It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-23 beat the snott out of the F-22 - don't argue with me because then it'll just draw out the conversation longer, and you'll lose. But I can assume someone here is as bull-headed as I am, and I'll have to prove that they will lose.
The real power of the 23's airframe comes from its low drag, high lift, fuel capacity, stealth, and maneuverability. As it goes faster, it gets more maneuverable. The design of the engine intakes generates lift when air is ducted
Originally posted by Aim64C
Hook, line, sinker.... and my fishing rod!
The F-22 was chosen because it was thought to be more servicable and that it would be delivered on time and on budget (irony is a bitch, ain't it?).
Originally posted by Aim64C
There were concerns about the way the Aim-120s were deployed on the F-23 and fear that a jam of a lower missile could prevent the upper missile from being fired. This would have been eliminated in the F-23 that was designed to have an extended weapons bay (and slightly elongated fuselage) - and that the missile could be rail-launched from the same mechanism regardless of the lower missile's position.
Originally posted by Aim64C
The point is to avoid mergers - or "dog fights". The F-23 wouldn't need to dogfight because it's within engagement range and fires, before the enemy even knows its there. Although you'd be amazed at how many dogfights can and do occour at supersonic speeds. The only reason more don't are two reasons - G forces and maneuverability - most aircraft are designed for high subsonic maneuvering - not supersonic.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Most of the drag assosciated with supersonic flight comes from the aircraft breaking through its own sound waves. This is countered by three methods. The first method is to make the wings incredibly thin and sharpen the edge of the wing. Another method is to sweep the wings back, decreasing the percieved velocity of the air, which allows the aircraft to move at mach 1.5 but the wing only experience mach 0.9. Another way to reduce the drag is to deepen the wing - extending it along the body of the aircraft. This reduces the effects of vortecies created by shallow surfaces that cause bending, twisting, and overall drag on the aircraft.
Another way I 'feel' is to sweep the trailing edge of a wing forward - what we see in the X-29, Su-47 FrogFoot (or whatever they decided to code name that thing - I've heard several), F-23, and limited extent, F-22. That is because the airflow is shifted back towards the body of the aircraft. I don't have any simulator data to back that one up - just 'feeling' how it would work.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Sure - the F-23 is heavier - but it has a hell of a lot more wing surface area and superior lifting body charactaristics. It's not how heavy your plane is - it's how effective your control surfaces are. As mentioned before - the F-23 was nimble because the plane was ready to dart off in any direction with the twitch of an aileron.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Want to argue stealth charactaristics next? That, the F-23 was clearly superior in - but we'll see.
Originally posted by Aim64C
I would also love to see you prove that the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-23.
Originally posted by Aim64C
... Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.
Originally posted by crusader97
Originally posted by Aim64C
... Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.
So if the second ship didn't have YF-120's, then what was pushing it?
Originally posted by Aim64C
Eyewitness reports place the YF-23 at a faster cruise speed than the YF-22 (by a significant margin), and greater maneuverability. Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.
The YF-23 was slightly more aerodynamic as it's cruising speed was Mach 1.25, Mach 0.08 faster than the YF-22 (roughly).
The YF-23 prototypes are 67.4 feet in length and have wingspans of 43.6 ft. During the ATF program, one YF-23 was powered
by twin Pratt and Whitney YF119 turbofan engines, while two General Electric YF120 turbofan engines were installed in the other prototype. The aircraft achieved a speed of Mach 1.8 during the program.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Lift is a different issue than drag. Of course, when looking at the design of the F-23, the 'fuselage' (or whatever you want to call the forward pod-structure) and engine intakes provide for a nice area to generate supersonic lift.
Originally posted by Aim64C
I have endeavored to perform computer simulations of the aerodynamic properties of the YF-23, but I have not been able to acquire the necessary computer software. Once that changes - I can give you all kinds of technical readouts that will prove you wrong.
Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-23 was in very few ways a conventional aircraft. It used not just trailing flaps, but also leading edge flaps to maneuver, as well as its ruddervators. God only knows what the avionics programming looked like - but I'm sure it was some rather crazy stuff.
Originally posted by Aim64C
An F-23 could have carried heavier and larger munitions than the F-22, due to the deeper munitions bay of the F-23. Modifications to the bay could have easily supported JDAM and JSOW munitions. Although the eleged F/B-23 would be much more adept at carrying these heavy and extremely potent weapons. The ATF is supposed to be a fighter - not a multi-role aircraft. That's why I laugh at lockheed for taking their fighter and turning it into a bomb truck so they can attempt to generate a market for it. Truth is - the raptor will hardly be ordered once the JSF hits the 'store'.
Originally posted by Aim64C
I would also love to see you prove that the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-23.
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
On a more serious note, every time I read up on the YF-23, it was powered by two different engines with two different prototype ships, PAV-1 and PAV-2. PAV-1 was powered by PW-119 and PAV-2 was powered by YF-120.
Shattered OUT...