Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

In the YF-23 web of secrecy documentation someone from Northrop mentions maintenance requirements: "half of an F-15 squadron" - if I remember correctly.
Question: was there an Air Force requirement on maintenance?
One more question: does the F-22 use TVC for trimming purposes and what would the max. angle possibly be?

F-16.net Sponsor

The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!

memzey wrote:

The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!

It did get used, look at Pak 50!

twistedneck wrote:

memzey wrote:

The YF-23 was one gorgeous bird. That platform and design has to be used at some point in the near future. It's just gotta!

It did get used, look at Pak 50!

BAWHAHAHA!!!

Good one... Smile

especially from the front

Well I can see a passing similarity but while the PAK-FA is by no means ugly, compared the the '23 she's a minger!

f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22

gergar12 wrote:

f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22

the YF-23 had vastly superior sustained turn and low speed turn when compared to the F-15, but the TVC of the YF-22 made it more agile. Where the YF-23 was "technically superior" to the YF-22 was speed and stealth. the YF120 motor was supposedly a better performer too, but higher risk.

BELA wrote:

gergar12 wrote:

f23 was better in aerbactics but the company was in bad shape so they went with the f22

diddo that Doh

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

the YF-23 had vastly superior sustained turn and low speed turn when compared to the F-15, but the TVC of the YF-22 made it more agile. Where the YF-23 was "technically superior" to the YF-22 was speed and stealth. the YF120 motor was supposedly a better performer too, but higher risk.

It's somewhat more complicated. Reportedly the YF-22's agility advantage was at the left side of the envelope, and both competitors exceeded the requirement. The actual evaluations and possible reasons for the selection are more complicated, and have been discussed at length in this thread, it's been fascinating reading.

That's a pretty concise assessment of the YF-120, it's notable that both teams used their YF-120 equipped birds when establishing their performance claims. The risk, though, was undoubtedly a factor. GE also reportedly had some problems with their engine during the demonstration.

A member of secretprojects.co.uk, who I think is quite knowledgeable, made the claim that the PW powered YF-23 supercruised at Mach 1.8 and the GE powered craft supercruised at Mach 2.2.

Now, I have the preconception of the YF-23 being very fast, but is this even realistic, even without considering the heat on airframe materials? This number would leave even the production F-22 in the dust in a drag race, as it would be about 0.5 Machs faster.

Here's the link to the statement.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 29.55;wap2

disconnectedradical wrote:

A member of secretprojects.co.uk, who I think is quite knowledgeable, made the claim that the PW powered YF-23 supercruised at Mach 1.8 and the GE powered craft supercruised at Mach 2.2.

Now, I have the preconception of the YF-23 being very fast, but is this even realistic, even without considering the heat on airframe materials? This number would leave even the production F-22 in the dust in a drag race, as it would be about 0.5 Machs faster.

Here's the link to the statement.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 29.55;wap2

The speed of the YF-23 with the GE engines remains, I believe, classified to this day. Now until this changes, we'll never be able to confirm or deny this statement.

It was known that in supercruise the YF-23 was noticeably faster. That may not mean it accelerated blazingly faster, just that it could keep going faster until it maxed out. Also, it's not known whether 'burner was required for the final leg of getting to that higher absolute max speed for supercruise and then the a/c could sustain it in dry thrust.

I do know that later n the '90s I was talking to someone who was indirectly involved with supporting the ATF and mentioned that the YF-23 supercruise was still classified. He half smiled and opined that he wouldn't know for sure but that if that were true he'd guess they did M2 or better.

No, I am not Sundog.

Sundog would make this assertion again in this thread.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... nowap.html

I've always been wondering. The true supercruise speed of the YF-23, especially PAV-02, is classified, but is the same true for the YF-22? Is it possible that the YF-22 also went faster than its publicly released speed? It seems that most people touted the YF-23's speed to be faster than what was released, but not the same for the YF-22.

Anyways, I saw the drawings of the EMD F-23. I must say that I absolutely love that aircraft. Badass and sexy.

Was the YF-22 that more draggy than the YF-23, i.e. considerably lower fuel consumption for the YF-23 => greater range.
Wasn't it that the from the YF-22 to the F-22 "fat" was shaved off to make it slimmer but at the same time led to a reduction in fuel/range? => Is it reasonable to assume that the F-23 would have (significantly) improved range over the F-22?

I read somwhere that GE increased the thrust on their YF-120 - in order to still achieve performance numbers - around 1988? when it had become clear that the ATF would be heavier than initially anticipated. PW did not do that => lower thrust. Hopefully that is correct.

Edit: was the difference in drag only significant in the supersonic regime? => Drag vs. speed curves would be interesting to know.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

YF-22 vs YF-23