Register here

Author Topic: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23  (Read 447314 times)

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« on: November 26, 2006, 08:27:05 am »
Image removed - modified drawing in the next posts.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 04:44:55 pm by Matej »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2006, 08:36:54 am »
Fantastic stuff, Mato! Thanks zillion, zillion times!!!
I have some add-ons, but will wait with them.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2006, 08:38:29 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline ChuckAnderson

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2006, 09:30:10 am »
Hi Matej!

Like flateric, I like the F-23 and I wish it had entered production.  I've always thought that the F-23's situation could be analogous to that of the F-16/F-17 situation.

As we know, in the competition between the F-16 and the F-17, the F-16 won the contract and the F-17 was pushed into the background until it was picked-up by the USN as the F-18.

Like the F-17 that was picked-up later as the F-18, it's too bad that the F-23 couldn't be picked-up later as the.....F-23.


Chuck

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2006, 09:36:32 am »
Well, small chance as F/B-23 still lives.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2006, 09:49:01 am »
Hmmm.. don't want to start a stupid, Key-publishing like boring discussion, but wouldn't the F-23  been a better choice for the USN than the Superbug ?
thanks for the 3-view, very interesting...
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2006, 10:56:17 am »
Folks, please stop talks about why YF-23 lost, what a great AF fighter it would be and what a great Navy fighter it could be - I'm pretty sceptic about later estimate.

Remarks to Mato -
a). In a plan view, all intake edge lines are straight, no these curved outer lips.
b). F-23A would have the same nozzles with top covergent/divergent flaps, as YF-, just trenches' tiles would be changed in favor of more light, flexible insulation pattern, and configuration of serrated boattail in planview would be changed to improve weight, IR and stealth characteristics (later shown right).
« Last Edit: November 26, 2006, 11:10:52 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 271
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2006, 01:13:38 pm »
I still try to figurate the new shape of the engines fairings.

Did they were make come closer to each other?
How their size was reduced? including in height?

It seems from Matej and koku fan drawing that the aft part of the fuselage on the upperwing was lenghtened, right?

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2006, 02:01:24 am »
These inlets appear to be a blend of aerodynamics from the prototype and some of the work that eventually showed in in the X-35 and F-35 inlets.

As for why the YF-23 lost the competition, the outbrief after the decision was pretty clear that Northrop's then management had lost the trust and confidence of USAF leadership (IMHO, it was a desevered loss).

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2006, 03:40:44 am »
Adding to El opinion about loosing the competition - Bill Sweetman describes system of choosing of competitors as taking two radically different designs (i.e. YF-16/YF-17, YF-22/YF-23, X-35/X-32) even if counterpart wasn't scored second in preliminary, 'paper' RFP stage contest (for example, Boeing LWF was scored second to GD's, but USAF choose Northrop's two-engined design as contender to GD LWF as this a/c was a totally different approach on how LWF should look like). You can note striking similarites between Boeing and Northrop ATF designs (except, of course, this weird fuselage mouth inlet).
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2006, 03:43:31 am »
I still try to figurate the new shape of the engines fairings.

Did they were make come closer to each other?
How their size was reduced? including in height?

It seems from Matej and koku fan drawing that the aft part of the fuselage on the upperwing was lenghtened, right?

You can easily compare both variants overlaying each other in any CAD program (as sizes are known). In common, you are right.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2006, 04:49:11 am »
Fixed - intake configuration suggestions
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 05:21:08 pm by flateric »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3167
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2006, 05:27:25 am »
In my opinion this is one of the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever designed ::)

Thanks for the drawing Matej!

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2006, 09:32:02 am »
Not an impartial person but....

"I worked at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft during the development period of the ATF prototypes in R&D on the ATF engine program so I really paid close attention to the ATF flyoff when it happened.
The engines selected was Pratt & Whitney F-119-PWA-100 NOT the GE-120. GE was nearly three months late getting their prototype dual cycle engine working. In fact the GE prototype powered flight item was supposed to be the first to fly but due to GE's problems the PWA prortotype powered item flew first. The GE engine delivered more thrust BUT was far more thirsty and had a much larger thermal footprint. The PWA protype only needed a slight fan Dia. increase to make up the thrust difference. The GE needed far more work to be a viable production engine and had a higher cost. Winner of ATF engine contract PWA!"

John former Dept 7035 Fabrication specialites PWA Rocky Hill, Ct. Facility 1987-1992

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2006, 12:57:33 pm »
Only eight days and you can legaly build your own copy of YF-23  :D

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2006, 08:36:35 pm »
two questions for Matej:
1) Why use zigzag wing on backside
You should have known the dentate wing edge would destroy a capability of low detection from radar

2) Why use 3 dimentions shockwave half cone airintake?
The cone specially for this half cone airintake will cause an unsymmetrical air flow while the aircraft do any  high attacking angle of maneuver.
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2006, 10:21:24 am »
Ca. 1991 Koku-Fan has published 3-view of EMD F-23A, Matej drawings based on this illustration. Dimensions (lenght, for example) and overall shape was pretty different from then already released YF-23 drawings and overall dimensions. Text capture mentioned that there were drawings, showing, among other details, additional internal bay for AIM-9s, occasionally distributed (and immidiately returned back) to the press representatives during YF-23 roll-out ceremony, fact, confirmed at least by one other independent source (Flight International, AFAIK). Other insider source also confirmed that these drawings are very close to CAD printouts of EMD F-23 that he has seen, including 'B-2 style' inlets with serrated cowls. Dogtooth at the leading edge is strange to mee too, I never seen such an aerodynamic/stealth arrangement. I can suppose that vortices produced by them can interference with -23 giant V-tails to improve stability at high AOA, that was a problem of this ATF competitor, but it's just speculated guess.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2006, 12:08:22 pm »
1. I think (like the flateric) that the tooth was placed there because it can create an additional vortices. And regarding to stealth, it is the matter of the shape, materials and size, not if something is zigzag or not.

2. This type of cone is simply much easier and less expensive than original porous used on YF-23 prototype. People in Northrop found that its not necessary to always remove boundary layer from the inlet and the cone can be integral part of the fuselage without gap between. This is exactly what is now applied on F-35.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2006, 05:11:40 pm »
Well, as was demonstrated on the JIST testbed, there are other ways to remove the boundary layer than using splitter plates.  This has been incorporated on the X-35 and now the F-35 and I assume Northrop would use the same approach on any FB-23 proposal.  I've heard that the final F-23 proposal dropped the sawtooth inlets as unncessary, but I couldn't verify this.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 06:12:00 pm by elmayerle »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2006, 05:34:48 pm »
Quote
2. This type of cone is simply much easier and less expensive than original porous used on YF-23 prototype. People in Northrop found that its not necessary to always remove boundary layer from the inlet and the cone can be integral part of the fuselage without gap between. This is exactly what is now applied on F-35.

Actually, that's a mis-interpretation. It is important to remove or 'move' the boundary layer before the inlet, there are just different ways to do it. The bump before/in the inlet serves to cause the pressure distribution in front of the inlet to push the boundary layer around it. At least that is what has been reported in some of my aviation magazines. Also, they probably use porous materials in the inlet to suck the boundary layer away, as was done on the YF-23 prototypes inlet; That's the dark "patch" you see under the wing in front of the inlet on the YF-23.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2007, 01:29:15 pm »
Some alternative weapon configurations made from my drawing by Nikolay Andreev. I just forgot to remove the scale - image is sized down to be able to post it here.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 01:31:15 pm by Matej »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2007, 09:40:10 pm »
In all the comparative flight test data I saw (and I was at Northrop at the time), the YF-23 consistently outperformed the YF-22, could carry as much, and the production proposal had a more flexible, in terms of carriage, internal weapons bay set up with the builkhead between the two bays capable of shifting fore and aft like the bulkhead between weapons bays 1 & 2 on the B-1B.  Where the F-23 proposal fell down, majorly, was on the management side; the USAF not having tremendous faith at that point in Northrop's ability to manage the program.  This is the information that was conveyed to the engineers after the post-award de-brief by the USAF.

Oh, the extensive sawtooth shown isn't necessary (take a look at the F-35's inlet, or that flown on the JIST testbed to prove out the theory behind it.  The YF-23 didn't need vectoring nozzles, it already was as maneuverable as the YF-22 and the nozzles just add complexity and weight.

Matej, if you want to add an alternate reconnaisance capability that was palletized, consider a shape similar to the lower front of TSSAM, both front and back, faired into the surface contours, and using either one or both weapons bays.  Such a shape could carry both cameras (with appropriate LO windows), passive ELINT sensors, and/or low probability of intercept active recce radar.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2007, 03:19:29 am »
Thanks Elmayerle for the information. I'm always willing to learn - that's what I log on for.

Oh, the extensive sawtooth shown isn't necessary (take a look at the F-35's inlet, or that flown on the JIST testbed to prove out the theory behind it.  The YF-23 didn't need vectoring nozzles, it already was as maneuverable as the YF-22 and the nozzles just add complexity and weight.

RE: the sawtooth thing, maybe we're getting tangled up in terms. Though the F-35 inlet doesn't exhibit rows of small saw-teeth the whole thing is a three angled-edged 'tooth' (it's definitely not square so what's a better term?) and the design features many more on its panel and door edges.

I agree there is no official information saying whether one competitor was better at maneuverability and there was about the USAF preferring Lockheed's management. But if the YF-23 was manoeuverable without thrust vectoring image how good it could have been with it!

Some pundits state the YF-22 had better range and others the YF-23. Most say the YF-22 was a more integrated product in terms on cockpit and systems. But the only info I've found on weapons load says the YF-23 could carry an air-to-air load of 4 AMRAAMs or 8 Sidewinders to the Raptors 6 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders (which I don't think is that great). Also apparently the missiles were stacked, raising fears that if the first missile jammed it would stop the one above. Please tell me more.

I wonder if the Air force would have had all that confidence in Lockheed if they'd know that they wouldn't have reached full operational status by 2007?

My own offering is an amateur's fantasy and I'm really not sure about the top mounted intakes, at least without some sort of demand activated door supplying air from underneath at high AoA. And fattening the fore-body would probably stuff up the aerodynamic concept. But compared to some of the ATF configurations offered I still think its cool.

Cheers, Woody

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2007, 09:21:51 am »
Well, my understanding is that thrust-vectoring is primarily useful at low speeds rather than high speeds; accordingly, if the aircraft is otherwise maneuverable enough, thrust vectoring is just added un-necessary complexity and weight.  The shape of the F-35's is determined more by the aerodynamic requirements for removing the boundary layer without using your standard boundary layer diverter which adds greatly to the RCS.  Having said that, a F-23 with inlets shaped like the JIST inlet would work nicely.

I'm not that familiar with all the aspects of the F-23's weapons bays, but I do believe that the racks of stacked missiles were extendable to allow either AMRAAM to fire.

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2007, 09:31:28 am »
Having seen the YF-22 and YF-23 close up, I think it is clear why Lockheed won. The YF-22 was an aircraft, a true protoype of the F-22. The YF-23 was a plastic model of the aircraft that Northrop would have built had it won. And don't forget Lockheed flew an avionics demonstrator; Northrop and McDonnell did their demos on the ground. Risk, not performance carried the day. Unfortunately the risk was not as low as they believed.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2007, 01:54:57 pm »
Having seen the YF-22 and YF-23 close up, I think it is clear why Lockheed won. The YF-22 was an aircraft, a true protoype of the F-22. The YF-23 was a plastic model of the aircraft that Northrop would have built had it won.

With all my circuits on YF-23, I can't disagree.

And don't forget Lockheed flew an avionics demonstrator; Northrop and McDonnell did their demos on the ground.

Hmm, what then did Northrop/MDC do with that BAC One Eleven?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 02:05:13 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2007, 07:42:36 pm »
I had forgotten Westinghouse's "Bac 1-11", but my impression at the time was that it was a principally a sensor testbed - a continuation of its work in support of the Ultra Reliable Radar programme - while the 757 was a demonstrator for the F-22's avionics architecture, and in particular for the sensor-fusion algorithms and "human-machine interface". It is my recollection that the cockpit demonstrations in support of the ATF were conducted on the ground for the Northrop/McDonnell team and, at least in part, in the air for the Lockheed/Boeing/GD team.

A similar situation exists today where the BAC One-Eleven, now belonging to Northrop Grumman, is a sensor testbed for JSF, but Lockheed has modified a 737-300 to be the F-35 avionics testbed.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2007, 10:05:41 pm »
Thanks Elmayerle.

Having said that, a F-23 with inlets shaped like the JIST inlet would work nicely.

Do you have any images/diagrams/links of the JIST intake tests? (I can only find committee reports) It would be great to update my virtual aircraft catalog without the need for so may jaggies.

I'm still a fan of 'low speed maneuverability" if by which you mean dog-fight maneuverability after the merge. I just found a JSF Power-point presentation and find it interesting that it describes the JSF as having 'F-16 "like" maneuverability'; the sensor and systems are great but so much for 30 years of aerodynamic development.

The image below shows one way to increase the missile load of a stealth plane - and they've got another pair of pylons they could use!  ;D

Cheers, Woody

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2007, 11:52:29 pm »
PS: Matej, I didn't use your drawing other than for possition but mine should fit over yours for comparison. Your drawing had a longer fuselage (obviously) but a skinnier rear  and smaller tail surfaces than the original 3 veiw I worked from, any reason for this?

Yes. Skinner rear is some kind of optical effect of much smoother and integral fuselage than original YF-23 development prototype. For example the hump for the fuel and the bomb bays was lower, but its internal volume was bigger. Also the section in front from the cockpit was much fatter to acommodate powerful radar and all necessary equipment. Regarding to smaller tail surfaces - I found it as natural process, because the prototype had them oversized for additional stability during early flight tests. Just take a look @ YF-22, how big had it them.

Matej, if you want to add an alternate reconnaisance capability that was palletized, consider a shape similar to the lower front of TSSAM, both front and back, faired into the surface contours, and using either one or both weapons bays.  Such a shape could carry both cameras (with appropriate LO windows), passive ELINT sensors, and/or low probability of intercept active recce radar.

Thats an interesting information for me and I think that also for the Nikolay.

Do you have any images/diagrams/links of the JIST intake tests? (I can only find committee reports) It would be great to update my virtual aircraft catalog without the need for so may jaggies.

If you have text, here are the pics:  http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP07.htm

But the only info I've found on weapons load says the YF-23 could carry an air-to-air load of 4 AMRAAMs or 8 Sidewinders to the Raptors 6 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders (which I don't think is that great). Also apparently the missiles were stacked, raising fears that if the first missile jammed it would stop the one above. Please tell me more.

I will not tell you anything, because it is better to see than hear.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 04:21:51 am by Matej »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2007, 04:37:30 am »
Thanks Matej,

If you have text, here are the pics:  http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP08.htm

I will not tell you anything, because it is better to see than hear.

But when I click your link I just get an F-16 text page and my Slovak is still not as good as it should be.

The Weapon magazine arrangement you posted looks a bit clunky to me. I wouldn't like to try and fit a bunch of JDAMs up there.

Do you have any of the plans you based your F/A-23A on or are they super super top secret?

An expert like yourself has probably seen it but I've included a Youtube link to a great 1980s YF-23 promotional clip complete with dodgy 80s music:-



Does anyone else know where else on the internet you can get YF-23 video?

Cheers, Woody

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2007, 05:47:30 am »
Quote
Does anyone else know where else on the internet you can get YF-23 video?

Unfortunately the video "YF-23 "Declassified" is no longer available at You-Tube due to a copyright claim by West Coast Images.  :-[

Quote
Parts 1-3 are history of Northrop designs, cold war climate, mission requirements, time and effort put in to the design, and manufacture process. Parts 4-5 have the role out, taxi tests, testing footage, surge day, the final decision and the two YF-23's final resting place. While it doesn't really declassify anything a good aviation enthusiast wouldn't already know and has a few factual errors here and there; it has some good interviews with the design team, Northrop CEOs, test pilots and video footage of the Black Widow II in flight.
Maybe someone downloaded it with a tool/program!

« Last Edit: March 23, 2007, 05:53:25 am by fightingirish »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2007, 06:21:10 am »
It is a commercially available DVD. We should respect peoples copyrights here. Posting extracts or screenshots is one thing, posting the whole video is not fair to the producers of this DVD.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2007, 02:11:08 pm »
I must add that this DVD is pretty cheap for the wealth of info WCI guys put into it.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2007, 02:27:39 pm »
Thanks Matej,

If you have text, here are the pics:  http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP08.htm

I will not tell you anything, because it is better to see than hear.

But when I click your link I just get an F-16 text page and my Slovak is still not as good as it should be.

Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet. I've seen better, but those were part of my introductory briefing on the F-35 and I'm not sure how widely I'm allowed to distribute those.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2007, 10:38:23 pm »
Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej,
For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine.
I've  seen this F-16 before but the smaller images of the inlet disassembled are very revealing as they don't appear to show any suction device for boundary layer removal though there is an interesting recess right at the front of the 'hump' which is covered when assembled. Do you know what this is for? The images in-flight look potentially retouched just around the intake area to this photochopper's eye, maybe to hide that secret bit?. And that chin spike is for aerodynamics only you say.
Thanks once again, Woody

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2007, 04:28:57 am »
Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej,
For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine.
.........

Ahh, now I know why Matej's site nevered shows pictures...
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2007, 05:16:29 am »
more on DSI/F-35 inlets
« Last Edit: March 24, 2007, 05:43:11 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2007, 08:33:13 am »
Do you have any of the plans you based your F/A-23A on or are they super super top secret?

As flateric mentioned in post no. 15, basic idea is from Koku-fan drawing. Other is my research and the good advices of my friends (a lot of them are already here at Secretprojects).

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2007, 06:10:49 pm »
Hi To All,
Special Regards to flaterick and .
If it wasn't for a friend,  I would not have seem my picture of the F-23A weapons bay configurations posted.  ::)

The ATF weapons capacity was one of its most debated issue of the program. "How many missiles to carry ?" was a question that was answered: 6 of existing design or 8 of new or modified design.  The Existing missiles of the time were the AIM-9L and the AIM-120A. The New/Improved missiles were the ASRAAM and the AIM-201C respectively.

It's been found in practice that the F-22 is the first fighter that actually "runs out of missiles" on a regular basis and could keep on shooting down enemy aircraft if it had more. It so Ironic that its 2D trust vectoring nozzles and super maneuverability do not play any part in that "shooting gallery" type of story that happens in exercises. It has even ended up using its gun because of lack of missiles.

A conceptual flaw if you ask me.

Ever since I run across the Northrop Patent in Reply #28, some 3 years ago I was fascinated by the ingenuity of the design and the potential that it has.
1st. Its amazing how little space can 4 AIM-120A can take. You can never fit 4 like that on external stores. And some people thought that internal bays for aircraft meant less space for weapons. Only they forgot that internally carried weapons do not need forward launch clearance zone and can be placed much closer to each other.

2nd. lets analyze the launcher weight. We have a common launch mechanism and we have a common holding mechanism. Compare that to the weight of 4 externally carried pylons for all 4 AMRAAMs.

3rd. The potential it has when considering the AIM-120C with the clipped wings. If we look at the launcher as it is now we see that the wings of the bottom missile determine its proximity to the launch door in the same way the wings of the top missile determine the height of the mechanism. Similarly the wings on all missiles make the width of the whole launcher. Lastly the distance between the missiles are also limited by the wings. See a pattern. What if we are to clip those wings like on the AIM-120C variant?

If we are to design the whole mechanism around the AIM-120C, it will be 22% shorter and 35% narrower. In other words, you can say that 3 of the new launchers will fit on the place of 2 of the old ones. The F-23 weapons bay is almost as tall as it is wide as seen on the declassified video footage. If it were designed to carry 2 of those launchers with 2 AIM-120A each (the minimum), it can easily be modified to carry 3 with 3 AIM-120C each. That’s 9 total.

However this concept has its critics which say: A jam in one of the missiles will render the other above it useless. This is funny to me as missile launchers are hell of a lot less complex than engines yet some fighters have single engines. And the Lockheed 1985 wining ATF proposal had a revolving launcher. If it failed all the missiles might fail to launch save only one!

Looking at bays for the short range missiles, the F-22 has 1 for each Sidewinder missile. A sidewinder must be a dams important weapon for the ATF to have is own weapons bay. :-\ . Fitting two missiles is a lot more difficult as they have to be extended sideways and the wings cannot overlap. :( At least Lockheed designed it for access panel for other things too.
The F-23A had a dedicated short missile weapons bay. It can also carry a total 2 Sidewinder missiles. Converting it to carry 3 missiles (AIM-9X or ASRAAM) could be as each as the F-22 conversion from 2 A models to 3 C models of AMRAAM in its each main missile bay.

All in the F-23A with a slight change in the launchers could carry 4 more missiles or 50% more than the F-22A

A pics of all that will come shortly
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2007, 02:21:53 am »
Here

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 652
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2007, 10:14:34 am »
I remember reading an article a few years back (cant remember the magazine right now) that suggested a link between the YF-23 and a Black Project possibly the alleged Aurora.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2007, 05:17:03 pm »
Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej,
For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine.
I've  seen this F-16 before but the smaller images of the inlet disassembled are very revealing as they don't appear to show any suction device for boundary layer removal though there is an interesting recess right at the front of the 'hump' which is covered when assembled. Do you know what this is for? The images in-flight look potentially retouched just around the intake area to this photochopper's eye, maybe to hide that secret bit?. And that chin spike is for aerodynamics only you say.
Thanks once again, Woody

There isn't a suction device to clear the boundary layer.  The bump and inlet are designed to divert it from the inlet without diverter plate or any other device.  This is one way in which the F-35's RCS in reduced.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2007, 08:52:05 am »
Regarding F-23A 'revolutionary launcher' I must say that Lantinian was first independent researcher that discovered this Northrop's launcher patent several years ago (he looked through several thousands of them). After appearing Google patents, search became more easier, but one can hardly imagine any correspondence between Northrop patent title and its subject.

More, regarding probable F-23A weapons load - guys, you are to stop. Fighter just DOESN'T NEED so much weapons. I'm serious.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2007, 09:03:03 am »
Citation from famed Ed Rasimus
"Weapon bays on the original mockup held both Sidewinders and AMRAAMs with no problem--4 and 4 IIRC."
Interseting, I never thought that -23 mockup was ever built...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2007, 05:35:25 pm »
Many thaks to Flaterick to pointing out my patent research thing. I would not have said it myself.

Still elmayerle had a very good  in Reply #21 . YF-23 design allowed not only aft and fore movement of the Bays but also increase in depth. There are no engines or airducs on top of the bay, only fuel and minor systems..

Looking at the F-23A as an aircraft designer I would say: yes its longer but since when lengthening the airplane is more risky than making it shorter, because the F-22A is indeed shorter and thinner in its middle section where you have weapons, fuel, air intakes, gun magazine. Packing the same stuff in less space is more riskier to me. Also lets not forget that F-22A had completely redesigned main weapons bay doors.

Now if we recall some of the problems the F-22 design went trough.

1. Overheating rear fuselage in Supercruise. Compare the rear of YF-22 and F-22A.How thinner it is on the production model. The F-23 with widely spaced engine blocks would not have had the problem of overheating.

2. Shockwaves in the Engine inlets requiring a strengthen forward fuselage after Raptor 01. No wonder, the air intakes on the A model are obviously shorted than the prototype. The F-23A has inlets way more optimized to handle supersonic airflow and the adoption of the concept by the F-35 only proves it.

3. F-22 was always criticized by not being able to carry big bombs. The latest FB-22 proposal features bulged up main weapon doors so it can house the 2000lb JDAM, yet the fuselage is the same is used with no lengthening to reduce cost. The YF-23 had a deeper bay and would have no problem fitting the 2000lb JDAM.

4. The 1994 redesign due to signature problem, costing probably a year delay in the F-22 program. Looking at the F-22A and you ca see it borrowed a lot of the Black Widow features: he shape of the nose, the way the aircraft brakes, the probes measuring AoA on the side of the radome, the minimum number of edges every panel, the topside of the engines, the clipping of the all moving tails. Yet the F-23A design features stealth/performance blending from the next level, like the inlet cone design.
 
5. Weight. The inability for the F-22 design to meet it weigh target is attributed to the failure of its designers to meat their goal of 50% Composites in the Airframe(2 as well). From the news article flaterick send me it is clear that the F-22A proposal in material is similar to the YF-23 design (one step behind). Also the F-23A featues not only 50% composits but BMI termosets account for a higher percentage out of that than the same BMI termoset do out of the total composits used on the F-22A, which are only 24%.(Flight International March 1997)

To me the F-23A would have had easier time meeting its weight target. As far as risk goes the change between Lockheeds 1985 winning design and the YF-22 tells me all I need to know about confidence in concept and the ability of USAF to choose their aeroplane based on their flying qualities. Same with the Rockwell F-X submition looking so much like SU-27. I hope the PAKFA does not turn out the be looking like the YF-23. I am going to be massively upset with defense secretary Rice, who chose the F-22

Regards, to all

P.S. I hope you are all enjoyng this discusion as much as I am ;)



 
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2007, 08:56:26 pm »
The main reason given for the redesign of the nose (cockpit/intake) area of the F-22 was due to the poor downward visibility from the cockpit of the YF-22. Therefore the intakes were shortened and the cockpit was moved forward. It also helped make the F-22 pretty good looking as opposed to the YF-22s butt ugly look.

Of course, apparently they didn't learn that lesson, because the same request was made when going from the X-35 to the F-35. They moved the cockpit forward and moved the inlets back for better visibility from the cockpit.

As for moving the intake apex on the F-35 from the middle of the side to the waterline/upper shoulder point, I am guessing they did that due to vortices off of the apex going into the inlet due to sideslip at moderate alpha. By putting it at the top corner, the vortices shed there now go over the aircraft (I hope). But I'm just guessing on that point. Whatever the reason it does look better.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2007, 09:46:29 pm »
The F-35 was lengthened before and after the cockpit for a simple reason, they/we needed the volume to install all the systems a fully combat-capable derivative of the X-35 would need (and it's still a tight fit to get everything in - think of putting on a pair of pants that -just- still fits).  To the best of my knowledge, the inlets of the F-35 are fairly similiar, if not indentical, to those of the X-35.

Oh, and as to dorsal inlets, they can be made to work at  high-AOA, but it takes some very careful tailoring of the forebody and LERX to set up the proper conditions.  Northrop demonstrated this in testing back in the late 1970s that was written up in the AIAA Journal of Aircraft.  Interestingly enough, after a few of these papers had appeared, none further did; this was at the time when Low Observables was becoming recognized as an area of design criteria in its own right.  I rather imagine that the implications of this technique sank in and further testing was classified.  I do know that one of Northrop's proposed YF-23 configurations took advantage of this to mount dorsal inlets over a double-delta wing.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 09:54:24 pm by elmayerle »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2007, 10:06:06 pm »
I would love to see that submission, with the dorsal inlets. Although it makes sense that Northrop has alot of  experience with them, just look at all of the early ATF northrop concepts when it was still just a strike fighter with the dorsal inlets and their VATOL design with dorsal inlets.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #47 on: March 26, 2007, 10:12:37 pm »
I don't have a copy of it and I seriously doubt there's one floating around as only the few folk who worked on that concept kept the illustrations; I just happened to work with two of them on another classified program.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 271
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2007, 01:24:36 am »

Quote
One of the reasons US don't like canards besides stealth are:
1. Very high trim drag. In supersonic flight the CG moves forward plasing more weight on the canards. They have less surface and to generate the nessesary lift have to turn at an grater angle. This creates more trim drag

2.Canards Stall before the wing, hence if your wing stalls you have no canards to help you out. I don’t think we will ever see the Euro canards performing cobras without Trust vector control for this exact same reason.



The CG moves forward???????

the Canards stall before the wing?????

Any sources please.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2007, 02:33:48 am »
Overscan, please transfer this to the 'Scale Modelling, Fan Art & Profiles' area or 'The Bar' or otherwise do with it as you see fit.

So in short: IMHO you have created an aircraft with a very limited maneuvering flight envelope

Thanks Lantinian for the pointers, and mean that. I won't go on too much about my fantasy plane here as it detracts from the serious (if paradoxical) discussion of the real fictional plane, but, from my limited knowledge, I'll try and explain my reasoning:-

1. It was a quick drawing only as an exercise in illustration style and entertainment, as neither F-22 or YF-23 are not my favourite planes (first excuse).
2. The weapons bay is supposed to be wide and flat (its a fair comment) like the F-22s but bigger, and I probably would have moved further back to the C of G if I'd spent more time, but its still further back than on the real YF-23.
3. Like-wise I would have made the expansion of area under the intakes more gradual in depth to help area rule (see my previous retraction Reply #22) and as the intakes are hollow they wouldn't contribute so much and need not be too heavy.
4. Saying canards cause turbulence or reduce control can be applied to any canard plane (MIG 1.44?).
5. As for control power distance from the C of G: (see answer #2 and) remember I added heavy thrust vectoring nozzles at the back. And the moving canards are pushed along in front of the centre of rotation (which is probably a lot further back than you think) so probably still have (and for many other reasons) more power that equivalent trailing tail surfaces.
6. The intakes are on the top side as a bit of a laugh at the expense of some of the entries in the 'Re: Northrop pre-ATF and ATF studies" thread (Sorry guys), which as I already said (see my previous retraction Reply #22) I think is a bad idea.
7. Your reasons why canards are no good: trim drag is down to C of G verses C of lift (isn't it C of lift that moves backwards not C of G that moves forward ;D) and can be altered by weight distribution at the point of design. And cobra's are for airshows. All of which is addressed in the 'Cunards' thread.
8. Your friend's design is quite reasonable but is really not much of a change, as the wing position, tail and volume are unaltered. I do worry that the canards would impede the pilots view and perhaps fowl the air intakes. They are too far inboard to serve as close coupled slats for the wing though they might act as LEXs. They would however add weight and not add as much lift as my canard/widened body combination (IMHO).
Thanks again Lantinian; this is the sort of discussion I love and I look forward to your reply.

Cheers as ever, Woody

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2007, 03:46:22 am »
Unconfirmed rumour I've heard that while Northrop didn't dig too hard into NATF-23 proposal, one of the carrier desk -23 variant was a canard ...with just 15% commonality with AF version.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2007, 04:09:31 pm »
Unconfirmed rumour I've heard that while Northrop didn't dig too hard into NATF-23 proposal, one of the carrier desk -23 variant was a canard ...with just 15% commonality with AF version.

Going by the one model I saw, that's a fairly accurate rumor.  IMHO, the carrier version definitely was lacking in aesthetic appeal.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2007, 04:31:50 pm »
Needless to be an Einstein to make an parallel with later MDD-BAe ASTOVL/JAST GCLF concept to imagine overall shape of NATF-23.
While being known -23 nut, I can hardly, hardly, hardly imagine this sleak low sitter making 5G controlled high alpha crash with a hook extended on a carrier desk.

I wonder ..how much will we wait to see Northrop's ATF history in details... ca. 2015? I know that after Boeing-McDonnell 'merge' Northrop, many court actions were made to prevent leaks of information MDC got during teamwork on -23. Not the last point was technical documentation of the project. And in this case FOIA requests will do nothing to closely held while being dusty commercial secrets.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2007, 04:39:43 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2007, 10:50:37 am »
Quote
Going by the one model I saw, that's a fairly accurate rumor.  IMHO, the carrier version definitely was lacking in aesthetic appeal.

That's the first I've heard of this, but this makes sense of what one of my friends said to me. AFter we graduated he went to work at Navair on the NATF and he talked about how "ugly" the NETF from Northrop was. When the ATF prototypes rolled out, I thought he must be high, because the YF-23 was so much better looking than the YF-22.

Now, upon hearing this, I realize he may not have been high.  ;D

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2007, 02:21:44 pm »
Quote
Going by the one model I saw, that's a fairly accurate rumor.  IMHO, the carrier version definitely was lacking in aesthetic appeal.

That's the first I've heard of this, but this makes sense of what one of my friends said to me. AFter we graduated he went to work at Navair on the NATF and he talked about how "ugly" the NETF from Northrop was. When the ATF prototypes rolled out, I thought he must be high, because the YF-23 was so much better looking than the YF-22.

Now, upon hearing this, I realize he may not have been high. 

Trust me, he wasn't consuming psycho-active substances; the NATF-23 design I saw was nowhere near as attractive as the YF-23.  If memory serves me correctly, the main commonality between the two was in systems and equipment fit and the forward fuselage.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #55 on: March 30, 2007, 04:33:54 pm »
Just to wrap up some thing up nefore internet service provider crashes again :D. Sorry guys if some of this posts stays of the topic.

Quote
the Canards stall before the wing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)Check at the end just before Spoilers. My reasoning is that because canard stal before the wing you never want your wing to stall unless you have a tail control as well. Hence the SU-47 design with canards and tails. ::)

Quote
The CG moves forward?
My Mistake :-[. Its the Center of Lift that moves forward in supersonic flight. Basically the CG and the CL for a canard design should be swapped. My CG estimation was based on the main landing wheel position and book says CL it approximately 1/3 down the wing chord.

However if we do indeed decide on the CG based on the top view, Woody would be right: the CG will be farther back, behind the wheel and the aircraft will fell on its tail! :o

If we correct the wheel position we still have the CL in front of the CG. In supersonic flight the canards will need to generate negative lift to keep the nose down. You have loss of lift in cruise flight and bonus lift in maneuvering. Unstable canards designs are not a good choice for long range fighters IMHO as a result of that.

Something else for Woody.
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/configuration/canardprocon.html
If you note on of the disadvantages of canards is that the center of grafity of the fuel end up behind the  CG of the Aircraft. Your design does not seam to do so :-\. I am still thinking on the implications of that ???

Quote
I would have made the expansion of area under the intakes more gradual in depth to help area rule
I still think having side by site weapons bays in the same line as the canards is a too big and increase in area ;). I would stick with the tandem weapons bay arrangement if I was you ;). its more aerodynamic.
Second, in the middle of the weapons bay you have a drop in the area  :( as the canards are gone and the forward fuselage starts to blend with the wing.

Quote
Saying canards cause turbulence or reduce control can be applied to any canard plane (MIG 1.44?)
Its the way you do it that doesn't feel right. All other canards planes have the canards set higher that the wing. IMHO to promote vortices on top of the wing. The MiG 1.44 has 2 vertical tails and has dogtooth edge on the canards to direct the vortex inward of the tails. Your canard design, IMHO will disrupt the wing lift and the vertical tails. >:(

If I would want to improve on the F-23 design I would not stray away from the concept (Northrop Formula) but rather go deeper into it: Example: Pelican tail, Aeroplastic wing, FB-23 type of exhausts (like the first post by Matej) with possibility of TVC sideways and up only. e.t.c ::)

Regards
lantinian
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 271
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2007, 01:59:47 am »
Hello and thank you for your answers.

Quote
the Canards stall before the wing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)Check at the end just before Spoilers. My reasoning is that because canard stal before the wing you never want your wing to stall unless you have a tail control as well. Hence the SU-47 design with canards and tails. ::)[//quote]
Well the problem with that is that is assumes the canards are at the same AOA than the wing wich is not the true especially on unstable plane that pitch by themselves.

The same applies for aft tails, except the aft tail can stall by being in the wake of wings. Yes i know tails are below the wings but Air masses flow goes downward especially at high AOA's.

I think then all is a matter of wing/Tail/canard interaction, and canards do not make bad controlls for low speed manoeuvrability at all.
Now do not forget we're talking about devices that make the plane move not (mainly) lift it.
That is the max AOA capabilities of Rafale and eurofighter Vs F-18 and F-22 for example come from their wings.
In the case of F-18 the straight wing+Lerx cleary helps, for the F-22 it is unclear if the TVC is necessary for the 60° AOA sustained or not since it is blended in the FBW at those AOAs.


Quote
The CG moves forward?
My Mistake :-[. Its the Center of Lift that moves forward in supersonic flight. Basically the CG and the CL for a canard design should be swapped. My CG estimation was based on the main landing wheel position and book says CL it approximately 1/3 down the wing chord.
[/quote]
I think this not correct, the CL moves AFT, wich has for consequence to make the plane more stable and in this case canards are very good for trim drag.
This is not a surprise that a non coupling canards plane like the typhoon has outstanding possibility in supersonic like sustaining more than 6G's at mach 1.5 or pull 9G's all over the transonic regime.
The position of canards make that the plane needs less canards AOA to trim and pitch the plane compared to a conventionnal aft tail.

Now what lockheed said about the position of the tail of F-22 was precisely becaue of that, as the CL moves aft they needed to pull the tail far aft of the plane to conserve a good leverage.


To finish; things not to confuse with:

Instability is a matter of WING (as she's the main contributor) CL position relative to CG.
If two plane had the same wing, one with the aft tail, the other with the canards, the canards one would be the unstable, but in real life, no plane has same wing, so no plane has same CL-CG repartition, so a plane can be unstable or stable be it an aft or canards plane.
(as said, the viggen is stable, the F-16C is stable too)

Canards/tails main action is leverage. they rotate the plane so when discussing capability it is important not to mix controls VS states (leverage vs lift).


While we can see some definite "specs" of some configuration in planes, some of them are quite surprising..the Drakken ability to pitch at high rate is clearly something we don't expect from a delta plane...however it can!


It is because all is matter of interaction between parts of the plane. Nowadays when you see a plane, it almost impossible even for a professionnal to say what is the use of this or that thing on the plane without seeing actual CFD or directly hearing this from the creators.

What do you think is the use of the Rafale's nose bump just below the cockpit? What is the use of the Raptor Boat like nose and forward fuselage section's shaping?


Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2007, 01:57:16 pm »
I will continue the cannards discution where it belongs
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 271
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2007, 12:08:24 am »
yes mee too, see you there then.

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #59 on: April 04, 2007, 07:44:19 pm »
This might amuse. It is a scan from a product card I picked up at this week's Navy League show in DC. The name on the card is Lockheed Martin, but the design is clearly influenced by the YF-23.

The Low Cost Aerial Target was actually designed by a small California company called AeroMech, which was recently acquired by another company called xcelaero. It is a target drone - catapult-launched, jet-propelled and parachute-recovered. Not dimensions are given, but the photos show it is small enough to be carried by two people.

The LCAT is in use as a low radar-signature target. The idea of the design is to minimise the drone's natural radar cross-section as much as possible so that the radar signature can then be augmented artificially to mimic that of any target aircraft. The product card shows it being used as a target for an F-22-launched AMRAAM.

Clearly someone felt the YF-23's configuration was indeed the stealthiest solution...


Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2007, 02:29:07 am »
F-22 is killing (nearly) F-23 once again. How an irony!  :D   :'(

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2007, 03:54:09 am »
Ciel, Ogami toi ici ? Mon dieu... welcome here !!!  :D
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2007, 12:21:46 pm »
As Western Museum of Flight said, Northrop will not return PAV-2 to the WMOF...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2007, 12:29:36 pm »
So is Northrop-Grumman keeping it, doing with it what they will (which is not encouraging given their track record), or is it going to another museum?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2007, 08:50:41 am »
Dunno, Evan, in your position I'd better ask you than you me:)...'restoration' said to be completed as far as on late summer 2005 - here some pics posted by ximeno at F-16.net
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3010&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=yf23&start=75
What this restoration colud be - saving PAV-2 from uncertain future of WMOF that lost it's place in Hawthorne or adding plywood nose section for it to represent temporaly FB-23 RTA bird for showcase to AF generals (very sceptic of the last idea in era of CGI) - is still mystery for me.




« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 10:22:59 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1156
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2007, 12:51:44 pm »
So is Northrop-Grumman keeping it, doing with it what they will (which is not encouraging given their track record), or is it going to another museum?

I don't know, they might have something involving flight testing in mind, the restored jet appears to have an ejection seat in the cockpit.  Just random speculation on my part, the jet looks no-BS fully restored.

Elmayerle, maybe you can shed some light on another YF-23 issue.  Check out the following coordinates in Google Earth:  lat 33.541418°, lon -106.210667°  WTF is a YF-23 doing way out there north of White Sands?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2007, 01:51:09 pm »
This is highly detailed full-scale YF-23 RCS mockup, weighting 5 tonns and having all external panel lines and details. Was built by Northrop's so-called '705 Test Crew' (mock-up shop) and exstensively tested at Tejon Canyon RCS Test Range. On a photo you can see shelter that was rolled over the mockup on a rails during Soviet spy sattelite flyover the range.
Photo (c) Northrop Media Services via Ian Maddock
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 02:01:50 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2007, 07:04:56 pm »
There was a lot of "stuff" tested at the Tejon Canyon range; I know they did a good bit of TSSAM testing there.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #68 on: April 29, 2007, 10:00:41 am »
Very interesting concept found by lantinian.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #70 on: August 24, 2007, 03:20:53 pm »
Citation from famed Ed Rasimus
"Weapon bays on the original mockup held both Sidewinders and AMRAAMs with no problem--4 and 4 IIRC."
Interseting, I never thought that -23 mockup was ever built...

It was built, in fact. Photo (c) Allen Rockwell (he worked for Northrop) - later author of several large powered YF-23 models (as a hobby).
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 03:22:32 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #71 on: September 01, 2007, 08:52:58 pm »
Unconfirmed rumour I've heard that while Northrop didn't dig too hard into NATF-23 proposal, one of the carrier desk -23 variant was a canard ...with just 15% commonality with AF version.

Going by the one model I saw, that's a fairly accurate rumor.  IMHO, the carrier version definitely was lacking in aesthetic appeal.

From this exchange, I take it that Northrop didn't consider swing-wings like Lockheed did for the navalized F-22.  Then again, it's hard for me to imagine the swing wings combined with the Pelikan tail.

Regarding the lack of NATF info, is this primarily because of government-imposed classification, or contractor-imposed secrecy towards proprietary info?

I can certainly understand why neither Lockheed nor Northrop put much effort into the NATF proposal.  Everybody was too familiar with the limits of commonality from the TFX days, and it seemed like Congress was far more interested than the Navy in the NATF.  Then again, the reciprocal agreement about evaluating the A-12 as a replacement for the F-111 had some merit.  While the A-12 lacked speed, it relied on stealth for survivability.  Then again, the Strike Eagle has proven itself in combat to be a more-than-adequate replacement for the 'Vark.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #72 on: September 02, 2007, 04:32:33 am »

Regarding the lack of NATF info, is this primarily because of government-imposed classification, or contractor-imposed secrecy towards proprietary info?


Contractor(s) seems more likely from what I've heard. There was kind of litigation (OK, I'm not hard in law terms, and currently can't check e-mail from Northrop guy why was describing the case) that prevented both Northrop and MDC from releasing technical details of the ATF program. When was it - after team lost the competition, or before MDC was eaten by Boeing - I don't know.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 01:35:04 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2007, 02:24:18 am »
Current state of YF-23 PAV-2 - parked outdoors inside NG Hawthorne facility after 2-year 're-surfacing' restoration.
Photos are from SoCal_CJ originally posted at www.f-16.net
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 02:28:36 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3167
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2007, 05:48:23 am »
The most beautiful fighter ever designed ::)

Thanks for the pics

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2007, 08:43:11 pm »
Here are a couple of observations on these F-23 topics, I'll try to do more later.   First, regarding the NATF:   Commonality between the AF version and the Navy version would be primarily in subsystems.  Both Lockheed and Northrop planned to build the naval version on separate production lines since they would be so different.  The naval versions of both would be two seaters as the Navy correctly understood how much more effective the two crew concept is.   Lockheed's NATF would have been a variable sweep aircraft and in fact published artist's illustrations of it.  Northrop reportedly was going to use a canard design with a revised main wing location.   As for those who criticize maneuverability of canards, keep in mind that the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are canards and will outmaneuver any US fighter except Raptor, especially in the case of Typhoon.  

Part of the reason why there wasn't that much work or interest on the part of the contractors can be laid to a statement made by AF around the time of the rollouts.  Basically they said that the Navy would not be allowed to buy a version of the aircraft that was not selected for ATF.  While this may seem to be a cost decision, keep in mind the above that the Navy and AF version were going to be built on separate production lines, anyway and what would primarily be common would be subsystems (including engines and fire control, although the Navy version would probably have been more capable).  Possibly AF was wanting to avoid a repeat of the LWF situation, wherein the F/A-18A/B was noticeably more capable than the F-16 A/B (with the arrival of improved avionics in the Falcon C/D this gap was dramatically narrowed).  Who knows, but this gave USN a lot of pause.  They wanted much of the capabilities that AF was looking for but apparently thought that AF was concentrating too much on fighter abilities whereas they wanted a more versatile platform, given the fixed amount of deck space.   It seemed that they might have thought the AF model would be "too much" fighter and not enough other stuff.  And, the NATF was going  to be Very expensive, so if they couldn't get a version optimized for their needs, maybe they shouldn't continue through.  They probably also thought that an advanced Tomcat, combined with AIM-152 could give them "enough" fighter and they could concentrate their bucks on attack.  (Dick Cheney's cancellation of the F-14D was totally unexpected).  An F-23 NATF with its larger weapons capacity could accommodate AIM-152, whereas an F-22 NATF might not have been able to.  Also, Navy was a strong believer in IR guided missiles, while AF was not (at one point, according to press reports, AF argued that AIM-9 capability was unnecessary and recommended that it be removed from production F-22s in the interest of cost.  Even today, although F-22 can carry AIM-9X, there are no definite plans to install the hemet-moutned targeting system).  

Given this, Navy was not too enthusiastic a proponent from that point on.  The contractors saw the writing on the wall and wisely chose not to put an enormous amount of effort into the NATF.  To no one's surprise Navy pulled out of NATF and  Lockheed and Northrop's strategy turned out to be the right one.  
 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 11:11:03 am by F-14D »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #77 on: December 06, 2007, 01:25:20 am »
One of the last ATF-23 ads from April, 1991 AWST
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #78 on: December 06, 2007, 06:14:35 am »
Having seen the YF-22 and YF-23 close up, I think it is clear why Lockheed won. The YF-22 was an aircraft, a true protoype of the F-22. The YF-23 was a plastic model of the aircraft that Northrop would have built had it won.
With all my circuits on YF-23, I can't disagree.

Your disagree because although YF-23 looks more green than YF-22 but also more potential. Is my guess right?
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2007, 06:19:37 am »
Thanks Elmayerle.

Having said that, a F-23 with inlets shaped like the JIST inlet would work nicely.

Do you have any images/diagrams/links of the JIST intake tests? (I can only find committee reports) It would be great to update my virtual aircraft catalog without the need for so may jaggies.

I'm still a fan of 'low speed maneuverability" if by which you mean dog-fight maneuverability after the merge.

Cheers, Woody

Hi, Could you teach me what is JIST inlet? Do you mean CARET inlet or you mean others?
BTW, if you can flight in supersonic, why you perfer fall in subsonic if the manuverability is same?
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #80 on: December 06, 2007, 02:21:33 pm »
Have uploaded DoD video of SOF Rice announcing ATF decision
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2007, 07:43:30 pm »
Northrop reportedly was going to use a canard design with a revised main wing location.   As for those who criticize maneuverability of canards, keep in mind that the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are canards and will outmaneuver any US fighter except Raptor, especially in the case of Typhoon. 

I wouldn't want to overstate manoeuvrability courtesy of canards. Certainly the F/A-18F at Paris Air Show this year outperformed the “Euro-Canards” with high alpha manoeuvres and nose authority. And the Rhino was loaded with >2,000 lbs of external stores (AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs) when the Typhoon and Rafale flew only with smoke generators (pussys).

PS on NATF Northrop were playing around with high lift Coanda effect wings. The YF-23A was talked about in terms of BLC wing for high lift as a Senior Citizen solution in one of those Air International X-Planes books. Northrop’s late 80s ATA offer has pretty much exactly the same outer mould line and wing as the X-47B UCAS-D. These wings are very much Coanda effect high lift wings. Etc for the B-2. So the YF-23 might have made a nice NATF without clumsy, high weight, low stealth VG wings.

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2007, 08:23:47 pm »
Overstate the superiority is not reasonable but you gave a wrong example to explain your opnion.
AoA is not everything for air-combat, I dare say the SH's maneuverability is much inferior than Eurofighter, compare with T/W rate, wing load, aerodynamec region, each aspect, Typhoon will go ahead of SH. If you search Google, you will find the Typhoon did some min-radius flip impressively, which only aircraft fitting with TVC can do it.
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2007, 10:36:45 pm »
The Typhoon was supposed to have markedly better supersonic manouverability than previous, conventional fighters. This is a lot harder to judge at an airshow...
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #84 on: December 07, 2007, 08:21:49 pm »
Of course manouverability is a very big word when it comes to air combat - what type of manouverability? Knife fight, supersonic, etc. However the context of the discussion I referred to was for dog fight, beyond the merge, WVR manouverability. As you can see in the 2-3 posts before mine. In which case I would bet on Rhino LERXs over Euro-Canards.... and wing generated lift for high alpha control rather than TVC generated directional thrust for high alpha control.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #85 on: December 10, 2007, 11:07:06 pm »
Northrop reportedly was going to use a canard design with a revised main wing location.   As for those who criticize maneuverability of canards, keep in mind that the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are canards and will outmaneuver any US fighter except Raptor, especially in the case of Typhoon. 

I wouldn't want to overstate manoeuvrability courtesy of canards. Certainly the F/A-18F at Paris Air Show this year outperformed the “Euro-Canards” with high alpha manoeuvres and nose authority. And the Rhino was loaded with >2,000 lbs of external stores (AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs) when the Typhoon and Rafale flew only with smoke generators (pussys).

.


The Super Bug has outstanding low speed high AoA, possibly the best around not counting the Raptor in the West and the MiG-29/SU-27 and their derivatives.  That's its forte.   However, looking at all the aspects of maneuvering for ACM I daresay that Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen will eat it for lunch.  It's worthy of note that the USN itself said during development that the Super Bug would not have the all the agility of previous Hornets. 


BTW, the X-31 was a canard.  It was not a close coupled one like Rafale or Gripen, but more like the decoupled type, like Typhoon. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #86 on: December 10, 2007, 11:10:05 pm »
The Typhoon was supposed to have markedly better supersonic manouverability than previous, conventional fighters. This is a lot harder to judge at an airshow...

A few years back, some Eagles bounced some Typhoons over England.  At the time, the Typhoon had not yet been cleared for its full ACM envelope.   Still, after less than one complete turn the Typhoons were on the Eagles' tails and could not be dislodged until the "fight" was called off. 
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 12:53:01 pm by F-14D »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #87 on: December 11, 2007, 01:57:08 am »
Have uploaded a Northrop video with Paul Metz comments on YF-23 performance.

Note in the last moments rare in-flight footage of YF-23 underbelly with famous Thomas Rooney's 'hourglass' markings, removed after first flight.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2007, 02:00:05 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #88 on: December 11, 2007, 02:33:15 am »
Metz, Ferguson and Morgenfeld (Lockheed YF-22 test pilots) remembering ATF 'fly-off' with some funny moments.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #89 on: December 11, 2007, 05:48:55 am »
Have uploaded a Northrop video with Paul Metz comments on YF-23 performance.

Note in the last moments rare in-flight footage of YF-23 underbelly with famous Thomas Rooney's 'hourglass' markings, removed after first flight.

Got that video tape.  :)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #90 on: December 14, 2007, 08:45:56 pm »
Just to talk a bit more about what a F-23A might have meant one of the most significant failings of the F-22A is its failure to meet the requirement for fuel for effective supercruising as established by the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program. ATF required a fuel fraction of 0.39 or at least 0.35 to have enough fuel to power the engines (F119 or F120s) for enough super cruising. F-22A only has a fuel fraction of 0.29 significantly reducing the range it can supercruise. This makes its supercruise capability just a lower engine IR signature way of dashing at supersonic speeds or reduces radius from the planned 800 NM to the actual 410 NM. Considering the YF-23 is a bigger plane than the YF-22 and has significant area ruling is it feasible that an F-23A could have had the higher fuel fraction and less supersonic drag required to meet the original ATF supercruise requirement?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #91 on: December 14, 2007, 09:13:21 pm »

The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #92 on: December 14, 2007, 11:49:37 pm »
The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.

Well yes but it’s an unfair comparison. The YF-23 had an internal fuel capacity of 24,000 lbs compared to 25,000 lbs for the YF-22. The process of going from YF-22 to F-22A has seen internal fuel drop to 18,000 lbs.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2007, 05:21:14 am »
The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.

Well yes but it’s an unfair comparison. The YF-23 had an internal fuel capacity of 24,000 lbs compared to 25,000 lbs for the YF-22. The process of going from YF-22 to F-22A has seen internal fuel drop to 18,000 lbs.

Yep.  My theory is they decided they're not going to have to go tankerless as long cruising around in badguy territory so they cut down the fuel load to enable even higher performance.  Granted, the production engines contribute to that but the F-22A is considerably slimmer than the YF-22.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #94 on: December 15, 2007, 07:04:35 am »
Why the 6000 pound drop? Where did it go?

Offline Rosdivan

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #95 on: December 15, 2007, 07:52:40 am »
The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.

Well yes but it’s an unfair comparison. The YF-23 had an internal fuel capacity of 24,000 lbs compared to 25,000 lbs for the YF-22. The process of going from YF-22 to F-22A has seen internal fuel drop to 18,000 lbs.

Unclassified USAF documents give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #96 on: December 15, 2007, 09:03:16 am »
The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.

Well yes but it’s an unfair comparison. The YF-23 had an internal fuel capacity of 24,000 lbs compared to 25,000 lbs for the YF-22. The process of going from YF-22 to F-22A has seen internal fuel drop to 18,000 lbs.

Unclassified USAF documents give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

The -1 says about 18,500 lbs.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #97 on: December 15, 2007, 09:05:33 am »
Why the 6000 pound drop? Where did it go?

If you do some side-by-side comparisons of the YF-22 and F-22A you can see that the rear ventral area, lower fuselage corners, and top of the fuselage have lost some volume.  Like the thing went on a diet.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #98 on: December 15, 2007, 03:51:14 pm »
Yep.  My theory is they decided they're not going to have to go tankerless as long cruising around in badguy territory so they cut down the fuel load to enable even higher performance.  Granted, the production engines contribute to that but the F-22A is considerably slimmer than the YF-22.

No the fuel was lost as weight cutting measures during the development. The F-22A has not gained any performance because of it and has lost the ATF RFP radius of action. The whole point of the ATF was to have a stealthy, supercruising aircraft which combined with the latest avionics would be a super air combat platform. Aircraft limitations have seen the fuel cut so it can only supercruise to a radius half that required in the RFP. 410 Nm vs 750-800 NM. This is not a recasting of the RFP due to changed circumstances but a failure of the development team to produce the goods.

My question is could the F-23 have retained the RFP fuel and radius levels?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #99 on: December 15, 2007, 07:06:33 pm »
Yep.  My theory is they decided they're not going to have to go tankerless as long cruising around in badguy territory so they cut down the fuel load to enable even higher performance.  Granted, the production engines contribute to that but the F-22A is considerably slimmer than the YF-22.

No the fuel was lost as weight cutting measures during the development. The F-22A has not gained any performance because of it.

How can you install more powerful engines (YF119s were kinda wimpy compared to the production models), lose 7,000lbs of fuel, slim up the airframe, cut the vertical tail size damn near in half, and NOT gain any performance?  You can't.  Which is why the YF-22 only supercruised at Mach 1.43 with the YF119s and the F-22A is good for better than Mach 1.7.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2007, 11:45:48 pm »
Back to the OT:Super Hornet performance. It was known since it's development the Super Hornet would not have the capability of the Eurofighter. In fact, the most capable version of the SH studied was the canard/arrow wing variant which itself only possessed 90% of the performance of the Eurofighter.

As I've said before, all things being equal, a conventional tail aircraft has better high AOA control than a canard aircraft in certain parts of the envelope. The main reason for going with canards is you can make a smaller airframe for a given mission then a conventionally tailed aircraft, which means lower weight and, therefore, lower cost.

As for the F-22 vs the YF-22, don't forget they made major changes to the wing and tail design, such as reducing the L.E. sweep and increasing the AR for the wing of the production version. They also trimmed some weight by getting rid of the separate airbrake and going with a system similar to the YF-23's that uses the primary flight control surfaces to create aerobraking. Also, in Picarillo's book on the ATF program, he states that the minimum fuel fraction required for efficient supercruise is .25 and that the production version of he Raptor would be just under that

What I find interesting is how the production version of the F-23 would have had half shock cone inlets instead of the 3D oblique shock inlets and how they moved the engines closer together.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #101 on: December 16, 2007, 06:04:00 am »
What I find interesting is how the production version of the F-23 would have had half shock cone inlets instead of the 3D oblique shock inlets and how they moved the engines closer together.

Maybe they hadn't quite figured out how to make the half-cones stealthy enough while the YF-23 was being designed or maybe they discovered the inlets weren't as efficient as they thought.  Would be interesting to know.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #102 on: December 16, 2007, 09:09:35 am »
Unclassified USAF documents give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

Rosdivan, one of the best pdf files I've seen in the last years) Thanks a lot!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2007, 09:31:45 am »
Unclassified USAF documents give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

Rosdivan, one of the best pdf files I've seen in the last years) Thanks a lot!

That's the document I was thinking off.  (Must be getting senile as I could have swore it was ~18,500  :-[ )  Looking at the B-1's right now.  Apparently it was designed to carry 6 3500-liter external tanks (obviously they never went forward with them).  Lots of interesting information in there.  For instance the B-2 has some sort of laser on the back end.  My guess it's a IIR "dazzler" but could be something more mundane like a laser communication link.  Probably obvious but chop off part of the link and you can get them all:

http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/



« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 10:02:37 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2007, 10:01:55 pm »
How can you install more powerful engines (YF119s were kinda wimpy compared to the production models), lose 7,000lbs of fuel, slim up the airframe, cut the vertical tail size damn near in half, and NOT gain any performance?  You can't.  Which is why the YF-22 only supercruised at Mach 1.43 with the YF119s and the F-22A is good for better than Mach 1.7.

Ya we are at cross purposes here. I meant in terms of the performance speced by the RFP. Which is why they needed to make the changes in order to meet the RFP performance spec (supercruise over Mach 1.6). Radius of action was the loser.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 727
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2007, 05:41:18 am »
For instance the B-2 has some sort of laser on the back end.  My guess it's a IIR "dazzler" but could be something more mundane like a laser communication link.

Laser comms would be impractically short-ranged for a strategic stealth bomber that spends most of its mission alone tough? My guess would be an early DIRCM as well.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2007, 03:19:43 pm »
http://www.ophir.com/contrail%20detection.htm
Quote
Pilot Alert System:  designed, manufactured, tested, certified and maintained by Ophir.

Condensation trails (contrails) form when aircraft engine exhaust rapidly cools to form ice crystals.  Contrail formation is dependent upon the atmospheric temperature and humidity, aircraft engine type and thrust setting, and aircraft fluid dynamics.  Ophir uses Random Modulated Continuous Wave (RMCW) laser radar for the early detection of aircraft contrails .

The Pilot Alert System (PAS) is a light detection and ranging (lidar) system designed for detection of contrail formations behind the B-2 Bomber; it discriminates clouds from contrails.

 The PAS uses a Random Modulated Continuous Wave (RMCW) transmission which allows for processing of returned signals below the ambient light levels. RMCW lidars have low peak power emission compared with pulsed lidars. The RMCW technique is based on the continuous emission of “randomly” modulated low-power laser light. The random modulation follows an m-code (a bit sequence arranged in a non-repeating pattern).

Could this be it?
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2007, 03:28:01 pm »
One of these square stuffies...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline TinWing

  • What-if addict
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2007, 03:56:00 pm »
Back to the OT:Super Hornet performance. It was known since it's development the Super Hornet would not have the capability of the Eurofighter. In fact, the most capable version of the SH studied was the canard/arrow wing variant which itself only possessed 90% of the performance of the Eurofighter.

You fail to mention that the Eurofighter has even less fuel capacity than the first generation Hornet.

The Super Hornet's primary reason for being is increased fuel capacity over the first generation Hornet, pure and simple.

I would question the value of "supersonic maneuverability" outside of a very narrow defensive context, something that seems largely worthless in modern expeditionary warfare where aerial threats are for the most part absent.

As I've said before, all things being equal, a conventional tail aircraft has better high AOA control than a canard aircraft in certain parts of the envelope. The main reason for going with canards is you can make a smaller airframe for a given mission then a conventionally tailed aircraft, which means lower weight and, therefore, lower cost.

Hypothetically, you could also get more fuel into a canard delta as compared to a conventional tailed design.  In practice, the opposite seems to be true.


Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2007, 10:10:30 pm »
Back to the OT:Super Hornet performance. It was known since it's development the Super Hornet would not have the capability of the Eurofighter. In fact, the most capable version of the SH studied was the canard/arrow wing variant which itself only possessed 90% of the performance of the Eurofighter.

You fail to mention that the Eurofighter has even less fuel capacity than the first generation Hornet.

The Super Hornet's primary reason for being is increased fuel capacity over the first generation Hornet, pure and simple.

I would question the value of "supersonic maneuverability" outside of a very narrow defensive context, something that seems largely worthless in modern expeditionary warfare where aerial threats are for the most part absent.




The function for the increased internal fuel in the Super Hornet is to supply the fuel needed by its F414s, which have a higher fuel burn that the F404s in the F/A-18A-C.  The Super Hornet's increase in range was initially attributed to its lower drag and fuel use in the "non cruise" portions of a mission and its larger external fuel tanks.  Some of that drag reduction has been lost in actual service.  It turns out that the pylons on the production Super Bug have to be angled out, possibly for safety reasons when launching powered ordnance off the inner pylons, and do not align with the airflow.  This increases drag, especially when they're loaded.  As far as the larger tanks, the F/A-18C/D could have used them as well.  According to some sources, the Super Hornet may only exceed the Hornet's unrefueled radius of action just in the ground attack mission and then only by 64nm.  As an aside, the longer legged Super Hornet still does not have the range that was supposed to be delivered by the original F/A-18A. 

As far as supersonic maneuverability goes, its value is that if you are traveling at a higher speed, you can compensate for your larger radius of turn by having good maneuverability at those higher speeds.  For example, in WWII the P-51's turn radius was smaller than that of the Me-262.  However, the 262 had good maneuverability at its speed, so what it could do was use its superior speed to fly around its larger radius turn faster than the -51 could fly around its tighter turn, which allowed the 262 to stay on the -51's tail at the completion of the maneuver.  Same principle would apply to a supercruising vehicle, vs a transonic aircraft, plus it would be useful when encountering an aircraft capable of matching your speed performance.  Speed is life!
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 05:52:47 pm by F-14D »

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #110 on: December 19, 2007, 01:06:33 pm »
Fuel fraction (usually considered in terms of fuel/mass with full internal fuel and no weapons) is a big factor in range, of course. But there's also engine cycle, and the degree to which you need to use afterburning. The F-22 has near-pure-jet engines (bad) but does not need A/B except to accelerate or for extreme maneuver (good).
Since the Super Hornet is basically a scale-up of the Hornet, with about the same internal fuel fraction and slightly lower-bypass engines, the main reason that the range is better is indeed its external tanks. Both the Classic and the Super can carry 480 USG tanks under the wings, but the Classic can only carry a 330 USG tank centerline and the Navy never wanted to mix tanks.
Finally, general design and configuration makes a difference in drag with big external loads. Supposedly, for example, the Typhoon is reasonably efficient and flies well with a large load, which gives it a better range than (say) an F-16.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #111 on: December 19, 2007, 07:47:57 pm »
However, part of the reason for the F-22s low bypass ratio engine is also due to it being optimized for supersonic cruise, versus the higher bypass turbofans which aren't. I think the biggest problem was they, LM,  either thought advanced technology would limit their weight growth into production or they simply underestimated how much weight the Raptor would gain going into production. Or was it a case, as so often happens, where the USAF ended up making L-M put more into the package as it transitioned from a development aircraft to a production aircraft?

Offline Berekhat

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
  • I really have changed My personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #112 on: December 19, 2007, 11:29:13 pm »
Unclassified USAF documents give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

Rosdivan, one of the best pdf files I've seen in the last years) Thanks a lot!

Yes, absolutely fascinating. Thank you as well.

However, can anyone tell me why, on page 41, it seems to indicate that WOOL is a major component of the F-117?  I hope it's being used as a blanket :) term for all the fibres listed below? This seems a good explanation, but they also go to the extent of suggesting the section refers to "Fibres, Natural and synthetic"

Have we found the real secret of stealth? :P
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 12:19:11 am by Berekhat »

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #113 on: December 26, 2007, 01:12:59 am »
Just to talk a bit more about what a F-23A might have meant one of the most significant failings of the F-22A is its failure to meet the requirement for fuel for effective supercruising as established by the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program. ATF required a fuel fraction of 0.39 or at least 0.35 to have enough fuel to power the engines (F119 or F120s) for enough super cruising. F-22A only has a fuel fraction of 0.29 significantly reducing the range it can supercruise. This makes its supercruise capability just a lower engine IR signature way of dashing at supersonic speeds or reduces radius from the planned 800 NM to the actual 410 NM. Considering the YF-23 is a bigger plane than the YF-22 and has significant area ruling is it feasible that an F-23A could have had the higher fuel fraction and less supersonic drag required to meet the original ATF supercruise requirement?

Where did you get the number as only 0.29 for F-22A or YF-22?
The correct calculation of fuel fraction is internal fuel capability/weight empty.
so even the internal fuel of F-22 down to 10 ton, the empty weight up to 17 ton. the fuel fraction also will be reach 0.59!! You put the wrong number not is on basic digit but on tens digit!

.......
As I've said before, all things being equal, a conventional tail aircraft has better high AOA control than a canard aircraft in certain parts of the envelope. The main reason for going with canards is you can make a smaller airframe for a given mission then a conventionally tailed aircraft, which means lower weight and, therefore, lower cost.
......

My dear friend:
you'd better know what was you said equal factually is dissimilar.
foreplan could be smaller than horizontal stabilizer so the structual weight will be reduced.
foreplan will give a smaller balanced drag than conventional horizontal stabilizer, no matter where the barycenter you put.
the area of delta wing adapt to the foreplan will be bigger than conventional layout so give more lift the maneuver needed.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 01:34:27 am by rousseau »
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #114 on: December 26, 2007, 01:36:19 am »
Here is what I modified YF-23 drawing, it will be more acceptable.
 :D
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 01:40:28 am by rousseau »
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1649
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #115 on: December 26, 2007, 01:17:50 pm »
]

Yes, absolutely fascinating. Thank you as well.

However, can anyone tell me why, on page 41, it seems to indicate that WOOL is a major component of the F-117?  I hope it's being used as a blanket :) term for all the fibres listed below? This seems a good explanation, but they also go to the extent of suggesting the section refers to "Fibres, Natural and synthetic"

Have we found the real secret of stealth? :P
[/quote]

am i right in thinking that the RAM covering on the F-117 is a kind of fabric? i seem to remember seeing some news footage of the F-117 brought down in kosovo, that showed pieces of fabric hanging loose from the wreckage of the wings. also, wasn't this stuff also supposed to be impregnated with all the nasty chemicals that caused the labour problems at lockheed?

cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #116 on: December 26, 2007, 01:43:58 pm »
I remember pretty good coverage of RAM materials range in Jay Miller's Aerofax Extra F-117 book, and yes, fibres and wool were there in the list.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 01:48:20 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3167
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #117 on: December 26, 2007, 02:40:00 pm »
Merino is high quality spanish wool :)

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #118 on: December 26, 2007, 06:46:10 pm »
Quote
My dear friend:
you'd better know what was you said equal factually is dissimilar.
foreplan could be smaller than horizontal stabilizer so the structual weight will be reduced.
foreplan will give a smaller balanced drag than conventional horizontal stabilizer, no matter where the barycenter you put.
the area of delta wing adapt to the foreplan will be bigger than conventional layout so give more lift the maneuver needed.

As I've stated before, canard aircraft tend to be lower cost, because they tend to have lower weight, for the mission, precisely because you don't need the tail structure that a conventional aircraft requires.

However, most modern fighters are unstable. As such, the canard is usually sized to push the nose down at high alpha. That means the canard is working against the wing. Whereas with the conventional tail it provides lift to keep the nose down in the same regime. As such, it turns out there are areas of the envelope where the canard can't trim the aircraft as effectively because the conventional tail offers advantages in sizing in this part of the regime. This is one of the reasons why Lockheed's F-35 went from a canard design to a conventional tail. There are other areas of the envelope where the conventional tail is better as well.

However, for many nations, cost is the number one driver, which was one of the primary design drivers for all of the new European Fighters having been built as canards instead of conventional tail configurations.

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #119 on: December 26, 2007, 08:46:00 pm »
…….
However, most modern fighters are unstable. As such, the canard is usually sized to push the nose down at high alpha. That means the canard is working against the wing. Whereas with the conventional tail it provides lift to keep the nose down in the same regime. As such, it turns out there are areas of the envelope where the canard can't trim the aircraft as effectively because the conventional tail offers advantages in sizing in this part of the regime. This is one of the reasons why Lockheed's F-35 went from a canard design to a conventional tail. There are other areas of the envelope where the conventional tail is better as well.
.......

 ??? Did I lose someithing in the conventional tail offered? What's the advantage compare with the foreplan? You keep nose down, I keep nose down either.!  :P ::) 8)
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2007, 01:02:16 pm »
Considering the YF-23 is a bigger plane than the YF-22 and has significant area ruling is it feasible that an F-23A could have had the higher fuel fraction and less supersonic drag required to meet the original ATF supercruise requirement?

You know,  although the YF-23 looked dramatically larger, in reality it was only three feet longer than the YF-22, had the same wingspan and wasn't as tall.  Interestingly, although it could carry more internal fuel, its empty weight and normal operating weigh was actually less. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #121 on: December 27, 2007, 01:07:55 pm »
Considering the YF-23 is a bigger plane than the YF-22 and has significant area ruling is it feasible that an F-23A could have had the higher fuel fraction and less supersonic drag required to meet the original ATF supercruise requirement?

You know,  although the YF-23 looked dramatically larger, in reality it was only three feet longer than the YF-22, had the same wingspan and wasn't as tall.  Interestingly, although it could carry more internal fuel, its empty weight and normal operating weigh was actually less. 

I've always thought it was interesting how small it looked from pretty much every angle except looking down or up at it.  You could show movies on the YF-22's vertical tails.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #122 on: December 27, 2007, 01:24:05 pm »
he production version of he Raptor would be just under that

What I find interesting is how the production version of the F-23 would have had half shock cone inlets instead of the 3D oblique shock inlets and how they moved the engines closer together.

 Was this really planned for production F-23s, or were these features of the proposed "F/B-23" of a few years back (visible on the model)?   The cones could also indicate that higher speed was wanted for this latter mission, both the F-22 and F-23 designs top speeds being limited by their fixed inlets.  If for strike reason a higher penetration speed was deemed Worth the complexity, they could be engineered in and the top speed would rise.  This is the reverse of what was done on the F-14D.  There, the aircraft was capable of speeds around M2.5.  However, Navy decided that that extra speed wasn't worth the maintenance expenses.  So, although the D have variable intake ramps they were deactivated, limiting operational Ds to M1.88-2.0. 

  Similarly do we know that production F-23s would have relocated the engines (a major redesign), or was this also something from the F/B-23, a;though in the latter case this may have just been how it appeared given the F/B's expected even larger weapons bay. 

  I, for one would be interested to know. 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #123 on: December 27, 2007, 01:46:51 pm »
Have heard of half-cone inlets on EMD F-23 from the several sources that worth to listen. Top speed was limited not only by inlets, but by materials used in airframe. As well, high M numbers is something that wasn't in AF wishlist.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #124 on: December 27, 2007, 01:49:40 pm »
Have heard of half-cone inlets on EMD F-23 from the several sources that worth to listen. Top speed was limited not only by inlets, but by materials used in airframe. As well, high M numbers is something that wasn't in AF wishlist.

BMI is better than aluminum when it comes to maintaining strength at elevated temps.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #125 on: December 27, 2007, 01:52:37 pm »
Haven't you read AWST 1991 article on BMI usage in ATF program? It reads like a horror novel...))) There were a heck of other problems with BMI instead.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #126 on: December 29, 2007, 09:05:14 pm »
Quote
Did I lose someithing in the conventional tail offered? What's the advantage compare with the foreplan? You keep nose down, I keep nose down either.!

Yes, you did. There are areas of the flight envelope where a conventional tail works much more efficiently than a canard does. That's why none of the latest U.S. fighters have canards.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #127 on: December 29, 2007, 09:30:23 pm »
Haven't you read AWST 1991 article on BMI usage in ATF program? It reads like a horror novel...))) There were a heck of other problems with BMI instead.

Never said it was trouble free from the beginning.  Just said it's better than aluminum at elevated temps.  And that was 16 years ago.  BMI is fairly common these days.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2007, 09:49:12 am »
<<I've always thought it was interesting how small it looked from pretty much every angle except looking down or up at it.>>

Errrrmmmm....

I think that was kinda sorta the whole idea. An air-combat nuclear attack submarine.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2007, 11:19:36 am »
<<I've always thought it was interesting how small it looked from pretty much every angle except looking down or up at it.>>

Errrrmmmm....

I think that was kinda sorta the whole idea. An air-combat nuclear attack submarine.


Someone forgot to tell that to Lockheed.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2007, 10:16:24 pm »
Quote
Did I lose someithing in the conventional tail offered? What's the advantage compare with the foreplan? You keep nose down, I keep nose down either.!
Yes, you did. There are areas of the flight envelope where a conventional tail works much more efficiently than a canard does. That's why none of the latest U.S. fighters have canards.

The lost thing still Is WHY conventional tail will be much more efficient than canards? ???
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #131 on: December 31, 2007, 11:22:19 am »
Have heard of half-cone inlets on EMD F-23 from the several sources that worth to listen. Top speed was limited not only by inlets, but by materials used in airframe. As well, high M numbers is something that wasn't in AF wishlist.

Granted high M numbers above what YF-22/23  achieved was something for which AF said it would not give credit, but I'm not sure that airframe materials would really have been a limiting factor up to M23.-2.5.  After all, F-4 did not use what we would consider exotics, and it did M2.6.  My point was that ATFs were limited to M2 and below by their fixed inlets, again AF saying it was not willing to pay for the complexity required to get another M0.5.   I was wondering if cones shown in F/B-23 were there for reasons that might indicate variable inlets (ala Mirage) in that model, indicating a desire for higher top speed. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #132 on: December 31, 2007, 12:23:30 pm »
Quote
My dear friend:
you'd better know what was you said equal factually is dissimilar.
foreplan could be smaller than horizontal stabilizer so the structual weight will be reduced.
foreplan will give a smaller balanced drag than conventional horizontal stabilizer, no matter where the barycenter you put.
the area of delta wing adapt to the foreplan will be bigger than conventional layout so give more lift the maneuver needed.

As I've stated before, canard aircraft tend to be lower cost, because they tend to have lower weight, for the mission, precisely because you don't need the tail structure that a conventional aircraft requires.

However, most modern fighters are unstable. As such, the canard is usually sized to push the nose down at high alpha. That means the canard is working against the wing. Whereas with the conventional tail it provides lift to keep the nose down in the same regime. As such, it turns out there are areas of the envelope where the canard can't trim the aircraft as effectively because the conventional tail offers advantages in sizing in this part of the regime. This is one of the reasons why Lockheed's F-35 went from a canard design to a conventional tail. There are other areas of the envelope where the conventional tail is better as well.

However, for many nations, cost is the number one driver, which was one of the primary design drivers for all of the new European Fighters having been built as canards instead of conventional tail configurations.


I wonder it it's simply a cost issue or whether it is a different design philosophy as well as something as simple as current "fashion" in the US engineering world.   It might well be true that at extreme AoA the conventional tail has an advantage (although with the modern use of using the wing trailing edge as large maneuvering surfaces instead of just a flap a canard wing could have a large "up force" at the rear), but with missiles like ASRAAM IRIS-T, AIM-9X out there, especially combined with Helmet Mounted Sights (which F-22 lacks, BTW), extreme AoA may not be as important as it was 20-25 years ago.   It's worthy of note that Typhoon is more maneuverable overall than any US fighter, with the possible exception of the F-22, and Rafale and Gripen (especially the former) may be able to make the same claim.  Of course, Typhoon is not a close coupled canard as the others are.  I'm attaching a view of Typhoon; look where the canard is relative to the pilot. 

Canards give away certain parts of the envelope to conventional planforms, but they also have some advantages as well.  On takeoff, on the approach or at low altitudes, for example, the conventional tail works against the wing.  To raise the nose or hold a positive AoA, a conventional tail exerts a downward force, negating some of the lift of the wing, requiring more thrust or a bigger wing or more required speed.  With a canard, both surfaces are exerting an upward force, increasing lift at lower speeds.  This can result in shorter ground runs and safer approaches and departures, which may be a big driving factor for the Europeans, who apparently aren't convinced that there will always be a 9,000 foot runway available.   One thing that's also a factor is the incredibly high thrust/weight ratio of modern fighters.  Rules that apply to virtually all other aircraft types get "bent" for fighters because of their ability to power out or through situations that would "trap" any other aircraft. 

On the other hand, it's harder to "stealth" a canard, because normally the canard is not in line with the main wing and so there are two surfaces for radar to see.   

On the NATF, the Navy may have been willing to accept less extreme AoA, given that they were expecting AIM-152 and some form of dogfighting missile to be arming it in return for slower, flatter approaches which the canard (like a vg wing) could provide. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #133 on: December 31, 2007, 12:28:37 pm »
My point was that ATFs were limited to M2 and below by their fixed inlets, 

The F-22 is not limited to Mach 2.  A fixed intake is not necessarily a limiter (the XF8U-3 also had a fixed intake and it EASILY exceeded Mach 2 as well).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #134 on: January 01, 2008, 04:02:52 am »
??? Did I lose someithing in the conventional tail offered? What's the advantage compare with the foreplan? You keep nose down, I keep nose down either.!  :P ::) 8)

You must have missed the bun fight on this one but this submission from Lantinian is enlightening:-

Quote
AIAA Paper 84-2401
Forward
Past investigationsl-5 have differed on the best choice between tail and canard for future tactical aircraft employing fined, low aspect ratio wings. A previous Grumman USAF study1 of an advanced strike fighter emphasizing supersonic persistence showed the superior trim drag characteristics of a canard. Northrop argued that a tail design has lower subsonic maneuver trim drag and greater stability c.g. location flexibility and is therefore the preferred configuration for an air combat fighter. A General Dynamics study3 indicated that a canard quipped F~16d design had potential high AOA stability and control problems when balanced at negative static margins; as a must the tail arrangement had a better subsonic trimmed polar and a Similar supersonic trimmed polar. An incompressible lifting system analysis found a tail to be the better choice. The message seems to be clear: the selection of a canard YE a tail is both configuration and mission dependent.

Conclusion
Equivalent canard and tail control surfaces are compared on an advanced, carrier-based fighter/attack aircraft featuring variable wing sweep and vectorable, two-dimensional nozzles. Evaluations of stability and control characteristics, trimmed drag due to lift, minimum takeoff rotation speeds, and carrier approach speeds are presented. The results show that the canard configuration has substantially less supersonic trim drag and a lower carrier approach speed, which can yield appreciable takeoff weight savings, but the tail configuration exhibits better stability and control characteristics with less development risk.

There must be some advantage of conventional tails over foreplanes in terms of drag (sub and supersonic) why else would they do it?, but I've yet to fully understand why. If you want to see the full thread the link's below.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1624.0.html

Cheers, Woody

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #135 on: January 01, 2008, 10:27:00 am »
Hmmm, maybe I do lost something very important. The AIAA Paper 84-2401 file you posted via quote is only a part of complete version so that display an amphibolous explain, could you send me a whole file?  8)
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #136 on: January 01, 2008, 10:50:04 am »
No requests for articles or books, please.

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #137 on: January 01, 2008, 02:53:36 pm »
Quote
My point was that ATFs were limited to M2 and below by their fixed inlets,

It is my understanding of flight that an object does not necessary need variable inlets to travel supersonically. Most asteroids that enter the earths atmosphere do not have even aerodynamic shape, yet they travel trough it quite fast indeed. ;)

To end the joke with a reasonable and usefull comment I would say.

Variable geometry inlets allow a much more efficient flight at supersonic speeds to justify the extra complexity.
The ATFs however have a lot of excess trust available and can go over Mach 2 without problem. (reports say F-22 reaches Mach 2.4)

However, due to raised drag and raised temperatures ( stealth coatings have low temp limits) the YF-23 and now F-22 were not thought out to be flown at speeds above Mach 2 operationally (at least not for more than minute or two). The inlet designs were therefore designed to be most efficient at cruising speeds of Mach 1.5+

Further, some recent design innovations in this area, like the devertless inlet on the F-35 do allow even simpler design to perform well up to Mach 2.

Finally, the drawings available for the production F-23A (earlier in the tread) do suggest a similar divertless design with a fixed cone shape inside the inlet. Clearly the engineers have figured out that a inlet design that had an order of magnitude lower RCS but a little higher drag is of more value now if you can still reach Mach 1.5 at about 80% throttle setting.

regards,
lantinian
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #138 on: January 09, 2008, 08:41:22 am »
Some extra shots with details of YF-23 weapon bay [doors] with provisions for AIM-9 launcher and, of course, Paul Metz.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 08:44:58 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #139 on: January 09, 2008, 09:14:54 pm »
Good post Flateric!
Although only one bomb bay can be dimly seen, your post proved this pic.
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #140 on: January 10, 2008, 10:02:26 pm »
Quote
My point was that ATFs were limited to M2 and below by their fixed inlets

If they were using 2-Dimensional shock structures and mechanics like 1960's era fighters, that would be true. However, the ATF designs used three dimensional shock structures which offer greater pressure recovery and they also used other technologies, such as porous materials and possibly fluidic controls to manage their shock structures which offer the ability to control the inlet flow without mechanical controls, thereby maintaining their L.O. properties over the speed range. It's been reported that the second YF-23 prototype with the GE variable bypass engines had a top speed of M=2.8+. I can't confirm that, it's only what was reported.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #141 on: January 11, 2008, 12:27:00 am »
Heard of M=2.3 for PAV-2, but figure seems to be not so exspressive to make it classified for 18 years...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #142 on: January 11, 2008, 02:40:58 am »

Quote
ATF inlet designs had the ability to control the inlet flow without mechanical controls
Thanks Sundog! Its good to learn something everyday. I allways though the inlet designs were a compromise betwen LO and Speed. Apparently not!

Quote
It's been reported that the second YF-23 prototype with the GE variable bypass engines had a top speed of M=2.8+.

It now makes sense in terms of available trust (1.5+ times more than F-15) and aerodynamics (Extensive area ruling, higher sweep angles and advanced inlets). However, I still doubt the max supercruise to have been more than Mach 2.1. At higher speed the supersonic cone will overlap the wing tips and that coupled with the aerodynamic heating will likely compromise the integrity of the LO coatings. Not to mention that the IR signature at front will rise enough to challenge the rear one, substantially increasing the range of hostile IR sensors.

Still, in terms of sustained speed it seams the production F-23A could have been just as much faster than YF-22 as YF-22 was over F-15. WOW!
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #143 on: January 11, 2008, 06:57:12 am »
 :o Over M2.8.......
Sundog must be a fans of US jet. ;D I love you!
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #144 on: January 11, 2008, 10:10:22 am »
Bismaleimide (BMI) and carbon fibres (Hercules AS-4 fiber, mostly, in the case of YF-23) possess excellent mechanical properties in the 150 C to 232 C range.
Large sections of YF-23 airframe was made of carbon/BMI composites
If travelling at M=2.8-3.2 range SR-71 has lowest T at the center top/bottom of fuselage (the coldest area) of 250 degrees C, not talking of leading edges and chines with Ts in 315-340 C range...Canopy glass has about 300 C *after* landing! Northrop has a *great* problems at M=1.4-1.6 with engine cowls heating - and not aerodynamic, but from the engines core!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

AGRA

  • Guest
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #145 on: January 15, 2008, 06:16:57 pm »
Where did you get the number as only 0.29 for F-22A or YF-22?
The correct calculation of fuel fraction is internal fuel capability/weight empty.
so even the internal fuel of F-22 down to 10 ton, the empty weight up to 17 ton. the fuel fraction also will be reach 0.59!! You put the wrong number not is on basic digit but on tens digit!

Fuel fraction is determined by whatever weight the aircraft happens to be divided by the weight of the amount of fuel in it. Any empty aircraft would have a fuel fraction of 0 unless it needs to have a certain amount of fuel onboard at all times for some kind of structural or maintenance reason.

Of course the most important fuel fraction figure is the aircraft in a typical combat mission configuration ready for engine start up and takeoff. One then takes this weight and divides it by the amount of fuel in the aircraft for this configuration. A subsequent fuel fraction of 0.3 typically means a good range for a conventional subsonic cruising aircraft. Because of the higher fuel burn demands of the ATF’s supercruise mission a higher fuel fraction was needed to provide a reasonable mission radius.

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #146 on: January 15, 2008, 11:46:14 pm »
Well, if my understanding is right
Even though the fuel fruction should be internal fue/ empty weight + internal fuel
then Su27 = 9.3/(9.3+17) = 0.35
F22 = 10/(10+14.5) = 0.41
conclusion is that ff of Raptor is still higher than Flanker
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #147 on: February 08, 2008, 07:21:12 am »
YF-23 manufacturing and 'Iron Bird' pics from West Coast Images 'YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified'
For Details and Ordering http://www.wci-productions.com/2.html
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #148 on: February 08, 2008, 06:53:22 pm »
Quote
If travelling at M=2.8-3.2 range SR-71 has lowest T at the center top/bottom of fuselage (the coldest area) of 250 degrees C, not talking of leading edges and chines with Ts in 315-340 C range...Canopy glass has about 300 C *after* landing! Northrop has a *great* problems at M=1.4-1.6 with engine cowls heating - and not aerodynamic, but from the engines core!

1) How much of the heat/energy was transferred to the fuel? You do realize that the YF-23 most likely, like the F-22, circulated it's fuel under the skin to absorb the heat from high temperature flight.

2) Just because an aircraft "can" supercruise at a very high speed, I never stated the amount of time it could operate at that speed. For instance, the ATF design specs said it needed to supercruise for one hour. I don't remember if that was M=1.5 or slightly higher (the specs, not the actual capability). The aircraft don't heat up immediately. It takes time to get there.

3) As for the heating of the engine cowls, that tells me they had insufficient cooling around the engines. That really isn't surprising in a prototype. That still doesn't mean it's top end speed was immediately limited.

Quote
Sundog must be a fans of US jet.

Actually I'm a fan of all aircraft. Fortunately for me, I still remember many of my lessons from my compressible aerodynamics courses.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #149 on: April 23, 2008, 12:10:28 pm »
Quote
YF-23 would undergo subtle changes if it wins competition.
Source: Defense Daily
Publication Date: 14-JAN-91

The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) full-scale development production
aircraft would undergo some subtle changes in configuration from the prototype design if the Air Force chooses
it for its air-superiority fighter, YF-23 Program Manager Thomas Rooney said last week.

YF-23 engineers, after reviewing test flight information, decided to make changes in the airframe to improve
the flying quality and low-observable signature of the aircraft, Rooney said.

Among the most obvious changes, the two distinct boxy humps, where its two engines are housed, will be
smoother.
With the advent of a down-select the aircraft will be tailored to fit one engine type rather than two.
General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are locked in competition for the ATF engine contract, while the
Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics team is competing with the Northrop team for the airframe contract.
Rooney said the aircraft inlet cell will also be changed slightly to reduce the aircraft's radar cross-section. "The
change has been tested on a full-scale model," Rooney said.

In addition, the trailing edge of the aircraft's stabilizers will be changed slightly, altering their intersection with
the aft deck of the fighter, Rooney said.

The prototype aircraft utilized a greater percentage of titanium metal in its wing structure because the
prototype manufacturers had "problems with the scheduling and did not want to risk doing the substructure of
the wing with composites because they had more experience with the use of titanium structures," Rooney
said. Approximately 50 percent of the YF-23 production model structures will be composites. The aircraft will
be in the 55,000 pound weight class, according to Rooney.

Northrop Unconcerned About Missile Firings
Rooney said his team was not concerned with the Lockheed team's decision to fire Sidewinder and AMRAAM
missiles, which he says were not a requirement of dem/val. "We make a list of what we feel is important and
we didn't share our list with Lockheed ... and they didn't share their list with us," he said. "We didn't think that
launching a very mature missile at seven-tenths Mach in level flight had any meaning whatsoever. (We) were
concerned about ... the environment in that weapons bay at very high speeds."
Test Pilot Paul Metz said that to a less experienced pilot, the opening of the bay doors on the YF-23 would
have gone unnoticed in the cockpit, but he noticed acoustic levels were a little higher than anticipated. Metz
said small adjustments to the spoiler corrected the problem.

Regarding news that Lockheed had displayed its YF-22's ability to attack from a 60 degree angle, Rooney said,
again, that Northrop decided that a 25 degree angle of attack was all that was needed in dem/val.
Metz said the YF-23 could come through any angle of attack "even backwards." He said the aircraft can regain
control out of zero airspeed but it would have to fall to pick up the speed again. "No matter where it's at or
oriented it will come out and start flying," Metz said. This airplane, as designed, has the best high angle of
attack and spin characteristics of any airplane ever built by McDonnell Douglas or Northrop." Metz said the
YF-23 topped T-38s, F-5s, F-15s and F-18s, which are considered premier high angle of attack airplanes today.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 12:12:56 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #150 on: April 23, 2008, 12:51:20 pm »
Most people quite logically assume that the YF-23 having somewhat bigger profile is larger and heavier. Also, that is was a more a concept demonstrator than a prototype with many parts from other aircraft. 
Quote
Approximately 50 percent of the YF-23 production model structures will be composites. The aircraft will be in the 55,000 pound weight class, according to Rooney

Quite the opposite seams to be true. Not only had YF-23 a more advanced internal structure but it was also lighter as a result. The F-22 as we know today is considered to be a 60 000lb + pound aircraft.

Another commom misconception is that the YF-23 will undergo a more radical change than the YF-22 from a prototype to production stage.
Quote
some subtle changes in configuration
is what says the YF-23 program manager.  I also think that making an airplane longer is easier and less troublesome than changing the wing sweep and the shape of the entire forward fuselage, as was the case with F-22
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 12:57:09 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #151 on: April 23, 2008, 01:35:39 pm »
After reading, you can rename the thread  ;)

I take it this is a what-if design?  If so, I'd change the nozzles (same shape but cover more of the top) to make a thrust vectoring design more like the F-22.


If they were using 2-Dimensional shock structures and mechanics like 1960's era fighters, that would be true. However, the ATF designs used three dimensional shock structures which offer greater pressure recovery and they also used other technologies, such as porous materials and possibly fluidic controls to manage their shock structures which offer the ability to control the inlet flow without mechanical controls, thereby maintaining their L.O. properties over the speed range.

I thought 2D shapes yielded better efficiency (at least with hypersonic waveriders -- but the same thing that would produce high pressure recovery would produce high lift on such a design)...

What's a fluidic control?  And what's L.O. properties?


Kendra Lesnick
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 01:37:50 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #152 on: April 23, 2008, 01:46:33 pm »
Quote
I thought 2D shapes yielded better efficiency

Cooling efficiency Yes, but trust efficiency - NO

Quote
What's a fluidic control?
Ability to change the direction of the exaust trust without moving parts. X-36 had such technology on it.

Quote
And what's L.O. properties?
Low Observable = Stealthy



We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #153 on: April 23, 2008, 01:55:32 pm »
Cooling efficiency Yes, but trust efficiency - NO
 

I would almost swear I read that the 2D design (with delta-wings, but the compression ramp was wedge shaped) produced lower overall drag...

So a highly-swept design is more efficient?

Quote
Ability to change the direction of the exaust trust without moving parts. X-36 had such technology on it.

Assuming that's not clasified, how the hell do they do that?

Quote
Low Observable = Stealthy

Thanks


Kendra Lesnick

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #154 on: April 23, 2008, 02:26:12 pm »
Quote
I would almost swear I read that the 2D design (with delta-wings, but the compression ramp was wedge shaped) produced lower overall drag...
So a highly-swept design is more efficient?

I think, this is actually quite simple geometry. A Circle will always have less circumference than a Rectangle for a similar area. So, if for any shape where the other types of drag are equal, the tube like shape will have less parasitic drag, as it exposes less area to the airflow. If 2D design were more aerodynamic and flight efficient, bullets would not had a round shape now would they? ;) The main advantage of using 2D Nozzles is in heat management and better  easier LO integration with the rest of the design.

A highly swept design has nothing to do with the above argument.

Quote
Quote
Ability to change the direction of the exaust trust without moving parts. X-36 had such technology on it.

Assuming that's not clasified, how the hell do they do that?
I hope you run a google search before you asked that. If not try it and check one of the many articles on the subject. It's not rocket science but its not a short explanation either.

And please keep your questions relevant to the topic, or create another one after you have made the relevant search.




We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #155 on: April 23, 2008, 03:26:37 pm »
Quote
I would almost swear I read that the 2D design (with delta-wings, but the compression ramp was wedge shaped) produced lower overall drag...
So a highly-swept design is more efficient?

I think, this is actually quite simple geometry. A Circle will always have less circumference than a Rectangle for a similar area. So, if for any shape where the other types of drag are equal, the tube like shape will have less parasitic drag, as it exposes less area to the airflow. If 2D design were more aerodynamic and flight efficient, bullets would not had a round shape now would they? ;) The main advantage of using 2D Nozzles is in heat management and better  easier LO integration with the rest of the design.

A highly swept design has nothing to do with the above argument.


Makes sense, but I specifically remember being told on hypersonic waveriders that the 2D shape results in less drag...   

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #156 on: April 23, 2008, 03:53:21 pm »
Damn, this is YF-23 topic!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #157 on: April 23, 2008, 10:24:27 pm »
Quote
I take it this is a what-if design?  If so, I'd change the nozzles (same shape but cover more of the top) to make a thrust vectoring design more like the F-22.

Northrop considered thrust vectoring for the YF-23, IIRC, but didn't go with it because the YF-23 met the maneuvering specs without them and they decided to go for more L.O. instead.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1156
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #158 on: May 02, 2008, 08:29:32 pm »
Quote
I take it this is a what-if design?  If so, I'd change the nozzles (same shape but cover more of the top) to make a thrust vectoring design more like the F-22.

Northrop considered thrust vectoring for the YF-23, IIRC, but didn't go with it because the YF-23 met the maneuvering specs without them and they decided to go for more L.O. instead.

The initial requirement had for thrust vectoring had to do with short field performance.  When the USAF dropped the short field requirement, Northrop deleted the TVC system.  However, both PAVs were built with nacelles and nozzles sized to take the TVC system.  Production aircraft would have had slimmer overwing nacelles.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #159 on: May 03, 2008, 02:22:08 pm »
You're confusing thrust vectoring with thrust reversing. Thrust reversing is a kind of vectoring, but not the same thing. The thrust reversers the YF-23 would have had would have been ahead of the nozzle, I believe similar to how the F-15 SMTD's reversers were mounted, but on the top side only on the YF-23. That's why the production version would have had shorter, lower weight nacelles, compared to the EMD which had nacelles designed to fit them.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #160 on: May 29, 2008, 05:24:56 am »
Wooahha! Current state of YF-23A PAV-1 as of May 2008. Magic weapons' bay doors are open
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erekose76/tags/northropyf23/
Pity that instead of taking at least good digital camera, guy had only damn communicator crappy stuff with him.

Anyone is nearby Dayton, ah?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 05:27:42 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #161 on: May 29, 2008, 08:42:17 am »
I live in Beavercreek, Ohio which is near the Museum. It looks like it is not yet on display. I'll try to get some pics .

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #162 on: May 29, 2008, 09:25:17 am »
It's in restoration shop...they offer Behind the Scenes Tours there...

Quote
Behind the Scenes Tours are regularly scheduled, free guided tours of the museum's restoration area. The museum shuttle bus transports participants to the restoration hangars, located on the historic Wright Field flight line in Area B of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, about one mile from the main museum complex.

Behind the Scenes Tours are offered every Friday (some exceptions) at 12:15 p.m. Advanced registration is required, and registrations are currently being taken for tours through August 2008. Sign up early as tours may fill up quickly! Registration closes the Wednesday before the tour; however, a limited number of "walk-in" registrations are available on the day of the tour. No group reservations are accepted.

Participants must be at least 12 years old, and an adult must accompany those between 12 and 18. A current government-issued photo ID (i.e. driver's license) is required of all individuals 18 and over. Foreign visitors must present an original passport. For security reasons, all bags are subject to search, and backpacks, packages and large camera cases are not permitted on the shuttle bus.

To register, please call (937) 255-3286. Note: Individuals requiring handicapped accessibility should advise museum staff when registering.

Elider, I think that several thousands of YF-23 nuts will ask you for favor, with me being your field photographer for the Monino museum and all the MAKS shows for the next decade.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 09:31:19 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #163 on: May 29, 2008, 07:13:54 pm »
You have more info on tours than I do. That info wilol be helpful. I'll try to get a tour soon. I may have to email the pics to someone for resizing.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #164 on: May 30, 2008, 01:36:47 am »
You can upload original pics zipped to fileshare service like zShare.Net or Mediafire. If you can ask stuff to allow you shoot weapons bay inside (pretty sure that it's pristine empty of classified stuff now), it would be great.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #165 on: May 30, 2008, 05:17:09 pm »
I don't know enough about the net to upload pics on host sites.
I went to museum this AM and went on standby Two hours later I found I was the next to last person to make the tour list.
Alas, the YF-23 weapons bay door was closed and could not be opened since some required support equipment was not available.
I was told it had been open the day before. Maybe they close on tour days for safety reasons--I don't know. Anyway, I will
try to attach a pic.

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #166 on: May 30, 2008, 05:19:26 pm »
First try at pic.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #167 on: May 30, 2008, 05:29:35 pm »
It was really fast reaction, Elider=) Oh damn, they have closed the doors... :(
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1981
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #168 on: May 31, 2008, 03:49:19 am »
It's in restoration shop...they offer Behind the Scenes Tours there...

Quote
Behind the Scenes Tours are regularly scheduled, free guided tours of the museum's restoration area. The museum shuttle bus transports participants to the restoration hangars, located on the historic Wright Field flight line in Area B of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, about one mile from the main museum complex.

Behind the Scenes Tours are offered every Friday (some exceptions) at 12:15 p.m. Advanced registration is required, and registrations are currently being taken for tours through August 2008. Sign up early as tours may fill up quickly! Registration closes the Wednesday before the tour; however, a limited number of "walk-in" registrations are available on the day of the tour. No group reservations are accepted.

Participants must be at least 12 years old, and an adult must accompany those between 12 and 18. A current government-issued photo ID (i.e. driver's license) is required of all individuals 18 and over. Foreign visitors must present an original passport. For security reasons, all bags are subject to search, and backpacks, packages and large camera cases are not permitted on the shuttle bus.

To register, please call (937) 255-3286. Note: Individuals requiring handicapped accessibility should advise museum staff when registering.

Elider, I think that several thousands of YF-23 nuts will ask you for favor, with me being your field photographer for the Monino museum and all the MAKS shows for the next decade.


I believe PAV-2 may be on display at the Hawthorne airport here in Los Angeles, the next time I'm in the area I'll see if it's outside.
When I first moved here years ago I was in the area on an errand, imagine how surprised I was to see those tails peeking from behind a fence.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #169 on: May 31, 2008, 04:03:19 am »
No, it's taken from Western museum of flight by Northrop already and now parked at NG facility territory.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #170 on: May 31, 2008, 07:38:26 am »
When it goes on display maybe the doors will be open and I'll try again. Meanwhile, two more pics.

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #171 on: May 31, 2008, 07:40:53 am »
Oops! Only one showed.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #172 on: May 31, 2008, 09:42:54 am »
Oh my! Thank you for these! Didn't they allow to shoot the cockpit from the ladder? Any more pics?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #173 on: May 31, 2008, 08:03:27 pm »
Sorry! I didn't even think to ask about using the maintenance stand to get pics of the cockpit. I'm almost certain it would not have been instructive since it appeared to be gutted. Sorry about the picture quality also. That's the best I could do with a Cannon Sureshot A520. Anyway more pics.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #174 on: June 02, 2008, 05:09:33 pm »
Sorry! I didn't even think to ask about using the maintenance stand to get pics of the cockpit. I'm almost certain it would not have been instructive since it appeared to be gutted.

Do you know how much YF-23 cockpit pics exist? Answer: you can count them with fingers on one hand (and there will be reserve yet).
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 03:16:19 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #175 on: June 18, 2008, 03:34:36 am »
A great shot from the USAFM media gallery
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Spring

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #176 on: June 18, 2008, 10:21:18 am »
After reading, you can rename the thread  ;)


These triangular edges on the intake were considered?,in my opinion would not be a good idea, at medium velocity and at some angle of attack would not send vortexs and turbulence to the engine?

I think that is the reason i never have seen these intakes on a operative aircraft
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 10:23:20 am by Spring »
Hello!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #177 on: June 18, 2008, 02:42:47 pm »
These triangular edges on the intake were considered?

Yes.

I think that is the reason i never have seen these intakes on a operative aircraft

Guess one at least


"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Stuka

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Klaatu barada nikto
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #178 on: September 10, 2008, 09:45:49 pm »
PAV-1 restoration is finished and is supposedly now on display at the AF Museum.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #179 on: September 11, 2008, 03:43:06 am »
As beautifull as always  ::)
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #180 on: September 11, 2008, 05:25:31 am »
...missing the HUD, but still a beauty she is..
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #181 on: September 25, 2008, 02:29:04 pm »
...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2008, 02:51:26 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #182 on: October 09, 2008, 12:45:14 am »
I suppose that I probably won't will allow that, because copyright issues. This is Japanese version of West Coast Images Web of Secrecy: YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified documentary - money from sales of this DVD go directly to Northrop veterans who did this enormous effort of digging ATF-23 archives. So piracy in this case will directly affect their wish to continue research. Moreower, I know these people, so it just won't be polite. Publishing couple of promotional screen captures is OK, but posting video is no-no.

IMPORTANT NOTE
DVD is discontinued, WCI Productions web-site is RIP. So grab your copy before it's gone! Some e-shops still has it to offer.



No.  It's not the Web of Secrecy video.  It's a tv program documentation of modern military planes in general.  Geography, I believe. The vid features the rafale, then the typhoon, then the yf-23. 
Edit: and beside, I wouldn't be that stupid.  Some folk did that a while ago on youtube and got account deleted :D
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 09:01:13 am by donnage99 »

Offline BAROBA

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 316
  • 3D artist
    • BAROBA's 3D portfolio-site
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #183 on: October 10, 2008, 11:41:14 am »
...

Who made that image?
I know for a fact that it is a fake.
Mainly because I used the same background image ( of the hangar)
It is quite easy to find the original image on the internet.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #184 on: October 12, 2008, 08:56:45 am »
This is the tread abuot my favorite aircraft and in the last 7 post there is not a single mention of the word YF-23.
Those kind of replies are better of as PM in my opinion.

I jump on every alert of a new post to this tread only to find talk about Trojans. Very upsetting to the quality of the forums
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #185 on: October 12, 2008, 07:46:08 pm »
This is the tread abuot my favorite aircraft and in the last 7 post there is not a single mention of the word YF-23.
Those kind of replies are better of as PM in my opinion.

I jump on every alert of a new post to this tread only to find talk about Trojans. Very upsetting to the quality of the forums

My apology, mate!

Here's the video I said with a scene where the yf-23 opened its weapon bay inflight for anyone who's interested (I contested the youtube copy right search engine for the music I used and I really don't know about the future of this video):


« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 01:17:47 pm by donnage99 »

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #186 on: October 12, 2008, 08:34:01 pm »
Removed some recent off-topic posts.

YF-23 was certainly a beauty.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #187 on: October 15, 2008, 02:23:40 pm »
I found this on a japanese website with pics inside the cockpit:
http://www.hornets80.net/gallery/gal9_yf23_3.htm

There are also part 1 and 2 at the bottom of the page, but not much to see.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 01:38:02 pm by donnage99 »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #188 on: October 17, 2008, 01:08:00 am »
Sorry for my ignorance, but does anyone know why it has 2 variable nozzle flaps on top? How do they work?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #189 on: October 17, 2008, 03:58:12 am »
Read first something of how nozzle works in common.
Then look at the picture of F-15SMTD PW nozzle and keep in mind that this was a derect predecessor of F119 nozzle installed on YF-23A PAV-1. Look here as well http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,212.0.html
This should answer a question why it has 'two flaps'.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2008, 04:00:42 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #190 on: October 17, 2008, 01:12:24 pm »
Read first something of how nozzle works in common.
Then look at the picture of F-15SMTD PW nozzle and keep in mind that this was a derect predecessor of F119 nozzle installed on YF-23A PAV-1. Look here as well http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,212.0.html
This should answer a question why it has 'two flaps'.
Thanks alot for answering question, man! So the 2 flaps were some sort of convergent/divergent nozzles for speed handling?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #191 on: October 17, 2008, 01:58:57 pm »
they were convergent/divergent nozzle itself
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #192 on: October 17, 2008, 02:22:59 pm »
they were convergent/divergent nozzle itself
I don't understand the point of this post.  Is it just to correct my choice of phrasing words, or is it trying to show some significant difference in "sort a convergent/divergent nozzles" and "convergent/divergent nozzles itself?" Please explain if there is a difference!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #193 on: October 17, 2008, 02:42:59 pm »
in a few words, you got the idea right=)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #194 on: October 17, 2008, 02:50:06 pm »
Actually, the bottom flap wrt to the rest of the nozzle is what would have made the convergent divergent section of the nozzle. I'll have to look at the images in the other thread when I get home, I can't see the images at work, but the separated area between the two nozzle flaps is most likely where bypass air exited to "cool/shield" the heat signature from above.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2008, 02:54:20 am »
Indeed, only the bottom flat produces the performance effect, while the top flap produces the stealth effect  ;)
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #196 on: October 19, 2008, 02:36:20 pm »
Anybody know why the F119 had those flaps but the F120 didn't?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #197 on: October 19, 2008, 02:40:58 pm »
Quote
Anybody know why the F119 had those flaps but the F120 didn't?
You mean that the F119 on the YF-23 was the only one that had the extra flap and the F120 didn't?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1092.0;attach=59462;image
wasn't this the F120 siting next to the grey PAV-2?

« Last Edit: October 19, 2008, 02:44:52 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #198 on: October 19, 2008, 02:47:06 pm »
They both had flaps - check the photos carefully. On the pic is PAV-1 with F119 near it at USAFM restoration facility.
F120 is still pretty much classified to lay this way.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2008, 02:53:59 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #199 on: October 19, 2008, 04:55:26 pm »
 flateric: Page 3 of this thread has a pic of the weapons bay. First time I noticed. It may provide some useful info concerning the bay if you haven't already seen it.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #200 on: October 20, 2008, 04:24:47 pm »
Removed some recent off-topic posts.

YF-23 was certainly a beauty.
Need more pix, please! :D

And I know flateric got several.  ;)

As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features? I mean like the bottom of the b-2 style nozzles of the yf-23 that hides it from ground radars would retract into a yf-22 nozzle style for thrust vectoring when needed?  I know that it would add lots of weight penalty to the aircraft, but is it even technologically possible?

I'm thinking this is because though the yf-23 nozzles helped stealth from below and the back, which is ideal for deep penetration missions envisioned for the ATF, thrust vectoring has a stealth advantage in another perspective.  It decreases the uses of control surfaces for maneuverability, which would mess up the plane's ideal stealthy shape. 
   

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #201 on: October 24, 2008, 11:38:45 pm »
I believe the F-23 would need some serious redesign in order to get thrust vectoring capability. The nozzles on the YF-23 were designed with stealth the main goal.

As for the suggestion of a navalized F-23, I thought the YF-23 was considered less suitable to the possibility of carrier operations than the YF-22? I doubt a navalized F-23 could have worked, when you consider the F-22 would have been redesigned with variable-sweep wings for carrier operations. This was the proposal under the NATF program.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #202 on: October 25, 2008, 05:02:42 am »
Quote
As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features

You should really do some research about the F-23 as an operational concept vs the F-22. It's not a question if it is possible or not, it's a matter of whether is was needed or not.

At the time of the competition, TVC was very popular in the aerospace industry circles and was considered almost as great value for Air Superiority as stealth and sustained speed was. Maybe even higher amongst front line pilots.

It is NOT.

Northrop operational concept called for overwhelming advantage in the BWR combat to reduce the enemy so you have numerical advantage in WVR combat.

Lockheed concept called for advantages in both areas. It was "politically" a better decision given the unproven record of stealth and the new Cobra Maneuvers demonstrated by the MiG-29s and SU-27s at the time.

What most people do not realize if the fact that F-23 had a lot more capability to totally refuse WVR fight compared to F-22 because of its higher sustained speed and better supersonic maneuverability. In those flight conditions trust vectoring brings little capability to justify its added weight, cost and affect on stealth.

Recent reports of how pilots tend to use the advantages of the F-22 in exercises totally supports the Northrop Concept. F-22 pilots virtually do not make any use of its super-maneuverability if that was not a target in the exercise.  Flying high, fast and unseen is the best tactic to keep you safe, lethal and in control of the battlefield.

In hight speed flight, F-22's TVC pitch control is not as important as directional control and I suspect F-23 was better at that given the design's ability to exert more control power by varying engine trust. (SR-71 had even more potential for that but I guess the digital FCS was not there yet)

So lets stop questioning Northrop's design decisions about not adding TVC or canards.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #203 on: October 25, 2008, 01:59:41 pm »
Quote
As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features

You should really do some research about the F-23 as an operational concept vs the F-22. It's not a question if it is possible or not, it's a matter of whether is was needed or not.

At the time of the competition, TVC was very popular in the aerospace industry circles and was considered almost as great value for Air Superiority as stealth and sustained speed was. Maybe even higher amongst front line pilots.

It is NOT.

Northrop operational concept called for overwhelming advantage in the BWR combat to reduce the enemy so you have numerical advantage in WVR combat.

Lockheed concept called for advantages in both areas. It was "politically" a better decision given the unproven record of stealth and the new Cobra Maneuvers demonstrated by the MiG-29s and SU-27s at the time.

What most people do not realize if the fact that F-23 had a lot more capability to totally refuse WVR fight compared to F-22 because of its higher sustained speed and better supersonic maneuverability. In those flight conditions trust vectoring brings little capability to justify its added weight, cost and affect on stealth.

Recent reports of how pilots tend to use the advantages of the F-22 in exercises totally supports the Northrop Concept. F-22 pilots virtually do not make any use of its super-maneuverability if that was not a target in the exercise.  Flying high, fast and unseen is the best tactic to keep you safe, lethal and in control of the battlefield.

In hight speed flight, F-22's TVC pitch control is not as important as directional control and I suspect F-23 was better at that given the design's ability to exert more control power by varying engine trust. (SR-71 had even more potential for that but I guess the digital FCS was not there yet)

So lets stop questioning Northrop's design decisions about not adding TVC or canards.
Though I try as much not to turn this into a yf-23 vs. yf-22 thread, I just found too many holes in this typical yf-23 fanbois argument.  First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.  Thrust vector of f-22, though not good for infared and heat seeking missiles from below, it is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape.  This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)  Does it mean yf-22 was stealthier than yf-23? Absolutely not.  It's a well known fact that yf-23 was stealthier.  But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force, and at the same time, offering some additional capabilities that the yf-23 don't. 

   As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 

Quote:

Quote
What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed.

As for the the decision were influenced by the fancy airshow cobras made by mig and su at the time: ridiculous bull. Again, where is the source for that?

As for one of the PRACTICAL capabilities offered by thrust vectoring, also from Paul Metz:
 
Quote
By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.  And given the characteristic of the ATF, which is to operate in highest attitude for a fighter to have the "look-down/shoot-down" capability, thrust vector is very relevant. 

The advantage of thrust vector for the requirements of the ATF is very significant.  Adding thrust vector to the yf-23 would deny the advantages of its counterpart, and with its already faster and stealthier airframe, can give its a significant edge over its counterpart.  This edge would hopefully balance the yf-23's program's weakness in management issues. 
But then again, the decision was done, history has been made.  So my question was not about "Did the Air Force choose the second best?" but it was if it's technologically feasible to add thrust vector to the aircraft while still maintain its b-2 style nozzles, by the mean of retraction of the bottom part of the nozzle when thrust vectoring is needed.   

I myself, an all time fan of yf-23, that's why I'm on this board, but let's try not to be biased and cut out all the made belief "informations", shall we?



Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #204 on: October 25, 2008, 05:01:13 pm »
Dear donnage99,

You need to have a lot more information that you obviously have your hands on to pretend you can question a very tough design decision made by Northrop. Don't argue it with me, argue it with the people who build this plane.

And you need to find some more quotes by Paul Metz re the YF-23 not the F-22 if you want to know something more about the true YF-23 perfomance

Quote
First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.
If you would like to suggest that the overall stealth profile of the YF-23 would have been better by adopting F-22 like 2D TV nozzles then I will be sure to save my time and skip reading your following posts

Quote
Thrust vector of f-22, ....is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape. 
You obviously are not fully aware of how the F-22 actually uses its TVC. It is not used to perform any one maneuver by itself or extend the maneuverability envelope of the aircraft. The sole purpose of the TVC on the F-22 is to get it from one maneuver into the other faster.

То imply that moving flight control surfaces on an aircraft like the YF-23 degrades its stealth and that can be eliminated by transferring control to the 2D TVC is plain funny my friend. You need to think about it some more.

Quote
But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force
I think you have your facts very wrong. Actually I do not think you have the facts. But there are some people who do and very clearly imply what a difference that was. Watch the documentary YF-23 Web of Secrecy.

Quote
This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)
I bet it had to do more with adequate control power for an Navy aircraft than any consideration of decrease of stealth due to moving flight control surfaces.

Quote
As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 
That does not mean that F-22 has better supersonic maneuverability. It only means that F-22 has TCV and they help in supersonic maneuverability.
In fact on of the benefits of using TCV is that you can have your horizontal stabilizers smaller and reduce weight. Lockheed designers took advantage of that. In other words you can compensate the lack of TCV with a larger area flight control surfaces. That is what Northrop did.
That is a fact.

The superior supersonic performance of the YF-23 comes from the larger wing area, better area ruled design, and better engine integration. The YF-23 was a lot faster for a given throttle settings and so could pull more Gs while keeping the same speed. Again, you should check some comments of Paul Metz from the flight testing of the 1990 about the YF-23 performance.

Quote
Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.
YOu should really think a little before posting something like that.
How would an airplane fly in the first place if the thin air was making control surfaces inefficient? Actually flying at Mach 1.5+ at high altitude is not a problem for the wings or the flight control surfaces. It is a problem for the engines. The engines simply do not have the needed inlet air-pressure to produce enough trust, hence the use of so much afterburners on similar aircraft such as SR-71.

You also seem to forget the reliability index. If TCV was so reliable, we would have had tailless aircraft decades ago. Aircraft relying on 3D TVC for all control.

If you have not read trough every book on the ATF subject, you should as I have if you consider yourself a fan and then ask questions that were not answered there.

Re the TVC as a selection criteria. Yes it did matter to some people but it was more a political factor than true capability. I don't know where you live but in the 90s a lot a people thought that a cobra like maneuvers were more useful in combat than stealth. The F-22 could counter such capabilities on paper with TVC. The F-23 couldn't. Its true strength lied in numbers that are to this day classified.

You should be seeking those, not to question the YF-23 design.
One of the biggest reasons F-22 won is that Lockheed produces several times the amount of paperwork needed to convince the brass it had a better management plan. It did and it probably had. It was not a performance stand of. It it was, the YF-23 would have won hands down.

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #205 on: October 25, 2008, 06:27:40 pm »
Dear donnage99,

You need to have a lot more information that you obviously have your hands on to pretend you can question a very tough design decision made by Northrop. Don't argue it with me, argue it with the people who build this plane.

And you need to find some more quotes by Paul Metz re the YF-23 not the F-22 if you want to know something more about the true YF-23 perfomance

Quote
First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.
If you would like to suggest that the overall stealth profile of the YF-23 would have been better by adopting F-22 like 2D TV nozzles then I will be sure to save my time and skip reading your following posts

Quote
Thrust vector of f-22, ....is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape. 
You obviously are not fully aware of how the F-22 actually uses its TVC. It is not used to perform any one maneuver by itself or extend the maneuverability envelope of the aircraft. The sole purpose of the TVC on the F-22 is to get it from one maneuver into the other faster.

То imply that moving flight control surfaces on an aircraft like the YF-23 degrades its stealth and that can be eliminated by transferring control to the 2D TVC is plain funny my friend. You need to think about it some more.

Quote
But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force
I think you have your facts very wrong. Actually I do not think you have the facts. But there are some people who do and very clearly imply what a difference that was. Watch the documentary YF-23 Web of Secrecy.

Quote
This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)
I bet it had to do more with adequate control power for an Navy aircraft than any consideration of decrease of stealth due to moving flight control surfaces.

Quote
As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 
That does not mean that F-22 has better supersonic maneuverability. It only means that F-22 has TCV and they help in supersonic maneuverability.
In fact on of the benefits of using TCV is that you can have your horizontal stabilizers smaller and reduce weight. Lockheed designers took advantage of that. In other words you can compensate the lack of TCV with a larger area flight control surfaces. That is what Northrop did.
That is a fact.

The superior supersonic performance of the YF-23 comes from the larger wing area, better area ruled design, and better engine integration. The YF-23 was a lot faster for a given throttle settings and so could pull more Gs while keeping the same speed. Again, you should check some comments of Paul Metz from the flight testing of the 1990 about the YF-23 performance.

Quote
Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.
YOu should really think a little before posting something like that.
How would an airplane fly in the first place if the thin air was making control surfaces inefficient? Actually flying at Mach 1.5+ at high altitude is not a problem for the wings or the flight control surfaces. It is a problem for the engines. The engines simply do not have the needed inlet air-pressure to produce enough trust, hence the use of so much afterburners on similar aircraft such as SR-71.

You also seem to forget the reliability index. If TCV was so reliable, we would have had tailless aircraft decades ago. Aircraft relying on 3D TVC for all control.

If you have not read trough every book on the ATF subject, you should as I have if you consider yourself a fan and then ask questions that were not answered there.

Re the TVC as a selection criteria. Yes it did matter to some people but it was more a political factor than true capability. I don't know where you live but in the 90s a lot a people thought that a cobra like maneuvers were more useful in combat than stealth. The F-22 could counter such capabilities on paper with TVC. The F-23 couldn't. Its true strength lied in numbers that are to this day classified.

You should be seeking those, not to question the YF-23 design.
One of the biggest reasons F-22 won is that Lockheed produces several times the amount of paperwork needed to convince the brass it had a better management plan. It did and it probably had. It was not a performance stand of. It it was, the YF-23 would have won hands down.


Amusing, indeed! Amusing in that I think your message should be direct at yourself rather than me. As much as I'm tempted to dissect each part of your reply, but it's better to just sum it up.  Here's a thing: I fully know my limitation of my knowledge on both the planes, that's why I'm not drawing any conclusion or assumptions on the planes.  Thrust vectoring helps stealth performance was quoted by lockheed spokeperson on the a/f-x short lived program from Flightjournal.  Thrust vectoring helps at high altitude was quoted by f-22 pilot on aviationweek.  You don't have to argue with me, argue with them.  Everything I said was directly quoted from either pilots or makers of the planes, the ones who have more knowledge and know what they doing more than both you and me combined.  I've never questioned the decision of the northrop people.  I was asking if it was feasible to retract .  Maybe it wasn't; maybe it was too expensive and risky; maybe the weight of the retraction device adds up with the thrust vectoring is too heavy; maybe it's not technologically possible at the time at all.  I'm just asking whether it was technologically feasible.  but IF it was feasible, and within northrop's reach, thrust vectoring would have denied the advantages of its competitor. 

If anyone who jumps on conclusions and assumptions on their own, it's you.  Everything you provided in regard of the planes in comparison toward each other are from where? Your own mind (no official or even just reliable sources made direct claim that yf-23 has better agility than yf-22 at supersonic speed, such claims only came from amateurs around the net, so please cut the bull)?

And as for web of secrecy, there is 4 accounts I remember that the northrop made comparison between the planes.  One was that it's much faster than the yf-22; another was that if the decision was chosen in light of the airplane with the best capabilities, then it should be northrop, and the guy also made the remark at the end "that's how I feel."  There's also a remark at the beginning by a northroper is that their team has decided their aircraft to be stealthier and the other one more agile.  Please refrain from making baseless claims.  Taking into account that these comments are biased simply because they were the ones who shed the tears and bloods of long years into this plane, the document says nothing about the plane in comparison toward the yf-22.  Why? because in another document, a lockheeder said the same thing about his plane, that northrop had the second best plane in the world. 

And as for ignoring my post about adding thrust vector would help overall stealth performance.  You just proved your stupidity by not reading thoroughly what I said (since that's only half of what I said, which totally distorted the original meaning in my message).  Nothing personal, just plain old logic. 



Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #206 on: October 25, 2008, 07:09:05 pm »
Actually, the choice of the YF-22 over the YF-23 was quite a shock to many and it is a simple fact that the YF-23 had the superior stealth and supersonic performance. Lockheed officials liked to knock the Northrop design, saying they, Lockheed, designed a fighter first and a stealth aircraft second. The simple fact is that the YF-23 met the maneuvering requirements stipulated in the ATF requirements without thrust vectoring.

Now, as for the thrust vectoring on the YF-22/F-22, where it really does help, besides satisfying all the fanboy's at airshows, to which I confess being one, is during take-off and supersonic maneuvering. In take-off, it allows the F-22 to rotate at a lower airspeed than it would be able to with just the stabilators. One of the design points on aircraft is sizing the tail for rotation on take-off without causing too much drag at higher speeds. It's a trade-off and the TVC allows greater optimization of the tail size.

In supersonic maneuvering the TVC allows trim drag to be minimized, thereby minimizing how much energy is bled during maneuvers in certain parts of the supersonic envelope. The YF-22 had some advantages in those areas over the YF-23, but once again, it was a trade-off and clearly not in the entire supersonic regime. Also, the TVC brings a certain greater amount of maintenance over non-thrust vectoring nozzles and a weight penalty. Of course, the YF-23's nozzles had the problems with the tiles, which were also maintenance intensive, but IIRC, they were going to change that in the production version?

Having said that, let's try to keep the personal attacks down and just stick to the facts, or at least respectable disagreement, as there are already enough other aviation forums that devolve into that kind of nonsense and is one of the reasons I enjoy Secret Projects so much is it's lack of such behavior.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #207 on: October 25, 2008, 10:32:00 pm »
yeah, yf-22's stealth met the ATF prototype requirements, too.  Does it mean that it is as stealthy as the the yf-23? No.  So to say that since the yf-23 meets the ATF prototype requirement in term of agility, it must mean it's as agile as yf-22 is just not logical.  And yes, the decision was a shock, and I'm still mourning for the yf-23 till now, but then again, popular belief and sympathy are not necessary the right ones.  And I'm sorry I should be smarter to know that not everything can be said, even when it's true.  It's just distortion of what other said for the sake of winning an argument is just..... 

Anyway, can we stop this yf-22 vs. yf-23 trend that I've probably (and certainly many of you) seen a thousand times around different forums, and get back to my original question of technological feasibility, since everything else beside what the Air Force said that both aircrafts met or exceed the requirements and neither were significantly better than the other one, so the decision was more than just capabilities.  The rest are just thin air fabricated by the bias of both planes fanbois who don't fully know enough about the planes and the professional knowledge and experience to make judgment. 

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #208 on: October 26, 2008, 12:30:12 am »
Did Northrop/McDonnel Douglas ever show an offer for the NATF program?

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #209 on: October 26, 2008, 01:38:44 am »
Did Northrop/McDonnel Douglas ever show an offer for the NATF program?
There's one promotion video about northrop NATF proposal based on yf-23, but I've never seen a picture:


Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #210 on: October 26, 2008, 03:46:31 am »
donnage99,
Quote
There's one promotion video about northrop NATF proposal based on yf-23, but I've never seen a picture:

From what I remember it didn't look anything like the F-23

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9586
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #211 on: October 26, 2008, 07:40:26 am »
yeah, yf-22's stealth met the ATF prototype requirements, too.  Does it mean that it is as stealthy as the the yf-23? No.  So to say that since the yf-23 meets the ATF prototype requirement in term of agility, it must mean it's as agile as yf-22 is just not logical.  And yes, the decision was a shock, and I'm still mourning for the yf-23 till now, but then again, popular belief and sympathy are not necessary the right ones.  And I'm sorry I should be smarter to know that not everything can be said, even when it's true.  It's just distortion of what other said for the sake of winning an argument is just..... 

Anyway, can we stop this yf-22 vs. yf-23 trend that I've probably (and certainly many of you) seen a thousand times around different forums, and get back to my original question of technological feasibility, since everything else beside what the Air Force said that both aircrafts met or exceed the requirements and neither were significantly better than the other one, so the decision was more than just capabilities.  The rest are just thin air fabricated by the bias of both planes fanbois who don't fully know enough about the planes and the professional knowledge and experience to make judgment. 


You should probably avoid crap like "Though I try as much not to turn this into a yf-23 vs. yf-22 thread, I just found too many holes in this typical yf-23 fanbois argument. "  or your stay will be short.   If you have to have an A vs. B debate take it to another board.  I'm not a mod (obviously) but I can tell you the tolerance level for that stuff is VERY low here.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #212 on: October 26, 2008, 08:30:24 am »
It all started here
Quote
As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features?

donnage99 expressed his reasons for asking and  I expressed my point of view of why the quesion is irrelevant.

NO is my answer to the question because it will require redesign of the boat like rear fuselage to accommodate the extra supporting structure for the TVC and the expanded maneuvering envelope. It will also have negative impact on rear quadrant Stealth capability, something F-22 sacrificed to get the maneuvering bonus in subsonic speed. A No TCV nozzle can always be made more stealthy than TCV equipped one.

Sundog also expressed his view.

I respect everybody's opinion but believe strongly that any discussion for lightheartedly assuming an easy integration of TVC in the YF-23 is undermining Northrop amazing job with this aircraft and their choice of not using TVC.

It is not as if they forgot to think about the idea and it could just be added later with no penalty to the design.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 08:32:22 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #213 on: October 27, 2008, 08:20:47 pm »
You should probably avoid crap like "Though I try as much not to turn this into a yf-23 vs. yf-22 thread, I just found too many holes in this typical yf-23 fanbois argument. "  or your stay will be short.   If you have to have an A vs. B debate take it to another board.  I'm not a mod (obviously) but I can tell you the tolerance level for that stuff is VERY low here.
And I'm glad you aren't.  Taking verses out of context is not something mods should do.  I didn't mean to turn it into a A vs. B.  I never argued that yf-22 was a better aircraft; I don't even think it was.  I was simply correcting what, in my opinion, is false information and a typical fanboi argument. 

donnage99 expressed his reasons for asking and  I expressed my point of view of why the quesion is irrelevant.

NO is my answer to the question because it will require redesign of the boat like rear fuselage to accommodate the extra supporting structure for the TVC and the expanded maneuvering envelope. It will also have negative impact on rear quadrant Stealth capability, something F-22 sacrificed to get the maneuvering bonus in subsonic speed. A No TCV nozzle can always be made more stealthy than TCV equipped one.
If you read my post thoroughly, you would find that I'm NOT asking to REPLACE the TCV of the yf-22 with the b-2 style nozzles on the yf-23.  I did point out that yf-23's nozzle is stealthier, especially with infrared and heat seeking sensors.  I'm asking for a incoperation of both designs into a single design, which use some sort of a retraction and contraction device.  And my question is if that is technologically possible.   

Quote
I respect everybody's opinion but believe strongly that any discussion for lightheartedly assuming an easy integration of TVC in the YF-23 is undermining Northrop amazing job with this aircraft and their choice of not using TVC.
It is not as if they forgot to think about the idea and it could just be added later with no penalty to the design.

NO BODY SAID THAT.  I'm asking about technology feasibility.  If it's technologically feasible, doesn't mean choosing to do it is the right choice.  There's also cost, weight penalty, risk factors that add up and overwhelm the advantages gained by the specific design.  I'm asking if it's TECHNOLOGICALLY feasible, not whether it's a good choice or not.  I'm not criticizing northrop's decision. 

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #214 on: October 28, 2008, 02:47:22 am »
Quote
I'm asking about technology feasibility
I would assume that you have not gone trough the whole 15 pages of this tread. If you had, you might have noticed this post with official info:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg15388.html#msg15388

or this one with unofficial one:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg25618.html#msg25618

Actually you will find a lot of discussion about Trust Vectoring on the YF-23 on the first few pages. Some of it coming from the people that have worked in Northrop at the time.

I have personally come across information that Northrop had done some trade studies with a TVC version of the YF-23 but it was primarily as a backup should the AirForce decide that the technology was a must for the ATF.

Anyway I have also found that any further speculation about nonexistent projects and modifications of aircraft will result in the moderators encourage you to visit this page
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php


« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 02:58:33 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #215 on: October 28, 2008, 02:53:33 am »
Play nicely please. No need to be rude with each other.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #216 on: October 29, 2008, 07:26:03 pm »
I would assume that you have not gone trough the whole 15 pages of this tread. If you had, you might have noticed this post with official info:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg15388.html#msg15388

or this one with unofficial one:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg25618.html#msg25618


Actually you will find a lot of discussion about Trust Vectoring on the YF-23 on the first few pages. Some of it coming from the people that have worked in Northrop at the time.
I did, but those designs had nothing to do with the design I was suggesting.
Quote
I have personally come across information that Northrop had done some trade studies with a TVC version of the YF-23 but it was primarily as a backup should the AirForce decide that the technology was a must for the ATF.
Again, whether northrop did a study on it or not (I'm very confident they did), it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Quote
Anyway I have also found that any further speculation about nonexistent projects and modifications of aircraft will result in the moderators encourage you to visit this page
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php
it's for making models, it has nothing to do with my question, which is technology application on real planes.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #217 on: November 05, 2008, 01:42:30 am »
I thought the recent restored one (dark one that posted on page 13) is the pav-1 black widow ii, but in this pic it said grey ghost:


Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #218 on: November 05, 2008, 02:50:47 am »
YF-23A *aircraft type* unofficial nickname was Black Widow II (due to specific view of its RCS pattern on radar screen and as heritage tradition of WWII Black Widow). PAV-1 prototype (dark-grey) was christened Gray Ghost by flight crew, PAV-2 (light-grey) was Spider.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 02:52:32 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #219 on: November 05, 2008, 05:37:46 am »

       I have read that there were access panels or some other doors or panels on its belly or that had been painted red & were the shape of a black widow's marking & that also attributed to the name.



YF-23A *aircraft type* unofficial nickname was Black Widow II (due to specific view of its RCS pattern on radar screen and as heritage tradition of WWII Black Widow). PAV-1 prototype (dark-grey) was christened Gray Ghost by flight crew, PAV-2 (light-grey) was Spider.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #220 on: November 05, 2008, 06:02:24 am »
http://web.archive.org/web/20050906000951/www.wci-productions.com/infopg.htm

Quote
The shape of the plane was determined by radar and wind tunnel tests. During one type of radar test, the aircraft model was placed on a pole, and its cross-section illuminated with various high frequency radar signals. Early in the program, during one such RCS (Radar Cross Section) test, the YF-23 first acquired the name "Black Widow".

"We realized that the radar signature from the leading and trailing edges of the wing, and the wing tips formed and RCS pattern that looked like a spider. And I don't remember who it was that said it, but they said, Black Widow II, it has to be" .  - Bob Sandusky

Although Northrop held a name the plane contest, many employees entered the name Black Widow II.

Two days before scheduled roll out, Chief Engineer Bob Sandusky found a way to give PAV-1 its unofficial insignia. Crawling under the narrow wing space, he came across a sharp edge by the air vent. Bob Sandusky:: "I said, you know that looks dangerous, and we really ought to paint that sharp point there red."

Dave Maurice, crew chief for PAV-1 agreed: "So I painted the inside of the vent red so you'd be able to see it and try to get a little bit of a warning. All of a sudden it tuned into a hourglass like on the belly of a Black Widow spider".

But moments before the scheduled roll out, Bob Sandusky was forced to apply stealth interference of his own when an Air Force General wanted to carry out a last minute inspection. Bob Sandusky: "I literally threw my body in front of him and pointed him off to another part of the airplane so he wouldn't see the hourglass on the bottom of the airplane before the roll out."

If you ever see Bob Sandusky photo, you can understand that field of view he closed was impressive.

After PAV-1 appeared with hourglass logo on the cover of AW&ST, USAF officials pushed Northrop to remove it on reasons unexplained.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 06:07:18 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Cutaway

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • The Military Forums
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #221 on: November 07, 2008, 06:55:19 pm »
This plane would have been the best F-14 replacement. Better than the F/A-18 Superhornet and the F-35 JSF although some years older.

DILLIGAF KB Wilson.
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
(Not KB Wilson ).

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #222 on: November 08, 2008, 05:21:44 am »
This plane would have been the best F-14 replacement. Better than the F/A-18 Superhornet and the F-35 JSF although some years older.



Err..what knowledge your predictions are based on? I know just a couple of guys who ever have seen NATF-23 proposal technical data and configuration - and all of them are talking of it as of bunch of compromises.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #223 on: November 08, 2008, 03:45:21 pm »
Cutaway,

Maybe if the plane was over-engineered/designed with the extra strength built into the design for US Navy purposes from the beginning (I mean the F8U wasn't too much heavier than the F-100 and in many ways they were comparable) and carried those AAAM's (long-ranged missiles which were similar in size to the Sparrow/AMRAAM, weighed around 650 lbs, and had at least if not more range than the AIM-54 Phoenix)...


KJ

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #224 on: November 08, 2008, 08:39:07 pm »
This plane would have been the best F-14 replacement. Better than the F/A-18 Superhornet and the F-35 JSF although some years older.


Lol, wrong forum, mate! If you gonna make some baseless claim, you're gonna be crucified hard by these guys in this forum.  :D

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #225 on: November 09, 2008, 04:47:37 pm »
Here's a question that is bugging me.  The weapon bays of the yf-22 were placed well behind of the inlets, yet members of congress were still concerned that the smoke coming from firing missiles could mess with its engine through the inlets. This prompted Lockheed to have a missile firing demonstration from both the main bay and side bay.  And now we talking about the yf-23, which has its main weapon bay even closer to the inlet, and the planned inlet for the sidewinders which is even before the inlets (so the rumour goes).  I'm wondering why was Congress not concerned about Northrop airplane? 

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #226 on: November 09, 2008, 05:41:57 pm »
Lockheed added weapons firings to the schedule, it wasn't a required element. It is possible that they did have concerns about the YF-23 as well, but the YF-23 demonstrator could hardly have demonstrated front weapons bays it didn't have.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #227 on: November 09, 2008, 11:24:05 pm »
What the source of the fact that Congress was even bothering of ATF 'smoke' launch problems? If they were giving a f**k of that, they'd better bother about acoustic loads and wave interference between airframe and missile exhaust plume (these were *real* problems).
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 11:28:56 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #228 on: November 10, 2008, 12:22:58 am »
What the source of the fact that Congress was even bothering of ATF 'smoke' launch problems? If they were giving a f**k of that, they'd better bother about acoustic loads and wave interference between airframe and missile exhaust plume (these were *real* problems).
From this book (and after rereading it, I found myself making a mistake.  The book says members of the Gov. not Congress.  My apology):
http://books.google.com/books?id=5To910D9ASIC&pg=PA61&dq=yf-22+weapon+smoke&lr=&as_brr=3

I heard some guy who claimed he worked on the yf-23 and later moved to work on contract for the f-22 said this.  He was arguing another guy who said that one of the reasons yf-23 lost because it didn't demonstrate as aggressively as yf-22, citing missile firing demonstration on the yf-22.  I never taken what the so-called engineer said until I found the book that said something similar. 
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 12:28:24 am by donnage99 »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #229 on: November 10, 2008, 04:37:36 am »
Quote
the smoke coming from firing missiles could mess with its engine through the inlets.
Consider the design of the F-14 and SU-27 and you will see these planes to be even more prone to such effects than the YF-23, which had its intakes widely spaced apart.

The YF-23 missile launcher was quite capable of making test launches of the AIM-120. In fact test were made with the missile extended almost fully out in the airstream. This way Northrop could simulate unlimited times missile launch without dropping the missile itself.

There was no requirement to perform actual missile launches. There was a requirement however to provided verification data regarding the launching mechanism.

The reason the YF-22 team did that (I think) is because that was the only way to provide the same kind of date the YF-23 team did. Remember how the YF-22 launcher works. The missile cannot be extended into the open and then dropped. Instead, it was pneumatically ejected. So, you cannot test that effect without dropping the missile. And they did eject the missile for the test. It was not really a big deal to make the missile fire its engines afterwords.

The approach by Lockheed made for a very powerful pro YF-22 argument to those not familiar with the actual tests. Actually Northrop tested its simulated missile launches and weapons bay performance at speeds up to Mach 1.5, while Lockheed made all test launches subsonically.

Consequently F-22A did have redesigned weapons bay since the old design could not operate well supersonically. Needless to say the F-23A didn't. It had the same main weapons bay door design.

All in all both teams demonstrated the most critical part of their missile launchers. For YF-22 that was the pneumatic missile ejection and for YF-23 that was bringing the missile from a storage position to launch ready one.

Quote
This plane would have been the best F-14 replacement. Better than the F/A-18 Superhornet and the F-35 JSF although some years older.
Yes, it was a bigger airplane all right. But at what cost would it have fully worked? The only thing one could argue is that Northrop/MDD have a lot more carrier experience that Lockheed/Boeing/GD

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #230 on: November 10, 2008, 07:22:35 am »
You missed the point, Lantinian.  Yes, they both did hours of testing with their firing mechanism, obviously, but the point wasn't about concern for the approach of the missile firing machanism.  It's fear of an engine flame out with the smoke from the missile comes in through the inlet.  You can't do stimulation with this.  My question was that I find it odd that they were afraid of a flame out with yf-22 but not yf-23, which had much closer weapon bay toward the inlets.

My guess is that it was more of a concern with the engines rather than which airframe it was.  So with Lockheed demonstrated that a flame out wouldn't occur with the engines, Northrop didn't have to do the same, since they both used same engines.  My other guess is that it was never a formal request, but rather just concerns of critics and oppositions of the ATF program within the government (usually they are not even in the program), much like some folks in the Gov. are now raising concern about the tumblehome design of the Zumwalt Destroyer.  And Lockheed just did it for propaganda reason or something.   
 
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 07:27:13 am by donnage99 »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #231 on: November 10, 2008, 07:38:12 am »
In YF-22 the missile bay is directly below the inlets. In YF-23 the bay is between the inlets. The YF-23 need not push its missile out of the way to avoid hot gas injection. Check the Front views of the two aircraft.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #232 on: November 10, 2008, 09:45:36 am »
Look at the pic. You will note that YF-23s weapon bay doors perfectly serve as deflectors of exaust plume both from AMRAAMs launched from retractable 'cradle' (other dubbed it 'cigarette pack') launcher moved into airstream (launch method in case of YF-23) and AIM-9s, launched from launchers installed on bay doors close to the edge. So in the case, YF-23 was superior to YF-22 with a cheek Sidewinders launchers. In the case of F-23A, with a additional AIM-9 weapon bay forward to AMRAAMs one, it would be a problem. I've asked a question to Pavel Bulat, why is a gury in wave dynamics and weapon bay aerodynamics. Let's see what he will say.


"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #233 on: November 10, 2008, 10:10:16 am »
There your ultimate unofficial YF-23 guru answer   ;)
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #234 on: November 11, 2008, 08:04:21 pm »
Thanks, guys! And hopefully, Pave Pulat may know something.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 08:06:32 pm by donnage99 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #235 on: November 14, 2008, 09:17:22 am »
Quote
Rooney said his team was not concerned with the Lockheed team's decision to fire Sidewinder and AMRAAM
missiles, which he says were not a requirement of dem/val. "We make a list of what we feel is important and
we didn't share our list with Lockheed ... and they didn't share their list with us," he said. "We didn't think that
launching a very mature missile at seven-tenths Mach in level flight had any meaning whatsoever. (We) were
concerned about ... the environment in that weapons bay at very high speeds."
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #236 on: November 14, 2008, 11:49:55 am »
Quote
Rooney said his team was not concerned with the Lockheed team's decision to fire Sidewinder and AMRAAM
missiles, which he says were not a requirement of dem/val. "We make a list of what we feel is important and
we didn't share our list with Lockheed ... and they didn't share their list with us," he said. "We didn't think that
launching a very mature missile at seven-tenths Mach in level flight had any meaning whatsoever. (We) were
concerned about ... the environment in that weapons bay at very high speeds."
Did you get this from accessmylibrary? I had read that a while ago, but totally forgot.  Thanks for reminding me.  So I'm guessing that it was only unwritten concern and not a formal request, and Lockheed did it just for propaganda reason. 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #237 on: November 14, 2008, 01:06:06 pm »
unwritten concerns sometimes worth more than written ones, but I think it was the other case
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #238 on: November 14, 2008, 01:20:19 pm »
unwritten concerns sometimes worth more than written ones, but I think it was the other case
I meant unwritten concern from the people who aren't even part of the evaluation team.  If you look through history, these people existed in every programs.  The reason is because they dont have full access to the program, they aren't aware of the technology used to overcome certain challenges, thus raising their concerns.  Just look at the Zumwalt tumblehome concerns, the f-35's air to air capabilities concerns, etc.  Back when the yf-22 came out, they were concerned that it wasn't stealthy enough at all.  Most the time, the people in charged of the program just shrug it off, but sometimes they'll do something about it if the voices get too noisy. 

And what do you mean by the other case? The engine case? The article you provided seems to be in line more with the non-formal concern, though.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #239 on: November 14, 2008, 01:56:28 pm »
as Paul Metz once said - not exact citation, but factually close -'we <at Northrop> still can't understand the reasons why we lost' Well, I suppose they were asking, but didn't get answers, yeah? And they were much more appropriate people to get the answers than we are.

There are many sources on the net discussing the possible reasons, many opinions coming from people who was directly involved (check old rec.aviation board archives for example) I don't feel we need make reposting these old sceletons here. In short, possible reasons could be proposed and expected by decision makers R&D costs, manufacturing base and flyaway costs, comparison of EMD and FSD configurations (you know how F-22 does look like and how it differs fron YF-22, now, what about how much would cost remake YF-23 to EMD? to NATF? May be, they just saw NATF-23 and took a decision momentally? Take into consideration current companies position on the market - who needs contract? Who just got a contract and have problems with performing it nice (Northrop B-2 RCS = not as advertised, MDA ATA = very bad). Lockheed needs some white job, it has almost nothing in nearest future to do. Etc, etc.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #240 on: November 14, 2008, 02:28:55 pm »
as Paul Metz once said - not exact citation, but factually close -'we <at Northrop> still can't understand the reasons why we lost' Well, I suppose they were asking, but didn't get answers, yeah? And they were much more appropriate people to get the answers than we are.

There are many sources on the net discussing the possible reasons, many opinions coming from people who was directly involved (check old rec.aviation board archives for example) I don't feel we need make reposting these old sceletons here. In short, possible reasons could be proposed and expected by decision makers R&D costs, manufacturing base and flyaway costs, comparison of EMD and FSD configurations (you know how F-22 does look like and how it differs fron YF-22, now, what about how much would cost remake YF-23 to EMD? to NATF? May be, they just saw NATF-23 and took a decision momentally? Take into consideration current companies position on the market - who needs contract? Who just got a contract and have problems with performing it nice (Northrop B-2 RCS = not as advertised, MDA ATA = very bad). Lockheed needs some white job, it has almost nothing in nearest future to do. Etc, etc.
Wait.....we were talking about engine flame-out right? :D

Anyway, did Paul Metz really said that?  Isn't it the rule that they suppose to know why they lost? The evaluation team must justify their decision to the competitor, and the competitor has the right to file a contest to the decision.  If Northrop didn't recieve the information why they lost, they would have sued the Air Force already, ain't it?

I'm pretty sure they know.  And it's no secret why they lost (though the details, as we all know, are still not released).  Article released in 1991 where then president of Mcdonnell Douglas commented on why it lost, and also a similar perspective from a senior Air Force official:

Quote
COPYRIGHT 1991 Access Intelligence, LLC.

MCDONNELL PRESIDENT SAYS F-23 TEAM STRAYED FROM ATF PROPOSAL

If there is one important lesson the McDonnell Douglas Corp. learned from the Air Force Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, it is that the prototype aircraft must match the proposal offered to the service, according to company President Gerzy Johnston.

Both the aircraft and the content of the proposal get evaluated by the customer, Johnston said in an interview with Defense Daily.

"In the future we will pay a lot more attention to our proposal documentation. We relearned a lesson that often is one you have to re-learn (and that) is what is in the proposal gets evaluated ... I think we could probably have done a better job there," he said.

Indeed, a senior Air Force official told Defense Daily late last month that the service placed greater emphasis on the competing contractor teams' ability to perform as advertised than on the performance of their respective air vehicle prototypes during the fly-off (Defense Daily, May 1). "We're looking for confidence in the proposals," the official said at that time.

On April 23 the Air Force selected the Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics F-22 team over the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 team to develop the ATF (Defense Daily, April 24).

One example where the F-23 team was not strong in its proposal was software development, Johnston said. "For instance, we believe we were very good on software development. We just had a review and talked about the discipline in that area as being one of the best. And yet in the proposal we did not write it well enough to have that kind of evaluation come out that we were strong in that area."

Johnston said he could not be specific about various aspects of the F-23 team's proposal due to its sensitive nature.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #241 on: November 14, 2008, 02:48:19 pm »
Good point here, hands off - phrase 'emphasis on the competing contractor teams' ability to perform as advertised than on the performance of their respective air vehicle prototypes during the fly-off' I've seen many times. Some Kafkian style words - you can think that you have underperformed in every aspect you suspect - and for every question if it was a fault, you'll receive an answer 'yes, it was where you was weaky!' For example, for this MDC guy weak point was, surely, software.

So you see yourself that 'engine flameouts' were not the thing that worried 'em much.=)

Regarding Metz, it's not a joke - he was saying it much later than April, 1991 at Society of Experimental Test Pilots meeting (he was a fellow and even president of Society for some time).

I also remember Bill Sweetman description of 'green/yellow/red lights' points system of decision-making process during ATF competition...AFAIR, it was in his Lockheed Stealth.

"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #242 on: November 14, 2008, 04:14:59 pm »
Quote
I also remember Bill Sweetman description of 'green/yellow/red lights' points system of decision-making process during ATF competition.

That kind of system for score points might be very easy to read but its damn discriminatory in terms of best overall aircraft effectiveness. While it shows easily how actuals performance differed from the requirements, it does not show which combination of colors gave the best aircraft for the mission

So:
Red - fails requirements
Yellow - narrowly meets or fails requirements
Green - exceeds requirements.

There was also a Blue color for considerably exceeding requirements.

It was know that both planes met or exceeded every requirements. So, secretary Donald Rice, saw a lot of green and some blue colors but no red or even green. But we also know that the F-22A proposal was slightly less expensive. If both  planes seams to have similar color ratings and one was less expensive, it not difficult to see, why he picked the YF-22.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #243 on: November 14, 2008, 04:50:24 pm »
Flateric, what do you mean by "good point here, hands off?" ???

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #244 on: November 14, 2008, 05:22:17 pm »
'well said'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #245 on: November 15, 2008, 09:14:14 am »
MCD YF-23 teamed with Northrop at the request of the air force. Which is a twist of irony as Northrop involvement was later mentioned as a reason the proposal did not win. Hmmmm.....strange games.

Many claim thrust vectoring won the day for the YF-22. Yet the YF-23 was more stealthy, longer range, faster and had features that provided great maneuverability? My personal choice on looks and modeling appeal is the YF-23 Black Widow II.



Vis Viva

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #246 on: November 15, 2008, 11:34:18 am »
Quote
I also remember Bill Sweetman description of 'green/yellow/red lights' points system of decision-making process during ATF competition.

That kind of system for score points might be very easy to read but its damn discriminatory in terms of best overall aircraft effectiveness. While it shows easily how actuals performance differed from the requirements, it does not show which combination of colors gave the best aircraft for the mission

So:
Red - fails requirements
Yellow - narrowly meets or fails requirements
Green - exceeds requirements.

There was also a Blue color for considerably exceeding requirements.

It was know that both planes met or exceeded every requirements. So, secretary Donald Rice, saw a lot of green and some blue colors but no red or even green. But we also know that the F-22A proposal was slightly less expensive. If both  planes seams to have similar color ratings and one was less expensive, it not difficult to see, why he picked the YF-22.

This description of the selection process is about right.  Keep in mind that under this methodology (which was publicly announced in the solicitation), as long as the aircraft met requirements, the Secretary of the Air Force could use any criteria he wanted to make the selection.  That's no doubt why Northrop said they never understood why they lost.  The criteria for selection basically was, "Whatever we want", so the only thing AF really had to disclose was, "We wanted this one".    The consensus by both amateurs and experts ever since was that the Northrop/MDD aircraft was better in almost all performance areas.  However, since the YF-22 also met or exceeded the requirements, even if it is true that it didn't do it to the level that the YF-23 design did, AF was free to pick it.  Note that AF never said it was the lower cost, and under the announced selection rules it wasn't required to select the lower cost proposal. 

At the time, the public reason was that Lockheed's documentation was better.  Related to this was supposedly some concern that Northrop/MDD  did not document well enough that they would actually be able to build a large single piece section that was a key component of their design.  The fact that in reality they actually did it on production tooling was not seen as important as that they show on paper that they could in theory do it.     Some after the fact speculation pointed to the thrust vectoring of the YF-22 as a deciding factor.  It should be noted that although that gave the YF-22 an advantage at the low speed edge of the envelope, the YF-23 also exceeded all the maneuverability requirements in the solicitation. 


I don't think it's fair to blame Northrop for the B-2, that was such a major jump into new technology, and the major change to mission profile that AF imposed in the mid '80s were big contributors.  In the case of the ATA, GD was really in charge in a marriage forced by DoD.  MDD (who actually had experience in building carrier aircraft) tried to warn the team what was going on, but was not listend to.   Keep in mind also that one of the criteria both companies were to meet was easier to maintain stealth (unlike that of the F-117 and B-2).   It has been repeatedly reported that maintain the stealth on the F-22 has required a lot more maintenance effort than expected. 


It's no secret that the powers-that-be at the AF Washington level were more comfortable with Lockheed than Northrop.  It's also been said that Northrop/MDD built the plane that AF said it wanted while Lockheed, being more experienced in dealing with The Way Things Work, built the plane AF really wanted.   
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 11:38:22 am by F-14D »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #247 on: November 15, 2008, 12:41:51 pm »
I doubt thrust vectoring was a reason it lost.  If it was a significant factor, it would have been included in the requirement, but it did not.  Who wants low speed maneuverability like airshow cobra for a supercruise aircraft? And the AF already said that both did not have significant advantages over one another, which mean that the yf-22's agility was not better than yf-23 by significant number. 

I also doubt that the b-2 cost overrun was another factor contributes to Northrop's loss.  The reason for its cost overrun was the objectives and requirements of the program changed during the development phrase.  The Air Force was aware of this. 

In the end, I think it was  clear that everybody saw that the Cold War was coming to an end.  Congress was about to sweep in to cut budget and programs that seemed to go nowhere.  The open wound of the Navy in their ATA just 3 months before that was a stalk reminder to Air Force that innovative was only great when you could deliver it.  The ATA was a more needed and justified program than the ATF program, yet it got cancelled.  Its cancellation, I think, really influenced the Air Force's decision.  You have the choice to pick an innovative and risky design that the developers weren't really doing a good job at presenting to you how they gonna tackle the challenges of the development phrase in a long run.  On the other side, you have less innovative prototype, yet closer to what has been advertised, good presentations in the long run.  Then you ask yourself, which one would less likely to face cancellation from Congress or the Secretary of Defense years from now? I think the answer is obvious.  It reflects in their comment that the decision was based on the confidence that the selected team could deliver.

Though I always wanted the Air Force to choose yf-23 (just for the damn fact that it didn't even have to fight and just showed up at the battle and scare the crap out of the enemy with its futuristic and downright badass look B)), I think in their position, they made the right choice.  The odds were just too much for a front line fighter that didn't seem to justify its existence with Congress.  If they had chosen the yf-23, I doubt that we could see its operational today.  Not because Northrop couldn't deliver it (if you did build a prototype, you are gonna deliver it, though cost overrun is an open question) but that Congress would have cut it before it could deliver.  Just look at the f-22 cost overrun and late delivery.  With such a good presentation and clearer management, it still faced tremendous difficulties (especially with Congress keep leeching money off from the program).  And most of these difficulties were in the softwares, where Gerzy Johnston said his Northrop/MDD team just talked about it and decided it's one of their best side ::)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 03:38:55 pm by donnage99 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #248 on: November 15, 2008, 12:54:45 pm »
B-2 cost overruns were not only sole problems those days. They were also trying hard to meet specific RCS parameters that did not fit to what they were expecting. But this is sidebar note...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #249 on: November 16, 2008, 06:21:44 pm »
I doubt thrust vectoring was a reason it lost.  If it was a significant factor, it would have been included in the requirement, but it did not.  Who wants low speed maneuverability like airshow cobra for a supercruise aircraft? And the AF already said that both did not have significant advantages over one another, which mean that the yf-22's agility was not better than yf-23 by significant number. 

I also doubt that the b-2 cost overrun was another factor contributes to Northrop's loss.  The reason for its cost overrun was the objectives and requirements of the program changed during the development phrase.  The Air Force was aware of this. 

In the end, I think it was  clear that everybody saw that the Cold War was coming to an end.  Congress was about to sweep in to cut budget and programs that seemed to go nowhere.  The open wound of the Navy in their ATA just 3 months before that was a stalk reminder to Air Force that innovative was only great when you could deliver it.  The ATA was a more needed and justified program than the ATF program, yet it got cancelled.  Its cancellation, I think, really influenced the Air Force's decision.  You have the choice to pick an innovative and risky design that the developers weren't really doing a good job at presenting to you how they gonna tackle the challenges of the development phrase in a long run.  On the other side, you have less innovative prototype, yet closer to what has been advertised, good presentations in the long run.  Then you ask yourself, which one would less likely to face cancellation from Congress or the Secretary of Defense years from now? I think the answer is obvious.  It reflects in their comment that the decision was based on the confidence that the selected team could deliver.

Though I always wanted the Air Force to choose yf-23 (just for the damn fact that it didn't even have to fight and just showed up at the battle and scare the crap out of the enemy with its futuristic and downright badass look B)), I think in their position, they made the right choice.  The odds were just too much for a front line fighter that didn't seem to justify its existence with Congress.  If they had chosen the yf-23, I doubt that we could see its operational today.  Not because Northrop couldn't deliver it (if you did build a prototype, you are gonna deliver it, though cost overrun is an open question) but that Congress would have cut it before it could deliver.  Just look at the f-22 cost overrun and late delivery.  With such a good presentation and clearer management, it still faced tremendous difficulties (especially with Congress keep leeching money off from the program).  And most of these difficulties were in the softwares, where Gerzy Johnston said his Northrop/MDD team just talked about it and decided it's one of their best side ::)


Although this issue has been hashed around before, I suspect we'll never know the whole "inside" story and it'll never really be settled.  For my part, I don't think fear of innovation or the ATA debacle played that strong a role in the decision.   From the contractor point of view, a team that lacked knowledge  in stealth matters, and a lead member of the team who had no carrier experience and wasn't very open to input from the team member that had said experience had a big part in the collapse of that program.  However, IMHO, the biggest cause of the failure was caused by the Government itself.  USAF would be well aware of this, as they were a significant contributor to the situation, and knew it wouldn't be a factor in ATF. 

Although both proposals involved significant elements of risk, we can't assume that the Lockheed proposal was significantly less risky.  For one thing, their method of aerodynamic control was more complex and involved whole new ways of doing things, whereas the Northrop/MDD method was basically an enhanced  scale-up of the well-proven techniques in the two companies' F/A-18.   Remember it was Lockheed's flight control system that caused the crash of the prototype.   Also, don't forget that Lockheed had major problems with their original design as a result of which AF slowed the whole program down so Lockheed could catch up, so their design as finally bid had less "history".  To their credit, of course, Lockheed managed to produce one heck of an airplane. 

Although the F-22 program experienced overruns and late delivery, a good portion (though by no means all) of that was due to intentional Congressional and Administration stretchouts in the 1990s. 

To my mind, and as was speculated even well before the award was announced, what it really came down to was that USAF felt more comfortable with, and as long as their proposal met the basic requirements, always wanted Lockheed to win.   The selection criteria permitted just that, which was one reason there was no protest.   We got a good plane.  It can be argued (as I would) that it was not the best plane, but it was good enough.  It met all the requirements USAF announced it wanted for itself, and given how the solicitation was written and the evaluation criteria that everyone knew about, they made a legitimate award.   

« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 10:18:04 pm by F-14D »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #250 on: November 16, 2008, 08:26:52 pm »
One can't discount "management" approaches and how they interact with the buyer. I had a friend involved from the NATF perspective and he said he was turned off by Northrop/McDD's arrogance. Of course, he didn't think much of their NATF design, although he never told me what it's configuration was; the only thing I know of the configuration is what's been written in this thread.

I found his attitude shocking, simply because, from an aesthetic POV, I found the YF-23 great looking, but the YF-22 butt ugly. Of course, at the time, I didn't know how radically different the Northrop/McDD NATF configuration differed from the YF-23 prototype.

Also, at the time, Dick Cheney was the secretary of defense and his wife, Lynn Cheney, had been on the board of Lockheed Martin. I don't know if she was at the time of the down select, but you can't tell me she still didn't have friends on the board at that time and many decisions like this are political by their very nature. I'm not saying that would be a sole reason, but it would definitely be a factor.

Also, at the time, it was said that what gave the YF-22 the edge in the down select was it's naval variant was better, but then the NATF was canceled less than one month after the down select. So, I shall ever remain a skeptic about the official reasons given for the choice. I've never asked my friend about it, since I doubt anything he really knew could potentially be classified and I haven't heard from him in years anyway.

Offline Spring

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #251 on: November 17, 2008, 07:06:13 am »
The USAF has a tradition  (and a policy, actually) with the different aircraft manufactures, they always will say "both were great aircrafts, so it was a close competition"

So the "both,YF-23/22 were close in performance" claim is nothing to be surprised

On the ATF test both airframes just reached a supercruiser of M1.2 (a great confussion with max speed with supercruiser achieved, BTW), the yf-22 achieved M1.6 just in mid 90's, with ATF's max speeds arround M1.5/1.6, in the competition both airframes just reached 7 gs max, and actually many, many of the final ATF requirements were "relaxed", including the stealth requirements, these goals were lowered just after they found it was not possible to reach the original ones.

Remember the yf-23 needed a serious intake redesign ,close actually to the  rounded intake of the original non-stealthy design, still a long road to cross from the yf's to the operational airframes, this is a radical modification, most likely due losses of engine output power, for such modification, something definitivelly did not reach the requirements.

Quote
Remember it was Lockheed's flight control system that caused the crash of the prototype

I agree, the YF-22 was both inertial and aerodynamic nonstable, while the YF-23 had a FBW "forced control" to avoid pitch/roll, but was in general terms more stable, in general the F-22 needed a more complicated FBW system.


Quote
USAF felt more comfortable with, and as long as their proposal met the basic requirements, always wanted Lockheed to win.   The selection criteria permitted just that

The USAF does not choice the "less technologically risky" airframe the YF-16/17 is a clear example of that, or wanted Lockheed to win, a claim that just dosnt have any support, but you say it so easely!

For the ATF competitiom, just the best airframe was selected
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 08:16:48 am by Spring »
Hello!

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #252 on: November 17, 2008, 07:38:18 am »
I cannot agree more with F-14D point of view.

I also remember reading the F-22 EMD proposal was 21,000 pages long and they flew the documentation with a special plane.

Anybody has an idea how smaller the F-23 EMD proposal was?

If Dem/Val flying hours comparison is good analog, the F-22 based proposal might have had 50% more detailed management plan.

With the ATF being a high risk - high cost program, a clearly superior looking management plan plus lower acquisition cost must have been a major factor for the choice.

F-22 probably got blue marks for its management plan while F-23 got only green.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Spring

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #253 on: November 17, 2008, 07:50:48 am »
Quote
Although the F-22 program experienced overruns and late delivery, a good portion (though by no means all) of that was due to intentional Congressional and Administration stretchouts in the 1990s.

I would not blame the congress or goverment at all.

From a original goal of 12000kg empty weight, to a real weight of 19700kg (!), the things went very complicated -and very wrong- , actually would have been better to restart the program with another competition, cancelling the original one, sadly the PR campaign and Lockheed contacts kept alive that withe elephant, the problem is that most likely the yf-23 would have been even worse.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 07:52:19 am by Spring »
Hello!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #254 on: November 17, 2008, 08:15:52 am »
If you will remember how much did competitors invest their own funds in Senior Sky, restart would be very *cold*.
AFAIR, Northrop VP Jomes said that they will never ever play such games with USAF - because they just couldn't afford another one like this (Northrop team have invested more than billion of own funds, and those were not your today's dollars).
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #255 on: November 17, 2008, 09:28:18 am »
Pavel Bulat, PhD, Baltic State Technical University «VOENMEKH» named after D. F. Ustinov
http://www.voenmeh.ru/

My translation can be *poor* - Flat.

"In the case of YF-22/ F-22, missile exhaust plume surely affect on intake flow, especially in the case of Sidewinder launch. For reduction of such an interference, AIM-9 at launch conducts rather artful trajectory: several moments after launch, missile tail all time looks aside from the plane CL, missile comes back to normal trajectory at several tens of metres from the plane. AMRAAM does not create problems for intakes only at launch in the bottom hemisphere, but it is normal, since one of the main scenario of this plane usage was to avoid low altitude part of flight envelope. From what I’ve seen, during all warfighting imitations F-22 try to get as high as it is possible.

There are exist, of course, launching problems on a moderate supersonic speeds. You just can’t pass on with these shock waves. F-22 has fixed-geometry, uncontrollable intakes, so, they are very sensitive to problems of a laminar flow. Air flow suction systems are not exist – or, at least, not visible, - and intake flow control range, judging by *huge* auxiliary blow-in inlet doors, is limited. On the other hand, Raptor’s intakes are pretty oversized, therefore it has massive inlet pressure recovery backup. Plus, inlet tracts are very long, that allows to get acceptable speed profile in front of the compressor.

AFAIR, during competition YF-22 performed only launches at subsonic speeds. Meantime, YF-23 has simulated missile launcher extraction at speeds up to M=1.5. There are no real problems with launch at subsonic speeds, as both contenders intake configurations is quite conservative.

But at M=1.2-1.3 YF-23 is obviously much more preferable design. As well known, her leading edge forming the forward lip of a simple fixed-geometry two-shock intake system. Meantime, open weapons bay doors also form system of oblique shock waves. As the weapon bay is moved forward of the wing leading edge, so-called system of overtaking shock waves forms, which at these Mach numbers is characterized by high stability to distortions. Shock waves reject flow aside from an aircraft C/L, therefore the main part of exhaust gases will just pass by.

At launch, YF-23 intakes are covered from exhaust gases by weapon bay doors. YF-22 has nothing of it.  So now Lockheed still tries hard to make weapon bays to work properly at least at M=1.2. For F-22 intakes, *cheeks* of forward fuselage are used for preliminary compression, and they generate sequence of isoentropic acentric compression waves. With any disturbance applied, all the shock wave orchestra is collapses."
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 01:10:35 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #256 on: November 17, 2008, 11:29:15 am »
Quote
Although the F-22 program experienced overruns and late delivery, a good portion (though by no means all) of that was due to intentional Congressional and Administration stretchouts in the 1990s.

I would not blame the congress or goverment at all.

From a original goal of 12000kg empty weight, to a real weight of 19700kg (!), the things went very complicated -and very wrong- , actually would have been better to restart the program with another competition, cancelling the original one, sadly the PR campaign and Lockheed contacts kept alive that withe elephant, the problem is that most likely the yf-23 would have been even worse.

In the 1990s, virtually every development, not just the F-22, and production (where possible) program was restructured so that the really big funding "bulge" would come after the 2000 elections.   While this may lower the amount needed in any given year, it pushes costs overall way up.   The F-22 didn't really need to take as long as it did to get into service.  There were things to be developed, sure, but that's true of any program.  Look at the actual pace of the R&D, and you'll see it wasn't that rapid.  This was by design, given the funding and government directed speed.  Whenever you do this, costs go way up.   It wasn't the only reason, but it was a big reason.   


Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #257 on: November 17, 2008, 11:45:29 am »
The USAF has a tradition  (and a policy, actually) with the different aircraft manufactures, they always will say "both were great aircrafts, so it was a close competition"

So the "both,YF-23/22 were close in performance" claim is nothing to be surprised

On the ATF test both airframes just reached a supercruiser of M1.2 (a great confussion with max speed with supercruiser achieved, BTW), the yf-22 achieved M1.6 just in mid 90's, with ATF's max speeds arround M1.5/1.6, in the competition both airframes just reached 7 gs max, and actually many, many of the final ATF requirements were "relaxed", including the stealth requirements, these goals were lowered just after they found it was not possible to reach the original ones.

Remember the yf-23 needed a serious intake redesign ,close actually to the  rounded intake of the original non-stealthy design, still a long road to cross from the yf's to the operational airframes, this is a radical modification, most likely due losses of engine output power, for such modification, something definitivelly did not reach the requirements.

Quote
Remember it was Lockheed's flight control system that caused the crash of the prototype

I agree, the YF-22 was both inertial and aerodynamic nonstable, while the YF-23 had a FBW "forced control" to avoid pitch/roll, but was in general terms more stable, in general the F-22 needed a more complicated FBW system.


Quote
USAF felt more comfortable with, and as long as their proposal met the basic requirements, always wanted Lockheed to win.   The selection criteria permitted just that

The USAF does not choice the "less technologically risky" airframe the YF-16/17 is a clear example of that, or wanted Lockheed to win, a claim that just dosnt have any support, but you say it so easely!

For the ATF competitiom, just the best airframe was selected


Addressing only your last point.  I didn't say they chose the less risky.  I said that we can't automatically assume, as some have here and elsewhere, that it was less risky.  The controversial statement I made was that USAF felt more comfortable with Lockheed and, barring the YF-22 being a total disaster (which it wasn't and isn't), was going to pick them. 

Regarding the YF-16 vs YF-17, that was, I believe, a congressionally mandated flyoff.  Frankly, with the YF-16 being closer to what USAF envisioned, a macho single engined fighter, and more importantly, using an engine already in USAF inventory, the results were inevitable.  One indication of where USAF's head was at was that during the competition, Northrop/GE stated that given the timeframe during which flight tests would take place, the YJ101 engines would not be able to put out the thrust the airframe was designed for, but would produce it once the engines were further in development.  USAF said they understood and would take that into consideration and allow for it when making its determination.  However, when the results were announced, one thing specifically cited as a reason to make down the Northrop entry was that the YF-17 with the YJ101s was underpowered. 

BTW, given the YF-16 and YF-17, I think USAF made the right choice. 

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10226
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #258 on: November 17, 2008, 12:07:41 pm »
In the case of the YF-16/YF-17, the YF-17 was selected over the Boeing competitor to be built precisely because it used two engines and hence represented a different approach. From this point onwards, the YF-17 was only ever going to win if the YF-16 proved to be a disaster as the YF-16 was much nearer to what the USAF wanted, as F-14D has pointed out. Perhaps a more interesting competition would have been two single engined F-100 powered designs going head to head.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #259 on: November 17, 2008, 01:10:54 pm »
The Assumption that YF-23 was more risky than YF-22 is ironic and cannot be further from the truth.
The F-22 EMD proposal was based on a design borne out of the 3 month hectic redesign in mid 1987. It's overall appearance bore more commonality with the GE ATF submission than with Lockheed's one.

On the other hand, Northrop's YF-23 design was a slow and well though out evolution of concepts Northop submitted in the early 80's. Actually if one tries, he could see general similarity between YF-23 and even the YF-17. The basic fighter philosophy is there: 2 engines, underwing inlets, V-tail, tapered wing.

So, while the YF-23 looked like an alien design to the outsider observers, it was the YF-22 design that was alien to Lockheed's own legacy and experience.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #260 on: November 17, 2008, 02:20:57 pm »
Thanks to Flateric for providing the inlet and missile launching question!

As for the current debate:

Folks! I think we don't have a clear definition of what 'risky' mean.  'Risky' does not just mean innovative, new, or unproven design.  'Risky' also mean that a design lacks sufficient explanation to tackle the challenges of the specific design to the client who's buying the product.  That was the meaning of the word I used.  The yf-23 was risky to the Air Force, not because it looks alien-like ('cause seriously, the evaluation team weren't bunch of amateurs who went "dude, that airframe looks kinda weird, it must be risky") or used innovative and unproven technology, but that it didn't provide enough documentation to the Air Force that made them confident in the team's ability to meet the challenges of their design in the development phrase.  That's what made the design risky to the Air Force.  And in the wake of Cold War coming down, and Congress to sweep in like a bringer of death, the safest route is the least possible to get cancelled.

As for Dick Cheney's wife, what? Dick Cheney had no voice in the decision to choose which contractor. 

As for you guys who think that yf-22 was riskier (not the definition I used), you were only taking into account of fly control system or just based your argument on a very oversimplified perspective on very complex matter.  There were many other factors beside just flight control system.  To conclude which one is riskier, one must look into every technological approaches used in each airframe.  To use just the flight control method and jump to the conclusion that yf-22 was riskier is not so sensible.  Do I know which design was riskier (to your definition of the word)? No, 'cause I don't have full access to both design's technology.  So to jump to a conclusion on this matter is really a huge leap of faith.

 However, one thing is clear, the yf-23 was "riskier" in the definition that the USAF chose to define. 
 

 

« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 04:53:14 pm by donnage99 »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #261 on: November 17, 2008, 11:10:29 pm »
Thanks to Flateric for providing the inlet and missile launching question!

As for the current debate:

Folks! I think we don't have a clear definition of what 'risky' mean.  'Risky' does not just mean innovative, new, or unproven design.  'Risky' also mean that a design lacks sufficient explanation to tackle the challenges of the specific design to the client who's buying the product.  That was the meaning of the word I used.  The yf-23 was risky to the Air Force, not because it looks alien-like ('cause seriously, the evaluation team weren't bunch of amateurs who went "dude, that airframe looks kinda weird, it must be risky") or used innovative and unproven technology, but that it didn't provide enough documentation to the Air Force that made them confident in the team's ability to meet the challenges of their design in the development phrase.  That's what made the design risky to the Air Force.  And in the wake of Cold War coming down, and Congress to sweep in like a bringer of death, the safest route is the least possible to get cancelled.

As for Dick Cheney's wife, what? Dick Cheney had no voice in the decision to choose which contractor. 

As for you guys who think that yf-22 was riskier (not the definition I used), you were only taking into account of fly control system or just based your argument on a very oversimplified perspective on very complex matter.  There were many other factors beside just flight control system.  To conclude which one is riskier, one must look into every technological approaches used in each airframe.  To use just the flight control method and jump to the conclusion that yf-22 was riskier is not so sensible.  Do I know which design was riskier (to your definition of the word)? No, 'cause I don't have full access to both design's technology.  So to jump to a conclusion on this matter is really a huge leap of faith.

 However, one thing is clear, the yf-23 was "riskier" in the definition that the USAF chose to define. 
 




Since I was the one who brought up the reference to risk as regards the YF-22 aerodynamic controls, let me address your thoughts.  I believe you misinterpreted what I was trying to say.  I truly don't know which design entailed more risk.  The point I was making was that in some of the posts here and elsewhere there seemed to be a belief that because Northrop/MDD tended to have more innovation in their design, it probably was riskier.   I simply was stating that we couldn't automatically assume the YF-22 was less risky, we don't know; the control system was brought up as an example of one component of it that could be higher risk than on the YF-23.  We just don't know.

Regarding what another person said about the YF-23 being marked down because it's NATF might not be as good... Well, with the way USAF was trying to marginalize carrier aviation, and the rumors that SECDEF Cheney was not a fan of naval aviation, having a less effective NATF design might actually be considered an asset! ;)   

In case, it's instructive to keep in mind how the selection was structured.  There was no flyoff, there was no real weights required in the various criteria.  It was just red, yellow, green and occasionally blue.  It was set up so that the Secretary of the Air Force could pick who ever he wanted for whatever reason he wanted, with no requirement for having to ever disclose exactly why the choice came down the way it did.  Both bidders agreed to this.   Based on things from before, during and after the evaluation, it's my humble belief that USAF always felt more comfortable with Lockheed and was always going to pick them for ATF.  But that's just me.  It's moot now anyway. 

Offline Spring

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #262 on: November 18, 2008, 08:15:46 am »
Quote
One indication of where USAF's head was at was that during the competition, Northrop/GE stated that given the timeframe during which flight tests would take place, the YJ101 engines would not be able to put out the thrust the airframe was designed for, but would produce it once the engines were further in development.  USAF said they understood and would take that into consideration and allow for it when making its determination.  However, when the results were announced, one thing specifically cited as a reason to make down the Northrop entry was that the YF-17 with the YJ101s was underpowered

Do not understand what you are trying to tell here; are you saying the USAF cheated Nortroph because they did say "i understand" and "would take into consideration" to a Northrop uncertainly promise?

"Further in development" is the typical excuse of the designers/salesmen when they don't reach the original goal !  ;D, same thing as some mythic "what if" claims of the Black Widow!

The USAF has become too polite with the designers, but it must be, is about national/political pride, and saying "your aircraft is a crap" could hurt the PR (read polititians attack) for other projects

If the "risky" word is still allowed, i would say, the yf-23 was risky, because it needed a greater overhaul to meet the USAF requirements, than the F-22
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 08:38:06 am by Spring »
Hello!

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #263 on: November 18, 2008, 12:12:43 pm »
Quote
If the "risky" word is still allowed, i would say, the yf-23 was risky, because it needed a greater overhaul to meet the USAF requirements, than the F-22

The YF-23 not only met the ATF requirements, it exceeded them. In fact both the YF-22 and YF-23 exceeded some of the requirements, some more than others.

The YF-22 was tough to operate more like stealthy and faster F-15, while Northrop was ahead of the time in optimizing the YF-23 for operational tactics similar to the ones F-22A uses today.

If there was anything the USAF was not comfortable with, it was the how they were going to use the aircraft and how that was too reliant on stealth.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #264 on: November 18, 2008, 08:33:24 pm »
The YF-23 not only met the ATF requirements, it exceeded them. In fact both the YF-22 and YF-23 exceeded some of the requirements, some more than others.

The YF-22 was tough to operate more like stealthy and faster F-15, while Northrop was ahead of the time in optimizing the YF-23 for operational tactics similar to the ones F-22A uses today.

If there was anything the USAF was not comfortable with, it was the how they were going to use the aircraft and how that was too reliant on stealth.
I don't think each prototype's difference in performance and its approach toward fighting its enemy was one of the reasons that influenced the final selection.  The requirements of the ATF were pretty well defined in its use of stealth and supercruise to outweight its opponent in BVR with first look/shot/kill (and of course, deep penetration).  The tactics F-22A uses today as far as killing enemy from afar like a sniper has been the foundation of the ATF vision since the beginning, reflecting through the fact that thrust vectoring and HMD, which were essential to traditional closed in dogfight were opted out of the requirements.   

  Everyone, including both of us, and mr. president of MDD pretty much agreed that it was paper work that won the competition for Lockheed. :D
 
Some pictures of the beautiful plane is what we need, not beating over a dead horse. ;D 


 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 08:37:11 pm by donnage99 »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #265 on: November 18, 2008, 10:35:29 pm »
Quote
One indication of where USAF's head was at was that during the competition, Northrop/GE stated that given the timeframe during which flight tests would take place, the YJ101 engines would not be able to put out the thrust the airframe was designed for, but would produce it once the engines were further in development.  USAF said they understood and would take that into consideration and allow for it when making its determination.  However, when the results were announced, one thing specifically cited as a reason to make down the Northrop entry was that the YF-17 with the YJ101s was underpowered

Do not understand what you are trying to tell here; are you saying the USAF cheated Nortroph because they did say "i understand" and "would take into consideration" to a Northrop uncertainly promise?

"Further in development" is the typical excuse of the designers/salesmen when they don't reach the original goal !  ;D, same thing as some mythic "what if" claims of the Black Widow!

The USAF has become too polite with the designers, but it must be, is about national/political pride, and saying "your aircraft is a crap" could hurt the PR (read polititians attack) for other projects

If the "risky" word is still allowed, i would say, the yf-23 was risky, because it needed a greater overhaul to meet the USAF requirements, than the F-22

I'm not completely sure what you're going for here.  All I was doing with this illustration (of the YF-16 and YF-17, not YF-22 and YF-23) was trying to show that when USAF really wanted one plane then they would make sure they got it.    In this case, saying that they understood that they weren't giving enough time to prodcue definitive J101s  but they would allow for it (and this would be GE's promise, not Northrop's), and then coming back and faulting the engines because they didn't perform like definitive engines.   They wanted the YF-16, and this littel ploy was really unnecessary, because the engine choice alone was enough to make it the right choice.   As far as GE would have delivered, remember that they grew the J101 into the F404, one of the great figher engines of the modern era. 


Not sure if one can say that YF-23 would require more "overhaul".  We know the intakes would probably change, there would be some rework of the exhausts, the "humps" for the thrust reversers would go and the  forward missile bay would be added.  Still, the overall mold line would stay about the same.  The YF-22 required some pretty significant revision between the YF and the F.  Hard to say...

On ATF, based on some things that went down over that period,  it's my personal belief that USAF always wanted Lockheed-Boeing to win, Northrop-MDD (which although teaming was mandated was a voluntary teaming, unlike Grumman-Northrop and GD-MDD on the ATA) were at a disadvantage from the get-go. 

Regardless of how they got there, and regardless of whether or not the "right" or "wrong", today we are where we are.   We did get a good plane out of it.  Would like to see more about how an EMD and production F-23  would be (and any more info about the derivative NATF beyond it was to be a canard), realizing that it's all an intellectual exercise. 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 11:24:05 pm by F-14D »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #266 on: November 19, 2008, 12:04:04 am »
Quote
Would like to see more about how an EMD and production F-23  would be (and any more info about the derivative NATF beyond it was to be a canard), realizing that it's all an intellectual exercise.

Wasn't the production/EMD three or two view drawing posted earlier in this thread? I know I have it in a book, with the serrated lip shock cone inlets. I believe they also moved the engines closer together. Not right next to each other, but there was definitely less of a trough between them as they moved them closer. I would love to see pics of models of their final submission for the production contract, but they haven't released any, to the best of my knowledge.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #267 on: November 19, 2008, 12:30:26 am »
Quote
The requirements of the ATF were pretty well defined
If it was the case we were going to see a flyoff. We didn't. Actually the Aifroce modified some of its requirements even after the Dem/Val winners selection in 1986, like the need for trust reversers, or normal fligt take of weight of 60,000lb vs 50,000lb. Not to mention the fact they postponed the first flight date requirements several months to give Lockheed time to catch up.

The unique thing about the ATF is that the Airforce allowed the manufacturers to intrepid some requirements the way they saw fit and to demonstrate their approach in the dem/val. Northrop and Lockheed build airframes that supported each ones specific concept not the Airforce final requirements. For example, while YF-23 was stealthy, it was did not meet the stealth requirements itself. Only the full scale RCS model did.

As a result the F-22A and the F-23A were to be very different aircraft in terms of performance and capability. Those characteristics translate in different operational use and tactics. Specifically, the following things would be different: optimum cruise altitude and speed, distance between wingmens, engage tactics, engage envelopes, enemy no escape envelope, missile launch conditions, weapons bay rearming procedure and especially maneuver capabilities.

It not a something mentioned a lot, but F-23A would have been capable of some very unique maneuvers and not capable of others F-22A can do.

While I agree that this might not have influenced the final selection directly, USAF certainly had a preference and might have made recommendations as a result.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 12:37:35 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #268 on: November 19, 2008, 01:57:26 am »
Some factoids that came to mind, related/unrelated to discussion

a). According to some insiders, YF-23s had some problems with recovery to stright&level from negative AoA.
b). Interesting USAF official's denial to discuss weapon load of YF-23 that I've found in Edwards AFB local newspaper issued in the roll-out day. When he was asked if YF-23 weapon load is comparable to that one of F-15, he murmured something like 'F-15 weapon load was dictated by challenges of 70s', so one can assume that YF-23 has less. Thus quietly rejects some statements I've seen that someone has seen YF-23 weapon bay mockup that held six or even eight missiles in variants of AMRAAM/AIM-9 mix. Another source was saying of YF-23 weapon bay as of 'Lancasterish'
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 02:10:31 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1706
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #269 on: November 19, 2008, 05:34:52 am »
Some factoids that came to mind, related/unrelated to discussion

a). According to some insiders, YF-23s had some problems with recovery to stright&level from negative AoA.
b). Interesting USAF official's denial to discuss weapon load of YF-23 that I've found in Edwards AFB local newspaper issued in the roll-out day. When he was asked if YF-23 weapon load is comparable to that one of F-15, he murmured something like 'F-15 weapon load was dictated by challenges of 70s', so one can assume that YF-23 has less. Thus quietly rejects some statements I've seen that someone has seen YF-23 weapon bay mockup that held six or even eight missiles in variants of AMRAAM/AIM-9 mix. Another source was saying of YF-23 weapon bay as of 'Lancasterish'

Regarding b), that just sounds like typical evasiveness of the day, sort of like, "How fast does that SSN go"?  "In excess of 25 knots".   It is truthful, but doesn't disclose anything   Plus, F-15 had been designed around AIM-7F, which the ATF wouldn't ever carry.  If I recall, the requirement for ATF was that internally it had to carry at least four AIM-120As (in reality six AIM-120Cs, but at the time the development of a clipped fin AIM-120 hadn't yet been publicly disclosed) and two AIM-9s.  Naturally, more could be carried externally if stealth wasn't as important on a particular mission.  So, the F-23 would have to have been able of carrying at least that, or that would have been a big enough deficiency to eliminate it right off the bat.  Most sources I've seen have indicated the YF-23, and we can assume the production F-23 had a large bay, I heard it described, "like a B-25"
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 10:14:27 am by F-14D »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #270 on: November 19, 2008, 03:33:58 pm »
True, true! They did change around by dropping off the reverse engine and such, but what I meant was the its underline requirements for tactical approach in air to air combat and deep strike were well defined and reflect the Air Force emphasis on using stealth and supercruise in BVR rather than thrust vectoring and HMD in closed in dogfight, as both of these were not required as a must-have.  Another point is that the Air Force already said that yf-22 is not more maneuverable than yf-23 by any significant number (and likewise for yf-23 in term of stealth), so I think yf-22's agility was not a factor that influenced the final decision.

As for seeing a flyoff, can anyone give me a rigid definition of a flyoff? Since as far as my knowledge, I think I can pretty much argue that there was a flyoff for the ATF.he contractors' proposals could meet the requirements.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 03:59:24 pm by overscan »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #271 on: November 19, 2008, 03:39:33 pm »
Quote
Would like to see more about how an EMD and production F-23  would be (and any more info about the derivative NATF beyond it was to be a canard), realizing that it's all an intellectual exercise.

Wasn't the production/EMD three or two view drawing posted earlier in this thread? I know I have it in a book, with the serrated lip shock cone inlets. I believe they also moved the engines closer together. Not right next to each other, but there was definitely less of a trough between them as they moved them closer. I would love to see pics of models of their final submission for the production contract, but they haven't released any, to the best of my knowledge.
Wasn't it just fanart?

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #272 on: November 19, 2008, 04:32:21 pm »
Quote
Another point is that the Air Force already said that yf-22 is not more maneuverab