YF-22 vs YF-23

[zero-one]

My theory is. Both YF-22 and 23 can go substantially faster than Mach 2.2
Even the F-22's top speed is highly classified.

But going at those extreme speeds compromises the stealth coatings which is why they have an artificial software limit for the top speed. I wonder if they can over ride this in the most extreme emergencies.

Did more digging on the YF-119 vs 120
I read that the 119 did not suffer a single mishap during the DEMVAL phase while the 120 suffered some overheating.

The 119 was also smaller having just 6 stages instead of 10 on previous engines. advanced engine materials and a float wall mechanism allowed the core temperature to reach extreme temperatures which were impossible with previous engines.

If its true that the 119 suffered no mishaps then perhaps the 119 was revolutionary in its own way. Turbine materials that can withstand extreme temperatures and pressures without fail. The 120 on the other hand can't do that.

[disconnectedradical]

So are they implying that the F-22 had better acceleration and energy retention numbers than the YF-23. Even if they never flew the 23, I would imagine they have access to the classified E-M charts

How is that implied? YF-23 weight was similar to YF-22 and both have same engines. YF-23 supercruise faster too so how can it accelerate slower? The F-22 pilot is talking about performance he prefers and not specifically about YF-23. Also how would operational F-22 even have YF-23 E-M charts? That makes no sense.

But it would still have better range although I would doubt the production model will retain the range of the YF-23 prototype.

Production models are always heavier than the prototypes so we may be looking at a combat radius closer to 500 or 600 NM rather than the 750- 800 nm

What are you speculating this on? Just because F-22 lost fuel and range form YF-22 doesn’t mean F-23 will. F-22 rear fuselage is much slimmer than YF-22 which reduce drag but also volume and fuel. From diagrams F-23 volume did not change much in fact the fuselage in the middle of wings increased some cross section and volume over YF-23.

Lastly Both the YF-119 and 120 were deemed next generation engines.
We know that the YF-120 used a 3rd stream similar to Advent.

But what about the YF-119, is it just an improved version of the current F-100 series or is there more to it?

YF120 was not three stream it was variable bypass. Their different.

[fbw]

As far as the YF-23A's top speed goes, I'm hearing conflicting things. On the one hand, you say here where it wasn't substantially faster than the YF-22A. Yet in more than one youtube documentary, officials that had worked on the YF-23A said it was a LOT faster vs. the YF-22A.

So who knows what the truth is. I'm leaning toward the fact it was a lot faster, but we'll never know. Let's just hope they do PCA right. I predict Northrup will lead with a scaled up YF-23a type airframe. If so, will be fun to watch the whole thing unfold..

I used to have the presentation where they broke down the DEM/VAL flights for each with the different engines.
That presentation dispelled a lot of rumors. First, that the YF-23 had “much faster” supercruise. It demonstrated faster supercruise but neither the YF-23 and YF-22 reached the Mach 1.72 reported in the F-22’s SAR. Neither exceeded Mach 1.8 in testing either.

Perhaps modeling suggested that the EMD F-23 was capable of higher speeds than the EMD F-22 but it’s really a moot point, it was never selected or built.

[SpudmanWP]

Don't forget that NG had a patent on a more compact missile launch system that had the potential of storing 8-12 AMRAAMs internally to the F-23. The space-wasting trapeze was only a backup in case this new way failed.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4702145

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Also the YF-22 was limited to four AMRAAMS in the main bays as the big finned A/B models precluded any additional carriage.

[popcorn]

Don't forget that NG had a patent on a more compact missile launch system that had the potential of storing 8-12 AMRAAMs internally to the F-23. The space-wasting trapeze was only a backup in case this new way failed.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4702145

Seems Rube Goldbergy to me... engineers wanting to piss off Mx staff?

[charlielima223]

I remember seeing a video out there somewhere on the interwebs (youtube) of Paul Metz talking about both the YF-23 and YF-22. He had a really good quote along the line of

"Northrop gave what the Air Force asked for but Lockheed gave what the Air Force really wanted".

[zero-one]

How is that implied? YF-23 weight was similar to YF-22 and both have same engines. YF-23 supercruise faster too so how can it accelerate slower?

Acceleration is not defined by just engines and weight. there are a lot of factors that can come into play, the YF-22 might be better at accelerating at subsonic but looses the acceleration race at supersonic due to supersonic wave drag maybe.
Point is, these are valid questions.

Faster top speeds, faster cruise speeds and faster acceleration are very different things.

Also how would operational F-22 even have YF-23 E-M charts? That makes no sense.

Thats pretty bold. You seem to be absolutely certain they know nothing about the YF-23's performance numbers. So pretty much no F-22 pilot ever talked to Paul Metz or anyone within the USAF ACC and if they did, you're absolutely certain that they were given the same "politically correct" response that they give out to civilians. Cool.

What are you speculating this on? Just because F-22 lost fuel and range form YF-22 doesn’t mean F-23 will.

The fact that the F-22A is 10,000 pounds heavier than the YF-22 maybe. Are we to assume that the YF-23 would have retained the exact same weight from prototype to production and that no design changes would be made?

[disconnectedradical]

Acceleration is not defined by just engines and weight. there are a lot of factors that can come into play, the YF-22 might be better at accelerating at subsonic but looses the acceleration race at supersonic due to supersonic wave drag maybe.
Point is, these are valid questions.

Point is, those quote are about the utility of supercruise, not YF-23 vs YF-22 acceleration like you imagine.

Thats pretty bold. You seem to be absolutely certain they know nothing about the YF-23's performance numbers. So pretty much no F-22 pilot ever talked to Paul Metz or anyone within the USAF ACC and if they did, you're absolutely certain that they were given the same "politically correct" response that they give out to civilians. Cool.

Why would F-22 pilots know YF-23 performance numbers? Just because an F-22 pilot talked to Paul Metz means he'll give the whole flight envelope and performance numbers? USAF ACC also NEVER flew YF-23, of 5 pilots that flew only 2 were USAF. ACC and Flight Testing are also completely different branches of USAF and you're just assuming ACC will have access to performance of a prototype that's being flight tested?

Before making so many ridiculous statements read this book first.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.867910

The fact that the F-22A is 10,000 pounds heavier than the YF-22 maybe. Are we to assume that the YF-23 would have retained the exact same weight from prototype to production and that no design changes would be made?

YF-23 showed a range and combat radius advantage over YF-22. If you saw F-23 drawings then you see fuselage volume actually increased a bit and was also longer than YF-23. The big humps for thrust reversers are also gone and that volume went to middle fuselage.

[count_to_10]

As I understand it, that the YF-23 fan blades were visible was irrelevant because you would already be close enough to detect the reflection off the rest of the aircraft if you were viewing it from that angle.
The NG guys seemed sure that their aircraft beat the Lockheed one in everything but post stall, but that MD part of thier team dropped the ball on the manufacturing details.

[zero-one]

Point is, those quote are about the utility of supercruise, not YF-23 vs YF-22 acceleration like you imagine.

Thats your interpretation. The YF-23 did have substantially larger wings which translates into more drag when turning. This is why I think the YF-23 would have less energy retention and recovery than the YF-22.

Just like how the F-35C is with the F-35A. Same engine, but bigger wings mean more drag.

Why would F-22 pilots know YF-23 performance numbers?

because they can

YF-23 showed a range and combat radius advantage over YF-22. If you saw F-23 drawings then you see fuselage volume actually increased a bit and was also longer than YF-23. The big humps for thrust reversers are also gone and that volume went to middle fuselage.

So the Super cruise and speed numbers would also be different. and come on, all fighter prototypes are lighter than their production models. why would the YF-23 be different

[disconnectedradical]

Thats your interpretation. The YF-23 did have substantially larger wings which translates into more drag when turning. This is why I think the YF-23 would have less energy retention and recovery than the YF-22.

You were talking about acceleration. Also how did you bring turning into all this? YF-23 larger wing area actually result in more lift but lower aspect ratio increase lift induced drag just from the wing, but YF-22 aspect ratio is also low. But how is this related to acceleration? If you want to talk surface area, YF-23 also have 2 tail surfaces while YF-22 have 4 and for stability in testing YF-22 also oversized the vertical tails.

How can you make this comparison and analogy of F-35A vs F-35C when YF-23 and YF-22 fuselage are so different? Did you ever take any aerospace engineering classes? Because I have and you don't just eyeball this kind of thing. Some equations from Raymer or Nicolai approximate simple aircraft but even that is not enough for shapes like YF-23 or YF-22. So how is your eyeball better?

because they can

You clearly don't know how this works. The people in USAF that set requirements are in different section from operational pilots. The customer (USAF) gives the requirement (TRD) for the competing contractors to meet with proposals. In ATF program this included flight demonstrators YF-22 and YF-23. In selection process the board that reviews and select the proposals are again totally different from operational fighter pilots. That's why no F-22 pilot have any reason to know what YF-23 envelope is. Would F-16 pilot know what YF-17 envelope is?

So the Super cruise and speed numbers would also be different. and come on, all fighter prototypes are lighter than their production models. why would the YF-23 be different

Because difference between YF-22 and F-22 is not the same as difference between YF-23 and F-23. You can easily find F-23 drawings. F-22 lost volume over YF-22 especially in rear fuselage and is also a bit shorter. F-23 is actually longer than YF-23 and looking at cross sections the fuselage volume increased especially at middle.

Why are you obsessed with making F-22 best at everything? It's a great aircraft but it's not magically unbeatable.

[zero-one]

You were talking about acceleration.

No I was asking if the pilot's response was somehow a comparison between acceleration and Energy retention numbers of the F-22 and the YF- 23. you respond as if I'm making claims when in reality, I'm asking a question.

How can you make this comparison and analogy of F-35A vs F-35C when YF-23 and YF-22 fuselage are so different?

All I'm saying is a bigger wing usually translates into higher deceleration rates. Now if you have evidence that suggest the YF-23 will still maintain Energy and acceleration advantages over the YF-22 then please share.

Your argument that the YF-22 will have more surface area due to having more tail surfaces than the YF-23 is pretty much the same simplistic eyeball analysis of their drag profile as my bigger wing argument.

You clearly don't know how this works.

Well I'm not going to claim to know how it works. From people that I know in the USAF, word can spread inside aviation circles that they were not "supposed" to know.

Gums shared a lot of insights about the F-35 before a lot of us got to know it. He had absolutely no business knowing that. They don't need to know specifics, a simple "the YF-22 accelerates faster" comment from one of the test pilots could spread like wildfire without breaking classified information protocols.

F-22 lost volume over YF-22 especially in rear fuselage and is also a bit shorter.

But is still 10,000 lbs heavier

F-23 is actually longer than YF-23 and looking at cross sections the fuselage volume increased especially at middle.

Hence will be much heavier.

Why are you obsessed with making F-22 best at everything? It's a great aircraft but it's not magically unbeatable.

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

[disconnectedradical]

No I was asking if the pilot's response was somehow a comparison between acceleration and Energy retention numbers of the F-22 and the YF- 23. you respond as if I'm making claims when in reality, I'm asking a question.

The way the article is written seems like the quote from F-22 pilot is taken in context of how F-22 use supercruise and not YF-23 vs YF-22.

All I'm saying is a bigger wing usually translates into higher deceleration rates. Now if you have evidence that suggest the YF-23 will still maintain Energy and acceleration advantages over the YF-22 then please share.

Your argument that the YF-22 will have more surface area due to having more tail surfaces than the YF-23 is pretty much the same simplistic eyeball analysis of their drag profile as my bigger wing argument.

No, higher DRAG translates into higher deceleration rates (assuming same mass). This is physics 101. Just because YF-23 have bigger wing does NOT mean it has higher drag, 2 tail surface instead of 4 tail surface on YF-22 also means lower surface area and drag. YF-23 fineness ratio is better, which will mean lower wave drag than YF-22. YF-22 might have lower induced drag because of higher AR, but both aircraft are low AR so there are many other factors. YF-23 met ATF maneuver requirements anyways and USAF reason for choosing YF-22 even said it was because "better value" instead of just YF-22 was better.

Well I'm not going to claim to know how it works. From people that I know in the USAF, word can spread inside aviation circles that they were not "supposed" to know.

Gums shared a lot of insights about the F-35 before a lot of us got to know it. He had absolutely no business knowing that. They don't need to know specifics, a simple "the YF-22 accelerates faster" comment from one of the test pilots could spread like wildfire without breaking classified information protocols.

YF-23 was a PROTOTYPE with development not finished, why would USAF especially ACC be privy to all the details? Also Paul Metz flew both YF-23 and F-22 yet never said which one flew better.

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

Again, USAF reason for choosing YF-22 even said it was because "better value" instead of just YF-22 was better.

[disconnectedradical]

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

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

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