YF-22 vs YF-23

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

crosshairs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 18:31

zero-one wrote:
Northrop executive statements about the YF-22's focus on maneuverability carries a lot of weight for me. Again thats just me.


That N-G statement says a lot. It says that N-G focused more on items other than maneuverability. What things? Obviously stealth. Perhaps N-G also focused on speed. We know the YF-23 reached a classified speed that is still secret today. If faster than the YF-22 at the same power settings, then you can conclude the YF-23 would fly farther on the same amount of fuel. Therefore the F-23 would have longer ranger than the F-22. We also know the F-23 was going to have more internal volume than the YF-23

The N-G statement doesn't say that the YF-22 was significantly more maneuverable.

What does the pilot who flew both say about this? Anything?

Amazing we are still debating this today.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say the F-23 would have been the better choice. It could have been disaster. It could have been awesome. We will never know. But at least we would have 2 companies with experience mass producing 5th gen equipment.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3996
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 19:24

crosshairs wrote:But at least we would have 2 companies with experience mass producing 5th gen equipment.

We still do, just not for 5th gen fighter airframes. Northrop made the B-2 and is making the B-21 and is the primary on many of the F-35 subsystems.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 06:27

crosshairs wrote:. We know the YF-23 reached a classified speed that is still secret today. .


Thats also confusing. Paul Metz said that they never went beyond Mach 1.85. YF-22 test pilot Tom Morganfeld said he took the GE powered YF-22 to Mach 2.03.

Watch here:
https://youtu.be/0sTsjQ_ud8E

Anyway N-G execs never denied that the YF-22 was more maneuverable. One of their statements was
we decided that ours was gona be more stealthy and they decided that theirs was gona be more agile, so the race was on

Wikipedia also has these citations:
Compared with its Northrop/McDonnell Douglas counterpart, the YF-22 has a more conventional design – its wings have larger control surfaces, such as full-span trailing edge,[ Flight International 1990, p. 4.] and, whereas the YF-23 had two tail surfaces, the YF-22 had four, which made it more maneuverable than its counterpart.[Flight International 1990, p. 46.]


The YF-23 design was stealthier and faster, but the YF-22 was more agile [Goodall 1992, p. 110.]



I know simple eyeball estimates don't mean much but if the photo below is to scale. Then the 23 is substantially larger. At turning AoA wouldn't the drag be substantially greater too

Its also interesting to note that the YF-22 prototypes flew a total of 74 flights with a combined 91.6 hrs while the YF-23 flew 50 times with a total of 65.2 hrs. I think this helped Lockheed drive the narrative that they had the more mature , reliable design.

Another interesting note is this:
The Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs were rated higher on technical aspects, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management [Jenkins and Landis 2008, p. 234] [Miller 2005, p. 38.]
Attachments
FB_IMG_1550594358222.jpg
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 18:32

zero-one wrote:Thats also confusing. Paul Metz said that they never went beyond Mach 1.85. YF-22 test pilot Tom Morganfeld said he took the GE powered YF-22 to Mach 2.03.


Official speeds. Anything higher is classified, as said by Northrop flight test director.

zero-one wrote:Wikipedia also has these citations:
Compared with its Northrop/McDonnell Douglas counterpart, the YF-22 has a more conventional design – its wings have larger control surfaces, such as full-span trailing edge,[ Flight International 1990, p. 4.] and, whereas the YF-23 had two tail surfaces, the YF-22 had four, which made it more maneuverable than its counterpart.[Flight International 1990, p. 46.]



That's just wrong, YF-22 trailing edge control surfaces aren't full span, you can see it in pictures it clearly don't reach the wingtips. Full span trailing edge control surface is what you see on J-20.

You keep throwing around statements about YF-22 being more maneuverable. What part of the envelope then? High alpha? Supersonic? I can see high alpha being YF-22 advantage but in supersonic with YF-23 having better area rule and wave drag I don't see how YF-22 can have all advantages.

People commonly say Su-27 is more maneuverable than F-15 but in truth that's really in horizontal. In vertical F-15 can use better acceleration.

zero-one wrote:I know simple eyeball estimates don't mean much but if the photo below is to scale. Then the 23 is substantially larger. At turning AoA wouldn't the drag be substantially greater too


That's not how lift induced drag works, and you don't know F-23 and F-22's CL vs AoA curve, especially with both aircraft having low AR.

Also, F-23 is longer but slimmer because the volume and mass is spread out bigger length. What is more important is actual mass and volume. F-22 concentrate volume and mass at the center fuselage. For example Su-27 is bigger in dimension but lighter than both F-23 and F-22 because volume is smaller with lack of internal bays.

zero-one wrote:Another interesting note is this:
The Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs were rated higher on technical aspects, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management [Jenkins and Landis 2008, p. 234] [Miller 2005, p. 38.]


YF120 is more ambitious and better performing engine, but it is riskier because variable cycle. In purely technical aspects GE engine should be higher.
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 20 Feb 2019, 20:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 19:49

disconnectedradical wrote:You keep throwing around statements about YF-22 being more maneuverable. What part of the envelope then? High alpha? Supersonic? I can see high alpha being YF-22 advantage but in supersonic with YF-23 having better area rule and wave drag I don't see how YF-22 can have all advantages.


Thats the exact reason why I quoted multiple sources about that claim. So that no one would say that I said it. Its not me, thats the general narrative of ATF Dem/Val.

The only publication I read disputing that was from the old YF-23 site, (really can't find it anymore). And even it did not directly dispute the claim, it simply said that the're was probably parts of the envelope where the YF-23 had the upper hand. I'm not going to dispute that. But its not exactly conclusive as well. Perhaps if an Aero engineer would crunch the numbers then we could get better results. (How bout it Sprts :mrgreen: )

For now the biggest supporting claim to that argument are the statements by N-G people who acknowledged it. Even Jim Sanberg (PAV-2 pilot) acknowledged it.

That tells me that this is not an F-15 vs Su-27 case where superiority depends on what part of the envelope you are in. Because if it was, then N-G would take every opportunity to dispute the narrative. They don't need to go to specifics, they could just say "Well they had advantages in some areas, as did we in others", or something like that. But the agreement to the narrative that the YF-22 was more maneuverable is seemingly unanimous from them.

disconnectedradical wrote:That's just wrong, YF-22 trailing edge control surfaces aren't full span, you can see it in pictures it clearly don't reach the wingtips. Full span trailing edge control surface is what you see on J-20.

This forced me to look at the trailing edge of the wing closely, and you're absolutely right, there is a small part which looks like its not movable at all. Good eye. :drool:

disconnectedradical wrote:YF120 is more ambitious and better performing engine, but it is riskier because variable cycle. In purely technical aspects GE engine should be higher.


There is a thread dedicated to this. I also thought that the YF-120 should have won. But, and you may already know most of these:

1. The YF-119 only had less performance because they installed the smaller, 30,000 pound class engines on the prototype. that was the original requirement, when it was increased to 35K, they made a bigger version but decided not to install it.

2. The YF-119 was also revolutionary in its own right. I think it was one of the first to It features single-crystal superalloy blades combined with what P&W calls advanced cooling technologies. It also had a floatwall design to mitigate cracks due to thermal cycling.

If rumors are true, the YF-119 did not suffer overheating during the Demval like the YF-120. So the YF-119 with Increased bypass ratio was every bit the performer the YF-120 was but was more reliable. The YF-120 may have been more efficient tho.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 09:55

zero-one wrote:That tells me that this is not an F-15 vs Su-27 case where superiority depends on what part of the envelope you are in. Because if it was, then N-G would take every opportunity to dispute the narrative. They don't need to go to specifics, they could just say "Well they had advantages in some areas, as did we in others", or something like that. But the agreement to the narrative that the YF-22 was more maneuverable is seemingly unanimous from them.


It's not NG that designed F-23, it's Northrop/McDonnell Douglas. NG didn't exist until late 90s. Northrop wouldn't have all of the F-22 data, and Lockheed wouldn't have all the F-23 data. Also the prototypes never flew against each other in Dem/Val, they flew against requirements. Taking Northrop's statement as YF-22 being more maneuverable across the board is a reach. From an engineering background, more likely Northrop is saying that YF-22 design philosophy puts more emphasis on maneuverability. Since both aircraft have different optimal design points it's hard to see how YF-22 can have advantage everywhere, that's just unlikely.

zero-one wrote:There is a thread dedicated to this. I also thought that the YF-120 should have won. But, and you may already know most of these:

1. The YF-119 only had less performance because they installed the smaller, 30,000 pound class engines on the prototype. that was the original requirement, when it was increased to 35K, they made a bigger version but decided not to install it.

2. The YF-119 was also revolutionary in its own right. I think it was one of the first to It features single-crystal superalloy blades combined with what P&W calls advanced cooling technologies. It also had a floatwall design to mitigate cracks due to thermal cycling.

If rumors are true, the YF-119 did not suffer overheating during the Demval like the YF-120. So the YF-119 with Increased bypass ratio was every bit the performer the YF-120 was but was more reliable. The YF-120 may have been more efficient tho.


For supercruise YF120 would be more ideal BECAUSE the variable cycle let it have lower bypass when supersonic than F119. P&W still made a great engine but YF120 have more potential.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 10:04

disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:The only real obvious maneuvering advantage of YF-22 is low speed high alpha. Even then, YF-23 is designed to have 60 degrees trimmed AOA, but maybe it doesn't get to that state as fast without thrust vectoring.


YF-22 should also roll much faster than YF-23 due to much less moment of inertia in the roll axel.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3013
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 13:28

To satisfy all sides, I'm announcing here the USAF has several small "black" squadrons of F-23's in use. They're more carefully guarded than the F-117 was in its day, which is why you haven't heard about it until now.

Everyone walks away happy... :)
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 15:12

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

To be fair I don't think this thread will ever die
Its one of the best beer talk topics of all time (and I don't even drink).

These are 2 exceptional designs. And we're really just splitting hairs to make one side come out on top. Someone will always find some tidbit of information to make the otherside come out on top.

Maybe when the Raptor retires the Freedom of info act can force the DOD to release the last pieces of info bout that decision
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3996
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 16:14

I'll drink to that

:pint: :pint: :beer: :cheers: :beer: :pint: :pint:
"Spurts"

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

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 16:34

hkultala wrote:YF-22 should also roll much faster than YF-23 due to much less moment of inertia in the roll axel.


Well to be more precise its roll acceleration that F-22 should be better because of lower moment of inertia, but F-23 engines are also closer together than YF-23. Also because of moment of inertia F-16 has best roll rate, not even F-22 can roll accelerate as fast as F-16.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3013
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Feb 2019, 15:25

disconnectedradical wrote:
hkultala wrote:YF-22 should also roll much faster than YF-23 due to much less moment of inertia in the roll axel.


Well to be more precise its roll acceleration that F-22 should be better because of lower moment of inertia, but F-23 engines are also closer together than YF-23. Also because of moment of inertia F-16 has best roll rate, not even F-22 can roll accelerate as fast as F-16.


Right.

But isn't the A-4 Mongoose king of this metric?

In any case yes, debate will never die. I did enjoy the production F-23A pics even more than the YF-23A. Watching one of those documentaries, I couldn't imagine being in the room at N/G, McDonnell Douglas when that decision came down. One of the engineers said he cried. Another got out of the business altogether. They were supposedly spending a million dollars a day on the YF-23A at that point. It's clear they put everything they had into it, and the program head said something to the effect that, "to this day, I'm convinced we had the better aircraft...".

It's probably fair to say this though; It was the most capable fighter never produced...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:38

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I'll drink to that

:pint: :pint: :beer: :cheers: :beer: :pint: :pint:


By the way Sprst, I went through all your comments on this thread and surprisingly there isn't much.
interesting....

These are probably the 2 best performing fighter airframe prototypes ever designed and I think there are enough publicly released specs out there to make a pretty accurate performance comparison of the 2.

But something tells me you already crunched the numbers on this. My tin foil hat tells me the CIA called up mid composition and said, don't post it, its too close to the actual results.

Kidding aside, did you ever get curious enough to make some comparisons on your free time? If so.....:poke: :mrgreen:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3996
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 19:09

Actually I never crunched numbers on the ATF prototypes. There is no where near enough information on their performance. I have gut feelings, but that's about it.
"Spurts"

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

crosshairs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 02:48

zero-one wrote::lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

To be fair I don't think this thread will ever die
Its one of the best beer talk topics of all time (and I don't even drink).

These are 2 exceptional designs. And we're really just splitting hairs to make one side come out on top. Someone will always find some tidbit of information to make the otherside come out on top.

Maybe when the Raptor retires the Freedom of info act can force the DOD to release the last pieces of info bout that decision


We are lucky to have the F-22 as its surprising Clinton or congress didn't cancel it like everything else after the cold war ended. Lockheed had spread out the supply base over CONUS. More importantly they built it Senator Nunn's state. Lockheed played chess with the ATF while Northrop did not. Case closed. Had the USAF not selected second best, it would not have gotten anything at all.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests