Yf-23 vs F-22: Did the Air Force take 2nd best?

Another thing that must be considered is the missile launch system.

When launching missiles on the YF-23, the missiles came down in "racks", one on top of another in fewer bays. This allowed the aircraft to use less space to carry more missiles. However this was a major design flaw, because if a missile malfunctioned and didnt launch, the missile above it would not launch either. Instead of losing one missile, you lose two. That could pose a little bit of a problem.

I shiver when I think about how the USAF is trying to design a fighter solely for BVR. You cant have a "BVR fighter". As long as there are fighter aircraft, there will be dogfights.

Boeing took over McDonnald Douglas, so they inhared all of the companies legal problems as well.

Tim

I couldn't get the link to work! However, what you are describing sound to me like a Tail Slide. The plane flies 90 degrees vertical, throttles back into vertical stall and begins to fall back onto it's tail, before flipping nose down and resuming flight.

Tail Slide


Is that it?

If that's it, I gurarintee you it has Nothing to do with thrust vectoring. The SU-27 Flanker did that at Farmborough back in 86 or 88 without thrust vectoring. It is achieved by throttling the engine back while in a climb. I know you can adjust the F-23's throttle while climbing, can't you?

Tim

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Ghost01]

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Ghost01]

LOL... my link didn't work for you and your link is not working for me: "Sorry! This video is no longer available on Yahoo! Video."

As far as manueverability of the 22 compared to the 23, your right - we are all fools to believe that vectored thrust can in any way make an aircraft more manueverable. Especially when compared to (gasp, let's all bow in reverence) ... the "YF-23" (choir sings).

::Bangs head against wall:::
What was I ever thinking!? I'm certain to go to aerospace hell now~

Sarcasm aside!

I only intended to point out that the Paticular Manuver that you were discribing has nothing to do with thrust vecterong. That manever uses something called post-stall manevering.

B.T.W.: Exactally how would you use helicoptering (also called a Hammer-head Stall) in combat? I don't really see where it would give you an edge over your opponent.

Some people might want to read up on the Raptor before claiming yf-23 is greater, faster, better etc. According to Paul Metz, test pilot, the raptors engines are designed in such a way that the fastest way to altitude is simply go supersonic on the deck and crank it up. I didnt know it at first, but I guess its the only plane in the world that can do it like that, for example, the f-15 has to climb to 30,000 feet, then dive down to supersonic, then crank it back up, and this has to do with how the engines perform at certain altitudes.

I think what Metz was claiming is that the low bypass turbofans of the Raptor can self adjust depending on speed and altitude to allow it a faster time to climb than any fighter in history, this is classified of course.

Just pick up some articles online from people who have actually flown the bird and then listen to what they say.

This is pretty true, although there would be a way to make a fighter be as BVR as possible. For example, take a mighty fast fighter (MiG-31 Foxhound, maybe?), give it some kickass radar and tracking systems. This is oversimplified, but you get the idea. Now you have a platform that will be able to engage enemies at range, yet if they start to close in, will have enough speed to make a getaway, put some distance through, and do another BVR intercept. That wraps up my hijacking, back to subject.

The F-22 (with its TVC) has far better low-speed maneuverability and overall maneuverability than the YF-23. That's it, that's all. The YF-23 could likely have done a cobra, but many aircraft can. Altogether, the TVC does give a hearty advantage.

What's the difference between the F-119/F-120 engines used on the YF-23 and the F-119's used on the F-22A?

Anyways, I do believe that the YF-23 was the better aircraft. But politics is probably the largest conributing factor to why the YF-22 was chosen over it.

Looking at the YF-22 and the F-22A, there are alot of changes to the airframe, the F-22A production model actually resembles the YF-23 IMO. It does have some key features, while keeping with the stealth, thrust vectoring, all the goodies that made it great. It was a joint project(the F-22A production) between Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop correct? Everyone of those contractors contributed in some part to the final ATF production model.

Shattered OUT...

It's really irrelevant since these are the same engines that would have gone in the F-23 if it had been chosen. You can't really compare the performance of the F-22 (after how many years of additional development?) to the performance of the YF-23 in 1991. Yes, the F-22 probably performs better now than the YF-23 did in 1991 - BUT - if the YF-23 had been able to continue development, it's likely that the program would have realized just as much of an improvement as the Raptor has experienced.

It's not matter. We had never thought F-22 can do fly beyond M2.0 because of its fixed inlets before there is some report said it has aleady over M2.4

I've read Everything I can find publically on both the F-22 and YF-23 and I believe the F-23 was the better fighter.

As to your claim about the engines, it's very impressive, but IRRELIVENT to this thread. The YF-22 and the YF-23 both tested the SAME engines. The first prototype of Each flew with 2 PW F-119's, while the second prototype flew with 2 GE F-120's.

Sorry Train but in light of the fact that both planes had the Exact Same engines, I have to say that your point on the Raptor's engines giving it an edge are both untrue and irrelivent!

Tim

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Ghost01]

I'm really going to have to try and dispell this notion the Black Widow was some kind of super-weapon the USAF were afraid to use it was that good!


Speed - I've already demonstrated there is strong evidence the top speed of the YF-23 was Mach 1.8.


Manouverability -
Roll: With those two widely spaced engines, the YF-23 will have a larger polar moment of inertia resulting in slower roll response times.
Pitch: Without dedicated elevators [and without TVC], it is doubtful whether the YF-23 had better pitch responses either.
Yaw: Again, no dedicated rudders, but the all moving tailerons may be able substitutes, yaw is not a big bearing on manouvering anyway.
Acceleration: Speculation is that the YF-23 was a lower drag design - I fail to see that, the YF-23 presents a significantly larger frontal area than the YF-22, it also has fixed nozzles which limit the propulsive efficiency of the engines.

With the larger wing area and lifting surface the YF-23 may well have had better sustained turn rates, but I'll happily put money down that its responses were slower.

There has been speculation that the YF-23 managed to maintain a fixed aerocentre from subsonic through transonic to supersonic flight through fancy design - with the computational power that was available to the designers, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell this happened, anyone that knows a little about transonic aerodynamics will be aware of the sensitivity of transonic flow and their shockwaves. Even if the wing were designed to have a fixed aero centre [which is relatively straightforward to be honest], attaining the same with the fuselage body would be damn near impossible.


VLO tech -
No idea, not my field, cannot comment.

Funny what you are thinking and it is not clear for me, why are you thinking that when you claim that you read reports from Paul Metz. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for you and other forum members that are able to access AIAA papers is for example AIAA 92-1039 or other first-hand sources of data about YF-23. This prevent you from thinking, claiming, conspiracing and using as source what-if modellers pages.

PS: Is it me or are you all here comparing YF-23 prototype with serial production F-22A that passed 13 more years of development??

Have you a list of 'interesting' papers?

Not exactly what I should be using resources on... but if they don't catch me they'll be none the wiser

Kilco, by no means have I every heard anyone refer to the YF-23 as a "Super Weapon". I think you're attacking something that isn't there, no one is trying to make the argument that the YF-23 was a something right out of a Sci-Fi novel and can do all this super-cool stuff that no other platform is capable of, all we're arguing is that the YF-23 is better than the YF-22, or vice-versa.

As far as I'm concerned, I do believe the YF-23 was a better platform, maybe not in ALL areas, but in many of them. However with 10+ years of development, the production ATF is far more advanced than the YF-23.

Shattered OUT...

Then go back and read my first post. Stating would of, could of, and should of, seems irrelevant on your part.

And i never stated the f-22's engines are better than the yf-23, i was simply comparing them to the f-15.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by BigTrain]

No Bigtrain, you were comparing the F-22A production(Raptor) to the YF-23's engines. You used the F-15's rate of climb as an example, not a comparison. Atleast, that's what me, and everyone else got out of it. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Since the original poster started this thread formulated on opinions, I believe Ghost's posts are relevant to the thread.

Shattered OUT...

i feel that it is a general dislike of northrop products. anybody remember northrops yf17 that spawner the navies f-18 program or the f-20 tigershark.

Intresting thought, but you may be right! Could Northrop be TOO Advanced for them?

Now before anyone jumps on my last statment about Northrop being too advanced, and acuses me of taking shots at other companies like Lockheed, allow me to explain:

Northrop has always been known for using radical concepts to push the stat of the art. The B-2 was Not their first flying wing bomber. They propsed an all-wing bomber to the US military in 1941-42 called the XB-35. Another example of radical engineering was the XP-56 Silver Bullet, a tailess figher made from welded magnesium.

Now, the US traditionally has been more technologically conservative. Americans for some reason don't like radical technology. For example, in 1904 the Wright Brothers offered the US Army the airplane as a scouting platform. However, the army rejected the idea until 1908. Another example is the jet! Jet engine technology had been around and known to US engineers since 1942. However, it wasn't until earily 1945 that the Lockheed P-80/F-80 Jet Fighter entered service, and they were not combat deployed during the World War 2. Even with Jet aircraft in service the US continued to use the B-50 (A B-29 spin off) as our primary bomber throughout the Korean War. In fact we didn't combat deploy a Jet bomber until the Viet Nam war in the 1960's and '70's.

So I'm thinking that The Air Force found the F-23 Too radical and advanced for their wishes, and set out to find ANY Reason they could to buy the more conservative F-22, which looks simular in many ways to the F-15. Lockheed decided on thrust vectoring, and an F-15 like design. This gave the Air Force the excuse they wanted. Now they could claim the F-22 was more agile and had more reliable technology. Lockheed did a great Job with the YF-22, I'll never argue that!
However, I honesty believe that all factors taken together, the F-23 was a better fighter.

Tim

There are hundreds of interesting papers, it depends on what you want to know. From all materials, papers, flight data, plans, etc. that I have about YF-23 and F-23A I found this the most relevant to the discussion. You can find there some achieved flight performances, first hand experience from Paul Metz about YF-23 handling, test objectives, its not too long for reading, its not secret and available to anybody who is able to pay for it... I was thinking about to post here a few tables to freeze some of you, but it is highly copyrighted material.


And about YF-22 vs. YF-23 - I think that the main point was what I already studied at university - and its marketing. There is no need to have the best plane, but you must have the plane that is able to meet USAF requirements (no matter how stupid they are) as best as possible. And this is (my opinion about) why YF-23 lost.