Page 4 of 33

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.