Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I have updated my site, you can find details here:

[Link pending approval]#!/yf23net

F-16.net Sponsor

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

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.

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.

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 [Link pending approval]
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 [Link pending approval] 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 [Link pending approval] ie packaging.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [Link pending approval] 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
[Link pending approval]

Off topic but I REALLY love your website. I visit there quite often as my main reference for all things YF-23. Very Happy

Thank you for making it.

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 ( Cool

flight control surfaces.

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.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

YF-22 vs YF-23