It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


YF-24? Very interesting .pdf

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:57 AM
Ok, now this is very very interesting. "Recently", it was discovered in the biography of Colonel Joseph A. Lanni, that he had flown a YF-24 (I say recently in quotes, because they used the wayback machine to find the page with his aircraft on it). The Pentagon says "no such beast, maybe it was the X-24". The problem with this idea is that the X-24 was flown long before Col Lanni was a test pilot, or even in the Air Force.

The X-24 was a lifting body design under the NASA PILOT program, and was flown from 1963-1975. Col Lanni graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1980. So we can see a problem right there. In 2004 he was commander of the 412th Flight Test Center at Edwards. He had (at the time) 4,300 hours of flight time involving manned and unmanned test aircraft, as well as classified aircraft. His list includes the F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-14, F/A-22, and the YF-24, among a few others. He also commanded a classified flight test unit between 1995 and 1997.

At the same time, there is a very interesting paper involving the "Model 24" which appears similar to Boeing's X-32, and the F/A-XX program. This was supposedly designed using 1998 technology, with an IOC of 2005 (according to the paper with the design on it). There is a .pdf that talks about Integrated Control Effectors (ICE) that would allow for much better control of the aircraft with a smaller, or no vertical tail. It was a joint USAF/USN test program. Six control types were tested. They were the: split aileron, moveable chine strakes, seamless leading and trailing edge flaps, pneumatic forebody devices, wing leading edge blowing, and wing mounted yaw vanes.

It was determined that split ailerons, moveable chine strakes, and variable dihedral horizontal tails were the three best. They were rated as the variable dihedral horizontal tails being the best, with split ailerons being second, and the chine strakes being third. They were tested at all aspects of flight, including carrier suitability.

The .pdf is very technical, and as tired as I am I don't want to try to go into too much detail about it yet, until I can sit and go through it and put together two coherent sentences in a row. But it would appear that the aircraft was built and tested. It includes 2D thrust vectoring, and a rather interesting engine design to go with it. It would have a top speed near the F-22, at Mach 2.2-2.5, but without the ability to supercruise.

The chine strakes were never tested at full integration, as they would be mounted on the front of the aircraft, where it is difficult to integrate them due to things like radar. The split aileron ran into difficulties with the thickness of the wing, and the RCS, but was fully investigated.

The abstract of the paper talks about "further study" and "wind tunnel tests", but then goes on to say that since this was a joint project it required carrying "two baseline aircraft" to fully test the carrier integration, and reconfiguring the vehicle for carrier operations. So it sure sounds like it went a lot farther than wind tunnels and computers. It goes on to say that the baseline aircraft selected was the Model 24F by Boeing.

The Model-24F is a diamond wing, single engine aircraft designed for air to air, and air to ground missions. Two complete models, one 12.5% and one 5% scale were built for testing (sure, and it ended there, HAH),

I'll post more after I get a little sleep and can digest all this information. This paper has everything from RCS, to control input testing comments, so it might take me a little while.

Here's the link to the .pdf if anyone wants to take a crack at it.

Was there ever a YF-24? The US Air Force says no. "Our historians said there is no record of there ever having been a YF-24," says Lt Col Max Despain, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon. "Perhaps it's being mistaken for an X-24 which wasn't a fighter?"

That said, this old bio for a former test pilot, Colonel Joseph A. Lanni lists such an aircraft--which is curious. So there remains a small possibility a YF-24 might have been squirreled away somewhere out in the desert in Nevada. I say that because Lanni, according to his bio, commanded a classified flight test unit between July 1995 and June 1997.

While the entry in the bio might be a typo, it was certainly not the X-24 that Lanni flew. The Martin Marietta X-24A flew during 1963 to 1975, which was well before Lanni became an Air Force pilot. It's also not likely that Lanni flew the Northrop YF-23 either since he was assigned to Eglin AFB in Florida during the time those jets were flying.

So, what exactly the YF-24 is or was is still kind of a mystery. Your guess is as good as mine.
edit on 2/26/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:23 AM
i did a little digging and found this thread HERE

other than the obscure website and hearsay i dont know if that jet exists/existed or not. will do more digging and get back again.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by Dizrael

I remembered there was a thread about it, but I didn't remember it showing this particular .pdf which is new to me. It goes into great detail about the Model-24F, and with what I'm hearing from other places (that can't be sourced but are trustworthy), it's entirely possible that it went beyond the wind tunnel.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:34 AM
i found another LINK that also talks about Lanni.

Joseph A."Broadway Joe" Lanni flew first flights of two classified prototypes during the 1990s. One of them was designated YF-24, a departure from the traditional use of three-digit identifiers for classified aircraft (such as the YF-113G and YF-117A).

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:43 AM
Just skimming through the .pdf has proven very interesting. There is a picture of a model of the aircraft sitting on a desk, with various ICE test pieces scattered around, including different tails. Apparently they also built a full sized aircraft for testing. The paper has at the top that it contains sensitive materials that are restricted under the Arms Control Act, but then goes into great detail about RCS of the aircraft, and the RCS with different ICE systems mounted, among other things. I'm having a hard time believing this was unclassified, or it may be that they're getting ready to admit to one of the black projects that has been around for a few years now.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:50 AM
My connection is pathetically slow, so all i got from the link is the figures.

I could be wrong, but what I've read describes a carrier based fighter.

Is there something special about this vehicle? does it utilize scramjet or pulse engine tech? It would be quicker for me to ask fellow members then wait for the PDF to download.

Down under we've cut our order for a JSF called the F-35 from 100 to 16, due to faults in it's manufacturing. Is this the same plane? any insight would be appreciated.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:51 AM
Interesting thread Zaphod. Can i just say, it is only posters like you that keep me coming back to this site. Your always informative and whilst i sometimes have no real interest in your topics, they are always well written and with details behind them to back you up. It's such a nice change from the "OMG!!! PROOF OF LIFE ON MARS" threads that just descend into silliness and rudeness when the OP's get upset that everyone else thinks its just a rock.

If i could give you applause i would. Not because i think this is the greatest thread in the world, but because your consistently posting good information for anyone who shares your interests.


posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:10 AM

It's definitely an engineering document. It looks specifically to be investigating additional control surfaces which will not compromise a low-RCS aircraft. In particular, they seem to want to take area off of the vertical stabilizers and shift the role of lateral control to a more stealthy control mechanism. Section 2 outlines the initial concepts and the shortlisting of several. Interestingly, I notice that one of the options they selected were "Movable Chine/Strakes" which were also implemented on PAK-FA's pre-production models and expected on the service versions. There is a good list of all the options they looked at on Page 10, Fig 2.2-1.

I'll chew into it some more later. Looks like a very interesting read, though.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by Thecakeisalie

Basically, what I've gotten so far is that they were looking at a way to take a stealthy aircraft, and reduce, or remove the vertical fin. The aircraft used was a previously unknown design by Boeing. It was lighter than the F-35, but used aspects of the Boeing X-32 that was entered into the F-35 competition, as well as aspects of their new aircraft that would be entered into the F/A-XX program.

It was a joint USAF/USN project so it would fly off a carrier, as well as from a land base. The paper is an engineering paper, that shows radar cross sections with the different control systems installed, as well as a picture of a small model of the aircraft.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by expatwhite

Thank you for that. I try to post things that I can verify, or that I know come from trustworthy sources that my fellow avnerds will enjoy.

Your post certainly beats being called a shill any day.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:55 AM
Wasn't the YF23 modified to become a bomber? Could that be it?

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:04 AM
Regarding that Boeing drawing. It is worth remembering that Boeing stated during the JSF evaluation period that the fully developed production version of the X-32 would be a tailed design, unlike the prototype. This indicates that the layout illustrated in the document was an ongoing programme rather than a total dead end design.

Could this offer a possible explanation too?

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:12 AM
It is entirely possible that Boeing could have built a technology demonstrator version of the Model 24-F, and that someone gave it the designation YF-24. Various YF designations have been used for classified aircraft since 1968, but until recently they were all three-digit numbers (YF-110B Have Doughnut, YF-113E Have Pad, YF-117A Senior Trend, YF-118G Bird of Prey, etc.). The YF-24 first came to the attention of researchers like us in 2005 when Trevor Paglen spotted it in Joe Lanni's bio, and it was discussed extensively here on ATS. Since then I have also heard of a YF-43B, so maybe they got tired of the three-digit designations.

Lanni was a test pilot with the Red Hats, so most (if not all) of the "classified prototypes" he flew were foreign aircraft. The oddball YF designations were applied in a fairly random fashion, which was probably intentional. As used in the world of secret flight-testing, the term "prototype" comes from the Y prefix in the designation, and has no bearing on whether the airplane was a production foreign type like the MiG-17F (YF-113A) or a technology demonstrator like Tacit Blue (YF-117D). Lanni made "first flights" in two of the 10 secret airplanes he flew between 1992 and 1997. One of these was apparently the YF-24, the designation for the other is unknown.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Shadowhawk

I have a source that to date has been accurate on everything that I've been told, that says the Model-24F was built and flown with at least one aircraft. I doubt it was built in large numbers, but I suspect it was flown as the Phase II portion of the program that was described in the paper.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by waynos

Wow! That is one ugly aircraft.

Of course, there were folk who said the same about the A-10, but as a ground pounder, I always loved that bird.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by TDawgRex

No, the X-32 was just ugly as hell.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

People have said the A-10 was an ugly plane -- I think it's cool looking. Sometimes though, I guess function is more important than form! long until we get some F-302's for real?!

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:37 PM
Does pointyness help an aircraft aerodynamically?
I always though the F22 and the F35 were a bit blunt.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by cavtrooper7

I was wondering the same thing. I remember some of the early stealth prototypes, and they weren't as angular. I think the sharp angles were discovered to be better at reflecting radar signals -- so methinks it's more of a stealth thing than an areodynamic one.

I do know that racing stripes make things go faster. Spoilers too.

"I just wanna go fast" - Ricky Bobby

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

Especially on Chargers....real "B" body Chargers not the joke we have today.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in