited for spelling stupidity


I meant more in how the plane flies. If you fly a performance familiar plane you do better because you have more experience flying in that overall feel

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 16:10
by wrightwing
Viperalltheway wrote:Isn't Mach 1.8 the max speed at which RAM coatings are effective? Even if the YF-23 was a bit faster and a bit stealthier what would it have changed since the F-22 can already supercruise at M1.8? The F-22 can probably even reach M2.4 or so on AB.


M 1.8 is the speed it can cruise at without using AB. It's not the speed at which the RAM coating loses effectiveness. The YF-23 was supposed to be faster, but it had a lot more technological risks, and less system maturity. The pros of the F-22 won in the end.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 16:13
by wrightwing
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I could care less what the plane looks like. (Okay, I love the F-16 and how it looks but...) I'd fly a freaking ugly airplane (X-32) or flying saucer for that fact if it gave me better turn, faster accel, or better all round performance, than a conventional plane. Oh and for comfort affecting how I fly, I use a piddle pack for that.

If the YF-23 had performed better than the YF-22 and the USAF decided the competition on the fact one looked more conventional than the other, then the selection team should be shot. Since they haven't and I've seen how the F-22 flies, I'm thinking the best plane won.

Not to discount what some of the posters here heard from their cousins' uncle who overheard a guy talking about a magazine article that said the YF-23 was better. I'm sure they think they have valid points.





edited for spelling stupidity


I meant more in how the plane flies. If you fly a performance familiar plane you do better because you have more experience flying in that overall feel


All modern fighters use FBW, so from the pilot's perspective, there's not gonna be a big difference in how the plane feels. There may be big difference in what the plane is capable of doing, but that's not really the issue in terms of familiarity.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 01:44
by Tinito_16
Does anyone know IF RAM loses its effectiveness at high speed?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 03:35
by theheik
wrightwing wrote:
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I could care less what the plane looks like. (Okay, I love the F-16 and how it looks but...) I'd fly a freaking ugly airplane (X-32) or flying saucer for that fact if it gave me better turn, faster accel, or better all round performance, than a conventional plane. Oh and for comfort affecting how I fly, I use a piddle pack for that.

If the YF-23 had performed better than the YF-22 and the USAF decided the competition on the fact one looked more conventional than the other, then the selection team should be shot. Since they haven't and I've seen how the F-22 flies, I'm thinking the best plane won.

Not to discount what some of the posters here heard from their cousins' uncle who overheard a guy talking about a magazine article that said the YF-23 was better. I'm sure they think they have valid points.





edited for spelling stupidity


I meant more in how the plane flies. If you fly a performance familiar plane you do better because you have more experience flying in that overall feel


All modern fighters use FBW, so from the pilot's perspective, there's not gonna be a big difference in how the plane feels. There may be big difference in what the plane is capable of doing, but that's not really the issue in terms of familiarity.


that's what I mean. the f-22 overall flight capabilities are more like the F-15, of whom these pilots are changing from, while the yf-23 is much more different, which takes longer time to perfect. comfort is more knowing the limits of your aircraft than how it literally feels to you, and the f-22 gives you that, because it acts much like the F-15 with more "room for error" :roll:

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 03:48
by dwightlooi
Tinito_16 wrote:Does anyone know IF RAM loses its effectiveness at high speed?


Probably not. It'll that a change in molecular structure to effect that. And if that is usually irreversible, meaning that they'll have to strip and re-apply RAM after every high speed dash. It'll be ridiculous.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 07:58
by Prinz_Eugn
theheik wrote:that's what I mean. the f-22 overall flight capabilities are more like the F-15, of whom these pilots are changing from, while the yf-23 is much more different, which takes longer time to perfect. comfort is more knowing the limits of your aircraft than how it literally feels to you, and the f-22 gives you that, because it acts much like the F-15 with more "room for error" :roll:


The F-22 looks similar, but performs very differently from an F-15, and the cockpit is totally different. I mean, an F-15 isn't even FBW, and doesn't use a side stick, not to mention that the slow-speed handling is worlds apart. With the YF-22 and YF-23 the differences are both huge if coming from the F-15- no matter what you're going to be doing a lot training, so it really isn't that big of an issue, especially since the F-22 is going to be serving long after they run out of F-15 pilots.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 10:26
by F16guy
theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 13:40
by wrightwing
Tinito_16 wrote:Does anyone know IF RAM loses its effectiveness at high speed?


The only way it would lose effectiveness, is if it was damaged in some way. The speeds that the Raptor operates at shouldn't cause damage. That'd be a serious liability in combat if the pilot was worried about his RAM coating flying off, as the whole point of the Raptor is its ability to fly fast and stealthy.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 17:53
by Tinito_16
I ask that because I have seen some photos of Raptors with the nose paint stripped off, with the explanation being that "It was flying really fast".

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 06:44
by theheik
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
theheik wrote:that's what I mean. the f-22 overall flight capabilities are more like the F-15, of whom these pilots are changing from, while the yf-23 is much more different, which takes longer time to perfect. comfort is more knowing the limits of your aircraft than how it literally feels to you, and the f-22 gives you that, because it acts much like the F-15 with more "room for error" :roll:


The F-22 looks similar, but performs very differently from an F-15, and the cockpit is totally different. I mean, an F-15 isn't even FBW, and doesn't use a side stick, not to mention that the slow-speed handling is worlds apart. With the YF-22 and YF-23 the differences are both huge if coming from the F-15- no matter what you're going to be doing a lot training, so it really isn't that big of an issue, especially since the F-22 is going to be serving long after they run out of F-15 pilots.


touche, but where do you think all of the f-22 pilots are coming from? in the end, every f-15 pilot will fly the f-22, and also, FBW doesn't change the planes abilities, in which the f-15 does have abilities, of which the f-22 builds on. FBW is just making it easier on the pilot, but the type of aircraft and it's aerodynamics are unique to it alone, and no amount of FBW can change that.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 15:27
by StolichnayaStrafer
theheik wrote:where do you think all of the f-22 pilots are coming from?


Well, 4 brand new pilots are in the F-22 slot now(see recent F-22 news)- they can't ALL be experienced pilots. Of course, this is a good thing, because they need to be able to bring new pilots out of flight training straight into the F-22(and later, the F-35) at some point down the line.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 22:22
by Prinz_Eugn
theheik wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
theheik wrote:that's what I mean. the f-22 overall flight capabilities are more like the F-15, of whom these pilots are changing from, while the yf-23 is much more different, which takes longer time to perfect. comfort is more knowing the limits of your aircraft than how it literally feels to you, and the f-22 gives you that, because it acts much like the F-15 with more "room for error" :roll:


The F-22 looks similar, but performs very differently from an F-15, and the cockpit is totally different. I mean, an F-15 isn't even FBW, and doesn't use a side stick, not to mention that the slow-speed handling is worlds apart. With the YF-22 and YF-23 the differences are both huge if coming from the F-15- no matter what you're going to be doing a lot training, so it really isn't that big of an issue, especially since the F-22 is going to be serving long after they run out of F-15 pilots.


touche, but where do you think all of the f-22 pilots are coming from? in the end, every f-15 pilot will fly the f-22, and also, FBW doesn't change the planes abilities, in which the f-15 does have abilities, of which the f-22 builds on. FBW is just making it easier on the pilot, but the type of aircraft and it's aerodynamics are unique to it alone, and no amount of FBW can change that.


FBW can change how an airplane handles, however. The F-22 has relaxed static stability, and probably would not be flyable without the flight control system. The YF-23 had the FCS compensate for the various effects of the V-tail on undesirable axes (Like wanting to roll left but not yaw left), so flying it really wasn't fundamentally different from any other jet.

The YF-22 and YF-23 have abilities that are fundamentally different from an F-15 with the radar and ALR-94, supercruise... hell, the -23 is probably closer to the F-15 because neither have thrust vectoring and the ridiculous level of post-stall maneuvering that the -22 does.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 17:57
by theheik
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:
theheik wrote:where do you think all of the f-22 pilots are coming from?


Well, 4 brand new pilots are in the F-22 slot now(see recent F-22 news)- they can't ALL be experienced pilots. Of course, this is a good thing, because they need to be able to bring new pilots out of flight training straight into the F-22(and later, the F-35) at some point down the line.


Yeah, eventually brand new pilots are going to fly the f-22, but the old f-15 pilots have the experience, and the air force wouldn't just let all those veterens go to waste

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 01:01
by theheik
F16guy wrote:theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.


I'm not saying that the f-23 flew weird, but you have to admit that a different design can change the way a plane flies. Now l admit that you can get used to any plane with the proper training, and some people will think that the f-23 is a perfect plane for them, but the black widow's design just couldn't keep up with the wear and tear required of a frontline fighter, and the ATF was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.

Also as another point. There are old f-15 pilots who are now flying the f-22, and they've said it seems familiar to them.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 03:33
by wrightwing
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.


I'm not saying that the f-23 flew weird, but you have to admit that a different design can change the way a plane flies. Now l admit that you can get used to any plane with the proper training, and some people will think that the f-23 is a perfect plane for them, but the black widow's design just couldn't keep up with the wear and tear required of a frontline fighter, and the ATF was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.

Also as another point. There are old f-15 pilots who are now flying the f-22, and they've said it seems familiar to them.


With fly by wire/digital flight controls, the plane won't feel weird to the pilot. It may have more or less ability to do X, Y, or Z, but in terms of general flight characteristics, it should be pretty similar to other planes.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:12
by theheik
wrightwing wrote:
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.


I'm not saying that the f-23 flew weird, but you have to admit that a different design can change the way a plane flies. Now l admit that you can get used to any plane with the proper training, and some people will think that the f-23 is a perfect plane for them, but the black widow's design just couldn't keep up with the wear and tear required of a frontline fighter, and the ATF was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.

Also as another point. There are old f-15 pilots who are now flying the f-22, and they've said it seems familiar to them.


With fly by wire/digital flight controls, the plane won't feel weird to the pilot. It may have more or less ability to do X, Y, or Z, but in terms of general flight characteristics, it should be pretty similar to other planes.


like I said, the plane won't feel weird, but fly-by-wire controls can't cover for every plane's characteristics. otherwise, why would we need to build all these high tech jets if we could just put FBW on one plane and have it do everything we need. Each plane will fly different no matter how much you think that some system is going to make them fly the same. try doing a loop with an A-10, or a cobra with an f-18. not possible man.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:23
by wrightwing
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.


I'm not saying that the f-23 flew weird, but you have to admit that a different design can change the way a plane flies. Now l admit that you can get used to any plane with the proper training, and some people will think that the f-23 is a perfect plane for them, but the black widow's design just couldn't keep up with the wear and tear required of a frontline fighter, and the ATF was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.

Also as another point. There are old f-15 pilots who are now flying the f-22, and they've said it seems familiar to them.


With fly by wire/digital flight controls, the plane won't feel weird to the pilot. It may have more or less ability to do X, Y, or Z, but in terms of general flight characteristics, it should be pretty similar to other planes.


like I said, the plane won't feel weird, but fly-by-wire controls can't cover for every plane's characteristics. otherwise, why would we need to build all these high tech jets if we could just put FBW on one plane and have it do everything we need. Each plane will fly different no matter how much you think that some system is going to make them fly the same. try doing a loop with an A-10, or a cobra with an f-18. not possible man.


How about using the B-2 or F-117 as examples. By their looks, they should fly really weird right? The fact of the matter is that the flight control system allows them to even fly in the first place, as no pilot would be able to control them with conventional controls. Computers control the stability of the aircraft in flight, and the pilot tells the plane where to go. That's why I said that a pilot wouldn't notice any "weird" characteristics. They'd already be handled by the FCS. All the pilot would notice is how tight he could turn/how fast he could accelerate(or climb), etc... he wouldn't have to deal with a "wobbly" aircraft though.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 19:47
by theheik
wrightwing wrote:
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:theheik,
Just curious, exactly why do you think the YF-23 would handle so differently? Never heard any test pilots in the competition say the F23 was just 'weird' to fly. And what on earth make you think the F-22 is more forgiving or acts like a F-15 (it doesn't, it acts more like a Viper)?

Gums should talk about how different the Viper felt from bell crank, spring and cable jets he used to fly. I think he said it took just a couple of sorties to get used to. I bet after that it felt like the F-16 was made for him.

I think you have the wrong impression that the YF-23 flew strange because it looked strange.


I'm not saying that the f-23 flew weird, but you have to admit that a different design can change the way a plane flies. Now l admit that you can get used to any plane with the proper training, and some people will think that the f-23 is a perfect plane for them, but the black widow's design just couldn't keep up with the wear and tear required of a frontline fighter, and the ATF was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.

Also as another point. There are old f-15 pilots who are now flying the f-22, and they've said it seems familiar to them.


With fly by wire/digital flight controls, the plane won't feel weird to the pilot. It may have more or less ability to do X, Y, or Z, but in terms of general flight characteristics, it should be pretty similar to other planes.


like I said, the plane won't feel weird, but fly-by-wire controls can't cover for every plane's characteristics. otherwise, why would we need to build all these high tech jets if we could just put FBW on one plane and have it do everything we need. Each plane will fly different no matter how much you think that some system is going to make them fly the same. try doing a loop with an A-10, or a cobra with an f-18. not possible man.


How about using the B-2 or F-117 as examples. By their looks, they should fly really weird right? The fact of the matter is that the flight control system allows them to even fly in the first place, as no pilot would be able to control them with conventional controls. Computers control the stability of the aircraft in flight, and the pilot tells the plane where to go. That's why I said that a pilot wouldn't notice any "weird" characteristics. They'd already be handled by the FCS. All the pilot would notice is how tight he could turn/how fast he could accelerate(or climb), etc... he wouldn't have to deal with a "wobbly" aircraft though.


are you even listening to me? I said "different" not "weird" and yet again, you expect that all planes have the same types of flight. their control surfaces are not the same, so they will, and read my text here, fly differently, no matter how much you try to computerize it. FBW will just make it smoother, that's all it does.

And by the way the B-2 and F-117 do fly differently, cause they're not aerodynamically shaped. These planes can't do any complex maneuvers, and the f-117 especially can't attain any speeds because it's shape creates too many shockwaves and it has so little lift, which means straight flight and light turns are about all it can do, and the only time I've seen a Nighthawk do a flip is in Ace Combat.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 23:46
by StolichnayaStrafer
Hence why pilots were recruited from A-7D slots for the F-117 program at first, due to having somewhat similar flight characteristics. By that meaning generally similar subsonic speeds, payload/bombing profile involving PGMs, etcetera. However, that was about where the similarities ended. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 04:50
by theheik
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:Hence why pilots were recruited from A-7D slots for the F-117 program at first, due to having somewhat similar flight characteristics. By that meaning generally similar subsonic speeds, payload/bombing profile involving PGMs, etcetera. However, that was about where the similarities ended. :wink:


Finally, someone who agrees with me. thought I was arguing against everyone else on this forum.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 06:22
by StolichnayaStrafer
Hey- no matter what, ALL aircraft have different characteristics. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 11:14
by F16guy
theheik said:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I was merely pointing out this statement is wrong. I could care less if a plane resembles a design I've flown before. In fact, I'd rather the plane outperforms the plane I'm currently flying, and if that means it looks different but can do things the current plane can't...thats even better. I can honestly tell you the T-38 fly's nothing like the F-16. The T-37 flew nothing like the T-38.

So your initial argument, quoted above is not true and appears to have nothing to do with FLCS but looks. My comfort in the plane had nothing to do with what it looked like, the comfort I have in a particular plane comes from actually flying that plane, not a previous one. The experience from the previous plane helps but negative transfer could also be a problem.

By the way, with a Fly by Wire Flight Control system, the engineers can program a single airframe to fly like several other airframes, so the premise is false.

In fact, if the military continues with manned fighters, as well as other airframes, utilizing FBW and FLCS systems, most every plane will 'feel' the same. That is the designers intent, let the pilot concentrate on the myriad of other tasks besides flying. If I had to spend as much time 'flying' the jet as previous generations of pilots, I would not be as lethal as the USAF needs me to be.
Constantly trimming the F-4 for level flight, worrying about not using the ailerons and only using rudder while aft stick and high AOA not to mention over G's, reduces concentration and lethality. It is amazing Gums and Outlaw even hit their targets back in the day.:lol:

Previous generations of pilots definitely had to devote a lot more time to flying tasks. Pilots now concentrate a lot more on employing their machine and not just flying it.

Finally, your assessment of the F-117 is off the mark. It was not only capable of straight line flying and minimal turns. It could easily do rolls and high G turns, thanks to its FLCS.

Sorry sometimes simulators just aren't comparable to flying, especially if they are designed for the PC. No offense to several of the guys here who worked hard on Falcon 4.0

YF-23

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 19:36
by f22enthusiast
Nice view...

SP

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 00:23
by StolichnayaStrafer
Man, that plane sure was purty. :(

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 02:06
by theheik
F16guy wrote:theheik said:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I was merely pointing out this statement is wrong. I could care less if a plane resembles a design I've flown before. In fact, I'd rather the plane outperforms the plane I'm currently flying, and if that means it looks different but can do things the current plane can't...thats even better. I can honestly tell you the T-38 fly's nothing like the F-16. The T-37 flew nothing like the T-38.

So your initial argument, quoted above is not true and appears to have nothing to do with FLCS but looks. My comfort in the plane had nothing to do with what it looked like, the comfort I have in a particular plane comes from actually flying that plane, not a previous one. The experience from the previous plane helps but negative transfer could also be a problem.

By the way, with a Fly by Wire Flight Control system, the engineers can program a single airframe to fly like several other airframes, so the premise is false.

In fact, if the military continues with manned fighters, as well as other airframes, utilizing FBW and FLCS systems, most every plane will 'feel' the same. That is the designers intent, let the pilot concentrate on the myriad of other tasks besides flying. If I had to spend as much time 'flying' the jet as previous generations of pilots, I would not be as lethal as the USAF needs me to be.
Constantly trimming the F-4 for level flight, worrying about not using the ailerons and only using rudder while aft stick and high AOA not to mention over G's, reduces concentration and lethality. It is amazing Gums and Outlaw even hit their targets back in the day.:lol:

Previous generations of pilots definitely had to devote a lot more time to flying tasks. Pilots now concentrate a lot more on employing their machine and not just flying it.

Finally, your assessment of the F-117 is off the mark. It was not only capable of straight line flying and minimal turns. It could easily do rolls and high G turns, thanks to its FLCS.

Sorry sometimes simulators just aren't comparable to flying, especially if they are designed for the PC. No offense to several of the guys here who worked hard on Falcon 4.0


First of all, when you consider the shape the shape differences between the T-37 and the T-38, it's not surprising that they don't fly the same.

Second, The T-38 has the same frame as the F-5, and is not related to the F-16, so I don't see the comparison.

Third of all, I am aware that the F-117 was capable of high speed turns, nearly every plane in the world is, but what I mean is that it couldn't pull off anything that would class it as a fighter. it's pure aerodynamics (as far as my experiences and research tells me) doesn't give it enough lift to do anything spectacular, like fly on it's side, which FBW despite it's power wouldn't change a thing. It was meant as bomber and nothing else, though all planes are designed to exceed their specifications. However, if you can show me a link to a movie showing otherwise, I'll gladly concede the point. Also, I'm just using Ace combat as an example of where all the aerodynamics and plane characteristics don''t matter much.

Finally, if FBW makes all planes fly the same, what is the point of this discussion? If both planes act in the same manner, would it not just be more sensible to take the plane that is easier and cheaper to maintain?


p.s. By the way, from what you wrote I'm guessing that you're a pilot. Do you fly the f-16 as your name suggests, or do you fly another plane? I'm just curious

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 10:35
by F16guy
Okay, your argument is becoming circular. You are trying to make two separate points into the same argument and that was not my intent. I intended to disagree with two items separately.

Please go back and look at your initial post to wrightwing.

theheik wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the YF-23 was faster, and perhaps a bit stealthier. The YF-22 was more manueverable and had less risky weapons layouts, while still being very fast/stealthy. This combined with a more mature design played a large role in the decision.


another thing is that the f-22 had a more familiar design overall, so pilots could adapt to it more easily and use it better in battle


This reasoning had nothing to do with it. Even now, they're still learning how to employ the F-22 to it full potential.


Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


It appears to me that your response on why the YF-22 won and the YF-23 lost was because it looked familiar or had a familiar design to the F-15. I'm pointing out that that was not a factor in the decision. Pilots could care less if a plane looks or feels familiar to something previously flown. The planes fly drastically different from one another. One is capable of post stall maneuvering and the other is not. The F-22 is closer in flying characteristics to the F-16. Obviously the F-16 can't post stall maneuver either.
The avionics inside the F-22 are very different than the F-15 and so is the design philosophy behind them. The displays do away with regular 'steam gauges' and are designed to synthesize information for the pilot increasing overall Situational Awareness of the battlespace. This synthesis of information is quite different from the avionics and displays in the F-15 designed over 30 years earlier and the F-16.

So I stand by my initial post that having a familiar design was not a reason the F-22 won.
Let me know if I and apparently quite a few others (wrightwing, Scorpion1alpha,Prinz_Eugn, Pilotasso) incorrectly interpreted the intent of your post.

Now on to the next point, wholly separate from your the above response. That being, no amount of FBW is going to affect the flight characteristics of each individual plane.
Pilotasso mentioned the fact that the YF-23 had FBW, which implies a computer to help fly the plane, and therefore it would not exhibit wild flying characteristics.
You then proceeded to say that each plane is so unique that FBW (I'm going to substitute Flight Control System here) is not going to change those characteristics. That too is incorrect.
A pilot flying a jet utilizing a FLCS is requesting a flight responses from a computer when utilizing the control stick. An example, I can continue to pull back on the stick when the F-16 is at 25.5 degrees AOA and she is never going to give me more than 1 G available, meaning the FLCS is going to keep the plane flying despite my attempts to take it beyond its flyable limits. Now if I pulled past the AOA limit with a non-FLCS jet, I would could get the desired deflection of controls but the jet would probably cease flying and go out of control.

Now you are correct that each plane is unique and going to have different flight characteristics based upon its design. Some planes are going to go faster, some are going to have higher AOA limits, some are going to allow the pilot to continue to maneuver the jet post stall (like the SH and F-22), some are going to be more restricted in their flight characteristics because of extremely unstable designs, (like the F-117 that you mentioned). However, by introducing a FLCS control system, the planes are going to 'feel' very similar even if they are markedly different in design. An example is the F-22, it has a side stick and responds very much like a Viper. It is way different than an F-15 and F-18. FLCS jets auto trim throughout different flight regimes typically being designed to seek one G flight, they have speed ranges for maximum maneuvering vice specific corner speeds(of conventional fighters) for the tightest turns, they gain up or down flight control sensitivities based upon the commanded configuration such as landing, air refueling and even different combat loadings. FLCS designed jets feel very similar to one another in this regard.

Next, if you want to see a good video of the F-117 going through its paces, you need to look for the Air show demo of the F-117 on the East Coast, prior to its wing falling off. You'll have to do the research to find the video. The wing failure was due to an incorrectly installed structural panel, which was missing required fasteners.
By the way, the F-117 utilized the F-16 FLCS with modified flight control laws to control its unique design. Several of my pilot friend who have flown both F-117's and F-16 say they were very similar. Obviously, the F-117 could not match the F-16 in most flight regimes but the feel of the jets were close.

As you know, aircraft are designed for different reasons, specifically to meet different mission requirements and of course cost. Hence the F-22 and F-35 mix. But since the advent of successful FLCS systems, the goal of the designer has been to reduce the flying tasks and flight workloads on the pilot, that is why I say they fly very similarly.

Finally, Yes, I am a fighter pilot flying the F-16 and this is my opinion based upon my experience flying actual jets, discussions with many of my friends and varying military training simulators including the F-22 and F-35A.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 17:06
by theheik
Then I concede the point, in lieu of your experience and knowledge. But good discussion, and I learned a lot from this. However, the F-15 had FBW in addition to it's mechanical FLCS, so wouldn't it feel the same to someone flying the f-22?
Also this discussion raises an interesting point. I've seen the Su-27/35 do crazy moves, and as far as I know they have little or no FBW/FLCS to smooth it out or keep them aloft, so in a dogfight against FBW controlled planes wouldn't they be able to outmaneuver any plane that they went against because they would suddenly do something that the computers in the FBW planes wouldn't allow?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:25
by wrightwing
theheik wrote:
F16guy wrote:theheik said:
Yeah but would you rather fly a plane that at least has some resemblance in design to ones you've flown before, or fly a plane that's completely new to you. a pilot's comfort in flying a plane can greatly affect how they fly


I was merely pointing out this statement is wrong. I could care less if a plane resembles a design I've flown before. In fact, I'd rather the plane outperforms the plane I'm currently flying, and if that means it looks different but can do things the current plane can't...thats even better. I can honestly tell you the T-38 fly's nothing like the F-16. The T-37 flew nothing like the T-38.

So your initial argument, quoted above is not true and appears to have nothing to do with FLCS but looks. My comfort in the plane had nothing to do with what it looked like, the comfort I have in a particular plane comes from actually flying that plane, not a previous one. The experience from the previous plane helps but negative transfer could also be a problem.

By the way, with a Fly by Wire Flight Control system, the engineers can program a single airframe to fly like several other airframes, so the premise is false.

In fact, if the military continues with manned fighters, as well as other airframes, utilizing FBW and FLCS systems, most every plane will 'feel' the same. That is the designers intent, let the pilot concentrate on the myriad of other tasks besides flying. If I had to spend as much time 'flying' the jet as previous generations of pilots, I would not be as lethal as the USAF needs me to be.
Constantly trimming the F-4 for level flight, worrying about not using the ailerons and only using rudder while aft stick and high AOA not to mention over G's, reduces concentration and lethality. It is amazing Gums and Outlaw even hit their targets back in the day.:lol:

Previous generations of pilots definitely had to devote a lot more time to flying tasks. Pilots now concentrate a lot more on employing their machine and not just flying it.

Finally, your assessment of the F-117 is off the mark. It was not only capable of straight line flying and minimal turns. It could easily do rolls and high G turns, thanks to its FLCS.

Sorry sometimes simulators just aren't comparable to flying, especially if they are designed for the PC. No offense to several of the guys here who worked hard on Falcon 4.0


First of all, when you consider the shape the shape differences between the T-37 and the T-38, it's not surprising that they don't fly the same.

Second, The T-38 has the same frame as the F-5, and is not related to the F-16, so I don't see the comparison.

Third of all, I am aware that the F-117 was capable of high speed turns, nearly every plane in the world is, but what I mean is that it couldn't pull off anything that would class it as a fighter. it's pure aerodynamics (as far as my experiences and research tells me) doesn't give it enough lift to do anything spectacular, like fly on it's side, which FBW despite it's power wouldn't change a thing. It was meant as bomber and nothing else, though all planes are designed to exceed their specifications. However, if you can show me a link to a movie showing otherwise, I'll gladly concede the point. Also, I'm just using Ace combat as an example of where all the aerodynamics and plane characteristics don''t matter much.

Finally, if FBW makes all planes fly the same, what is the point of this discussion? If both planes act in the same manner, would it not just be more sensible to take the plane that is easier and cheaper to maintain?


p.s. By the way, from what you wrote I'm guessing that you're a pilot. Do you fly the f-16 as your name suggests, or do you fly another plane? I'm just curious


You're misconstruing flying the same, and having the same flying performance. In terms of what the pilot feels, there's not gonna be a great deal of difference when using a FBW/FCS. That doesn't mean different aircraft will turn/climb/dive/etc... the same.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:33
by wrightwing
theheik wrote:Then I concede the point, in lieu of your experience and knowledge. But good discussion, and I learned a lot from this. However, the F-15 had FBW in addition to it's mechanical FLCS, so wouldn't it feel the same to someone flying the f-22?
Also this discussion raises an interesting point. I've seen the Su-27/35 do crazy moves, and as far as I know they have little or no FBW/FLCS to smooth it out or keep them aloft, so in a dogfight against FBW controlled planes wouldn't they be able to outmaneuver any plane that they went against because they would suddenly do something that the computers in the FBW planes wouldn't allow?


The pilot that knows they can't input a dangerous control selection, is going to be able to fly more aggressively than the pilot who doesn't have limitations, but has to concern themselves with the envelope of the aircraft. If you're not concerned with stalling, spinning, over G, etc.. you can maneuver in a care free manner.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 04:19
by theheik
wrightwing wrote:
The pilot that knows they can't input a dangerous control selection, is going to be able to fly more aggressively than the pilot who doesn't have limitations, but has to concern themselves with the envelope of the aircraft. If you're not concerned with stalling, spinning, over G, etc.. you can maneuver in a care free manner.


but even if they fly more aggressively, the plane won't allow them do make the aggressive moves, so it's like an attack dog tied to a fire hydrant. all that ability, but it can't do anything. The moves that the Sukhois can perform are only capable because they go over the limits that they were designed for, and at sufficient height they can decide a battle without ever posing a real threat to the pilot

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 05:23
by Raptor_claw
theheik wrote:
wrightwing wrote:.... If you're not concerned with stalling, spinning, over G, etc.. you can maneuver in a care free manner.
but even if they fly more aggressively, the plane won't allow them do make the aggressive moves, so it's like an attack dog tied to a fire hydrant. all that ability, but it can't do anything.
Wow - not even close. "it can't do anything"? A well-designed FLCS (as in the F-22) allows the absolute peak capabilities from the airframe - it allows the pilot to fly right up to the edge of going out-of-control, without accidentally stepping over that line. That was exactly WW's point. The FLCS knows exactly where the limits are at all times, rather than forcing the pilot to constantly be aware of the exact flight conditions and remembering the limits that apply. (Do you really think the pilot wants to constantly keep track of how much fuel he has, and how much stores weight he has, so he can calculate how many g's he can pull without breaking something? Don't you think if he is forced to estimate all that manually that he will err on the safe side, rather than risk bending something?) USAF made the decision early (with the F-22) that the design should not allow an aircraft loss of control, for any combination of pilot inputs. In short, they were not buying into the argument that departing the aircraft was somehow tactically useful. Or at least, that the enormous increase in risk to the pilot and airframe was not worth whatever small usefullness you could possibly get out of a departure. If you haven't already, check out the departure during early testing. Look tactically useful? Or does it look like an invitation for disaster? And no, the aircraft won't do that anymore. And no, the "fix" did not involve tying the "dog" to the "fire hydrant". The absolute minimum reduction in aircraft rate capability to prevent this event was identified, and it was, well, small.

The moves that the Sukhois can perform are only capable because they go over the limits that they were designed for, and at sufficient height they can decide a battle without ever posing a real threat to the pilot
They can only perform those airshow "moves" with aircraft that have been loaded with a special FLCS version that removes protections. (They also only allow specially trained pilots to fly those.) The "real" FLCS that actual active duty pilots would fly prevents those out-of-control maneuvers. Even the Russians understand the risk involved (with no real benefit) in giving that capability to actual pilots that might have to actually fly in the "real" world. One might even argue that the repeated air-show demonstrations of Russian ejection-seat technology means that its not even a good idea for the "experts". So, yea, I would call that a "real threat" to the pilot.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 06:56
by cobzz
The moves that the Sukhois can perform are only capable because they go over the limits that they were designed for, and at sufficient height they can decide a battle without ever posing a real threat to the pilot

Likely because the stability augmentation system on the early Mig-29 is garbage. I see no reason Sukhois are any diferant.

Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29’s handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16’s quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.

There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.

The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately
35° AoA.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... lcrumflyer


The purpose of Fly-By-Wire is to KEEP the plane in control ALL the time, it should NOT limit the aircraft. F-22 is thirty years newer than the F-16, and if you watch demos, it can have pratically an unlimited angle of attack. Furthermore...

The pirouette manoeuvre was developed at the request of operational pilots, as a high alpha low speed reversal, akin in its purpose to the classical yo-yo. In a high yo-yo, the pilot unloads in a tight turn, climbing and decelerating, then rolls 90 degrees and pulls through 180 degrees to reverse direction, leaving the aircraft pointing at the target with an altitude advantage. The pirouette is an in-plane reversal manoeuvre which resembles a conventional stall turn or hammerhead in a piston aircraft.

To execute the pirouette at low speed, the aircraft is placed into a high alpha attitude, and as airspeed drops to around 100-200 KIAS and full back-stick is held in, full lateral stick and rudder are applied into the direction of the reversal.

The stick and rudder force for the pirouette entry are light, compared to the aft stick force, and the aircraft very smoothly slices around in-plane, wings level, to point in the opposite direction. The stick and pedal inputs are in effect the same as for a snap roll, but the FCS software senses the attitude and control inputs and executes the pirouette. Without the FCS code designed to do this, most fighters would depart and possibly do so in a direction other than that intended by the pilot.

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

Admittedly, it is Carlo Kopp. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 09:22
by F16guy
theheik,

Some people are way more eloquent than I am. Raptor_claw does a great job explaining why a FLCS is in most circumstances better for a pilot and the jet. The Flanker series actually does have FLCS systems which inform the pilot of the aircraft limits but due to different philosophies in design, those airplanes do allow the pilot to override limiters, often to their detriment. Those special maneuvers you see at air shows are....Air Show maneuvers, in specially configured jets.

The discussion often associated with limiters (FLCS designed jets) involves denying the pilot the ability to max perform the jet when he needs it most. It truly is the result of a lack of understanding of the FLCS vs denying the pilot the ability to override the computer.
The argument about limiters goes something like this: A pilot has found himself in a nose low situation and needs 10 G's to avoid the ground while the jet is designed to give a max of 9 G's. You could also substitute bandit at Six O'clock. Obviously, having the ability to pull that extra G would save his life and the plane, momentarily. If the plane FLCS was overridden the plane could be stressed, even to the point of not being able to be flown again, or out right go out of control. But that has to be better than certain impact with the ground or being shot down, right? You pay your money, you take your chances.

But that is not the problem. Understanding the jet, FLCS limitations and benefits is the correct logic path. The pilot must learn those FLCS limitations and fly the plane with that knowledge, ie, don't put the jet where you (the pilot) need more than 100% of its capability. Instead become a better pilot and not a hamfist.

The flip side is the FLCS allows the plane to be flown at 100% max ability 99% of the time. With non FLCS jets (I'll include the F-15 in here because its FLCS is not what we are discussing, it does not inhibit the pilot) the pilot is concentrating on observing his aircraft limits and trying to get close to 90-95% of the planes abilities (in a close turning dogfight, as an example).

Just my opinion follows regarding the percentage of effectiveness pilots get out of jets and only applies to stick, throttle and rudder. (It is pulled...out of my........thin air, but hopefully illustrates my point) I submit current generation pilots are able to concentrate more on the key points in a fight, adversary mistakes, limiting own mistakes, and follow on maneuvering of a turning fight because the FLCS is giving the pilot 100% with out the pilot having to dedicate a large portion of his thought process (OODA loop) to not going out of control or over stressing his plane.

I salute the older generation of pilots who were able to fly a jet or prop fighter to 98-100% of its capabilities, those pilots were very rare. Avg Pilots probably get 90-95% out of their planes with out a FLCS with limiters and that means I can exploit 5-10% of the adversary pilots OODA loop that he is devoting to his airframe limitations.

This is way, way, way over simplified and I honestly don't know if I'm explaining it well, so I'm ready for any bullsh!t flags.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 16:46
by johnwill
F16 Guy,

As an F-16 development engineer, I can tell you the contractor and customer have gone over this topic for at least 35 years. Your explanation is the best I've seen. Anyone can't understand that isn't trying.

There is another aspect to the limiter question. As you say, pilots can now fly at 99-100% without worrying about breaking the airplane, while earlier pilots stayed around 90 - 95%. That extra hard usage of the airplane can and does cause structural durability problems.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 09:40
by F16guy
Why thanks John, I definitely take that as a compliment from you.

As far as the extra hard usage. I was counting on the engineers to realize that if they gave me a limit, I'd use it all. So hopefully that is figured into the design load. But then the original life span was for 4000 hours on the Viper. Now we're looking to get some of them up to 8000, hopefully Falcon star and the other upgrades are working.

I was talking about line where the plane is most maneuverable in close in dogfighting and not 100% of the airframe durability limit. From what I know Pilots are given limits on G that are about 75-80% of Max so as not to cause the structural durability problems like we are seeing in the Eagle and other jets.

Things just wear out. I look in the mirror and realize that while I think I'm 18, my body don't look or act like 18 anymore. Still got a couple of thousand hours left on it though. What is that Toby Keith song...."I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was....."

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:47
by johnwill
Toby Keith got it right! :lmao:

I'm going to tell you more now than you probably want to know. In designing the structure of a fighter, two kinds of loads have to be considered, static and durability, which used to be called fatigue. Static loads are the maximum one-time loads every part of the airplane has to withstand at any flight or ground condition. Durability loads are all flight and ground conditions (1g, 2g, ... 9g, rolls,..) distributed over the lifetime of the airplane (4000 hr, 8000 hr, ..), called usage.

Static loads are relatively easy to determine and verify, but durability loads are a mess, due to unknown usage. The USAF specified the usage GD was to design the F-16 for, based on earlier airplane history. None of these airplanes had g limiters, by the way. Neither the AF nor GD was smart enough to realize the effect a g limiter would have on usage. With the limiter, the airplanes naturally began to pile up more usage at very high g levels than the design called for.

The limits a pilot is given are based on static loads, not durability. These static loads are 2/3 of the load that would cause structural failure on any part of the airplane. The actual useage of the individual airplanes is tracked and compared to design usage, so that structural inspection intervals can be adjusted. More severe usage, more frequent inspections.

The F-16 design life has always been 8000 hr, but because usage has been more severe than planned, the real lifetimes have been reduced. The airplane is fully capable of safely flying 9g conditions, but it won't fly them as many times as they are being asked to (to hugely over-simplify).

Where static loads are 2/3 of failure load, the conservatism of durability loads is that to certify an 8000 hour airplane, 16000 hours must be demonstrated in ground test.

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 04:35
by izardofwoz
The whole argument of FLCS limiters reminds me of an anecdote from Adolf Galland. Can't remember where I saw this, but I think someone once asked him which Luftwaffe fighter he most preferred to fly, the Me-109 or the FW-190. His reply was something to the effect that although the Focke-Wulf had better performance on paper, he preferred the Messerschmitt because he had more confidence in his ability to push the plane to its limits.

I think what F16guy did a good job of illustrating is that the electronic flight controls, such as they are in the F-16, F/A-18, F-22, etc, give a more standardized level of confidence in the airplane. That way, a pilot who may otherwise be average (which I am sure F16guy is not..), can spend less time becoming proficient in moving the airplane around the sky, and more time learning to fight it effectively.

-N

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 06:57
by theheik
Fair enough. Now back to the topic at hand: f-22 vs f-23; which was more valuable to the American armed forces?

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 11:43
by StolichnayaStrafer
I'm amazed this debate has gone on for 15 pages now!!! :crazypilot:

That being said, back during the trials it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use. Which of the prototypes had the slower landing speed? Which one actually had the shorter landing requirements?

Mind you, this is for the prototypes- not to be based on the current F-22A version. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 16:57
by Guysmiley
it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use


Said by whom?

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 00:07
by StolichnayaStrafer
I had read it in an aviation publication probably in the late 1990s- possibly in one of the no longer published World Air Power Journal quarterlies.

I had erred in my previous post about when it was written/said, as it was after the trials were all said and done I believe.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 01:13
by Scorpion1alpha
Now back to the topic at hand: f-22 vs f-23; which was more valuable to the American armed forces?


Huh???


back during the trials it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use. Which of the prototypes had the slower landing speed? Which one actually had the shorter landing requirements?


:wtf:

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 01:31
by Prinz_Eugn
According to Bill Sweetman, the F-22 was considered easier to convert for naval use. Low speed handling was the big reason, as I recall.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 03:31
by StolichnayaStrafer
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
back during the trials it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use. Which of the prototypes had the slower landing speed? Which one actually had the shorter landing requirements?


:wtf:


Wassa matta fa yoo, don unnastan prain ingrish??? :P

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 03:50
by Scorpion1alpha
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
back during the trials it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use. Which of the prototypes had the slower landing speed? Which one actually had the shorter landing requirements?


:wtf:


Wassa matta fa yoo, don unnastan prain ingrish??? :P


I guess I don't, especially when the facts are wrong. My ingrish bad...

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 04:04
by StolichnayaStrafer
I was just stating something I had read in a publication quite some time ago, and asked a couple of questions- that's all. If you have a problem with the facts(as you put it), then take it up somewhere else.

The one thing that really bugs me is how people can bust someone's chops SO FAST sometimes when all they do is bring up something they had read in a publication. Even worse is how people beat a dead horse arguing something with someone(not me, mind you) that actually flies, works on, or engineers something in particular.

Jeesh, can't a Forumer ask any questions around here??? :?

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 09:36
by Scorpion1alpha
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:Jeesh, can't a Forumer ask any questions around here??? :?


Hmmm...I don't think you're one of the "troublemakers" on this board so I may have interpreted what you wrote the wrong way and if that is the case, pardon. I also don't want anyone to be discouraged in asking questions (as long as they are legitimate, intelligent and thought out ones that will not violate OPSEC).

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 02:54
by theheik
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:I'm amazed this debate has gone on for 15 pages now!!!


We'll the truth of it is that the last 2 pages have been arguments over what I said

it was said that the YF-23 was the easier of the two for conversion to naval use. Which of the prototypes had the slower landing speed? Which one actually had the shorter landing requirements?

Mind you, this is for the prototypes- not to be based on the current F-22A version. :wink:


Well the naval version of the ATF was scrapped in lieu of the JSF, and that was before the YF-22 became the F-22A so it comes more to the air force, which uses it thing almost exclusively.

Personally though, I think that the Raptor was the better choice.

Consider this. Both of the ATF concepts were practically invisible to radar, and both had superior range, maneuverability, and speed to most aircraft in the US forces. so it came down to this. which one was more capable in a dogfight, and which was easier and cheaper to build and maintain?

In both aspects, the YF-22 won out. The YF-23 was harder to maintain, with the ceramic tiles needing meticulous attention. And though it nearly matched the YF-22 in maneuverability, the YF-22 always edged out just enough so that in a dogfight, if it came down to capabilities, it would win every time against the YF-23

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 05:56
by StolichnayaStrafer
theheik, thank you for responding respectfully to my queries- I appreciate it immensely! 8)

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2009, 12:53
by Scorpion1alpha
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Hmmm...I don't think you're one of the "troublemakers" on this board so I may have interpreted what you wrote the wrong way and if that is the case, pardon.


Just wanted to go on record and correct myself.

I realized I missed ID'd "StolichnayaStrafer" and meant that "sprstdlyscottsmn" was the person I view as not one of the "troublemakers". So my mistake for the missed ID and retract the pardon in my original post.

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2009, 14:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
appology accepted

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2009, 18:57
by StolichnayaStrafer
Hey, I just stated something I had read a long time ago and asked some simple, general questions about the two ATF flyoff competitors.

No harm in that. :shrug:

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2009, 13:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
lol

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2009, 03:39
by gosmack
Consider this. Both of the ATF concepts were practically invisible to radar, and both had superior range, maneuverability, and speed to most aircraft in the US forces. so it came down to this. which one was more capable in a dogfight, and which was easier and cheaper to build and maintain?

In both aspects, the YF-22 won out. The YF-23 was harder to maintain, with the ceramic tiles needing meticulous attention. And though it nearly matched the YF-22 in maneuverability, the YF-22 always edged out just enough so that in a dogfight, if it came down to capabilities, it would win every time against the YF-23


I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2009, 11:53
by Kryptid
I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.

Regardless, it would have been amazingly cool to have watched the YF-23 and YF-22 duke it out. :D

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2009, 12:13
by Scorpion1alpha
gosmack wrote:I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.


Dogfight each other?

Maybe both companies and the USAF would've considered it had they have the time after such a short amount of time to test, clear and expand just their flight envelopes.

Besides, just the flight test portion will yield data useful to calculate the potential better performer. Actual "dogfighting" with prototypes would not yield much overall useful data and would have been potentially dangerous. Anyways, changes from a prototype to production representative vehicles is guaranteed (i.e. YF-22 to F-22) and differences to the flying and handling qualities can be substantial.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2009, 20:10
by gosmack
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
gosmack wrote:I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.


Dogfight each other?

Maybe both companies and the USAF would've considered it had they have the time after such a short amount of time to test, clear and expand just their flight envelopes.

Besides, just the flight test portion will yield data useful to calculate the potential better performer. Actual "dogfighting" with prototypes would not yield much overall useful data and would have been potentially dangerous. Anyways, changes from a prototype to production representative vehicles is guaranteed (i.e. YF-22 to F-22) and differences to the flying and handling qualities can be substantial.


That's what I was thinking. It would be too much of a risk to the test pilots to place two unproven experimental aircraft in a scenario like that. The reason why I ask, is that earlier in the thread, theheik is implying that the F-22 won the competition due to dominance in a mock dogfight.

Flyoff

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2009, 15:55
by f22enthusiast
I didn't see either YF-23 test fire missiles like the YF-22 did... I believe the F119-powered YF-22 simply outdid the YF-23s in all of the important categories - including missile firings.

RE: Flyoff

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2009, 21:50
by lampshade111
As much as I would love to see a USAF formation of F-23As and F-22As, only one could survive. Many have a strong loyalty to the YF-23, but I don't buy the argument that it easily outclassed the YF-22. Perhaps the YF-23 would have been the better choice if the USSR did not collapse, but my personal opinion is that the the YF-22 was better suited for the new global/political climate. It is quite possible the F-23 would have been canceled in the early 1990s where the F-22 survived.

I could be wrong however, and the F-23 could have been more successful in the political realm because it "looked" more like the future of aviation. While it may not have been chosen, the design of the YF-23 is bound to influence future Northrop concepts.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 04:35
by theheik
gosmack wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
gosmack wrote:I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.


Dogfight each other?

Maybe both companies and the USAF would've considered it had they have the time after such a short amount of time to test, clear and expand just their flight envelopes.

Besides, just the flight test portion will yield data useful to calculate the potential better performer. Actual "dogfighting" with prototypes would not yield much overall useful data and would have been potentially dangerous. Anyways, changes from a prototype to production representative vehicles is guaranteed (i.e. YF-22 to F-22) and differences to the flying and handling qualities can be substantial.


That's what I was thinking. It would be too much of a risk to the test pilots to place two unproven experimental aircraft in a scenario like that. The reason why I ask, is that earlier in the thread, theheik is implying that the F-22 won the competition due to dominance in a mock dogfight.


sheesh this forum is still going eh?

Anyways, I am not implying the two prototypes duked it out, rather that the YF-22 was more capable as a "Fighter". In this specific case I was referring to the YF-22's TVC capabilities, which in addition to making the plane more maneuverable in a dogfight, would give it a whole new set of moves such as the pugachev cobra, a move that could only be done by other TVC planes and the Su-27, the primary fighter jet of Russia even to this day. The yf-23 could not achieve these moves because it's airframe was designed for stealth rather than maneuverability and could not take TVC because it engines had the ceramic heat sinks that prevented movement. And these moves would potentially give a YF-22 an advantage over the YF-23,since in terms of speed and stealth both the YF-22 and YF-23 were good enough that neither was particularly above another. The YF-22 just had more points as a fighter in it's favor

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 05:45
by JetTest
And everyone knows that the cobra is such an important and effective thing in real-world fighter tactics today......

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 06:43
by BDF
JetTest wrote:And everyone knows that the cobra is such an important and effective thing in real-world fighter tactics today......


Not to mention both ATF finalists met the program KPP for maneuverability. I don’t doubt that the F-22 probably had some advantages in certain regimes, particularly the post stall and high alpha but I’m willing to bet that the F-23 would have been a very good dogfighter in its own right. It had not only a huge wing (110 ft² more than the F-22’s already huge 840 ft²) but it probably also had a lower effective wing loading since it’s fuselage was wide, flat and airfoil like. One area that I would think would have been problematical is that the secondary bay for the heaters doesn’t permit a very good FOV for the missile’s seekers unless it opens differently and the missiles extend down and out. Less of a problem today with the emerging LOAL tech tree spooling up.

I’ve heard anecdotally from folks purporting to have been involved in the program state that it would have had tremendous supersonic maneuverability. To me this seems to make sense since it appears outwardly that the design placed higher emphasis on LO and speed; i.e. emphasis on BVR capability. I wouldn’t be surprised that part of the reason the F-22 won was it was a more conservative design with less risk. Oddly, the F-23 would have been more appropriate in today’s post cold-war world with the current high capability threat focused on the pacific. The jet appears to carry more fuel and ordnance which is a factor in the current PacRim defense planning.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 19:54
by JetTest
Yes, I think the award went to the most mature, conservative design that met the key program requirement, with the least risk, for both airframe and engine.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2009, 17:36
by BDF
I've also read that Northrop did a crappy job on the actual EMD proposal especially on the avionics. Supposedly the Northrop avionics path was more supportable upgradeable a la F-35 (though probably still based on Ada software).

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 17:14
by strykerxo
If it was just for looks the F-23 winds hands down. The AF will pick I high & low risk to if maturation of the more sophisticated AC can compete.

I shot this last week at the Western Museum of Flight

http://www.youtube.com/user/strykerxo?f ... 9-n3tNrec0

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 22:09
by flighthawk
I always preferred the YF-22 for myself as far as looks go.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 23:04
by strykerxo
Don't get me wrong the F-22 is a great looking plane. But, the F-23 is sleek, sexy, sinuous, sinister and serpintine. How is that for words starting with "S", only a woman is more curvy :shock:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 23:30
by madrat
The YF-23 is prettier than the YF-22, but the F-22A is sexier than both. The redesign from the YF-22 to the F-22A was a huge improvement to the eyes.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2010, 00:32
by strykerxo
If I remember right LM had a complete redesign late in the ATF compitition, and so refining the design was not going to happen. The EMD & validation stage after LM had won the contract brought the redesign to what we see today, which is much more pleasing to the eye.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the overall looks of the F-22 VS F-23

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2010, 03:37
by That_Engine_Guy
The F-23 would look best as an FB-23 with a stretched fuselage, widened body with enlarged weapons bay, a larger wing for more internal fuel and more lift, and a pair of F135-PW-200 engines.

An outstanding stealth replacement for the Mud Hens and compliment to the Bones and B-2s.

Perhaps they could retire the Buffs before they reach 75? :lmao:

TEG

I must agree the YF-23 was a sexy jet, at least the two of them.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2010, 17:09
by strykerxo
Is there a artist concept or rendering of the FB-23?

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 03:11
by Kryptid
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/me ... 16429.html

Good 3D model of the FB-23 here, but you have to have an account to see the pictures:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 909.0.html

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2010, 16:48
by Scorpion1alpha
That_Engine_Guy wrote:The F-23 would look best as an FB-23 with a stretched fuselage, widened body with enlarged weapons bay, a larger wing for more internal fuel and more lift, and a pair of F135-PW-200 engines.

An outstanding stealth replacement for the Mud Hens and compliment to the Bones and B-2s.


I've always thought we lost a certain level of capability when we retired the F-111s. Even today, the F-15Es can't match the range/weapons load the F-111s had. To equal and better the Aardvarks today, you need the big bombers or larger numbers of Strike Eagles with tanker support.

A stretched "FB-23" with the larger weapons bay with an internal volume to carry at least 4 GBU-10s or 16 GBU-54 DMGB JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and have at least a 1,600KM combat radius would be an outstanding replacement for the F-111 and complement the big bombers.

Of course, the same capability could be achieved by a stretched "FB-22 Strike Raptor" if funding and support was there and the prefered design concept offered by LM chosen instead of the "compromised" design.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 22:17
by aaam
gosmack wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
gosmack wrote:I am merely curious. Has there ever been a requirement for any of these aircraft to dogfight to prove which one is best? I've never read or watched anything anywhere that mentioned that the YF-16/YF-18, YF-22/YF-23, or X-32/X-35 having to dogfight each other to prove their worth.


Dogfight each other?

Maybe both companies and the USAF would've considered it had they have the time after such a short amount of time to test, clear and expand just their flight envelopes.

Besides, just the flight test portion will yield data useful to calculate the potential better performer. Actual "dogfighting" with prototypes would not yield much overall useful data and would have been potentially dangerous. Anyways, changes from a prototype to production representative vehicles is guaranteed (i.e. YF-22 to F-22) and differences to the flying and handling qualities can be substantial.


That's what I was thinking. It would be too much of a risk to the test pilots to place two unproven experimental aircraft in a scenario like that. The reason why I ask, is that earlier in the thread, theheik is implying that the F-22 won the competition due to dominance in a mock dogfight.


Granted I'm responding to an older post, but this may prove helpful. It is true that it would not be a good idea to risk the only, very valuable prototypes in a mock dogfight, and it wouldn't really tell you very much. But there's a more basic reason, and that involves the unique way this competition was run.

The aircraft were never evaluated against each other. In fact, the evaluation was set up to prevent such a thing from happening. The teams evaluating the YF-23 were kept separate from those evaluating the YF-22. They were not to compare their findings or even impressions. No AF personnel were allowed to fly both planes lest there be even an informal comparison. In fact, only one man has ever flown both planes (the Chief pilot for Northrop became the Chief pilot for Lockheed) and he's never spoken about his experiences in this regard, probably because of a non-disclosure requirement.

There were a series of benchmarks against which the aircraft were measured, in a series of "stoplights", which would be reported to the Secretary of the Air Force. If I remember correctly, red meant the a/c didn't meet that particular criteria, yellow meant it was met but with concerns that night need to be addressed, green meant fully met and I believe there was a blue stoplight for dramatically exceeded. These stoplights would be reported to the Secretary and he would make the decision based on whatever criteria he felt like, which was not required to be disclosed. There was no basis for protest here, because both companies knew this going in, and agreed to it, it's doubtful anyone ever would again.

All that was ever eventually said was that Lockheed won because it was thought they had a better management plan and they had better documentation. An example of the latter was a large one piece central structure of the YF-23. Some leaks said that there was a concern that Northrop.MDD didn't document well enough that is was possible to manufacture such a structure. The fact that they actually did it and had two aircraft sitting there with the structure didn't count as much as documenting that they'd be able to do it, so that it could be evaluated whether or not they could do it.

Over the years, there have been some unofficial leaks and rumors. Although both a/c would require some changes to correct a few things for production, both aircraft met or exceeded the requirements for all benchmarks. For example, the maneuverability requirement was to match the F-16 with better high AoA performance. They both exceeded that. The consensus seems to be was that the YF-22 was more agile at the left side of the envelope, thanks to its 2D thrust vectoring (which doesn't actually help you turn tighter, but it does let you pitch faster and can give more authority at the highest AoAs) while the YF-23 was better at almost everything else. Remember, though, aircraft performance was just one of the factors in the decision, and both met or exceeded everything there If the consensus is accurate, then clearly other factors came into play. AF was fortunate that in this situation they'd get a winner no matter which one they picked.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 03:48
by bruant328
When oh when after 20 years will they finally release the YF-23 performance numbers?

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 08:13
by madrat
Scorpion1alpha wrote:A stretched "FB-23" with the larger weapons bay with an internal volume to carry at least 4 GBU-10s or 16 GBU-54 DMGB JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and have at least a 1,600KM combat radius would be an outstanding replacement for the F-111 and complement the big bombers.


Stretch it and give it something like a pair of 3 foot wide by 25 foot long by 3 foot tall bomb bays. Allow for an internal load of up to 18000 pounds, not including the weight of the rotary launchers. Imagine any of the following packages:

2x GBU-28 Deep Throat (5000#; 14"x25') sum = 10000#
8x Mark 84 (2050#; 18"x10'9") sum = #16400
8x GBU-15 (2000#; 18"x12'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-24 Paveway III family (2000#; 14.6"x14'2") sum = #16000
8x GBU-27 Paveway III family (2000#; 28"x13'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-31 JDAM-ER family (2100#; 18"x12'8") sum = #16800
16x Mark 83 (1000#; 14"x10') sum = #16000
16x GBU-16 Paveway II family (1000#; 14.7"x12') sum = #16000
16x GBU-32 JDAM-ER family (1000#; 15"x10') sum = #16000
16x AGM-154 JSOW-ER (1100#; 13"x13.5') sum = #17600
36x Mark 82 (500#; 11"x7'4") sum = #18000
36x GBU-12 Paveway II family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
36x GBU-38 JDAM-ER family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
60x GBU-39 SDB (285#; 7.5"x6') sum = #17100
60x Mark 81 (265#; 9"x6'2") sum = #15900
60x GBU-53 SDB II (205#; 7"x5'9") sum = #12300

...Or maybe a mixture where the right front bay holds 15x GBU-53, the left front bay holds 4x AGM-154, and the rears of both bays carry 4x GBU-31 JDAM-ER's. (sum of approx. 15875 pounds)

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 20:51
by FlightDreamz
Some "FB-22" ideas found on the 'net.
Image
Image
[img]http://img43.imageshack.us/i/fb22proposalunder.jpg/
[/img]
Just looks like a stretched F-22 with bigger wings. I've also heard of a tailless design like the X-44 Mantra see below
Image
Some "FB-23" pic's I was able to find.
Image
A model that's supposedly on some Northrop-Grumman's managers desk (not the designation on the base of the model). And lastly this artist representation...
Image

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 23:47
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:When oh when after 20 years will they finally release the YF-23 performance numbers?


Precisely because the selection method was so unique, they kept the relative performance numbers under wraps, they didn't want a lot of second guessing. During the years the F-22 was fighting for development funding, the relative performance numbers would also be kept quiet so as not to give opponents another thing to throw at it. Now, I happened to believe they should have picked the YF-23, but since the decision was not based on performance or capability, I also agree with their decision to keep comparisons out of the limelight. They would have just been used against the Raptor by those who didn't want us to have any new fighter. That may be the reason it's still not talked about. Most folks still look at performance by itself. If the YF-23 was significantly better in many areas, that will just reopen the whole issue to little purpose.

That said, I too would like to know.

One personal note: In the '90s I had some conversations with an official who would have been involved with logistical support of the F-22 if BRAC hadn't changed a lot of plans. While we were talking, I mentioned that even years later, the supercruise speed of the YF-23 with the GE engines was still classified. His response, and I have absolutely no confirmation of his opinion was, "You know what that means, they must have done Mach 2".

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 23:53
by aaam
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
That_Engine_Guy wrote:The F-23 would look best as an FB-23 with a stretched fuselage, widened body with enlarged weapons bay, a larger wing for more internal fuel and more lift, and a pair of F135-PW-200 engines.

An outstanding stealth replacement for the Mud Hens and compliment to the Bones and B-2s.


I've always thought we lost a certain level of capability when we retired the F-111s. Even today, the F-15Es can't match the range/weapons load the F-111s had. To equal and better the Aardvarks today, you need the big bombers or larger numbers of Strike Eagles with tanker support.

A stretched "FB-23" with the larger weapons bay with an internal volume to carry at least 4 GBU-10s or 16 GBU-54 DMGB JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and have at least a 1,600KM combat radius would be an outstanding replacement for the F-111 and complement the big bombers.

Of course, the same capability could be achieved by a stretched "FB-22 Strike Raptor" if funding and support was there and the prefered design concept offered by LM chosen instead of the "compromised" design.


Well, remember the original replacement for the F-111 was to be the B-1A.

IMHO opinion, even if USAF had gone with that kind of concept there was zero chance there would be an "FB-23". If they started something like that, it would be perceived as calling into question the original somewhat controversial selection of the YF-22. The Raptor was fighting for its funding life and that was a controversy it definitely didn't need.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 00:43
by bruant328
AAAM do you know there is a DVD about the YF-23 design team and some vague comments about the competition?
http://www.amazon.com/Web-Secrecy-YF-23 ... 826&sr=1-1

You have some good inside info, don't be afraid to post it here assuming OPSEC or legal issues are not a problem.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 03:56
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:AAAM do you know there is a DVD about the YF-23 design team and some vague comments about the competition?
http://www.amazon.com/Web-Secrecy-YF-23 ... 826&sr=1-1

You have some good inside info, don't be afraid to post it here assuming OPSEC or legal issues are not a problem.


Thank you. I have that DVD, carefully stored with my other YF-23 stuff (kept next to my F-20 stuff).

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 05:10
by popcorn
In the light of Sec. Gates' wishes to build a new stealth bomber, I wonder how feasible it would be to use the Black Widow II as a starting point for the new plane? It was considered very stealthy at the time and upgrading it with stealth advances from the last 30 years would make it even better. It would have to be a much bigger design, perhaps more than twice the size of the original to get the range and payload that will probably be called for.
Or perhaps even the YF-23's sexy shape has been superseded and a completely tailless design ala B-2 or J-UCAS will be selected.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 05:53
by Prinz_Eugn
I don't think they're going to use the F-23 experience in any really noticeable way... there are much better ways to make a bomber than taking an old fighter design and making it bigger/longer, etc. They're probably going to go for a flying wing or semi-flying wing design.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 19:09
by FlightDreamz
bruant328
AAAM do you know there is a DVD about the YF-23 design team and some vague comments about the competition?
http://www.amazon.com/Web-Secrecy-YF-23 ... amp;sr=1-1

Good DVD, good post bruant328 Have that DVD in my collection as well (if only I can find where I put it)! The main website closed down if I remember correctly - nice to see it's still being offered on Amazon at least.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 19:28
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Well seeing as how the R&D has already been paid for, a new B-2 Spirit only costs a billion dollars (instead of almost 3). It has great stealth (second only to raptor from all I have read), lowest IR signature, no contrails, good payload, great range, and no time is needed for R&D! Oops, tooling is gone. As for cost, a technological dinosaur like the B-52 would cost 80 mil, a moderately better tech B-1B costs 400 mil, so given the diff in price between B-1B and B-52H, B-2 sounds like a good idea by comparison. Plus is looks great, just like the YF-23. I like the Northrop planes.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 21:47
by bruant328
FlightDreamz wrote:Good DVD, good post bruant328 Have that DVD in my collection as well (if only I can find where I put it)! The main website closed down if I remember correctly - nice to see it's still being offered on Amazon at least.


Thank you sir. I for one am a conspiracy believer that in the 1991 ATF decision the second best plane was picked.

I have to admit that I am lazy in that I have not read the Albert Piccirillo book on the F-22.
http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Tactical ... 727&sr=1-1

If anyone knows of better references especially on the YF-23 please post them assuming OPSEC/legal issues.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 00:13
by alloycowboy
The YF-23 lost because of it's poor manfucturability. If YF-23 and YF-22 were as close in performance as every seems to suggest then YF-22 wins because you can actually build it on a production line. Just looking at the YF-23 outer mold lines you can tell it would have been a nightmare to put in production because of its advanced 3d composite contours. It's most likely that each aircraft would have to be hand manfuctured. Perhaps some day when we have advanced injection moldable composites we wil see another airplane with swoopy contours like the YF-23.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 00:59
by shingen
The issue was that at the end of the Cold War they needed program management superiority to even get the plane built. Unfortunately, the F-23 was inferior in this area.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 01:37
by popcorn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Well seeing as how the R&D has already been paid for, a new B-2 Spirit only costs a billion dollars (instead of almost 3). It has great stealth (second only to raptor from all I have read), lowest IR signature, no contrails, good payload, great range, and no time is needed for R&D! Oops, tooling is gone. As for cost, a technological dinosaur like the B-52 would cost 80 mil, a moderately better tech B-1B costs 400 mil, so given the diff in price between B-1B and B-52H, B-2 sounds like a good idea by comparison. Plus is looks great, just like the YF-23. I like the Northrop planes.


I think it will look something like a B-2 only somewhat smaller. There is a truism that you buy planes by the pound and a smaller, lighter plane should be more affordable so long as it meets the USAF needs.It will incorporate advances in all-aspect stealth not found on the Spirit so it should offer significantly superior stealth that will be required in the face of advancing anti-stealth efforts. Not relying solely on stealth for protection, it may have some counter-air capability like a pair of AMRAAMs for contingencies.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 03:29
by bruant328
Oh and I want the YF120 engine to go with the YF-23 not that other engine.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 09:42
by aaam
alloycowboy wrote:The YF-23 lost because of it's poor manfucturability. If YF-23 and YF-22 were as close in performance as every seems to suggest then YF-22 wins because you can actually build it on a production line. Just looking at the YF-23 outer mold lines you can tell it would have been a nightmare to put in production because of its advanced 3d composite contours. It's most likely that each aircraft would have to be hand manfuctured. Perhaps some day when we have advanced injection moldable composites we wil see another airplane with swoopy contours like the YF-23.



Well, lessee here... They somehow managed to build the B-2. Plus Northrop/MDD had already built some of the tooling for the more complex parts, and they did happen to have two of the planes sitting there on the ramp that included the actual large structure that some thought they wouldn't be able to build because it was insufficiently documented.

Remember that they didn't have to go through an extensive redesign of their submission, the aircraft as flown pretty much looked just like the drawing of the original submission, and was also pretty close to what the production version would have looked like, since easing the transition to production was something Northrop was after

Given Northrop's record of innovative thinking and that MDD was a conservative company who wouldn't partner on a design they didn't think could be built, I don't think it's fair to state so assertively that the F-23 would have suffered from poor manufacturability. I will grant you that since the Secretary of the Air Force got to pick the winner on any criteria he chose, and since the full reasoning has never been revealed, we can't say for sure that he didn't have that impression, rightly or wrongly (I'd venture wrongly).

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 09:43
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:Oh and I want the YF120 engine to go with the YF-23 not that other engine.


The YF120 engine was more powerful and more advanced, but ran into some troubles during the testing, so the YF119 was the safer choice.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 02:14
by Scorpion1alpha
madrat wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:A stretched "FB-23" with the larger weapons bay with an internal volume to carry at least 4 GBU-10s or 16 GBU-54 DMGB JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and have at least a 1,600KM combat radius would be an outstanding replacement for the F-111 and complement the big bombers.


Stretch it and give it something like a pair of 3 foot wide by 25 foot long by 3 foot tall bomb bays. Allow for an internal load of up to 18000 pounds, not including the weight of the rotary launchers. Imagine any of the following packages:

2x GBU-28 Deep Throat (5000#; 14"x25') sum = 10000#
8x Mark 84 (2050#; 18"x10'9") sum = #16400
8x GBU-15 (2000#; 18"x12'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-24 Paveway III family (2000#; 14.6"x14'2") sum = #16000
8x GBU-27 Paveway III family (2000#; 28"x13'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-31 JDAM-ER family (2100#; 18"x12'8") sum = #16800
16x Mark 83 (1000#; 14"x10') sum = #16000
16x GBU-16 Paveway II family (1000#; 14.7"x12') sum = #16000
16x GBU-32 JDAM-ER family (1000#; 15"x10') sum = #16000
16x AGM-154 JSOW-ER (1100#; 13"x13.5') sum = #17600
36x Mark 82 (500#; 11"x7'4") sum = #18000
36x GBU-12 Paveway II family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
36x GBU-38 JDAM-ER family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
60x GBU-39 SDB (285#; 7.5"x6') sum = #17100
60x Mark 81 (265#; 9"x6'2") sum = #15900
60x GBU-53 SDB II (205#; 7"x5'9") sum = #12300

...Or maybe a mixture where the right front bay holds 15x GBU-53, the left front bay holds 4x AGM-154, and the rears of both bays carry 4x GBU-31 JDAM-ER's. (sum of approx. 15875 pounds)


Not bad in your brainstorming of requirements.

The important thing, as mentioned, is to stretch and widen the body to accommodate the needed internal structure and volume to fit the required weapons, gas and avionics/sensors that is wanted/needed...no matter which hypothetical FB-22/23 design you choose.

One of the things I personally don't like about the hypothetical "FB-22" Strike Raptor design is that it is a compromised design. Stock fuselage, bulged main weapons bay to accommodate a couple of 2000lb weapons and the larger wing. To add more weapons onto it, a couple of "stealthy" external weapons pod and hanging (stealthy) JASSMs off of it was the answer; the answer to a vice-gripped budget. If the U.S. had the will, an optimized "FB-22/23" would have no compromise and will better the Aardvark in every area. It would have been an outstanding white-world solution for a fast responding medium bomber/strike aircraft when big bombers are not available, not needed or not feasible.


aaam wrote:Well, remember the original replacement for the F-111 was to be the B-1A.


Yeah...and I found it funny that the F-111 series hung around fo so long.

aaam wrote:IMHO opinion, even if USAF had gone with that kind of concept there was zero chance there would be an "FB-23". If they started something like that, it would be perceived as calling into question the original somewhat controversial selection of the YF-22. The Raptor was fighting for its funding life and that was a controversy it definitely didn't need.


I would disagree that going with the hypothetical "FB-23" design is not putting into question the original ATF decision. It's the role and mission the aircraft is designed for. An optimized FB-23 design that is designed to go high, fast, is stealthy and if it can have long legs (as I said earlier for me, a 1600KM+ radius with 20-30min loiter time) would be outstanding. It wouldn't have competed with the F-22's role as a pure air dominance fighter.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 02:41
by psychmike
According to Volume 38 of World Air Power Journal, the F-22 won in part because: 1) McDonnell Douglas (partner on the YF-23) had just gone through the A-12 debacle; 2) the B-2 was having difficulty meeting RCS specs at that time; and 3) Lockheed had just scored a home run with the F-117 in Desert Storm.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 21:00
by aaam
psychmike wrote:According to Volume 38 of World Air Power Journal, the F-22 won in part because: 1) McDonnell Douglas (partner on the YF-23) had just gone through the A-12 debacle; 2) the B-2 was having difficulty meeting RCS specs at that time; and 3) Lockheed had just scored a home run with the F-117 in Desert Storm.


Not having Volume 38 immediately to hand, I'd say that author's opinion is as good as anything else out there. Personally, I happen to be in the Industrial Policy camp (i.e. With less programs available coming up, this was the best way to maintain Lockheed's capability in the industrial base), but who knows? The unique thing about the competition was that barring something disqualifying one of the competitors, the Secretary of the Air Force could decide it any way he chose. All we've ever heard officially was better documentation and more confidence in management.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 23:42
by bruant328
bruant328 wrote:Oh and I want the YF120 engine to go with the YF-23 not that other engine.


:offtopic: GE just broke my heart. Tech trading with the ChiComms. :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/busin ... nted=print

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 23:53
by psychmike
aaam wrote:
psychmike wrote:According to Volume 38 of World Air Power Journal, the F-22 won in part because: 1) McDonnell Douglas (partner on the YF-23) had just gone through the A-12 debacle; 2) the B-2 was having difficulty meeting RCS specs at that time; and 3) Lockheed had just scored a home run with the F-117 in Desert Storm.


Not having Volume 38 immediately to hand, I'd say that author's opinion is as good as anything else out there. Personally, I happen to be in the Industrial Policy camp (i.e. With less programs available coning up, this was the best way to maintain Lockheed's capability in the industrial base), but who knows? The unique thing about the competition was that barring something disqualifying one of the competitors, the Secretary of the Air Force could decide it any way he chose. All we've ever heard officially was better documentation and more confidence in management.


You're right. The author (Bill Sweetman) didn't state any sources but sounded authoritative.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2011, 01:23
by aaam
psychmike wrote:
aaam wrote:
psychmike wrote:According to Volume 38 of World Air Power Journal, the F-22 won in part because: 1) McDonnell Douglas (partner on the YF-23) had just gone through the A-12 debacle; 2) the B-2 was having difficulty meeting RCS specs at that time; and 3) Lockheed had just scored a home run with the F-117 in Desert Storm.


Not having Volume 38 immediately to hand, I'd say that author's opinion is as good as anything else out there. Personally, I happen to be in the Industrial Policy camp (i.e. With less programs available coning up, this was the best way to maintain Lockheed's capability in the industrial base), but who knows? The unique thing about the competition was that barring something disqualifying one of the competitors, the Secretary of the Air Force could decide it any way he chose. All we've ever heard officially was better documentation and more confidence in management.


You're right. The author (Bill Sweetman) didn't state any sources but sounded authoritative.


I'll have to read it again. Bill Sweetman is a very knowledgeable person who has been at this a long time. If you've read some of his other writings or met him, he always sounds authoritative.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2011, 04:03
by Roscoe
I've learned that Bill makes a lot of sh!t up also.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2011, 07:46
by aaam
Now I've read Bill Sweetman's piece and it's pretty much as psychmike said. Sweetman discusses the decision in two place and he attributes it to (and clearly he was talking to Lockheed folks), in no particular order

1. The F-117 doing very well in Desert Storm

2. Problems with the TSSAM missile and radar RCS issues with the B-2 RCS.

3. MDD being part of the team involved in the A-12 debacle

4. The YF-22 being closer to the planned EMD version than was the YF-23.

5. Supposedly Lockheed's vg design for the NATF was an important factor over Northrop's canard.

My thoughts would be

1. Can't argue with that. For the role for which it was designed it was spectacular, fully redeeming its performance in Operation Just Cause.

2. The TSSAM suffered from a bizarre budgeting scheme, but Northrop also wasn't communicating its operations that well. The B-2's and RCS problems, but given the stage in its development it was at that point they weren't abnormal.

3. It was true that MDD was the junior partner in the A-12 fiasco, but the "leader" of that team was GD, who was on the YF-22 team. Plus, although Sec. Rice may not have known it at that time, DoD/Air Force were arguably major contributors to what went wrong.

4. I'm not sure about this; Both would undergo noticeable changes to go to EMD, but the EMD F-23 would not require a reduction in wing sweep or significant increase in span.

5. I must admit Northrop's NATF was not as pretty as their ATF, but it did look very Star Wars.

Like I said, I don't know the answer, so even though I'm in another camp, his explanation is as good as anybody else's.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2011, 21:31
by fiskerwad
Off topic comment.

aaam wrote:My thoughts would be

3. It was true that MDD was the junior partner in the A-12 fiasco,


I doubt that MDD ever considered itself a "junior partner". They sure did not act like they did.

Back to the topic.

fisk

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2011, 22:46
by Prinz_Eugn
Roscoe wrote:I've learned that Bill makes a lot of sh!t up also.

I have a really old "Stealth Aircraft" book (pre- F-117 disclosure) written by him, with a downright hilarious illustration of the assumed "F-19" configuration.

Would anybody be interested in a scan of it?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2011, 23:52
by JetTest
Prinz, please share!

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2011, 04:59
by Prinz_Eugn
Well... okay.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2011, 04:38
by aaam
fiskerwad wrote:Off topic comment.

aaam wrote:My thoughts would be

3. It was true that MDD was the junior partner in the A-12 fiasco,


I doubt that MDD ever considered itself a "junior partner". They sure did not act like they did.

Back to the topic.

fisk


There's what the org chart says, and then there's reality.

In times past I have personally corresponded with some folks on that team, and they said they repeatedly tried to tell GD that the plane was going to be too heavy, wouldn't be a good carrier capable plane and significant changes needed to be made. According to them, GD just blew them off, saying they had it under control, their design was fine, and just get with the program.

YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 03:43
by 1st503rdsgt
Damn! F-22 getting no love up in here. Seriously though, does anyone have an illustration of the Black Widow's weapons bay? My understanding is that Northrop lost because they hadn't thought out how to actually launch weapons even though they had a space. I retrospect, a deeper centerline bay would have proven more useful for air to ground missions than the F-22's shallow twin bays that are best suited for air to air weapons.

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 07:46
by johnwill
aaam wrote:
fiskerwad wrote:Off topic comment.

aaam wrote:My thoughts would be

3. It was true that MDD was the junior partner in the A-12 fiasco,


I doubt that MDD ever considered itself a "junior partner". They sure did not act like they did.

Back to the topic.

fisk


There's what the org chart says, and then there's reality.

In times past I have personally corresponded with some folks on that team, and they said they repeatedly tried to tell GD that the plane was going to be too heavy, wouldn't be a good carrier capable plane and significant changes needed to be made. According to them, , GD just blew them off, saying they had it under control, their design was fine, and just get with the program.


Well, now you are hearing from someone who was on the team. (I was chief of the structural flight test team.) MDD and GD were equal partners on the team. We had MDD engineers working in our groups at GD and vice versa. Each team had certain responsibilities, bur overall they were equally responsible for the airplane, and for the failure of the program.

The MDD people you correspond with certainly have their point of view that GD was to blame for the failure ("GD just blew them off"), but that doesn't mean they really knew what was happening. Like any new airplane, there were development problems, but weight and carrier capability were not the cause of cancellation. As I said, MDD and GD shared in the failure, and there was also another equally guilty party, the US Navy.

There is much more to the story, but that's all you'll get from me.

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 08:39
by SpudmanWP
NG's patent for the launching mechanism:
http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-47 ... tem/Page-1

Also look here for a lot of info on the F-23.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... l#msg14222

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 12:55
by sewerrat
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/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!


No YF-23 ever crashed. And no YF-23 is on display at Wright-Pat... You're confusing the YF-22 and the YF-23.

One YF-23 was taken by Northrop (last 2 years maybe) and was used as a study for the 'Regional Bomber' conceptual work. The other YF-23 is at Muroc Airfield.

Back to the YF-23 versus the YF-22 discussion; I believe the USAF/Pentagon made the right decision in what plane to choose. The YF-23 was more of a long range interceptor, and not so much of a fighter. Yes, it cold cruise faster than the -22, but the TTWratio was in favor of the -22, which is of benefit in the spiraling downwards telephone pole of death in a turning engagement. The -22 is a true fighter. It's something of a super-Eagle, a plane which the USAF loves and is wideley regarded as the best fighter, ever.

The -23 would have been great at at long range BVR engagements because of its better stealth, faster cruise speed, and probably greater range. But it would not have been as great at more close-in encounters, the type of which has been the VAST, VERY VAST, majority of aerial engagements in history. When you're fighting in places like the middle east, the far east, etc etc, the -23 would have been like an Aegis destroyer operating in lake Michigan. The Cold War was over, and is over, and we will never have ATF's operating out of England to defend Western Europe at long range from an invading Russian military.

The -22 made/makes better sense for the current and projected threat environments for quite some time.

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 17:15
by skicountry
sewerrat wrote: No YF-23 ever crashed. And no YF-23 is on display at Wright-Pat... You're confusing the YF-22 and the YF-23.

One YF-23 was taken by Northrop (last 2 years maybe) and was used as a study for the 'Regional Bomber' conceptual work. The other YF-23 is at Muroc Airfield.


Yes, no YF-23 ever crashed but as a bit of Wright Pat regular, I have to confirm that there is indeed a YF-23 on display there. Beautifully restored too after years of outdoor storage. It is currently located at the R&D hangar available for visiting by special bus. What a treat to see this bird. These photos were taken in early 2009.

The museum used to have the YF-22 on display but that went back to the Edwards museum. Wright Pat now has an EMD F-22 painted in Langley colors. The Air Force Museum is an amazing place – if you blink, you’ll miss a new exhibit going up.

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 21:18
by strykerxo
The PAV-2 Grey Ghost is at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, Ca.

http://www.wmof.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-n3tNrec0

Agreed on the USAF Museum, got to get back

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 21:19
by Pecker
skicountry wrote:
sewerrat wrote: ..... And no YF-23 is on display at Wright-Pat... You're confusing the YF-22 and the YF-23......


Yes, no YF-23 ever crashed but as a bit of Wright Pat regular, I have to confirm that there is indeed a YF-23 on display there. Beautifully restored too after years of outdoor storage. It is currently located at the R&D hangar available for visiting by special bus.


I'm with skicountry on this.....YF-23A PAV-1 is on display in the R&D gallery at Wright-Pat AFB. You have to take a tour bus from the museum onto WP AFB in order to see it (and the Presidential aircraft hanger also....great display but watch your head :D ).

The YF23 is neatly parked under the nose of the XB70 Valkyrie. Sweet!

PAV-2 is at the Western Museum of Flight, Torrance Airport, CA.

The name 'Muroc Airfield' is a little out of date.....it's been known as Edwards AFB for some 61 years.

Late update: the IT fun police blocked skicountry's photos but, as of Oct '10, the YF23 had been moved directly under the nose of the Valkyrie and lined up with it, as opposed to being on show off to one side.

And, 'darn!' strykerxo beat me by one whole minute! :wink:

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 22:43
by linkomart
1st503rdsgt wrote:Damn! F-22 getting no love up in here. Seriously though, does anyone have an illustration of the Black Widow's weapons bay? My understanding is that Northrop lost because they hadn't thought out how to actually launch weapons even though they had a space. I retrospect, a deeper centerline bay would have proven more useful for air to ground missions than the F-22's shallow twin bays that are best suited for air to air weapons.


At this adress, http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm you can buy a section drawing of the YF-23 with all the internals.
I did it and it works fine, but don't ask me to send you a copy, its only $7.
It is possible that one of the reason they lost were because of the weapon bays, as I recall Joe Baugher wrote that they were planning to add a bay for wvr missiles.
One other problem with the main weapon bay is that it is some distance in front of the CG, I guess it would be hard to load up a "lot of Iron" and still make it take of.
my 5 cent
/RAF

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 23:53
by aaam
linkomart wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Damn! F-22 getting no love up in here. Seriously though, does anyone have an illustration of the Black Widow's weapons bay? My understanding is that Northrop lost because they hadn't thought out how to actually launch weapons even though they had a space. I retrospect, a deeper centerline bay would have proven more useful for air to ground missions than the F-22's shallow twin bays that are best suited for air to air weapons.


At this adress, http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm you can buy a section drawing of the YF-23 with all the internals.
I did it and it works fine, but don't ask me to send you a copy, its only $7.
It is possible that one of the reason they lost were because of the weapon bays, as I recall Joe Baugher wrote that they were planning to add a bay for wvr missiles.
One other problem with the main weapon bay is that it is some distance in front of the CG, I guess it would be hard to load up a "lot of Iron" and still make it take of.
my 5 cent
/RAF


Up-ship is a good place that needs our support.

I am posting a shot of part the weapons bay below. Those arms at the top are not part of the launching mechanism.

The AF's only concern with the YF-23 weapons bay was that it used an innovative launcher that had only one arm. They were concerned that should that arm malfunction or be damaged, missiles could not be launched. Production F-23s would have had a modification with two launcher arms. If you look real close at the bottom of the doors, you can see where the launch rails for AIM-9s could be attached. On the production version, supposedly a 2nd smaller bay would be located forward of the main bay, which would have held two additional AIM-9s or other HOBS missiles.

F-23 would have had no problem rotating for flight with full bays. Have you noticed the size of those stabilators?

weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 01:15
by 1st503rdsgt
Thanks for the info guys. I can see why the USAF preferred the the F-22 back in the early 90s. The YF-23's stacked weapons bay would have presented problems for mixed ordnance loads because it looks like certain weapons would have to be launched before others. But in retrospect, it's now apparent that the YF-23 would have been easier to adapt for the strike role.

Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 02:02
by aaam
1st503rdsgt wrote:Thanks for the info guys. I can see why the USAF preferred the the F-22 back in the early 90s. The YF-23's stacked weapons bay would have presented problems for mixed ordnance loads because it looks like certain weapons would have to be launched before others. But in retrospect, it's now apparent that the YF-23 would have been easier to adapt for the strike role.


That was a pretty big bay, some have described it as like being in a B-25. Having never seen any of the models with a load or a verified drawing of how weapons would mount in the bay I can't speak for sure, but I would think that with the baseline six AIM-120 load they might not have to stack, but they might have had the option to stack if they wanted to carry a larger load.

RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 04:20
by bruant328
Aaam, what about the question of the YF-23s maneuverability? Was the YF-23 a straight ahead stiff?

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 19:44
by linkomart
aaam wrote: [F-23 would have had no problem rotating for flight with full bays. Have you noticed the size of those stabilators?


I agree, they are massive. Still, in my eyes the weapons bay is well fwd of the CG and if it is filled with GBU:s (maybe 4000 lbs may fit?) the cg would move fwd some. But I'll take your word for it having no problem, I'm just eyballin'.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 19:48
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:Aaam, what about the question of the YF-23s maneuverability? Was the YF-23 a straight ahead stiff?


It exceeded the maneuverability requirements in the specification (so did the YF-22), which means it was more maneuverable than the F-16. A production F-23 would not have all the performance of the F-22 at the left side of the envelope because the vectored thrust allows the Raptor to control pitch at very low IAS and at extreme AoAs. Northop/MDD's, like most manufacturers, made the judgment call that the benefits of vectored thrust weren't worth the cost. That's why different design teams come up with different tradeoffs and solutions.

It also had a more innovative aerodynamic design. One thing you'll notice when looking at photos or models of the bird is the cant of the stabilators. In addition to serving the purpose of helping shield engine IR emissions, the way they were designed also insured that they were never blanked by the wing or airframe, even at extreme AoA.

So, no it wasn't just only quick (which it was) in a straight line. Hope this helps.

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 20:05
by aaam
linkomart wrote:
aaam wrote: [F-23 would have had no problem rotating for flight with full bays. Have you noticed the size of those stabilators?


I agree, they are massive. Still, in my eyes the weapons bay is well fwd of the CG and if it is filled with GBU:s (maybe 4000 lbs may fit?) the cg would move fwd some. But I'll take your word for it having no problem, I'm just eyballin'.


Don't forget those honkin' big engines were aft of the rotate point.

Here's an artists' concept I think was published in World Air Power Review in the early '90s of the supposed EMD F-23 (not sure the nose on main bay loadout is right), along with a shot of the F-22 weapons bays. You can see that both designs' bays are located forward of the rotate point.

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 22:03
by linkomart
aaam wrote: Don't forget those honkin' big engines were aft of the rotate point.

Here's an artists' concept I think was published in World Air Power Review in the early '90s of the supposed EMD F-23 (not sure the nose on main bay loadout is right), along with a shot of the F-22 weapons bays. You can see that both designs' bays are located forward of the rotate point.


If I may be picky, the distance fwd -aft don't make any difference on take of as long as you don't have TVC to vector the thrust, it is the thrustlines momentarm in reference to the center of gravity that can help the airplane rotate. And in the artist's concept the main bay is much more aft than it was in the prototype, hence my concern.
Vell, as I said, picky picky picky. The YF-23 still is my favourite, its looks is still unmatched by any compeditor.

My 5 cent.

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 23:58
by aaam
linkomart wrote:
If I may be picky, the distance fwd -aft don't make any difference on take of as long as you don't have TVC to vector the thrust, it is the thrustlines momentarm in reference to the center of gravity that can help the airplane rotate. And in the artist's concept the main bay is much more aft than it was in the prototype, hence my concern.
Vell, as I said, picky picky picky. The YF-23 still is my favourite, its looks is still unmatched by any compeditor.

My 5 cent.


Trivia note: Watch an F/A-18 on takeoff. You'll see the rudders suddenly both toe in on rotate. this is because when they went from the F-17 to the F/A-18, they moved the main landing gear aft in order to make the aircraft more stable on pitching or rolling decks and also, since jets are often parked with their tails out over the water, to reduce the load on tiedowns so that the Hornet doesn't become an unintended submarine. Problem was, the moment arm was now shorter and the as designed horizontal stabs didn't have sufficient force to rotate the a/c to liftoff attitude on land without a takeoff roll all the way to Mexico (yes, an exaggeration). It looked like an expensive redesign was in the works, until someone thought outside the box. By toeing in the rudders, sufficient extra force is applied that everything works nicely.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 01:09
by bruant328
aaam wrote:
bruant328 wrote:Aaam, what about the question of the YF-23s maneuverability? Was the YF-23 a straight ahead stiff?


It exceeded the maneuverability requirements in the specification (so did the YF-22), which means it was more maneuverable than the F-16. A production F-23 would not have all the performance of the F-22 at the left side of the envelope because the vectored thrust allows the Raptor to control pitch at very low IAS and at extreme AoAs.

It also had a more innovative aerodynamic design. One thing you'll notice when looking at photos or models of the bird is the cant of the stabilators. In addition to serving the purpose of helping shield engine IR emissions, the way they were designed also insured that they were never blanked by the wing or airframe, even at extreme AoA.

So, no it wasn't just only quick (which it was) in a straight line. Hope this helps.


If you can say, was the difference in the maneuverability of the 2 planes significant?

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 02:51
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote:
bruant328 wrote:Aaam, what about the question of the YF-23s maneuverability? Was the YF-23 a straight ahead stiff?


It exceeded the maneuverability requirements in the specification (so did the YF-22), which means it was more maneuverable than the F-16. A production F-23 would not have all the performance of the F-22 at the left side of the envelope because the vectored thrust allows the Raptor to control pitch at very low IAS and at extreme AoAs.

It also had a more innovative aerodynamic design. One thing you'll notice when looking at photos or models of the bird is the cant of the stabilators. In addition to serving the purpose of helping shield engine IR emissions, the way they were designed also insured that they were never blanked by the wing or airframe, even at extreme AoA.

So, no it wasn't just only quick (which it was) in a straight line. Hope this helps.


If you can say, was the difference in the maneuverability of the 2 planes significant?


"Significant" would be in the eyes of the AF, I wouldn't be qualified to make that call. Any statement I'd make would be subjective and my opinion only. Since the ATF competition did not hinge on comparing the relative performance of the two aircraft against each other, only the Secretary of the Air Force at the time could answer that. Various things have leaked out over time, but many of those comparisons would be subjective as well. The only really consistent thing was that the YF-22 was better on the left side of the envelope.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 04:18
by bruant328
aaam wrote:"Significant" would be in the eyes of the AF, I wouldn't be qualified to make that call. Any statement I'd make would be subjective and my opinion only. Since the ATF competition did not hinge on comparing the relative performance of the two aircraft against each other, only the Secretary of the Air Force at the time could answer that. Various things have leaked out over time, but many of those comparisons would be subjective as well. The only really consistent thing was that the YF-22 was better on the left side of the envelope.


What would it take to finally get all of the stats from the now 20 year old Dem/Val competition released? Should we FOIA it?

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 04:24
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote:"Significant" would be in the eyes of the AF, I wouldn't be qualified to make that call. Any statement I'd make would be subjective and my opinion only. Since the ATF competition did not hinge on comparing the relative performance of the two aircraft against each other, only the Secretary of the Air Force at the time could answer that. Various things have leaked out over time, but many of those comparisons would be subjective as well. The only really consistent thing was that the YF-22 was better on the left side of the envelope.


What would it take to finally get all of the stats from the now 20 year old Dem/Val competition released? Should we FOIA it?


You wouldn't get anywhere. :(

RE: Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 04:27
by SpudmanWP
They will ask you to name a specific document (no fishing for info allowed, you have to know the specific document you want) and how much you are willing to pay to process the FOIA claim. They will not give you a price, you have to offer.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 04:30
by bruant328
aaam wrote:
You wouldn't get anywhere. :(


I'm guessing you tried that (FOIA) already.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 04:35
by bruant328
SpudmanWP wrote:They will ask you to name a specific document (no fishing for info allowed, you have to know the specific document you want) and how much you are willing to pay to process the FOIA claim. They will not give you a price, you have to offer.


So, say the phrase, "1990 USAF ATF Dem/Val results" would that work?

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 06:03
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote:
You wouldn't get anywhere. :(


I'm guessing you tried that (FOIA) already.


Although I've used it successfully in the past, not on this one because I doubt it would go anywhere. They (not just AF) are being more secretive and turning down FOIAs now more than ever, but even in the past this wouldn't work. For various reasons, including not wanting to reopen old wounds, they simply don't want this info out. They can cite all kinds of exceptions:business process, competition sensitivity, internal process, commercial proprietary data, etc.

As to your posting regarding phrasing the request, remember, the YF-22 and YF-23 were not evaluated against each other, per se. So, they could very well accept your request and in answer to your specific query you could eventually get an answer something like this:


"Lockheed/Boeing won".

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2011, 01:07
by bruant328
aaam wrote: They (not just AF) are being more secretive and turning down FOIAs now more than ever, but even in the past this wouldn't work. For various reasons, including not wanting to reopen old wounds, they simply don't want this info out. They can cite all kinds of exceptions:business process, competition sensitivity, internal process, commercial proprietary data, etc.

As to your posting regarding phrasing the request, remember, the YF-22 and YF-23 were not evaluated against each other, per se. So, they could very well accept your request and in answer to your specific query you could eventually get an answer something like this:
"Lockheed/Boeing won".


Un ****** believable. Thank you for your input aaam, it is appreciated.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2011, 03:16
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote: They (not just AF) are being more secretive and turning down FOIAs now more than ever, but even in the past this wouldn't work. For various reasons, including not wanting to reopen old wounds, they simply don't want this info out. They can cite all kinds of exceptions:business process, competition sensitivity, internal process, commercial proprietary data, etc.

As to your posting regarding phrasing the request, remember, the YF-22 and YF-23 were not evaluated against each other, per se. So, they could very well accept your request and in answer to your specific query you could eventually get an answer something like this:
"Lockheed/Boeing won".


Un ****** believable. Thank you for your input aaam, it is appreciated.


No problem. As Spudman said, you have to be pretty specific. You don't have to know the document number, but you have to be able to be be able to describe it fairly precisely.

I wasn't trying to be funny or sarcastic, just giving an idea of how they work. They could dodge your real question, "1990 USAF ATF Dem/Val results", by telling you the literal result: Lockheed/Boeing won.

If you went further and tried to get the information as presented to the Secretary of the AF, they'd probably resist, or at best give you the series of red, yellow, green and blue traffic lights which is how the results were forwarded. I don't have a lot of confidence you'd get those, but who knows.

If you precisely defined what you're really looking for, the test results, they'd definitely kick in all those things I mentioned, plus no doubt say that t disclosing that might give clues to the capabilities of the F-22. In fact, I believe to this day the supercruise speed of the YF-23 with the GE engines remains classified.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2011, 04:47
by bruant328
aaam wrote:No problem. As Spudman said, you have to be pretty specific. You don't have to know the document number, but you have to be able to be be able to describe it fairly precisely.

I wasn't trying to be funny or sarcastic, just giving an idea of how they work. They could dodge your real question, "1990 USAF ATF Dem/Val results", by telling you the literal result: Lockheed/Boeing won.

If you went further and tried to get the information as presented to the Secretary of the AF, they'd probably resist, or at best give you the series of red, yellow, green and blue traffic lights which is how the results were forwarded. I don't have a lot of confidence you'd get those, but who knows.

If you precisely defined what you're really looking for, the test results, they'd definitely kick in all those things I mentioned, plus no doubt say that t disclosing that might give clues to the capabilities of the F-22. In fact, I believe to this day the supercruise speed of the YF-23 with the GE engines remains classified.


Last thing first, AFAIK the YF-23 supercruise speed with the YF120s IS classified. I guess otherwise Lockheed would be so angry as to no longer build the F-22 to or something. :roll:

I know you weren't trying to be sarcastic, just helpful. But I'm curious as to what you mean by the traffic lights analogy.

BTW, yes we should have built the AAAM too and made it the ATF compatible. I think only the navy NATF had that requirement.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2011, 08:15
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
Last thing first, AFAIK the YF-23 supercruise speed with the YF120s IS classified. I guess otherwise Lockheed would be so angry as to no longer build the F-22 to or something. :roll:

I know you weren't trying to be sarcastic, just helpful. But I'm curious as to what you mean by the traffic lights analogy.

BTW, yes we should have built the AAAM too and made it the ATF compatible. I think only the navy NATF had that requirement.


Don't want to have folks suffer through me posting the same thing again, so please check out my post in this thread dated Jan 14. I explain the traffic lights in more detail. It actually wasn't an analogy, that's how the eval. teams reported to the Secretary. The competition was set up so the aircrafts' performance could not be compared with each other.

AAAM/AIM-152 was required to be able to be carried by any a/c that could carry Sparrow. It was a bit larger than AIM-120. Because of its size and the size of the F-22 bay, I don't think it would have worked well in there, at least in the USAF version. It would have fit in the F-23. It could also have worked on the F-14, F/A-18 and F-15, although USAF said it had no interest in it (N.I.H. and they were pitching there was no need for a long range missile since no one would see the F-22 to be able to use it) and it should be canceled.

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 00:23
by bruant328
aaam wrote: my post in this thread dated Jan 14. I explain the traffic lights in more detail. It actually wasn't an analogy, that's how the eval. teams reported to the Secretary. The competition was set up so the aircrafts' performance could not be compared with each other.

AAAM/AIM-152 was required to be able to be carried by any a/c that could carry Sparrow. It was a bit larger than AIM-120. Because of its size and the size of the F-22 bay, I don't think it would have worked well in there, at least in the USAF version. It would have fit in the F-23. It could also have worked on the F-14, F/A-18 and F-15, although USAF said it had no interest in it (N.I.H. and they were pitching there was no need for a long range missile since no one would see the F-22 to be able to use it) and it should be canceled.


I reread that post thanks for the heads up. As far as the USAF claiming that they didn't need the AAAM I think that was partially due to fear of asking too much in the budget. IOW, take what you can get/really want(in this case the F-22) and if asked say the AAAM "is not necessary."

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 00:29
by bruant328
On page of 143 F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter they list some of the maneuverability performance of the YF-22:
compared to an F-16 at 120 Keas, 24 degrees alpha, 30K feet and 1G, the YF-22 pitched up at ~22 degrees/sec with the thrust vectoring.

Would the YF-23 have outperformed the YF-22 in the maneuver realm if it had TV?

Re: RE: Re: weapons bay issues

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 05:36
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote: my post in this thread dated Jan 14. I explain the traffic lights in more detail. It actually wasn't an analogy, that's how the eval. teams reported to the Secretary. The competition was set up so the aircrafts' performance could not be compared with each other.

AAAM/AIM-152 was required to be able to be carried by any a/c that could carry Sparrow. It was a bit larger than AIM-120. Because of its size and the size of the F-22 bay, I don't think it would have worked well in there, at least in the USAF version. It would have fit in the F-23. It could also have worked on the F-14, F/A-18 and F-15, although USAF said it had no interest in it (N.I.H. and they were pitching there was no need for a long range missile since no one would see the F-22 to be able to use it) and it should be canceled.


I reread that post thanks for the heads up. As far as the USAF claiming that they didn't need the AAAM I think that was partially due to fear of asking too much in the budget. IOW, take what you can get/really want(in this case the F-22) and if asked say the AAAM "is not necessary."


I think it was more Not Invented Here. USAF generally has been reluctant to adopt a major system (except helos) that they didn't invent or control. They were not being asked to fund any AAAM development. The only development cost to them would be integration on whatever platform they chose to use with it. One of the requirements for AAAM also was that it would not require extensive changes to existing fire control systems to be used, although you could certainly make changes to exploit its capabilities further.

Note that at that time AF was also loudly proclaiming there was no need for a missile with longer range than AIM-120, since F-22 would be able to sneak up to well within AIM-120 range without being detected. That's why the brassboard ramjet AIM-120s never went any farther. Personally, I think another reason AF lobbied against the missile was concern that it might be a threat to F-22 funding. The fear would be that some would use AIM-152 as an excuse to argue that existing fighters armed with it would be good enough and maybe billions of dollars wouldn't need to be spent developing the F-22.

The fact that it might not fit comfortably in the F-22's bay could be another factor.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 05:44
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:On page of 143 F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter they list some of the maneuverability performance of the YF-22:
compared to an F-16 at 120 Keas, 24 degrees alpha, 30K feet and 1G, the YF-22 pitched up at ~22 degrees/sec with the thrust vectoring.

Would the YF-23 have outperformed the YF-22 in the maneuver realm if it had TV?


Hard to say. It would have required extensive redesign of the YF-23 to accommodate it. Given that the YF-23 already exceeded the requirement for maneuverability, Northrop/MDD felt that TV wasn't worth the cost for that portion of the envelope where it would add a significant benefit. That's the design choice they made. Obviously, Lockheed/Boeing felt differently. Don't forget, while 2D TV lets you pitch the nose quicker and have more authority at extreme AoA or at lower IAS, it doesn't let you turn tighter.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 15:24
by bruant328
aaam wrote:Hard to say. It would have required extensive redesign of the YF-23 to accommodate it. Given that the YF-23 already exceeded the requirement for maneuverability, Northrop/MDD felt that TV wasn't worth the cost for that portion of the envelope where it would add a significant benefit. That's the design choice they made. Obviously, Lockheed/Boeing felt differently. Don't forget, while 2D TV lets you pitch the nose quicker and have more authority at extreme AoA or at lower IAS, it doesn't let you turn tighter.


Good point about turning ability and TV. The YF-23 IIRC had a larger wing area and those huge tails, could it have out turned the YF-22???

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 18:54
by Maks
Is there a slight change that the YF-23 performance figures will be released soon (i.e. in the next 10 years ;-) ).
It would be nice to be able to compare it to the YF-22 as well, but that will probably not happen as long the F-22 is in service.
Has there been any official statement on timeline for release of data so far?

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 19:59
by FlightDreamz
Two artist representations of the YF-23 Black Widow weapons bay release mechanisms online on the U.S. patent office site see http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-47 ... nch-system and http://www.patsnap.com/patents/view/US4702145.html
I originally swiped this from somewhere else on F-16.net's message boards (sorry I don't have a link back to the original author) :doh:

Image
My understanding the final weapons bay release would have been two arms (above) as compared to one (below)

Image[/img]
Gives an idea of how deep the weapons bays would have been. Not sure what weapons are represented here, assuming AiM-120 AMRAAM's.

Weapons jam could be a problem here, maybe the F-22 cheek bay's for the AiM-9 Sidewinders isn't such a bad idea? :shrug:

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 21:59
by aaam
FlightDreamz wrote:Two artist representations of the YF-23 Black Widow weapons bay release mechanisms online on the U.S. patent office site see http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-47 ... nch-system and http://www.patsnap.com/patents/view/US4702145.html
I originally swiped this from somewhere else on F-16.net's message boards (sorry I don't have a link back to the original author) :doh:

My understanding the final weapons bay release would have been two arms (above) as compared to one (below)

/2126/us47021454yf23weaponsba.jpg[/img][/img]
Gives an idea of how deep the weapons bays would have been. Not sure what weapons are represented here, assuming AiM-120 AMRAAM's.

Weapons jam could be a problem here, maybe the F-22 cheek bay's for the AiM-9 Sidewinders isn't such a bad idea? :shrug:



The missiles represented are probably notional, representing either AIM-7s (which would never be carried) or AIM-120As. At the time of the DEM/VAL, the development of the clipped fin AIM-120C had not been revealed, so publicly the requirement was for four AIM-120As internally, when in reality it was for six AIM-120Cs.

There are some informed speculations of the production twin arm configuration which show carriage of eight or nine AIM-120Cs internally.

AIM-9s would he been carried in one or both of two places. With less than the max internal AIM-120C load, AIM-9 launch rails could be fitted on the bay doors. In addition, there was a smaller bay immediately ahead of the main bay where two AIM-9s would be carried. The latter would be the equivalent of the F-23's cheek bays.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2011, 22:02
by aaam
Maks wrote:Is there a slight change that the YF-23 performance figures will be released soon (i.e. in the next 10 years ;-) ).
It would be nice to be able to compare it to the YF-22 as well, but that will probably not happen as long the F-22 is in service.
Has there been any official statement on timeline for release of data so far?



The chance is slight at best, IMHO, until the F-22s are in museums.


There never are official statements on that kind of thing unless AF has an ulterior motive. For example, during the '90s when the AF was fighting the return of the SR-71, a lot of previously classified data was released partly, to my mind, as a PR exercise saying, "See? It's not so hot. It's so unimportant we don't even care anymore if you know all this stuff".

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 03:02
by bruant328
Anyone here have this book? Northrop Yf-23a Flight Manual (Manuals of Flight)
http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-Yf-23a-F ... 35&sr=1-12

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 08:43
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:Anyone here have this book? Northrop Yf-23a Flight Manual (Manuals of Flight)
http://www.amazon.com/Northrop-Yf-23a-F ... 35&sr=1-12


Yes, but it's in storage

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 17:28
by bruant328
aaam wrote:]

Yes, but it's in storage


Is it a worthwhile purchase or just rehash?

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 02:54
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:
aaam wrote:]

Yes, but it's in storage


Is it a worthwhile purchase or just rehash?


Depends on what you're looking for. It's not a "rehash" since it came out in 1990, ahead of all the later writings. It's just what it says it is, the Utility Flight manual for the YF-23. You'll see a lot of detail on those two birds, for example, the cockpit panel layout, but it's for those two prototypes. It's not a history of the program or how the aircraft were designed, the design philosophy, etc. It's a flight manual.

Also, since it's for the two prototypes. you'll find very little about the EMD or proposed production versions. It does talk a bit about the missile rails on the bay doors, and the fact that that's in there indicates that if they had won, they'd probably have installed them for further testing of the prototypes. There's nothing about the forward bay because that wasn't on the prototypes.

I enjoyed it, but that's because that kind of stuff interests me.

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 03:58
by bruant328
aaam wrote: I enjoyed it, but that's because that kind of stuff interests me.


Thanks for the heads up.

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2011, 15:38
by sorrydog
linkomart wrote:
aaam wrote: [F-23 would have had no problem rotating for flight with full bays. Have you noticed the size of those stabilators?


I agree, they are massive. Still, in my eyes the weapons bay is well fwd of the CG and if it is filled with GBU:s (maybe 4000 lbs may fit?) the cg would move fwd some. But I'll take your word for it having no problem, I'm just eyballin'.


More so than the CG wouldn't the relationship between the CG and Aerodynamic center be the main concern...especially at supersonic cruise as the aero center moves back and more trim would be needed which would increase drag/ reduce range...hence that was one of the fringe benefits of TV to reduce or eliminate pitch trim when weights/ aero centers shifted.


Anyway, the question that I wonder is that since both planes were winners could Northrop have done anything feasibly different to change the outcome (i.e. done a better job of reducing foreseeable production risk) ...or was LM just preferred if both entries were competitive with each other.

What I'm getting at is what happened to North American in the late 50's with the F107. It was probably a better plane than the 105 (giant blind spot behind pilot not withstanding), but was not the preferred winner due to political and production issues.

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2011, 16:23
by outlaw162
:offtopic:

Of the three that were built, tail numbers 118 and 119 are on display in museums.

Tail number 120 was evidently severely damaged on an aborted takeoff by Scott Crossfield. It was subsequently destroyed.

I took this picture at Edwards in the 50's. The NASA collection has the only other picture of #120 I've seen.

OL

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2011, 16:44
by outlaw162
And the winner.

OL

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2011, 20:36
by BDF
sorrydog wrote:
aaam wrote: [F-23 would have had no problem rotating for flight with full bays. Have you noticed the size of those stabilators?

More so than the CG wouldn't the relationship between the CG and Aerodynamic center be the main concern...especially at supersonic cruise as the aero center moves back and more trim would be needed which would increase drag/ reduce range...hence that was one of the fringe benefits of TV to reduce or eliminate pitch trim when weights/ aero centers shifted.


I have one page of the unclassified Northrop F-23A general arrangement plan here. The aft CG limit is 42% MAC which is about 30” ahead of the main gear. As noted the F-23A had two weapons bays, with the smaller bay forward of the main bay. What’s interesting is that the majority of the fuel is forward of the aft CG limit although the two forward most tanks are feed tanks. Obviously the engines and APU which are both located behind the aft limit are much heavier than the equipment, stores and fuel located farther forward. Either way aam is right, the V tails are huge, the reference are being 213 sq/ft which is more than the wing area of the F-5!

As for supersonic trim changes I’ve heard anecdotally that one advantages of clipped diamonds is there is little apparent CL change which is why, purportedly, the Northrop design was better in the supersonic realm whereas the F-22 was better in the slow speed post stall environment. The F-23A was a super sexy bird, just from aesthetic reasons it’s too bad it didn’t win, but then again we don’t buy anything for looks (except girls…)

Re: YF-23 bay

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2011, 20:13
by aaam
sorrydog wrote:

Anyway, the question that I wonder is that since both planes were winners could Northrop have done anything feasibly different to change the outcome (i.e. done a better job of reducing foreseeable production risk) ...or was LM just preferred if both entries were competitive with each other.



Bingo

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2011, 02:14
by bruant328
http://tommythomason.com/
NATF: Better is the Enemy of Good Enough



The Northrop NATF retained the basic wing planform of the YF-23 but replaced the stealthy ruddervators with a canard forward and vertical fins aft.

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2011, 23:25
by aaam
bruant328 wrote:http://tommythomason.com/
NATF: Better is the Enemy of Good Enough



The Northrop NATF retained the basic wing planform of the YF-23 but replaced the stealthy ruddervators with a canard forward and vertical fins aft.



The "better" statement is usually attributed to Sergey Gorshkov, the commander in chief of the Soviet Navy. It actually can be taken two ways. One is that no matter you're doing or buying there will always be a better option. You can end up chasing your tail by constantly trying to ramp up the capability (which ramps up cost), instead of actually deploying the capability you need. This leads to another wise saying, "The best they have is not as good as what we haven't got".

But the alternative is also true. What happens when your "good enough" weapon encounters something better?


The Northrop NATF's aft fins were not as "splayed', if you will, as were the F-23's but they weren't verticals ala the F-14/F-15.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2011, 00:48
by bruant328
aaam wrote:
bruant328 wrote:http://tommythomason.com/
NATF: Better is the Enemy of Good Enough



The Northrop NATF retained the basic wing planform of the YF-23 but replaced the stealthy ruddervators with a canard forward and vertical fins aft.


But the alternative is also true. What happens when your "good enough" weapon encounters something better?


The Northrop NATF's aft fins were not as "splayed', if you will, as were the F-23's but they weren't verticals ala the F-14/F-15.


I could not agree more with you. I am a big fan of better and better. Some surprises (their stuff is better) are not a lot of fun. I did not agree with the tone of Thomason's blog post but there is so little info on the NATF that I'll take anything.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2011, 19:36
by Maks
In the YF-23 web of secrecy documentation someone from Northrop mentions maintenance requirements: "half of an F-15 squadron" - if I remember correctly.
Question: was there an Air Force requirement on maintenance?
One more question: does the F-22 use TVC for trimming purposes and what would the max. angle possibly be?

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2011, 22:01
by memzey
The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2011, 10:46
by twistedneck
memzey wrote:The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!


It did get used, look at Pak 50!

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2011, 21:30
by mixelflick
twistedneck wrote:
memzey wrote:The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!


It did get used, look at Pak 50!


BAWHAHAHA!!!

Good one... :)

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2011, 18:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
especially from the front

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2011, 15:33
by memzey
Well I can see a passing similarity but while the PAK-FA is by no means ugly, compared the the '23 she's a minger!

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 23:30
by gergar12
f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 01:39
by BELA
gergar12 wrote:f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22


:roll:

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 15:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
the YF-23 had vastly superior sustained turn and low speed turn when compared to the F-15, but the TVC of the YF-22 made it more agile. Where the YF-23 was "technically superior" to the YF-22 was speed and stealth. the YF120 motor was supposedly a better performer too, but higher risk.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 17:13
by strykerxo
BELA wrote:
gergar12 wrote:f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22


:roll:


diddo that :doh:

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 19:55
by aaam
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:the YF-23 had vastly superior sustained turn and low speed turn when compared to the F-15, but the TVC of the YF-22 made it more agile. Where the YF-23 was "technically superior" to the YF-22 was speed and stealth. the YF120 motor was supposedly a better performer too, but higher risk.


It's somewhat more complicated. Reportedly the YF-22's agility advantage was at the left side of the envelope, and both competitors exceeded the requirement. The actual evaluations and possible reasons for the selection are more complicated, and have been discussed at length in this thread, it's been fascinating reading.

That's a pretty concise assessment of the YF-120, it's notable that both teams used their YF-120 equipped birds when establishing their performance claims. The risk, though, was undoubtedly a factor. GE also reportedly had some problems with their engine during the demonstration.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 06:09
by disconnectedradical
A member of secretprojects.co.uk, who I think is quite knowledgeable, made the claim that the PW powered YF-23 supercruised at Mach 1.8 and the GE powered craft supercruised at Mach 2.2.

Now, I have the preconception of the YF-23 being very fast, but is this even realistic, even without considering the heat on airframe materials? This number would leave even the production F-22 in the dust in a drag race, as it would be about 0.5 Machs faster.

Here's the link to the statement.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 29.55;wap2

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 06:34
by aaam
disconnectedradical wrote:A member of secretprojects.co.uk, who I think is quite knowledgeable, made the claim that the PW powered YF-23 supercruised at Mach 1.8 and the GE powered craft supercruised at Mach 2.2.

Now, I have the preconception of the YF-23 being very fast, but is this even realistic, even without considering the heat on airframe materials? This number would leave even the production F-22 in the dust in a drag race, as it would be about 0.5 Machs faster.

Here's the link to the statement.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 29.55;wap2



The speed of the YF-23 with the GE engines remains, I believe, classified to this day. Now until this changes, we'll never be able to confirm or deny this statement.

It was known that in supercruise the YF-23 was noticeably faster. That may not mean it accelerated blazingly faster, just that it could keep going faster until it maxed out. Also, it's not known whether 'burner was required for the final leg of getting to that higher absolute max speed for supercruise and then the a/c could sustain it in dry thrust.

I do know that later n the '90s I was talking to someone who was indirectly involved with supporting the ATF and mentioned that the YF-23 supercruise was still classified. He half smiled and opined that he wouldn't know for sure but that if that were true he'd guess they did M2 or better.

No, I am not Sundog.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 06:42
by disconnectedradical
Sundog would make this assertion again in this thread.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... nowap.html

I've always been wondering. The true supercruise speed of the YF-23, especially PAV-02, is classified, but is the same true for the YF-22? Is it possible that the YF-22 also went faster than its publicly released speed? It seems that most people touted the YF-23's speed to be faster than what was released, but not the same for the YF-22.

Anyways, I saw the drawings of the EMD F-23. I must say that I absolutely love that aircraft. Badass and sexy.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 14:28
by Maks
Was the YF-22 that more draggy than the YF-23, i.e. considerably lower fuel consumption for the YF-23 => greater range.
Wasn't it that the from the YF-22 to the F-22 "fat" was shaved off to make it slimmer but at the same time led to a reduction in fuel/range? => Is it reasonable to assume that the F-23 would have (significantly) improved range over the F-22?

I read somwhere that GE increased the thrust on their YF-120 - in order to still achieve performance numbers - around 1988? when it had become clear that the ATF would be heavier than initially anticipated. PW did not do that => lower thrust. Hopefully that is correct.

Edit: was the difference in drag only significant in the supersonic regime? => Drag vs. speed curves would be interesting to know.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 18:31
by aaam
Maks wrote:Was the YF-22 that more draggy than the YF-23, i.e. considerably lower fuel consumption for the YF-23 => greater range.
Wasn't it that the from the YF-22 to the F-22 "fat" was shaved off to make it slimmer but at the same time led to a reduction in fuel/range? => Is it reasonable to assume that the F-23 would have (significantly) improved range over the F-22?

I read somwhere that GE increased the thrust on their YF-120 - in order to still achieve performance numbers - around 1988? when it had become clear that the ATF would be heavier than initially anticipated. PW did not do that => lower thrust. Hopefully that is correct.

Edit: was the difference in drag only significant in the supersonic regime? => Drag vs. speed curves would be interesting to know.


The reason the F-22 has less fuel than the YF is that during development Lockheed reportedly advised AF regarding meeting the anticipated performance criteria, "Speed, maneuverability, range. Pick any two". The decision was to reduce the latter to preserve the formers.

Pratt met the thrust requirements that AF asked for. The YF120's "convertabiltiy" feature, among other things, allowed it to generate more power over the speed range at a cost of complexity and a possible increase in risk.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2011, 19:20
by disconnectedradical
I heard that the production F119's thrust matched the YF120 thrust by increasing the fan diameter slightly. Is this true? (looks for TEG)

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2011, 00:45
by aaam
disconnectedradical wrote:I heard that the production F119's thrust matched the YF120 thrust by increasing the fan diameter slightly. Is this true? (looks for TEG)


Would require some redesign but at least theoretically possible. You could also do it by increasing the operating temperature. Price for the latter would be decreased engine life and in the case of both would be increased fuel burn.

GE engine could also increase its thrust through those techniques; GE's idea was always to more efficiently flow more air, the same philosophy behind the F136. In the F120 design the convertability feature was a way to do it more efficiently over a wider speed/power range.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2011, 20:01
by disconnectedradical
Paul Metz's AIAA paper on the YF-23 states that the PW powered vehicle only achieved a Mach 1.43 supercruise speed. The speed for the GE vehicle is listed as classified, but I would put my guess between Mach 1.8 and Mach 2 without taking into account material limits.

Also, how did the PW powered F-22 have such a large increase in supercruise speed (Mach 1.8 ) compared to the GE powered YF-22 (Mach 1.58 )? Was the YF-22's true supercruise speed classified as well? Or did the F-22 get optimized that much more?

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2011, 20:18
by 1st503rdsgt
My guess would be that PW simply had a lot more time/funding to fine-tune the F119 after the competition. In fact, the performance of most engines improves over time. TEG could tell you a lot more.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2011, 14:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
the F-22 also changed quite a bit from the YF-22. every single surface of it was changed, new cockpit location, new canopy design, new nose, new rear fuselage design, new wings, new horizontals, new verticals, new intake location. Nothing stayed the same so why would the performance?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2011, 01:23
by tacf-x
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:the F-22 also changed quite a bit from the YF-22. every single surface of it was changed, new cockpit location, new canopy design, new nose, new rear fuselage design, new wings, new horizontals, new verticals, new intake location. Nothing stayed the same so why would the performance?


Agreed. That along with general improvements in the capabilities of the F119 would certainly lead to greater supercruise capabilities. More efficient pressure recoveries in the inlets and engines, better resistance to high operating temperatures, etc. There are many possibilities for how the production model has such better supercruise abilities compared to the YF-22.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2011, 02:10
by aaam
tacf-x wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:the F-22 also changed quite a bit from the YF-22. every single surface of it was changed, new cockpit location, new canopy design, new nose, new rear fuselage design, new wings, new horizontals, new verticals, new intake location. Nothing stayed the same so why would the performance?


Agreed. That along with general improvements in the capabilities of the F119 would certainly lead to greater supercruise capabilities. More efficient pressure recoveries in the inlets and engines, better resistance to high operating temperatures, etc. There are many possibilities for how the production model has such better supercruise abilities compared to the YF-22.


One would have to wonder, though, if instead of increasing the F-22's supercruise speed they would have been better served by maintaining what they had and working to keep its range.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2011, 05:37
by tacf-x
I guess they kept to their word with speed and maneuverability taking priority over range like you said. They just took the first two and optimized them as best as possible before LRIP came.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2011, 08:19
by shep1978
Perhaps range was not deemd as important as the other parameters bcause of the availability of in-flight refueling.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2011, 00:22
by Scorpion1alpha
The F-22's range can be substantial.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2011, 13:13
by shep1978
Scorpion1alpha wrote:The F-22's range can be substantial.


Out of interest I don't suppose you know how it compares to the F-15C, I don't mean in supercruisng mode but just a straight line optimal flight profile flight from A to B. With or without drop tanks. And I understand ferry range doesn't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things* but yeah i'm curious.

*Thanks to availability of in flight refueling.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2011, 00:40
by BDF
shep1978 wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:The F-22's range can be substantial.


Out of interest I don't suppose you know how it compares to the F-15C, I don't mean in supercruisng mode but just a straight line optimal flight profile flight from A to B. With or without drop tanks. And I understand ferry range doesn't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things* but yeah i'm curious.

*Thanks to availability of in flight refueling.


I have a slide from a LM presentation that discusses combat radius of the F-22 both clean and with 600 and notional 800 gallon external tanks. It also compares a pure subsonic radius and a radius with a 100nm supersonic segment. I have another one, presumably from a different presentation, that shows similar figures but factors in a 6% reduction for routing around threats. Both cite F-22 Enhanced Range Study 060402. Here’s the data:

Subsonic- 630nm/590nm*
Sub + bags- 900nm/846nm*
Sub + Super- 490nm/460nm*
Dito + bags- 800nm/750nm*

* -6% routing factor, carrying 4 AAMs + 2 GBU-32 JDAMs

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2011, 10:24
by popcorn
BDF wrote:
shep1978 wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:The F-22's range can be substantial.


Out of interest I don't suppose you know how it compares to the F-15C, I don't mean in supercruisng mode but just a straight line optimal flight profile flight from A to B. With or without drop tanks. And I understand ferry range doesn't mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things* but yeah i'm curious.

*Thanks to availability of in flight refueling.


I have a slide from a LM presentation that discusses combat radius of the F-22 both clean and with 600 and notional 800 gallon external tanks. It also compares a pure subsonic radius and a radius with a 100nm supersonic segment. I have another one, presumably from a different presentation, that shows similar figures but factors in a 6% reduction for routing around threats. Both cite F-22 Enhanced Range Study 060402. Here’s the data:

Subsonic- 630nm/590nm*
Sub + bags- 900nm/846nm*
Sub + Super- 490nm/460nm*
Dito + bags- 800nm/750nm*

If those figures are accurate, the Raptor's range compares favorably with the F-35A/C.


* -6% routing factor, carrying 4 AAMs + 2 GBU-32 JDAMs

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 20:42
by battleshipagincourt
BDF wrote:Subsonic- 630nm/590nm*
Sub + bags- 900nm/846nm*
Sub + Super- 490nm/460nm*
Dito + bags- 800nm/750nm*

* -6% routing factor, carrying 4 AAMs + 2 GBU-32 JDAMs


As noted by an earlier comment, wouldn't such conditions give the F-22 comparable range to the F-35? If going supersonic under military power means sacrificing nearly a hundred miles of range, how much worse can it be for the F-35 under similar circumstances with afterburners?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 06:34
by disconnectedradical
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know how fast the YF-22 with YF-119 supercruised? The YF-23 with the -119 is mach 1.43

Now that we have the chance to look at the exterior lines of the F-23A EMD, how does its performance compare to the YF-23? The engine housing is slimmer due to the removal of the thrust reversers, but the fuselage is longer and bulkier. Is it more area ruled? How would the drag (trim and wave) compare? Perhaps johnwill or other aerospace engineers can provide some insight on this.

Pictures of F-23A EMD below (thanks to SecretProjects and supacruze)
http://yf-23.net/Pics/F-23A/F-23A%20EMD ... 201415.jpg
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 08:01
by johnwill
Can't help with wave drag, but trim drag is mostly influenced by CG location relative to the aerodynamic center and if used, thrust vectoring. With a CG aft limit of 42% of MAC, trim drag should be very low. They may also tweak the LEF and TEF positions at different cruise mach numbers to further reduce trim drag.

One comment, I really don't like to see fuel cells on the lower surface (Cell 6). A gear up landing could become very exciting. Another, I don't like to see a nose gear strut directly under the pilot's butt. A hard landing could be painful.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 09:03
by lampshade111
Why couldn't they have been some reason to put both the F-22A and F-23A into production? Damn the costs involved, both designs are too cool to waste.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 12:38
by supacruze
disconnectedradical wrote:Out of curiosity, does anyone here know how fast the YF-22 with YF-119 supercruised? The YF-23 with the -119 is mach 1.43
Now that we have the chance to look at the exterior lines of the F-23A EMD, how does its performance compare to the YF-23? The engine housing is slimmer due to the removal of the thrust reversers, but the fuselage is longer and bulkier. Is it more area ruled? How would the drag (trim and wave) compare?


I am going to assume you deliberately want to speculate because I can't believe after all this time you would honestly want real figures... you can't be so naive as to think that the actual figures are going to be released in the next 20 years. So if we were to speculate like people do when they are drunk at a pub: Direct comparison of speed performance between the YF-23 and the F-23A is not really possible because the thrust of the engines would be different. The prototype engines would have had a different thrust performance compared to the production variant. That said the YF had a considerable amount of area ruling even allowing for the larger size of the nacelles. The YF conformed more closely to area ruling probably than any other fighter prototype in living memory. So for any given engine it is going to be faster than anything else equipped with the same engine. Adapting an aerodynamic shape for a realistic/practical military mission always compromises drag and area ruling performance because area ruling is about minimising cross section or wetted area, whereas mission adaptation is about maximising usable space... ie packaging.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 12:40
by supacruze
lampshade111 wrote:Why couldn't they have been some reason to put both the F-22A and F-23A into production? Damn the costs involved, both designs are too cool to waste.


You know why. You are just trying to incite inflamatory debate.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 13:17
by supacruze
Am getting the impression that quite a few people think that fighter acquisition programmes in the Western World these days are driven by an agenda much like Formula 1: that it is all about performance edge and every little bit of technological innovation and that even small performance gain is critical. Obviously there have been times in the past when this has been the case, and in times of future war, it will be so again. But at present it simply is not. Fighter acquisition in the West is a game. A political game. It is played astutely by those with most to gain right in front of the public eye without 98% of the public ever realising, because the players are very good at labelling, selling, marketing, and propaganda. They have all the bases covered. They create scary scenarios which offer compelling reasons why programmes simply must go ahead. They talk of military threats, potential unemployment in the aviation industry, the need for retention of technology base. But at the end of the day fighter programmes are very predictable. They start out with an impressive spec, the specs are seen as extremely important, the players begin to sell the programme, the costs start to spiral, Congress threatens programme cancellation or production cutbacks, the programme is reviewed, the costs spiral again, then finally, painfully, the thing goes into production. Then all the bugs are ironed out and the thing becomes half decent. Then it goes to war and it gets hailed as the greatest thing ever, then the air force wants to retire it, and Congress goes up in arms because they see retirement as premature, and a tussle between the air force and Congress ensues. The funny thing is that the media reports on all this like its never happened before. Eg the F-35. I love fighters and the YF-23 as much as anyone, but these issues can never be understood if fighter acquisition is considered on technical grounds alone.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2011, 00:50
by bruant328
supacruze wrote: fighter acquisition programmes in the Western World these days are driven by an agenda much like Formula 1: that it is all about performance edge and every little bit of technological innovation and that even small performance gain is critical. Obviously there have been times in the past when this has been the case, and in times of future war, it will be so again. But at present it simply is not. Fighter acquisition in the West is a game. A political game. It is played astutely by those with most to gain right in front of the public eye without 98% of the public ever realising, because the players are very good at labelling, selling, marketing, and propaganda. They have all the bases covered. They create scary scenarios which offer compelling reasons why programmes simply must go ahead. They talk of military threats, potential unemployment in the aviation industry, the need for retention of technology base. But at the end of the day fighter programmes are very predictable. They start out with an impressive spec, the specs are seen as extremely important, the players begin to sell the programme, the costs start to spiral, Congress threatens programme cancellation or production cutbacks, the programme is reviewed, the costs spiral again, then finally, painfully, the thing goes into production. Then all the bugs are ironed out and the thing becomes half decent. Then it goes to war and it gets hailed as the greatest thing ever, The funny thing is that the media reports on all this like its never happened before. Eg the F-35. I love fighters and the YF-23 as much as anyone, but these issues can never be understood if fighter acquisition is considered on technical grounds alone.


To a certain extent you are a throwing a cold bucket of water onto the topic which is a way to stay grounded, but we here are trying to review the specs primarily before the political bullshit interferes with the sheer fun of specs speculation.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2011, 02:29
by sewerrat
bruant328 wrote:
supacruze wrote:[/b]


To a certain extent you are a throwing a cold bucket of water onto the topic which is a way to stay grounded, but we here are trying to review the specs primarily before the political bullshit interferes with the sheer fun of specs speculation.


Well, lets give this topic a steamy, sultry hot shower. The YF-23 was pure ***** to look at, even with untrained eyes. The YF-23 could have been a fighter, not to replace the F-15, but to replace the F-15, F-14, and F-117, not too mention it could'a served as a 70% Blackbird. The YF-23 would have had room for growth into advanced variants that would be akin to Boeing's 6th generation fighter. To be blunt, it was just that good. Even the untrained eyes of the world could see that.
Hopefully the rumors are correct and there secretified variant of it flying out parts-unknown (in small quantities). The DoD just didn't want to take a chance on something so radical, and with potential issues with mass producing those heat tiles onto an everyday fighter as opposed to a once-in-a-while B2 bomber (~20 whopping units!)

Also, I know the F-22 with its 8 flight control surfaces has some built in redundency if a verticle stab gets shot off. The YF-23 had 4 flight control surfaces.... Far less redundency; I wonder if thats one of the reasons.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2011, 05:26
by 1st503rdsgt
I might have already said this; but had the ATF competition been held a few years later, there's a good chance the the 23 with its more flexible weapons bay would have been selected. At the time though, the USSR had yet to collapse and the USAF was after a pure A2A platform, for which the 22 was the best choice. As for replacing the F-14, you'll have to refer to http://yf-23.net/ for details on why that wouldn't have worked. Besides, the NATF was cancelled for budgetary reasons; both ATFs would have required extensive redesigning to work on a carrier. Also, given the amount of trouble we've had with the more conventional F-22, I have my doubts as to whether MD and Northrop could have done much better when it came to making a prototype into an actual warplane.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2011, 04:06
by tacf-x
I agree with sewerrat with the F-23. It was an incredible proposal and with some improvements in the YF-120 engine that thing would be almost like a YF-12 in top speed and it would have had a massive thrust to weight ratio. However, it was not for the navy just as the F-22 wasn't. The Navy has their own requirements and to modify an f-23 would have been the TFX project all over again as they were trying to adapt the F-111 to far too many different requirements. I really do wish the F-23 had gone into service though. It had a flexible weapons bay, a potentially good engine like the YF-120, a level of VLO superior to the YF-22, a good supercruise speed, etc.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 03:21
by supacruze
I agree that the YF-23 would have made a better baseline platform for a number of roles, just by looking at the shape one can see that it was really something. That was one of the reasons I made my website.... I did not want the 23 to be forgotten. I know people like to speculate about all kinds of stuff, but sometimes the way people post suggests to me that they really have their heads in the sand about Pentagon politics. It's taken me a long time to get over the YF-23 Northrop loss of the ATF contract, but I realise that the world that is presented to the public is not the world that really matters in terms of moving money about. Thinking about how the 23 could have been developed is a lot of fun and I will at some stage contribute to this speculation in the form of artwork, but I cannot say when that will take place.

cheers
http:www.yf-23.net

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 03:56
by tacf-x
Off topic but I REALLY love your website. I visit there quite often as my main reference for all things YF-23. :D Thank you for making it.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 06:09
by checksixx
sewerrat wrote:The DoD just didn't want to take a chance on something so radical, and with potential issues with mass producing those heat tiles onto an everyday fighter as opposed to a once-in-a-while B2 bomber (~20 whopping units!)

Also, I know the F-22 with its 8 flight control surfaces has some built in redundency if a verticle stab gets shot off. The YF-23 had 4 flight control surfaces.... Far less redundency; I wonder if thats one of the reasons.


Heat tiles?? Behind the YF's engine's? I don't think that had anything to do with it as the rest of the aircraft had no 'tiles'.

21 B-2's were produced, not 20.

The F-22 has ten (10) flight control surfaces. The YF-23 had eight (8) flight control surfaces.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 17:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
well, 20 production B-2s were made, they upgraded the test article to service ready for a total of 21.
F-22 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, 2 rudders, 2 stabilators, and technically 4 TVC paddles. 12 control surfaces.
YF-23 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, and 2 ruddevator stabs. 6 control surfaces.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 19:06
by river_otter
checksixx wrote:Heat tiles?? Behind the YF's engine's? I don't think that had anything to do with it as the rest of the aircraft had no 'tiles'.


The tiles behind the engines were more than enough problem. And the issue wasn't production of the tiles but maintenance of them. Just like the shuttle, every time they were allowed to cool down and contract, as well as every so often just due to wear and tear, someone had to go inside the exhaust tunnels and inspect every single tile for damage, loosening, and gaps. The tiles were not there for show; they were there to keep the hot engine exhaust from destroying the plane. If an inspection found anything wrong with even one tile, they had to repair it -- cool everything down to room temp, remove the bad tile without damaging any of the other tiles around it, remove the adhesive residue, replace the tile(s) without damaging the new ones or any of the other tiles around it, and wait for the new adhesive to set -- taking the plane out of commission for hours if not days. Plus look at a good picture of the tiles. Can you imagine the logistics nightmare of having to keep all those different shapes in stock, in adequate numbers for the replacement rate of that particular tile, at every single base that flies YF-23s?

While it was an astounding prototype (I remain a YF-23 fan and lament that it ultimately lost to the YF-22), it was not a combat capable aircraft as long as it relied on those tiles. The tiles were an affordable stopgap measure to get a flyable YF-23 prototype into the air (a prototype having long downtimes between flights anyway), but they were not intended to be the production heat shields for the exhaust tunnels. Northrop-Grumman promised a more durable replacement for the tiles if the plane went into production. But they couldn't afford to develop such a replacement unless the plane went into production. Unknown development problems and costs of a durable, relatively maintenance-free heat shield of the size required for those exhaust tunnels was one of the uncertainties that made the YF-23 lose to the YF-22. I think it's almost universally conceded the YF-23 was the better plane. Economically, though, the F-22 has proven itself to be more than good enough against any potential threat, at a lower cost point than even the most ardent YF-23 fans could claim for the better plane. It was the better program to meet the minimum needed objectives at the lower cost; that's why it won.

I'm also very skeptical of claims that the YF-23 would've been a mini-SR-71. Just like the F-22, the thermal and mechanical limits of its materials (especially the stealth coatings of its day) would've kept it hard-limited well under Mach 2.5 regardless of any aerodynamic/propulsion limits allowing it to go faster. Aerodynamically, an F-22 can probably do Mach 3 on the F-119 engines if the nacelles were properly shaped for it; it has an apparently better thrust to drag ratio in the supersonic regime than the SR-71 as it is now. But that would break a lot of other things far more critical than some 1950s concept of the importance of raw speed. Same with the unbuilt F-23.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 23:38
by em745
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-22 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, 2 rudders, 2 stabilators, and technically 4 TVC paddles. 12 control surfaces.
YF-23 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, and 2 ruddevator stabs. 6 control surfaces.

Not to nitpick, but...

The F-22's "flaps" are actually flaperons. And I think the other posters are counting the forward slats as surfaces (on both planes).

Also, I'd count the F-22's TVC as effectively a single pair of pitching surfaces. So for me the tally would be YF-23=8 and F-22=12 (incl. the TVC "pair").

(And yes, supacruze's site is awesome.)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2011, 00:26
by strykerxo
At 1:18 you can see the tiles, they are actually perferated.



On inspection of the wing it sounded pretty solid, does anyone know if the wing was wetted or solid?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2011, 02:26
by johnwill
Don't know about the YF-23, but the F-23A drawing shows wet wings, Tanks 4 & 5.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2011, 17:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
em745 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-22 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, 2 rudders, 2 stabilators, and technically 4 TVC paddles. 12 control surfaces.
YF-23 has 2 ailerons, 2 flaps, and 2 ruddevator stabs. 6 control surfaces.

Not to nitpick, but...

The F-22's "flaps" are actually flaperons. And I think the other posters are counting the forward slats as surfaces (on both planes).

Also, I'd count the F-22's TVC as effectively a single pair of pitching surfaces. So for me the tally would be YF-23=8 and F-22=12 (incl. the TVC "pair").

(And yes, supacruze's site is awesome.)


Forgot about LEF, and yes if I was using terms like stabilators and reddevators I should have said flaperons as well. Thank you.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2011, 18:02
by pbever
From what I've heard, the military chose the F-22 because it had better maneuverability.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2011, 20:15
by tacf-x
There were other reasons too. They were mainly political though and the technical reasons may have been simply due to the YF-23 being a more complex and exotic design that would have been more expensive to develop and mass produce by Northrop. The YF-23 had heat tiles to insulate the engine exhaust and those might have been quite expensive to build and maintain. The YF-23 was an incredible aircraft though. From VLO design to raw straightline speed and high altitude performance there was no comparison; the YF-23 was beyond comparison.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 10:18
by river_otter
I wouldn't say "political" so much as contractual. It has been stated both planes met or exceeded all requirements. If the contract wasn't set up to weight the margin by which each aircraft exceeded the requirements, a YF-22 just a hair north of meeting those requirements would beat a YF-23 that surpassed all requirements by a country mile, merely by the YF-22 being quoted a penny cheaper. Presumably, the contract was set to request a plane that gave us what was needed. The requirements were evidently already set with a margin of error: nothing even comes close to the F-22 as it is. Giving us more than that wasn't useful, so why should we have to pay anything more than the cheaper YF-22 proposal's price? The cheaper plane is already more than we needed.

Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 10:23
by river_otter
pbever wrote:From what I've heard, the military chose the F-22 because it had better maneuverability.


In the flight regime occupied by an air superiority fighter, the YF-23 had better maneuverability than the YF-22. The YF-22 was only more maneuverable at low airshow speeds, and supposedly in its maximum instantaneous rate of turn. Otherwise the YF-23 was better the whole competition.

RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 15:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I had heard it was documentation. Northrop supposedly did not document how to build the titanium forward bulkhead, so therefore they had no proof that they could, 2 flying examples notwithstanding.

This threads current direction has got me thinking, how many different (conspiracy)theories are there as to why the YF-22/F119 was chosen??

Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 18:18
by river_otter
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I had heard it was documentation. Northrop supposedly did not document how to build the titanium forward bulkhead, so therefore they had no proof that they could, 2 flying examples notwithstanding.


I think it's not so much proof they could build it, but proof they had a specific method planned to produce serial examples of it on an assembly line at a predictable cost. Like not having a production replacement for the heat tiles planned out, the possibility of having to hand-build each curvy forward section, like they did for the prototypes, was one of the unknowns that contributed to the YF-23's rated higher cost. (And I think it's obvious its more complex structure would have cost more than the YF-22, even mass produced.) But the government loves its paperwork, and I'm sure every single lack of a documented SOP for how to produce certain parts added to the calculated cost disproportionately to even the reality of those costs.

RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 18:18
by supacruze
New F-23 info just released. See details here: twitter.com/#!/yf23net

RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 18:24
by tacf-x
Cool!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2011, 00:13
by bruant328
supacruze wrote:New F-23 info just released. See details here: twitter.com/#!/yf23net


Anyone with (as compared to mine) real aerospace knowledge have an opinion on the drawings of the F-23 NATF version? Would it have been effective at least as far as flying characteristics?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 01:51
by mixelflick
I see the F-22 win purely as a function of meeting the ATF requirements at a more favorable pricepoint/lower risk design. The YF-23a's airframe was and still is revolutionary. As such though, it dictated greater developmental/production risk and associated higher cost(s). IF the stealth/supercruise and other performance parameters were THAT much better, it's likely that technology survived - somewhere.

The production F-22 far exceeds the prototype though, IMO and is a fine aircraft. The fact it's known to supercruise above Mach 1.7 is incredible - that's half a mach faster than the prototype established, if memory serves. One can only imagine how fast the production F-23 would have been...
'

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 04:02
by hcobb
If you count the TVC as a pair of control surfaces on each engine, then you would have to count the "turkey feathers" on the F-16 as a control surface.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 07:18
by madrat
As much groaning has been recorded over the F-22's costs, imagine the heart ache when they would have chosen the YF-23 and had to cap the builds to half the quantity.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 21:28
by tacf-x
The increase in supercruise speed can be attributed to P&W increasing the fan diameter of their engine and making it bigger to actually meet the thrust requirements laid down in the initial competition for an aircraft in the weight class of a production model ATF. That, and there may have been changes in the aircraft's inlets to allow for better pressure recoveries and other sorts of upgrades.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 06:54
by hcobb
Does the F-22 have fixed or variable inlets? (My sources differ on this.)

The J-20 and F-35 go DSI and so are sharply limited in their effective speeds.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 07:16
by em745
hcobb wrote:If you count the TVC as a pair of control surfaces on each engine, then you would have to count the "turkey feathers" on the F-16 as a control surface.

I didn't know the F-16's "turkey feathers" were capable of effecting pitching moments.

:roll:

hcobb wrote:Does the F-22 have fixed or variable inlets? (My sources differ on this.)

Fixed.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 14:13
by JetTest
He is showing more and more to be a troll......clearly does not understand or thing through before he posts. Look at his posts on some of the other threads.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 15:14
by hcobb
The TVC vanes act together to adjust the flow from the engine, in much the same way as the "turkey feathers" do. If you subtract that out then they function together as a single control surface. The two vanes on each engine can't act wildly differently without having a big impact on the functioning of that engine.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 20:10
by JetTest
No, they do not act the same way. Study the operation of the balance-beam nozzle on the F100 and then compare to the TVC nozzle on the F119. Not the same at all. The only similarity is that both nozzles have variable exit area, beyond that there is no similarity. The F100 nozzle gives no directional control, the TVC does.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 21:49
by That_Engine_Guy
hcobb wrote:The TVC vanes act together to adjust the flow from the engine, in much the same way as the "turkey feathers" do. If you subtract that out then they function together as a single control surface. The two vanes on each engine can't act wildly differently without having a big impact on the functioning of that engine.


First off 'turkey feathers' are the 'external nozzle segments' on the modern military convergent-divergent nozzle equipped engines. F-15 and B-1 do not have 'turkey feathers' (AKA external segments) installed, BUT do have a convergent-divergent nozzle. Con-Di nozzles do affect thrust but only in an axial direction. more/less along the center-line of the engine. Many use the 'turkey feather' moniker referring to all the moving parts within the nozzle, but this only indicates unfamiliarity with a modern nozzle or how it operates. There are 105 moving parts in a PW Viper's nozzle, to some they ALL "turkey feathers", but to an engine guy/gal, there are only 15 on the OUTSIDE of the nozzle that are nothing more than aerodynamics.

In a PW F100 balanced beam, convergent-divergent nozzle there are the following;

  • Balance Segments
  • Balance Seals
  • Convergent Segments
  • Convergent Seals
  • Divergent Segments
  • Divergent Seals
  • External Segments - AKA "Turkey Feathers" (Not on USAF F-15)

There are 15 of each of these (105 total) the comprise the Viper's round nozzle inside/out, connected together by levers and links to a large driven synchronizing ring, that moves everything together at once via 5 mechanical actuators, air driven by a controller that is directed by the engine's DEEC (FADEC) for proper scheduling of the nozzle.

In the F100 pitch yaw nozzle additional actuators could independently vary the angle of the nozzle with flight control inputs while the area of the nozzle was consistent for proper engine operation. This nozzle was heavier and much more complicated than the base F100 nozzle. It was never put into production, but was tested. (GE had a similar nozzle for the F110)

As for functioning together? Do you know how a Con-Di nozzle operates? Or how one steers thrust with a vectoring nozzle?

On the F119, it has upper/lower segments along the same line as the F100. The engine can vary the nozzle ratio for operation, while the nozzle moves independently for flight control input. This steers a portion of the thrust up/down off axis.

The last sentence "The two vanes on each engine can't act wildly differently without having a big impact on the functioning of that engine"

Where are you trolling here? Engine nozzles aren't "trailing engine edge flaps'

The nozzles have EVERYTHING to do with the engine's operation. Nozzles control, or help control a multitude of parameters within the engine. Pressure Ratio, Turbine Temperature, Stall Margin, RPM, etc can all be affected/controlled by the nozzle's ratio/throat (Aj)

In vectoring nozzles (particularly the F100's PYBBN) not only could the Aj (Throat) of the nozzle be controlled, but the Ae (Exit) could also be varied independently to deal with flow separation during specific vector parameters.

The nozzles (vectoring or not) have little to do with the flight control function of an aircraft. Besides the external nozzle segments "Turkey Feathers" aiding in drag reduction they impart little deflection force to the aircraft's flight path. The aerodynamics/drag of of nozzle is more important with higher thrust engines or where engines are spaced close. Why the 'turkey feathers' were removed from American F-15 and B-1 where the feathers were wearing prematurely or jamming causing nozzle malfunction; quick-fix - amputate the feathers!

The F119's nozzles operate in a similar Con-Di Nozzle manner, but can independently be 'steered' with the aircraft's flight control system to provide a thrust-input to aid in pitch; done by deflecting a percentage of the thrust component up/down from the engine's center-line.

Some of NASA/PW's F100 pitch/yaw tests show that about 4000lbs of thrust per engine could be vectored 20*. This is a far cry from the 29,000lbs of total thrust each engine is capable of producing. While this may not seem like much in numbers, at low airspeed, or high altitude, (where flight controls loose bite) a 4 ton shove 20* in any direction is quite a push. This didn't seem to be enough advantage, or applicable enough for actual combat operations for the increased weight/cost/complexity of the nozzles. To date no F100/F110 production has seen the vectoring nozzles. The F-35 program also did not require T/V nozzle. Their benefits just don't justify the cost.

So what was the point here? Or are we trolling for engine nozzle information?

TEG

EDIT - PS Read this and get back with me...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/ ... H-2267.pdf

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 22:07
by JetTest
TEG, as usual with your posts, extremely detailed and right on the money. I don't know how you have the energy or patience to put it all in words. :notworthy:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 00:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Agreed, TEG always gives great reads

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 02:59
by supacruze
For people with scale models of the YF-23, Caracal has just announced a new 1/48 decal sheet to be released in December. Register your interest here:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/ind ... pic=268862

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Contracting rules

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 02:18
by supacruze
23rd anniversary of PAV-2's first flight soon: 26th Oct 2013.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2014, 22:59
by KamenRiderBlade
strykerxo wrote:The PAV-2 Grey Ghost is at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, Ca.

http://www.wmof.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-n3tNrec0

Agreed on the USAF Museum, got to get back


Another flight / military aircraft museum that I want to go to before I die.

Something on my bucket list

=D

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 09:27
by mityan
f-22 vs X-47A_eng.png

Looking at this picture I feel something like a cognitive dissonance.
How this can be true?
Does the LM outrun NG stealth technology by 20 years?
Thanks.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 11:07
by popcorn
Each was built to meet different RCA specs so nothing surprising.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 12:27
by mityan
Forgot to say that the RCS value for UCAV is taken from the chineese article "The Assessment Method for Multi-Azimuth and Multi-Frequency Dynamic Integrated Stealth Performance of Aircraft" and is a result of simulation
http://www.intechopen.com/books/aeronautics-and-astronautics/the-assessment-method-for-multi-azimuth-and-multi-frequency-dynamic-integrated-stealth-performance-o

But the UCAV has a very stealthy shape and is made using radio absorbing materials. Its RCS value should be less than that of ATF.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 14:20
by popcorn
Why "should' it? Just because it "looks" stealthier or is of more recent vintage doesn't mean anything. Again, these are different aircraft designed/ built to different specifications.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 15:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
A vlo design is all well and good, but final RCS is determined by the bucks the developer throws at manufacturing tolerances and RAM coating.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 15:16
by mityan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:A vlo design is all well and good, but final RCS is determined by the bucks the developer throws at manufacturing tolerances and RAM coating.

And are there any physical limitations that could set a lower bound of RCS?

And the second question. Could we trust this chineese estimations?

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 16:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm sure are is a physical limitation but I wouldn't know what it is or how limiting it is. The 172ft wide B-2 is often referenced as having an RCS ranging from .1 to .001. I don't know if one of these is an "overall" reference while the other is "frontal" but operationally I know it is for all intents and purposes "not there" on radars of the 90s-2000's.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 09:05
by mityan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I'm sure are is a physical limitation but I wouldn't know what it is or how limiting it is.

You may look at US patent for example.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5164242.pdf
Figure 7 shows that maximum of signal loss is greater than 20 dB for frequencies near 8 gHz - where fighter radars act, and for 14-15 gHz for active missile seekers.
Building a RAM is a great trade off between attenuation and its mechanical properties.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 09:14
by mityan
popcorn wrote:Again, these are different aircraft designed/ built to different specifications.

So you have no doubt on the value itself? But have you any guess about specifications?
As I've heard X-47 is just a navy variant of X-45 which has been developed for suppression of enemy air defense. So for its greate survivability it requires to be even more VLO cause ground radars are more powerful and in a much wider band cause there are a lot of them from UHV to X band.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 10:03
by hornetfinn
It seems like they modeled just X-47 (and X-45), but F-22 RCS comes from that USAF quote about metal marble size RCS. A lot depends on how accurate the X-47 model really is as even slight differences to actual aircraft can lead to rather large differences in RCS. It seems to me that they used pretty crude models in their analysis. Also they do not mention modeling effects of RAM and RAS and this leads to rather large difference as those can lower the actual RCS by a factor of 10 to 100 (10 to 20 dB) depending on frequency range. So to me it seems like it's entirely possible that X-47 actually has equal or smaller RCS than F-22 if the model is relatively correct and X-47 has modern RAM and RAS.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 11:47
by popcorn
mityan wrote:
popcorn wrote:Again, these are different aircraft designed/ built to different specifications.

So you have no doubt on the value itself? But have you any guess about specifications?
As I've heard X-47 is just a navy variant of X-45 which has been developed for suppression of enemy air defense. So for its greate survivability it requires to be even more VLO cause ground radars are more powerful and in a much wider band cause there are a lot of them from UHV to X band.

X means experimental and was intended to lead to a follow-on design which never happened. No,sense trying to guess specs.,without credible documentation it's all speculation and assumptions on what the designs might have evolved into.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 13:01
by mityan
hornetfinn wrote:A lot depends on how accurate the X-47 model really is

Yeah. I scrolled the article again with much more attention and realized that I understood nothing.
No frequencies, no material, not clear where the pictures come from (may be taken from other researches with unknown conditions). They (chineese) concentrated on air defence area penetration and probabilities of detection.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2015, 12:05
by supacruze
Guys, I now have a range of YF-23 related gifts for sale, the proceeds of which will help to keep my site running...

http://www.redbubble.com/people/yf-23

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2015, 20:32
by zero-one
Well I just read all 28 pages and am surprised that there is not much data about the engine competition that was going on.

I also tried to search for any topics with the YF-119 vs YF-120 as the main topic but did not find any.

So I hope none of you mind if I post it down here?

How did the the prototype YF119 compare against the YF-120 anyway.
From what I read on this page, it looks like the YF-120 was the better performing engine.

Although Im sure the 119 met the requirements otherwise it wouldn't of been selected, but was is selected simply because it was the safer, cheeper, less risky option, or where there performance metrics where it outperformed the YF120?

Looking at the F100 vs F110 series, it seems that GE just builds better engines.

Looking here
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to ... 1682723379

a viper pilot describes that most PW powered aircraft are good performers but not great, however most GE powered aircraft are "absolute beast" the PW powered block 52 was the only excemption and made it into the beast category.

IIRC all GE powered Vipers have larger intakes, which could explain the performance advantage.

If this is true, then PW should be given tremendous credit for matching the Block 50's performance on their block 52 even with the smaller intake. Were PW engines ever installed on big mouth vipers?

Anyway we're veering off, mainly I just wanted to ask if there were any released statements (official or from someone's cousin's brother's neighbor's gardener who knows somebody who knows somebody) about any performance comparison of the YF-119 against the YF-120.

And what led to the YF-119 getting the nod? Since it looked like the 120 clearly had performance advantages.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2015, 20:48
by disconnectedradical
I've updated the Wikipedia page on the F119, and most of the information came from the book Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 by Aronstein and Hirschberg. It's the definitive book on the ATF. So I'll quote myself below.

The F119 resulted from the Joint Advanced Fighter Engine (JAFE) program in the early 1980s aimed at supplying the powerplant for the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). Detailed design of Pratt & Whitney's submission, designated internally as PW5000, began when the JAFE request for proposals was released in May 1983. Advances in technology allowed the design to do more work with fewer stages, with the PW5000 having only 6 compressor stages compared to the F100's 10 compressor stages. The high pressure and low pressure turbines were vaneless and single stage and counter-rotating, thus shortening the engine and saving weight. The fan and compressor stages use integrally bladed rotors (IBRs, similar to GE's blisk) to reduce weight and cost and improve performance. To meet the requirement for high specific thrust for supercruising, the design would have very high core temperature. The original RFP called for maximum thrust in the 30,000 lbf class.

Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were selected to make prototype engines, designated YF119 and YF120 respectively, for demonstration and validation. The ATF's increasing weight required more thrust to meet the performance requirements, and required max thrust increased by about 20% to 35,000 lbf class. Pratt & Whitney's design changed to incorporate a 15% larger fan, increasing bypass ratio from 0.25 to 0.30. However, the larger fan was not test flown on the ATF flight demonstrators to avoid potential reliability issues that may arise. Instead, the revised fan was extensively ground tested at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. As a result, both the YF-22 and YF-23 had lower performance with the YF119s compared to the YF120s.

On 3 August 1991, Pratt & Whitney was awarded the EMD contract for ATF engine. While the YF119 was a more conventional designed compared to the General Electric's variable cycle YF120, Pratt & Whitney accrued far greater number of test hours and emphasized lower risk. One thing to keep in mind is that the performance levels of the YF120 was very close to what the production F120s would've been.

As a side note, after further examining the F-23A EMD, compared to the YF-23, the EMD aircraft would be longer by about 3 feet, and may have smoother volume distribution, but the cross-sectional area towards the middle definitely bulked up compared to the YF-23. The F-23's rounded off tops of the nacelles in the back is an improvement though, it should increase lift in that area. Speed wise the F-23 may not be very different from the YF-23, though that's not a bad thing at all.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2015, 21:01
by slapshot!
zero-one wrote:Well I just read all 28 pages and am surprised that there is not much data about the engine competition that was going on.

I also tried to search for any topics with the YF-119 vs YF-120 as the main topic but did not find any.

So I hope none of you mind if I post it down here?

How did the the prototype YF119 compare against the YF-120 anyway.
From what I read on this page, it looks like the YF-120 was the better performing engine.

Although Im sure the 119 met the requirements otherwise it wouldn't of been selected, but was is selected simply because it was the safer, cheeper, less risky option, or where there performance metrics where it outperformed the YF120?

Looking at the F100 vs F110 series, it seems that GE just builds better engines.

Looking here
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to ... 1682723379

a viper pilot describes that most PW powered aircraft are good performers but not great, however most GE powered aircraft are "absolute beast" the PW powered block 52 was the only excemption and made it into the beast category.

IIRC all GE powered Vipers have larger intakes, which could explain the performance advantage.

If this is true, then PW should be given tremendous credit for matching the Block 50's performance on their block 52 even with the smaller intake. Were PW engines ever installed on big mouth vipers?

Anyway we're veering off, mainly I just wanted to ask if there were any released statements (official or from someone's cousin's brother's neighbor's gardener who knows somebody who knows somebody) about any performance comparison of the YF-119 against the YF-120.

And what led to the YF-119 getting the nod? Since it looked like the 120 clearly had performance advantages.


For the F16, I dont believe there was any real performance gain for the F100-229 with the big mouth. The F110 just required more air. From what I could see, the YF119 and YF120 were fairly similar in most aspects, its just the YF120 was variable-cycle. Variable-cycle is just a way of saying it could vary its bypass ratio, thus having big improvements to fuel consumption. It was an early version of the ADVENT or AETD engines being worked on now and apparently only added ~10lbs.

Nonetheless, the YF120 was deemed "risky" and not picked up. 25 years later we are looking back at the technology for application in the F35 and other future aircraft.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2015, 06:57
by popcorn
slapshot! wrote:Nonetheless, the YF120 was deemed "risky" and not picked up. 25 years later we are looking back at the technology for application in the F35 and other future aircraft.

In retrospect a wise decision. The F-22 program had a tumultuous gestation and the last thing it needed would be the additional challenges that would come wih the variable engine approach.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2015, 08:23
by charlielima223
popcorn wrote:
slapshot! wrote:Nonetheless, the YF120 was deemed "risky" and not picked up. 25 years later we are looking back at the technology for application in the F35 and other future aircraft.

In retrospect a wise decision. The F-22 program had a tumultuous gestation and the last thing it needed would be the additional challenges that would come wih the variable engine approach.


I would guess that because the engine technology would be in its early infancy, that would have been more problematic for the F-22. Already the F-22 was at a political disadvantage after 1991; Cold War was over, Eagle still reigns supreme, lower defense budget and restructure...

I had asked this question earlier somewhere else around here but I didn't get a definitive answer, just a "no".

Could the F-119 engine or F-22 be improved upon by taking advantage of the development in ADVENT or AETD engine technology and materials?

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2015, 12:07
by zero-one
Thank you very much for all your helpful insights. Just to recap what I read,

the YF-120 was a revolutionary variable cycle engine that offered more thrust than it's more conventional low bypass turbofan YF119 counterpart.

The YF-119 on the otherhand was simply a very powerful low bypass turbofan similar to legacy the F100 series but manages to produce
far more thrust with fewer compression stages. It was also more reliable, able to whitstand very high core temperatures probably due to advanced materials.
In order to match the performance requirements of the more advanced YF-120, PW produced a larger fan, effectively making one of the
most powerful turbofan installed on a Fighter to date.

In light of this, it looks like GE won the performance criteria but PW won the reliability and risk mitigation.
PW would later go on and match the YF-120's performance with a larger fan.

But how would this affect performance at high altitude where the Variable cycle engines have certain advantages?

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2015, 23:26
by mixelflick
I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2015, 23:59
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


Yeah but you just know "*GASP* breaking news, the USAF has been covering up the fact that the new, most expensive fighter in history, can't do a Cobra at the airshow" would have spewed forth from the Basement Dweller crowd. Because, you know, "a REAL man's fighter would have thrust vectoring and be able to do a Cobra." They'd have went on about "Northrop, not satisfied with only making the most expensive bomber in history now ups the ante to create the most expensive fighter in history". God, I f--king HATE stupid people.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2015, 01:19
by charlielima223
mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


This always comes up :bang:

Its more supposition than anything else. Had the YF-23 been picked over the YF-22 it would have most likely run into the same political and economical problems as the F-22 had. The F-22 had shown that it clearly out performs the Wests best fighter at the time (F-15) and it still had to paddle up the s13rr@ hotel 1nd1@ tang0 stream known as politics.

As far as the avionics is concerned I think the YF-22 showed more maturity over the YF-23. For one the YF-22 was able to successfully deploy a Sidewinder and AMRAAM during the Demonstration Evaluation phase. Another is the cockpit. The YF-22's cockpit was a completely new design (eventually the F-22's cockpit would be similar to F-16's cockpit layout). To reduce cost and ease of manufacturing the YF-23 had a modified F-15E cockpit. With avionics growth that is again supposition. What the F-22 today has now is not what the USAF had envisioned. Some would say that the F-22 in some ways the F-22 had been neutered. Who is to say that the same thing wouldn't have happened to the "F-23"?

The fact is that both aircraft met and exceeded the standard the USAF put out. The timing was just bad. Had the YF-23 been picked over the YF-22 I don't believe that things would have been any different. You'd still have uneducated putzes going against it (POGO and the one of the most famous Delta-Foxtrot/blue falcon; Pierre Sprey). You would still have a shift in politics and economics. You would still have a down size in the US military.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2015, 01:39
by popcorn
mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...

I've never come across any report of the AF expressing buyer's remorse over the selection of the YF-22.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2015, 06:21
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


After the testing I think they wanted them both :D Both aircraft had there strengths, what we ended up with was a fantastic, but expensive, aircraft that has yet to be matched 25 years after it's prototype flew.

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 15:30
by zero-one
The USAF and the Northrop program managers had the same basic reaction when they saw the YF-22.
"it was obvious that Lockheed, emphasized agility on their prototype design"

So I'm not sure where everyone is getting the impression that Lockheed's design only offered better maneuverability
in the slow speed and post stall arena.

According to Paul Metz, the TV nozzles are very effective in maneuvering the aircraft at the supersonic regieme as well.

Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.


Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 16:02
by charlielima223
zero-one wrote:Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.



:) :-D :lol: :lmao: :thumb:

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 18:07
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

..................



Nail on the head I think :thumb:

Re: YF-22 vs YF-23

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 22:49
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:The USAF and the Northrop program managers had the same basic reaction when they saw the YF-22.
"it was obvious that Lockheed, emphasized agility on their prototype design"

So I'm not sure where everyone is getting the impression that Lockheed's design only offered better maneuverability
in the slow speed and post stall arena.

According to Paul Metz, the TV nozzles are very effective in maneuvering the aircraft at the supersonic regieme as well.

Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


Yeah this was good... :)
-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.