YF-22 vs YF-23

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

em745

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 08:28

Unread post17 Nov 2011, 23:38

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.)
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 00:26

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?
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 02:26

Don't know about the YF-23, but the F-23A drawing shows wet wings, Tanks 4 & 5.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3138
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 17:16

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.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

pbever

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 22:24
  • Location: Dallas, Tx

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 18:02

From what I've heard, the military chose the F-22 because it had better maneuverability.
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 20:15

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.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post26 Nov 2011, 10:18

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.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post26 Nov 2011, 10:23

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3138
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post26 Nov 2011, 15:07

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??
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post26 Nov 2011, 18:18

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.
Offline

supacruze

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 14:04
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Dec 2011, 18:18

New F-23 info just released. See details here: twitter.com/#!/yf23net
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post08 Dec 2011, 18:24

Cool!
Offline

bruant328

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 22:48

Unread post26 Dec 2011, 00:13

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?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1641
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Dec 2011, 01:51

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...
'
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post28 Dec 2011, 04:02

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.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests