Secret Projects Forum

General => Aerospace => Topic started by: Matej on November 26, 2006, 08:27:05 am

Title: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on November 26, 2006, 08:27:05 am
Image removed - modified drawing in the next posts.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: ChuckAnderson 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on November 26, 2006, 09:36:32 am
Well, small chance as F/B-23 still lives.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Archibald 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on November 27, 2006, 04:49:11 am
Fixed - intake configuration suggestions
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pometablava 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on December 21, 2006, 12:57:33 pm
Only eight days and you can legaly build your own copy of YF-23  :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: CammNut 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: CammNut 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNKw9TrVviE

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

Cheers, Woody
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: fightingirish 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!

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: fightingirish 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 24, 2007, 05:16:29 am
more on DSI/F-35 inlets
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on March 25, 2007, 02:21:53 am
Here
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PMN1 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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 ;)



 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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) (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 (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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi 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) (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?

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 31, 2007, 01:57:16 pm
I will continue the cannards discution where it belongs
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 01, 2007, 12:08:24 am
yes mee too, see you there then.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: CammNut 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...

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on April 06, 2007, 02:29:07 am
F-22 is killing (nearly) F-23 once again. How an irony!  :D   :'(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Archibald on April 06, 2007, 03:54:09 am
Ciel, Ogami toi ici ? Mon dieu... welcome here !!!  :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 22, 2007, 12:21:46 pm
As Western Museum of Flight said, Northrop will not return PAV-2 to the WMOF...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.




Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on April 29, 2007, 10:00:41 am
Very interesting concept found by lantinian.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 07, 2007, 03:20:38 pm
That's where Northrop keeps PAV-2 now
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&q=United+States&ie=UTF8&ll=33.927569,-118.380416&spn=0.001645,0.002494&z=19&om=1
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=33.927738~-118.381026&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7021100
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: CFE 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 24, 2007, 01:29:51 am
YF-23 fill-scale RCS model at White Sands missile range
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=33%C2%B031%2716.64%22N+106%C2%B011%2742.20%22W&z=18&ll=33.541654,-106.21074&spn=0.002057,0.005322&t=k&om=1
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pometablava on November 05, 2007, 05:48:23 am
The most beautiful fighter ever designed ::)

Thanks for the pics
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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.  
 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 06, 2007, 01:25:20 am
One of the last ATF-23 ads from April, 1991 AWST
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 06, 2007, 02:21:33 pm
Have uploaded DoD video of SOF Rice announcing ATF decision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kR9aTZ9W3s
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 11, 2007, 01:57:08 am
Have uploaded a Northrop video with Paul Metz comments on YF-23 performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVG9xgHefzg
Note in the last moments rare in-flight footage of YF-23 underbelly with famous Thomas Rooney's 'hourglass' markings, removed after first flight.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ghmQ_Ts30
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on December 11, 2007, 05:48:55 am
Have uploaded a Northrop video with Paul Metz comments on YF-23 performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVG9xgHefzg
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.  :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on December 14, 2007, 09:13:21 pm

The YF-22 had way more fuel than the F-22A.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LowObservable on December 15, 2007, 07:04:35 am
Why the 6000 pound drop? Where did it go?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Rosdivan 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 (http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf) give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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 (http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf) give it 20,650 pounds internal and up to 15,865 pounds external.

The -1 says about 18,500 lbs.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 16, 2007, 09:09:35 am
Unclassified USAF documents (http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf) 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on December 16, 2007, 09:31:45 am
Unclassified USAF documents (http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf) 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/



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Trident 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 17, 2007, 03:28:01 pm
One of these square stuffies...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: TinWing 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.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LowObservable 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Berekhat on December 19, 2007, 11:29:13 pm
Unclassified USAF documents (http://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf) 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed on December 26, 2007, 01:36:19 am
Here is what I modified YF-23 drawing, it will be more acceptable.
 :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: robunos 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pometablava on December 26, 2007, 02:40:00 pm
Merino is high quality spanish wool :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LowObservable 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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? ???
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Woody 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on January 01, 2008, 10:50:04 am
No requests for articles or books, please.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed on January 11, 2008, 06:57:12 am
 :o Over M2.8.......
Sundog must be a fans of US jet. ;D I love you!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AGRA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: consealed 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.




Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick 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...   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 23, 2008, 03:53:21 pm
Damn, this is YF-23 topic!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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 .
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider on May 30, 2008, 05:19:26 pm
First try at pic.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 30, 2008, 05:29:35 pm
It was really fast reaction, Elider=) Oh damn, they have closed the doors... :(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider on May 31, 2008, 07:40:53 am
Oops! Only one showed.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 18, 2008, 03:34:36 am
A great shot from the USAFM media gallery
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Spring 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi055.radikal.ru%2F0806%2Fc1%2F8a8e132bee60.jpg&hash=fadfd923ad4e8c6e3c4b66dae865a77d)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Stuka on September 10, 2008, 09:45:49 pm
PAV-1 restoration is finished and is supposedly now on display at the AF Museum.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on September 11, 2008, 03:43:06 am
As beautifull as always  ::)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 11, 2008, 05:25:31 am
...missing the HUD, but still a beauty she is..
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 25, 2008, 02:29:04 pm
...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BAROBA 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkOSxc6nmKM&fmt=18

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 12, 2008, 08:34:01 pm
Removed some recent off-topic posts.

YF-23 was certainly a beauty.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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'.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 17, 2008, 01:58:57 pm
they were convergent/divergent nozzle itself
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 17, 2008, 02:42:59 pm
in a few words, you got the idea right=)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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  ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on October 19, 2008, 02:36:20 pm
Anybody know why the F119 had those flaps but the F120 didn't?   ???
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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 (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?

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elider 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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?


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on October 26, 2008, 12:30:12 am
Did Northrop/McDonnel Douglas ever show an offer for the NATF program?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGIjJbBVyOU&fmt=18
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGIjJbBVyOU&fmt=18

From what I remember it didn't look anything like the F-23
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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 (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 (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 (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php)


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 28, 2008, 02:53:33 am
Play nicely please. No need to be rude with each other.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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 (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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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:

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: frank 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Cutaway 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.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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? 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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.   
 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on November 10, 2008, 10:10:16 am
There your ultimate unofficial YF-23 guru answer   ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on November 11, 2008, 08:04:21 pm
Thanks, guys! And hopefully, Pave Pulat may know something.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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."
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on November 14, 2008, 01:06:06 pm
unwritten concerns sometimes worth more than written ones, but I think it was the other case
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on November 14, 2008, 04:50:24 pm
Flateric, what do you mean by "good point here, hands off?" ???
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on November 14, 2008, 05:22:17 pm
'well said'
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: airrocket 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.



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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.   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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 ::). 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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.   

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Spring 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Spring 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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."
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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.   

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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. 
 

 

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Spring 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
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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 


 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric 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'
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D 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"
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 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?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on November 19, 2008, 04:32:21 pm
Quote
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 s
Quote
tealth)
I would argue very successfully that YF-23 was a lot more stealthy than YF-22. It was half a generation ahead in terms of shape provided stealth. You will find the F-22A to borrow a lot of features from the YF-23 and the divertless inlets on the F-23A were not not that much different from those on the F-35 half a decade later.

Northop curved approch originally demonstrated with the have demonstrators was starting to pay off, while the Lockheed faceted approach was starting to show age.

Quote
Wasn't it just fanart?
It was based on a reliable data. Read those posts again!

Quote
I think I can pretty much argue that there was a flyoff for the ATF
There was no flyoff. Period. I do not have the program manager quote from the "Origins of the 21st century fighter" book but I am sure someone will provided in the forum shortly.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on November 19, 2008, 05:42:51 pm
I would argue very successfully that YF-23 was a lot more stealthy than YF-22. It was half a generation ahead in terms of shape provided stealth. You will find the F-22A to borrow a lot of features from the YF-23 and the divertless inlets on the F-23A were not not that much different from those on the F-35 half a decade later.

Northop curved approch originally demonstrated with the have demonstrators was starting to pay off, while the Lockheed faceted approach was starting to show age.
I was guessing you gonna reply this way, since I've seen countless posts like this.  There is alot more to the technology evolved in reducing radar cross section than just meet-the-eye.  Though as limited as my knowledge allow me, I do believe that the yf-23 was a more innovative design, especially with its avionic suits and new composite materials,but  your way of thinking is a oversimplification of a very complex matter. 

Quote
It was based on a reliable data. Read those posts again!
And it changed my statement, how?
Quote
I think I can pretty much argue that there was a flyoff for the ATF
There was no flyoff. Period. I do not have the program manager quote from the "Origins of the 21st century fighter" book but I am sure someone will provided in the forum shortly.
My intention was to question the popular belief of what a flyoff can mean.  I knew that there was no "flyoff" to the definition that we all believe.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 19, 2008, 07:33:32 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.

As you correctly point out, it's hard to find a really universal definition of a "flyoff".  Greenly, though, most would think of it as taking two or more aircraft, and not only comparing them to the stated requirements, but also to each other and to the mission.  Service crews could compare how each aircraft flew and what they liked, disliked and  what needed to be improved or corrected.  These flight tests would allow the customer to decide which aircraft really was "best" for their needs.  A few examples of  true flyoffs were the F8U-3 vs. F4H, AH-63 vs. AH-64 and A-9 vs. A-10. 

ATF wasn't like that.  The purpose of the flight tests was to validate that the aircraft would meet the manufacturers' claims and would be capable of meeting USAF requirements.  Relative performance and capability was not  compared in the flight tests (remember the red, yellow, green and blue).   Service evaluation teams were completely separate.  They could not compare notes, the two planes were never flown "against" each other and no pilot was allowed to fly both aircraft, which would be a necessary way to compare handling characteristics.  In fact, and I could well be wrong, I think the only person ever to fly both designs was the chief test pilot for Northrop who later went on to fly the F-22 for Lockheed; and he never talked about how the two compared.   The evaluation teams were to make no recommendation.  All of this was part of the setup wherein the Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever plane he wanted for whatever reason he wanted.   Although a lot of discussions and analysis over the years has taken place, this has all been based on the bits of unofficial information leaked.   Remember again that the announced reason for the decision did not reference the relative merits of the aircraft.   

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LowObservable on November 20, 2008, 10:55:40 am
Reminds me of something that ran in Interavia after the Lockheed win was announced:

Q:  Got the time?  A:  Looks like rain.

When the ATF decision was announced, the media naturally wanted to hear why the F-22 was the better aircraft. But nobody wanted to tell them.

One of the first questions was:  "Can't you give us some summary of why this plane is better than the other plane?"  USAF Secretary Donald Rice answered:

"The two aircraft... are an excellent demonstration of what we were trying to accomplish.. We ended up with two aircraft, each one of which could meet the Air Force's technical specidications and technical requirements."

Which of the two aircraft was Stealthier?  Maj Gen Joseph W. Ralston, director for tactical programs at USAF headquarters, broke hard right:

"When you try to compare various airplanes on their Stealth characteristics and try to sum it up on a bumper-sticker, it invariably gets us into trouble all the time. It's frequency-dependent, it's aspect-dependent, it's elevation-dependent. Both aircraft met the requirement."

Tactical Air Command chief Gen Mike Loh was faced with the question:  "From a pilot's standpoint, which is the better airplane?" General Loh tried the right-hand break again:

"Both designs met the basic elements that were laid out for the demonstration/validation program, and I'm sure the Lockheed/Pratt & Whitney combination will be an outstanding air-superiority fighter for all of our pilots." 

But Loh's adversary was not so easily foxed. "But which one's better...which one would you want to fly?" Loh hauled over into a vertical rolling scissors:  "I want to get the program moving so we get one to fly." 

Even then, the attacker wasn't quite done:  "Which is the better one?" Loh pulled a high-speed yo-yo:  "Since I didn't fly the prototypes, I don't want to answer that." 

We are not sure what happened next. We think that Loh's interlocutor suffered a G-LOC episode and impacted the floor of the Pentagon auditorium.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on November 20, 2008, 07:53:06 pm
There were 2 reasons to that: asking simple questions like "which is a better plane or more stealthy" and demanding a similarly simple answer is uneducated to start with.  

Secondly, they weren't allow to give the answer.  And I wonder why they had to avoid answering.  Just do what Paul Metz did.  He gave a very straight up answer that he's not allowed make direct comparison  between the two and went on to say that if he never flown the yf-22 to start with.  Strange!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 22, 2008, 01:06:54 pm
There were 2 reasons to that: asking simple questions like "which is a better plane or more stealthy" and demanding a similarly simple answer is uneducated to start with. 

Secondly, they weren't allow to give the answer.  And I wonder why they had to avoid answering.  Just do what Paul Metz did.  He gave a very straight up answer that he's not allowed make direct comparison  between the two and went on to say that if he never flown the yf-22 to start with.  Strange!

Sorry, can't agree.  In most competitions the military agency does disclose the reasons for a choice and where one was better or not, at least as regards the decision.  They did it in F-4/F8U-3, VFX, FX, AH-63/AH-64, A-9/A-10, YF-16/YF-17, X-32/X-35, etc.  You know, they even did it for KC-X! 

I suspect that the reasons are all related to the way the competition was run.   At the risk of being redundantly redundant, the exercise was set up so that the selection criteria was whatever the Secretary of the Ari Force wanted it to be.   This was pretty clear in the solicitation, but a lot of people didn't pay that close attention, hence the types of questions.   They wanted to know which plane was better, not realizing that as long as the winner met the minimum criteria, that was not the major deciding factor.   Aside from the Secretry's office, remember, comparisons were not to be made by anyone else.  It's quite possible that at the time the Generals' themselves didn't know why Secretary Rice made the decision he did.  It is telling, and maybe indicative, that Paul Metz, who has flown the YF-23 and EMD and later F-22s, won't comment.

The answers quoted here lend some credence to the popular consensus that the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 in most areas.  If it were they other way around, the Secretary would have non-specifically have mentioned some general areas.  If the YF-23 did perform as has been opined in later years, though, it would raise all kinds of controversy to say, "Well, we had two to choose from.  One exceeded our maneuverability criteria [they both did] and was faster, stealthier, went farther and carried more weapons.  We picked the other one".   So, just avoid the issue entirely.   

Please remember, I am not dumping on the decision to go with F-22 (like I do constantly on the F/A-18E/F decision ).   It's not the one I would have made (let me see...no, they didn't ask me), and personally I believe it was a forgone conclusion before either plane ever flew, but we did get a very good (albeit expensive) plane out of it.    It's moot except as an intellectual discussion. 

I'm still amazed, though, given the fact that everything leaks, why there's never been even a drawing of the Northrop/MDD NATF configuration published. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on November 22, 2008, 05:27:57 pm
You read me wrong, F-14D.  I said that they weren't allowed, but I didn't dwell on any reason why they weren't allowed.  Be that because of your hypothesis or any other reason, it wasn't what I was pointing at.  Simply that they weren't allowed. 

As for my point in saying those questions were stupid, I don't really get a clear idea of what you're saying. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
 
Also, on the topic of blue, yellow, green evalution method.  I thought Don Rice said that it was based on points method (not sure on this though).  And the colors were only categories of the points much like back in school, you have your points being categorized into rank A, B, C, or F (fail).  As for the contract indicates that contractors could not file protest, can anyone provide any source to validate that.  Because as far as I know, no body would ever enter such a competition with that kinda deal, or at least, there would be protest during the dealing process (in which I've heard none). 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 22, 2008, 11:22:02 pm
You read me wrong, F-14D.  I said that they weren't allowed, but I didn't dwell on any reason why they weren't allowed.  Be that because of your hypothesis or any other reason, it wasn't what I was pointing at.  Simply that they weren't allowed. 

As for my point in saying those questions were stupid, I don't really get a clear idea of what you're saying. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
 
Also, on the topic of blue, yellow, green evalution method.  I thought Don Rice said that it was based on points method (not sure on this though).  And the colors were only categories of the points much like back in school, you have your points being categorized into rank A, B, C, or F (fail).  As for the contract indicates that contractors could not file protest, can anyone provide any source to validate that.  Because as far as I know, no body would ever enter such a competition with that kinda deal, or at least, there would be protest during the dealing process (in which I've heard none). 

Maybe I did overinterpret your first point, if so I'm sorry.   What I was disagreeing about is that those are perfectly valid questions in a non-technical,unclassified environment.  Basically, the questioners were asking, "Why did you pick who you picked", expecting to hear where one team had a better airplane, or was of sufficiently lower cost that that was the deciding factor.  This is what always happened before.   When they didn't hear that, they started sniffing around.  Since Stealth was so heavily emphasized and was so very fashionable, "Which plane was stealthier?", was a perfectly legitimate question.   It wouldn't give anything away if the answer was "A" or "B", with no more details.  But even that wasn't answered.   It was very unusual, and and was certain to  raise everyone's antenna, when the officials refused to say they picked the better airplane. 

Let me give an example from more than 30 years prior.  The USN had to pick between the F8U-3 and the F4H.  They really would have loved to get both, but couldn't afford that.   When the decision was made, it was revealed (without disclosing absolute values) that the F8U-3 was faster, accelerated better, was much more agile and had greater range.   However, it was explained that the F4H met the Navy's requirements in those areas and could carry more armament, had greater potential for growth in versatility and was two crew and those were the reasons it was chosen.  There was nothing like that in the ATF announcements and so the questions posed were perfectly legitimate.  . 



Regarding the color scheme vs. points, if you are using points, then you use points.  If you just roll them into colors, you defeat the purpose of having points, depending on how big the range is for each color.  Does a high end green beat a low end green?  And how do you determine which is which?   If the award was done on a points system (ala Sikorsky vs. Lockheed for AAFSS, which became the Cheyenne) they could have simply answered where Lockheed go more points.  They didn't.  In ATF, the teams were to independently report on  how likely it was that the aircraft they were evaluating would meet the solicitation requirements and report in colors.  I believe, although I may be 'misremembering', they were specifically not to assign points.  They definitely were not to compare or make a recommendation.  This facilitated the Secretary of the Air Force's ability to pick based on whatever criteria he wanted to use. 

There was nothing in the contract, nor has anyone as far as I know alleged that the contractors could not  file protests.  Actually, it wouldn't be the contract that would have such a provision because if you don't win, you don't have a contract so can't be bound by any terms in it, it would be in the solicitation itself.  Except in certain highly classified and unique instances, there's no way the Gov't can impose in a solicitation any such provision on bidders.  What has been said was that in the ATF award there was no protest.  That's because to protest you must have some basis to protest.  You've got to be able to show how you should have been chosen because you met the requirements and evaluation criteria as stated of the solicitation better than the one to whom the contract was awarded.  That's why Boeing's protest was sustained on KC-X.  GAO did not say Boeing had a better plane or not, they ruled that based on what USAF said it wanted in the solicitation, USAF could not justify the award to EADS/NGG. 

In the case of ATF, what was solicited was that a bidder had to meet certain minimums and that tests would be performed to verify the bidders' claims.  It was clearly stated that the decision would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force based on whatever he deemed to be the best choice.   There was no protest because they did exactly what they stated they would do.  As long as a plane met the criteria of the solicitation, the Secretary was free to award or not award as he saw fit.  It did not have to be to the most capable, or lowest cost, or least risk or whatever.  Therefore, the only basis for a protest would be to allege that the competitor did not meet at least minimum requirements as stated in the solicitation, and there was nothing to indicate that about either proposal at the time of award.  Therefore no protest, because there was nothing to protest. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 09, 2008, 05:12:58 am
Found at Key Publishing forums
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Just call me Ray on December 09, 2008, 10:56:20 am
Hmmmm...dare I say?

Perhaps the main selection criteria as to why the YF-22 was chosen was simply as an economic bone to Lockheed. Lockheed hadn't been doing too well since the Tri-Star program at least as far as straight-up aircraft production goes and the S-2/P-3 programs were winding down, while Northrop-Grumman was a prime contractor with the F/A-18, has a very strong shipbuilding program and of course had the B-2 program.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 09, 2008, 11:30:24 am
Hmmmm...dare I say?

Perhaps the main selection criteria as to why the YF-22 was chosen was simply as an economic bone to Lockheed. Lockheed hadn't been doing too well since the Tri-Star program at least as far as straight-up aircraft production goes and the S-2/P-3 programs were winding down, while Northrop-Grumman was a prime contractor with the F/A-18, has a very strong shipbuilding program and of course had the B-2 program.


I'm glad you dared.  For completeness, though, the company Northrop-Grumman did not yet exist.  The team was Northrop-MDD, and they had both sides of the F/A-18 program. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on December 09, 2008, 05:41:34 pm
I seriously doubt that economic status of contractors played any factor in there if we talking history here.  It certainly doesn't go well with tradition of the Air Force (or Navy, or any other branch), which never really give a damn about maintaining economic balance between contractors (Congress does, but then they don't have anything to do with the decision).  However, according to Don Rice (as I remember), Contractor's past programs and their creditability at delivering these projects did play a role in the final decision. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 14, 2008, 03:51:00 pm
I seriously doubt that economic status of contractors played any factor in there if we talking history here.  It certainly doesn't go well with tradition of the Air Force (or Navy, or any other branch), which never really give a damn about maintaining economic balance between contractors (Congress does, but then they don't have anything to do with the decision).  However, according to Don Rice (as I remember), Contractor's past programs and their creditability at delivering these projects did play a role in the final decision. 

Economic status of a contractor (other than being financially able to perform) would not be a major concern in this  particular case, although in the past there were cases of contracts being awarded  so that one manufacturer wouldn't have all the business in order to maintain competition.  However, what would enter in here would be something called "industrial policy", a philosophy that the administration of the elder Bush was known to be a proponent of. 

By the late '80s it was apparent that there would not be enough programs coming along to maintain as big a manufacturing and design base as currently existed.  More simply put, we weren't going to need all the aircraft companies we had at the time (at the time there were eight major military ones).  Partly this was addressed through the encouragement, and often the mandate, of teaming  (In fact, word is that on the A-12, not only was teaming mandated, but the gov't even decreed who would team with who, but that's another topic), but even that wouldn't be enough, some companies were going to have to be absorbed by others or fall by the wayside.  Industrial policy meant that not only did you look at who proposed  the "best" or most cost effective plane, but which companies were the most versatile, diverse or could provide services that might be necessary in the future.  In other words, who did you need (or want) to be around in the future to do other work for you?  You also looked at what other business other companies had that might keep them going for a while without having to win the particular contract under question.  These considerations would way as much, or even more than, how well the submission performed, as long as they met at least minimum requirements (and in ATF , both submissions met and in some cases exceeded requirements). 

Keeping in mind that these kind of decisions are not snap decisions and the way the gov't works once a consensus  or decision is made, it tends to keep going even if circumstances change between when it is made and when it is announced, it is perfectly possible to postulate that DoD/AF felt that they wanted Lockheed and Boeing to stay in the military business more (especially since Northrop and MDD had what looked got be ongoing programs to tide them over when the course was set).   There's nothing illegal or dishonest about this, it's just looking long term. .   I'm not saying this did happen, but it certainly could have, and it would have explained a lot.   Of course, one has to wonder just how good the gov't is in setting industrial policy, given its record.   To cite another example (and I don't mean to bring this controversy onto this thread, it's just for illustration):  To a number of people, candor forces me to admit I'm one of them, the decision to not proceed with the Block IV upgrade of the F-14D but to develop the F/A-18E/F only makes sense in terms of industrial policy.  MDD (and to a lesser extent Northrop) was a more versatile company and was necessary for other ongoing programs.  Grumman was an excellent, though arrogant, builder of naval aircraft, a more niche aircraft contractor.  MDD had nothing else to keep it going in the near term, hence the Super Hornet. 

Maybe, though not to so great an extent, this is what happened with ATF.   Of course it didn't hurt that next to the F/A-18 lobby, Lockheed is about as good as it gets on effective lobbying. 

Also, Congress has a big say in the way decisions are made.  After all, if they don't like something, they can refuse to fund it, so that's always a consideration.  Whose District a project is in always is taken into consideration.  They don't take as obvious a role (except in cases like the C-5 and  a few other examples), because they never want to be held accountable for what they do, but that doesn't mean they aren't involved. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on December 14, 2008, 09:52:00 pm
Wow, that certainly is a huge leap of faith, but then you have the right to pursuit your own opinion.  The reason I believe that it's not Air Force's tradition due to the recent tanker AF decision and the JSF program where McDonnell Douglas was cast out even though there were letters sent to the Air Force by members from Congress concerning MD's economic future. 

However, you have a point, in which I totally agreed and kinda relate back to my previous post, which is that it's reasonable for the Air Force to take the one that is less likely to get cancelled by Congress.  Boeing had a firm base of proponents in Congress.  if the ATF was to face cancellation in the future, Boeing with its political influences would have helped (which I think it did). 

With all things have been said and released and how they fit together, I think that they pointed toward the notion that the MAIN reason was good presentation, management that won the game when both aircrafts met or exceeded requirements (especially even if MD president said so).  As much as I understand, all of us agreed with this. This is of course, reasonable since that's the whole point of building a prototype instead of choosing just one of the concepts, to prove concept's feasibility (note that I don't mean 'feasibility' in the sense that "can you build it or not," but that "can you build it within projected cost and time").  Lockheed/Boeing/GD team did a better job at proving that to the AF.    There MIGHT be some other reasons, but that where they stopped, due to the lack of evidences, and there's just no reason to believe in it unless you intentionally wanted to believe so. 

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 14, 2008, 10:38:50 pm
Wow, that certainly is a huge leap of faith, but then you have the right to pursuit your own opinion.  The reason I believe that it's not Air Force's tradition due to the recent tanker AF decision and the JSF program where McDonnell Douglas was cast out even though there were letters sent to the Air Force by members from Congress concerning MD's economic future. 

However, you have a point, in which I totally agreed and kinda relate back to my previous post, which is that it's reasonable for the Air Force to take the one that is less likely to get cancelled by Congress.  Boeing had a firm base of proponents in Congress.  if the ATF was to face cancellation in the future, Boeing with its political influences would have helped (which I think it did). 

With all things have been said and released and how they fit together, I think that they pointed toward the notion that the MAIN reason was good presentation, management that won the game when both aircrafts met or exceeded requirements (especially even if MD president said so).  As much as I understand, all of us agreed with this. This is of course, reasonable since that's the whole point of building a prototype instead of choosing just one of the concepts, to prove concept's feasibility (note that I don't mean 'feasibility' in the sense that "can you build it or not," but that "can you build it within projected cost and time").  Lockheed/Boeing/GD team did a better job at proving that to the AF.    There MIGHT be some other reasons, but that where they stopped, due to the lack of evidences, and there's just no reason to believe in it unless you intentionally wanted to believe so. 



Well, in the case of the KC-X MDD no longer existed, and what virtually everyone seems to agree is that after USAF saw what both proposed, they decided they wanted the KC-30 more, even though what it did better was not what USAF had asked for.  That's why the protest was sustained, not because there was plenty of Congressional lobbying for both planes.   In the case of JSF, where relative capability was an evalution factor, MDD absolutely came in third. 

As far as ATF goes, I'm simply offering up a  thought on what might possibly have  happened given how unusual the selection criteria was set up (I don't think there's ever been like that before or since).  Not saying this actually did happen,  I have no evidence.  Although there was some indication that Lockheed may have been favored, and it is clearly true that Northrop/MDD/s paperwork wasn't as good, and as we all know, in these modern times the weight of the proposal can be an indicator of who's going to be looked at with approval, since we now work more towards lowest risk instead of max performance. 

USAF still got a superb plane
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on December 15, 2008, 12:11:31 am


Well, in the case of the KC-X MDD no longer existed, and what virtually everyone seems to agree is that after USAF saw what both proposed, they decided they wanted the KC-30 more, even though what it did better was not what USAF had asked for.  That's why the protest was sustained, not because there was plenty of Congressional lobbying for both planes. 
For the tanker decision, I was referring to that a team that include a major foreign partner, which reduced the jobs of the nation industrial base, was chosen.  In short, I was referring to the Air Force's ex-decision, not the Gate's decision for the rebid.

Quote
In the case of JSF, where relative capability was an evalution factor, MDD absolutely came in third. 

So your point being? That the decision wasn't influenced by maintaining manufacturing balance between contractors because capabilities being the evaluation factor? And the ATF was influenced by such factor because confidence in contractor's team to deliver on time and at projected cost? I apologize but I do not find this anyway logical.

Quote
As far as ATF goes, I'm simply offering up a  thought on what might possibly have  happened given how unusual the selection criteria was set up (I don't think there's ever been like that before or since).  Not saying this actually did happen,  I have no evidence.  Although there was some indication that Lockheed may have been favored, and it is clearly true that Northrop/MDD/s paperwork wasn't as good, and as we all know, in these modern times the weight of the proposal can be an indicator of who's going to be looked at with approval, since we now work more towards lowest risk instead of max performance. 

USAF still got a superb plane
I apologize I read too much into it.  It just that the particular post in discussion lack some "if" so I misunderstood.  My bad!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 22, 2008, 04:11:21 pm


Well, in the case of the KC-X MDD no longer existed, and what virtually everyone seems to agree is that after USAF saw what both proposed, they decided they wanted the KC-30 more, even though what it did better was not what USAF had asked for.  That's why the protest was sustained, not because there was plenty of Congressional lobbying for both planes.
For the tanker decision, I was referring to that a team that include a major foreign partner, which reduced the jobs of the nation industrial base, was chosen.  In short, I was referring to the Air Force's ex-decision, not the Gate's decision for the rebid.

Quote
In the case of JSF, where relative capability was an evalution factor, MDD absolutely came in third.

So your point being? That the decision wasn't influenced by maintaining manufacturing balance between contractors because capabilities being the evaluation factor? And the ATF was influenced by such factor because confidence in contractor's team to deliver on time and at projected cost? I apologize but I do not find this anyway logical.

Quote
As far as ATF goes, I'm simply offering up a  thought on what might possibly have  happened given how unusual the selection criteria was set up (I don't think there's ever been like that before or since).  Not saying this actually did happen,  I have no evidence.  Although there was some indication that Lockheed may have been favored, and it is clearly true that Northrop/MDD/s paperwork wasn't as good, and as we all know, in these modern times the weight of the proposal can be an indicator of who's going to be looked at with approval, since we now work more towards lowest risk instead of max performance. 

USAF still got a superb plane
I apologize I read too much into it.  It just that the particular post in discussion lack some "if" so I misunderstood.  My bad!


Been away for a while.  I'm going to stick my response to your thoughts all here at the end because I tend to screw up format-wise when I interleave. 

In the case of the tanker, I wasn't referring to the re-bid either, but the original KC-X decision.   What I was saying was that USAF didn't feel like following its own announced rules and selection criteria so the award was overturned.  You are right about MDD's economic future on JSF, they realized that if they didn't win JSF they would not survive, which is why they were so receptive when Boeing approached. 

Following up on the JSF issue, in the competition there leading up to the flyoff, DoD had very definite performance and relative weight assigned to aspects of the specifications.   If MDD and produced a design that promised to match those criteria best, they would have been selected to go on.  As it happened, MDD definitely came in third, and so they were not selected to move on to the next phase ("MDD.  The tribe has spoken, it's time for you to go".).  For ATF there was nothing like that.  It was basically, "You've got to do at least this.  Beyond that we can pick anything we want for any reason we want". 

Regarding the ATF competition, you didn't over read me, so there's no reason to be sorry.  Although I have no proof, just observations from what happened from the mid-80s through the selection, some personallly and some second hand, it is my personal belief that they always intended to favor Lockheed for industrial policy reasons and Lockheed would have to screw up badly to not get the contract.   For example, it's well-known that the YF-23 was ready to fly by the original required date.  Lockheed, though, because of the need for extensive redesign (of which they did a remarkable job), said they would need around six more months.  The program was then restructured to let Lockheed catch up.  Northrop/MDD wanted to fly, but were forbidden to do so, even using their own money.   There are other examples.  It's important to also look at the whole exercise from what was known and expected then, without the knowledge we have today of how the industry and the world actually turned out.    Remember again, there's never been a solicitation like this one, before or since.   

It's quite possible that USAF did have more confidence in Lockheed's team to deliver on time and at projected cost, I'm not sure if that would be a valid position, but it was their's to have.   They definitely were better in documentation.   That would certainly be a valid reason to award to them but again, USAF could award for any reason they felt like.   The better documentation would in this case reaffirm a decision they were probably going to make anyway, barring a catastrophic performance.  The YF-23 was probably better, and probably would have done at least as well transitioning to production, but it wasn't unbelievably better.  It probably didn't have the RCS of the hair on a baby gnat, the range to circle the world twice without refueling, carry an ICBM internally, supercruise at Warp 3 and automatically deploy a golf course and O Club at forward sires.   Either way USAF could expect to get a remarkable plane for the time, and it did. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 22, 2008, 04:22:56 pm
For example, it's well-known that the YF-23 was ready to fly by the original required date.  Lockheed, though, because of the need for extensive redesign (of which they did a remarkable job), said they would need around six more months.  The program was then restructured to let Lockheed catch up.  Northrop/MDD wanted to fly, but were forbidden to do so, even using their own money.  

Agreed. It's like Lochte and Phelps standing on start, then judge comes, says that Lochte needs to change for Speedo Speedskin suit, but Mike will get 100 bucks reward for this (if you remember, USAF paid Northrop team a 'compensation' for half-a-year delay).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 22, 2008, 04:43:44 pm
For example, it's well-known that the YF-23 was ready to fly by the original required date.  Lockheed, though, because of the need for extensive redesign (of which they did a remarkable job), said they would need around six more months.  The program was then restructured to let Lockheed catch up.  Northrop/MDD wanted to fly, but were forbidden to do so, even using their own money.   

Agreed. It's like Lochte and Phelps standing on start, then judge comes, says that Lochte needs to change for Speedo Speedskin suit, but Mike will get 100 bucks reward for this (if you remember, USAF paid Northrop team a 'compensation' for half-a-year delay).

You are correct.  The "compensation" was for the cost of keeping their planes ready and the engineering and flight teams together as this was a cost imposed by the Gov't and not part of what they included in their bids. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on December 29, 2008, 01:16:20 pm
Been away for a while.  I'm going to stick my response to your thoughts all here at the end because I tend to screw up format-wise when I interleave. 

In the case of the tanker, I wasn't referring to the re-bid either, but the original KC-X decision.   What I was saying was that USAF didn't feel like following its own announced rules and selection criteria so the award was overturned.  You are right about MDD's economic future on JSF, they realized that if they didn't win JSF they would not survive, which is why they were so receptive when Boeing approached. 

So as much as I understand it, what you said didn't refute my point, which was that in the tanker decision, maintaining the nation's industrial base was not a influencial factor.
Quote
Following up on the JSF issue, in the competition there leading up to the flyoff, DoD had very definite performance and relative weight assigned to aspects of the specifications.   If MDD and produced a design that promised to match those criteria best, they would have been selected to go on.  As it happened, MDD definitely came in third, and so they were not selected to move on to the next phase ("MDD.  The tribe has spoken, it's time for you to go".).  For ATF there was nothing like that.  It was basically, "You've got to do at least this.  Beyond that we can pick anything we want for any reason we want". 

It still doesn't refute my point that economy was not an influential factor in the JSF decision. These two examples I pointed out was to show that it's not Air Force's tradition to put contractor's future into their decision making process.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As for ATF's "unusual' setup, wasn't it the modified version after the DoD stepped in? In that case, it could be explained why the setup was so unique.
Quote
Regarding the ATF competition, you didn't over read me, so there's no reason to be sorry.  Although I have no proof, just observations from what happened from the mid-80s through the selection, some personallly and some second hand, it is my personal belief that they always intended to favor Lockheed for industrial policy reasons and Lockheed would have to screw up badly to not get the contract.   For example, it's well-known that the YF-23 was ready to fly by the original required date.  Lockheed, though, because of the need for extensive redesign (of which they did a remarkable job), said they would need around six more months.  The program was then restructured to let Lockheed catch up.  Northrop/MDD wanted to fly, but were forbidden to do so, even using their own money.   There are other examples.  It's important to also look at the whole exercise from what was known and expected then, without the knowledge we have today of how the industry and the world actually turned out.    Remember again, there's never been a solicitation like this one, before or since.   

It's quite possible that USAF did have more confidence in Lockheed's team to deliver on time and at projected cost, I'm not sure if that would be a valid position, but it was their's to have.   They definitely were better in documentation.   That would certainly be a valid reason to award to them but again, USAF could award for any reason they felt like.   The better documentation would in this case reaffirm a decision they were probably going to make anyway, barring a catastrophic performance.  The YF-23 was probably better, and probably would have done at least as well transitioning to production, but it wasn't unbelievably better.  It probably didn't have the RCS of the hair on a baby gnat, the range to circle the world twice without refueling, carry an ICBM internally, supercruise at Warp 3 and automatically deploy a golf course and O Club at forward sires.   Either way USAF could expect to get a remarkable plane for the time, and it did. 
As for your example, wasn't it that the delay for NATF study after the DoD stepped in to have the navy and airforce "buying" each other "products" (ATF and ATA respectively)? And even if it's not for NATF study, it can easily be explained if you look at it from the perspective of the Air Force.  Their priority was not to have the fairest competition process, but to have the "best" options out of the competition for them to choose.  Think of it as a race, where lockheed and northrop were the racers.  As the judge, their priority is to have both racers finish the race, so they would have more options to choose.  This happens once again during the JSF competition, when Lockheed ran into a huge mismanagement (was it mismanagement or something else?).  the Air Force faced 2 choices, to immediately award the contract to Boeing or "forgive" Lockheed and have the competition running as intended.  They chose the latter.  Was it fair for Boeing? Definitely not! Though fairness was not the judge's priority, that doesn't mean that the Air Force intentionally favored the other team because of reason such as politics. So back to the case of the ATF program, it certainly wasn't fair for Northrop, but that doesn't mean that the motivation of the delay was because of Air Force intended Lockheed to win.  If Northrop was the one who needed a major redesign, I think there would still be a delay for them to catch up.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on December 29, 2008, 04:30:23 pm
Quote
If Northrop was the one who needed a major redesign, I think there would still be a delay for them to catch up.

That's not what happened with the LWF program. Although, that was different due to reasons of when NATO was going to make their choice for their F-104 replacement. Then there was the F-20. Then the YF-23. If it is partly because of keeping airframe contractors going, N-G must be getting alot of classified work.  ;)

I've often wondered, thinking out load here, if part of the reason the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 is an existing aircraft with which the performance of the YF-23 overlapped, so that made some of it's performance irrelevant. I base this on the description of the aircraft that supposedly crashed at Boscombe Downe and has supposedly been seen at various military bases; The most recent example having been at Yokata in Japan, according to AW&ST. I don't think it's called Aurora, I think it's called ASTRA (Advanced Strike and Tactical Recon Aircraft) and I think it is sort of a hybrid replacement for the F-111 and SR-71 and in a pinch could also be a Mach 3+, high mach 2,8+, dash speed interceptor.

If we do have a such a high speed stealthy aircraft, that would sort of negate some of what the YF-23 could do and the YF-22 would give the USAF greater coverage of the entire aerospace flight envelope than the YF-23 would have, due to it's greater maneuverability. Of course, that would partly depend on how many of this other aircraft were built. It's just a thought, but I wonder to what extent "classified" aircraft affect these choices, if at all? Or would it be too compartmentalized to have any effect?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on December 29, 2008, 04:38:22 pm
It's just a thought, but I wonder to what extent "classified" aircraft affect these choices, if at all? Or would it be too compartmentalized to have any effect?

Just look at what Lockheed had to do to get on the Have Blue program.  I'll bet there are lots of times when classification causes needless duplication and wasted money.  Imagine group A does something successfully and then 10 years later Group 3 is tasked to do virtually the same thing (because they don't know of the existence of Group A's work) - and fails.  So Group B blows through it's money, fails, and whoever doesn't get the item they need when all along it was sitting on a shelf somewhere. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 08, 2009, 06:34:37 pm
In case of the f-22, active radar on the nose as usual, and passive one scattered around the leading edge.  Does anyone know how the radars were arranged on the f-23 proposal?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Burnelli Support Group on January 08, 2009, 08:21:20 pm
I seriously doubt that economic status of contractors played any factor in there if we talking history here. 

Here's what I was told yesterday, Jan 8, 2009.  I was discussing the f-22/23 decision with a hobby shop owner in Austin, Texas.  He asked, "Who was president at the time?  When was that choice made?"  I told  him I believed it was 1991.  "Well, there ya go," he says.  "George Bush senior?  Lockheed Martin?  Texas?  Bush?  There's yer answer."

Yep, sounds about right to me.  Isn't that how all the major decisions are made if the president has a mind to get involved? 

The fact that this discussion is still going on after 17/18 years shows that there was a lot of emotional and logical support for the YF-23.  I wonder if there would be any discussion or support for 'this long' had the 22 lost as it should have. 

As for the comment someone made about the differences not being "that" much.  The point of the exercise is to choose the better plane (politics aside).  The YF-23 was faster, more stealthy, could maneuver just a well without thrust vectoring and had no heat signature (HELLO!  Thrust vectoring = heat signature big time.  Just shoot me down now.)  The YF-23 was and, with all its controls back in place, is "still the most advanced fighter plane to date."  Quote from one who was in the know.  The F-22 is a good plane for sure but why choose 2nd best?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 08, 2009, 08:29:50 pm
I seriously doubt that economic status of contractors played any factor in there if we talking history here. 

Here's what I was told yesterday, Jan 8, 2009.  I was discussing the f-22/23 decision with a hobby shop owner in Austin, Texas.  He asked, "Who was president at the time?  When was that choice made?"  I told  him I believed it was 1991.  "Well, there ya go," he says.  "George Bush senior?  Lockheed Martin?  Texas?  Bush?  There's yer answer."

Yep, sounds about right to me.  Isn't that how all the major decisions are made if the president has a mind to get involved? 

The fact that this discussion is still going on after 17/18 years shows that there was a lot of emotional and logical support for the YF-23.  I wonder if there would be any discussion or support for 'this long' had the 22 lost as it should have. 

As for the comment someone made about the differences not being "that" much.  The point of the exercise is to choose the better plane (politics aside).  The YF-23 was faster, more stealthy, could maneuver just a well without thrust vectoring and had no heat signature (HELLO!  Thrust vectoring = heat signature big time.  Just shoot me down now.)  The YF-23 was and, with all its controls back in place, is "still the most advanced fighter plane to date."  Quote from one who was in the know.  The F-22 is a good plane for sure but why choose 2nd best?
I suggest you go read a few pages back
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RobertWL on January 08, 2009, 11:38:40 pm
I seriously doubt that economic status of contractors played any factor in there if we talking history here. 

Here's what I was told yesterday, Jan 8, 2009.  I was discussing the f-22/23 decision with a hobby shop owner in Austin, Texas.  He asked, "Who was president at the time?  When was that choice made?"  I told  him I believed it was 1991.  "Well, there ya go," he says.  "George Bush senior?  Lockheed Martin?  Texas?  Bush?  There's yer answer."

Yep, sounds about right to me.  Isn't that how all the major decisions are made if the president has a mind to get involved? 


You know I don't post much, but that claim is so absurd.  :o General Dynamics was the dominate force as far as Aircraft production goes in Texas in 91, The only presence Lockheed might've had in Texas ((to my memory)) would've been the Fire control & Mission Division MAYBE.. I can't remember if that division has always been in the Lockheed fold or was purchased like General Dynamics was in 1993. I might be missing something, but such a claim is rather silly.  ::)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on January 09, 2009, 12:01:03 am
GDFW (General Dynamics Fort Worth) was not part of Lockheed Martin (which didn't exist until 1995) at the time of the 1991 ATF award to the F-22. But they were part of the team. GDFW build the central fuselage for the F-22 - the largest share of construction work. Boeing build the aft and the forward section and final integration is by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Georgia. So F-22 was a big win for Texas. As opposed to all the California and Missouri work for F-23.

There were no doubt political considerations in the F-22 award, especially the huge lobbying efforst of the Georgia Caucus in US Congress. But perhaps it is just conincidence that the three largest combat aircraft contract awards for USAF in the past 30 years have all been to the home states of the Presidents. B-1B to Rockwell North American in California (Reagan, R-CA), F-22 to Lockheed/GDFW/Boeing (Bush I, R-TX) and F-35 to Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman (Bush II, R-TX). You could also argue that each bid won against something a bit more exciting technically; the FB-111H, F-23 and F-32.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 09, 2009, 05:53:35 am
GDFW (General Dynamics Fort Worth) was not part of Lockheed Martin (which didn't exist until 1995) at the time of the 1991 ATF award to the F-22. But they were part of the team. GDFW build the central fuselage for the F-22 - the largest share of construction work. Boeing build the aft and the forward section and final integration is by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Georgia. So F-22 was a big win for Texas. As opposed to all the California and Missouri work for F-23.

There were no doubt political considerations in the F-22 award, especially the huge lobbying efforst of the Georgia Caucus in US Congress. But perhaps it is just conincidence that the three largest combat aircraft contract awards for USAF in the past 30 years have all been to the home states of the Presidents. B-1B to Rockwell North American in California (Reagan, R-CA), F-22 to Lockheed/GDFW/Boeing (Bush I, R-TX) and F-35 to Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman (Bush II, R-TX). You could also argue that each bid won against something a bit more exciting technically; the FB-111H, F-23 and F-32.

B-1 was developed during the Carter years.

GDs ATF entry was not chosen.

The F-35 was the better choice of the X-35 and X-32. The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 09, 2009, 12:33:40 pm
The F-35 was the better choice of the X-35 and X-32. The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.
He probably meant that the x-32 was more radical and riskier than x-35, which was true.  Due to its radical design approach, it was able to beat the lockheed aircraft in term of development time and cost by significant margin (until the boeing employee strike set in).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: frank on January 09, 2009, 03:43:18 pm

         I think technically, before just using the blanket designation of B-1 & who was in office, IIRC, the B-1A was during the Ford & early Carter years & Carter cancelled it in favor of the ATB/Stealth Bomber program. Reagan, again, IIRC, re-instated the B-1 development AS the B-1B, so the B-1B was during the Reagan years.




GDFW (General Dynamics Fort Worth) was not part of Lockheed Martin (which didn't exist until 1995) at the time of the 1991 ATF award to the F-22. But they were part of the team. GDFW build the central fuselage for the F-22 - the largest share of construction work. Boeing build the aft and the forward section and final integration is by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Georgia. So F-22 was a big win for Texas. As opposed to all the California and Missouri work for F-23.

There were no doubt political considerations in the F-22 award, especially the huge lobbying efforst of the Georgia Caucus in US Congress. But perhaps it is just conincidence that the three largest combat aircraft contract awards for USAF in the past 30 years have all been to the home states of the Presidents. B-1B to Rockwell North American in California (Reagan, R-CA), F-22 to Lockheed/GDFW/Boeing (Bush I, R-TX) and F-35 to Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman (Bush II, R-TX). You could also argue that each bid won against something a bit more exciting technically; the FB-111H, F-23 and F-32.

B-1 was developed during the Carter years.

GDs ATF entry was not chosen.

The F-35 was the better choice of the X-35 and X-32. The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on January 09, 2009, 04:14:54 pm
B-1 was developed during the Carter years.

Please note we are talking about production contracts. The B-1B was ordered into production by Reagan over the FB-111H. Palmdale, CA vs Forth Worth, TX. The B-1A was developed in the 1970s but canceled by Carter because of the promise of the ATB program (later the B-2A).

GDs ATF entry was not chosen.

Yes back in the 1980s and after that GDFW teamed with Lockheed to be the most significant production partner in the F-22 project which won the final development and production award for ATF.

The F-35 was the better choice of the X-35 and X-32. The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.

I said 'technically interesting' and beyond the STOVL system was so. Of course the X-32 was flying on a F119 not a F135...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: robunos on January 12, 2009, 12:23:54 pm
Quote
The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.

I was under the impression that a _vertical_ take-off was not required, that is, the JSF was a STOVL, not VTOL, aircraft.
As I understood it, the JSF would only ever perform short rolling take-offs, the only vertical flight requirement being for a vertical _landing_.

cheers,
         Robin.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on January 12, 2009, 12:52:37 pm
Quote
The X-32 could barely do a vertical takeoff at sea level with parts left on the ground.

I was under the impression that a _vertical_ take-off was not required, that is, the JSF was a STOVL, not VTOL, aircraft.
As I understood it, the JSF would only ever perform short rolling take-offs, the only vertical flight requirement being for a vertical _landing_.

cheers,
         Robin.
As I remember at the top of my head, the JSF is required to land vertically with full internal weapons and minimum fuel. Hence, JSF should be able to take of vertically if no weapons or minimal weapons are carried.

All prototypes gain weight as they go into full scale development. If the X-32 could barely do the vertical take under ideal condition with several hundred pounds of parts removed, it was more doubtful the production aircraft could do.

F-22 gained about 5 tons (~10,000lb) as it went from YF-22 to F-22A.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: robunos on January 12, 2009, 01:26:00 pm
oops,  i'd forgotten about the 'bring-back' requirement...
then again, sooner or later, in an operational situation, i'm sure someone is going to have need of full VTOL performance, so maybe this aspect of the JSF's performance envelope is going to be seen as an error....

cheers,
         Robin.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 12, 2009, 02:15:37 pm
oops,  i'd forgotten about the 'bring-back' requirement...
then again, sooner or later, in an operational situation, i'm sure someone is going to have need of full VTOL performance, so maybe this aspect of the JSF's performance envelope is going to be seen as an error....

cheers,
         Robin.
We never had a truly full VTOL performance (with weapon load) before, not even with the harriers.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: doolyii on January 13, 2009, 10:29:31 am
This looks interesting...
http://books.google.com/books?id=eyPfgGGTfGgC&pg=PA65&dq=yf-23#PPA62,M1
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 14, 2009, 12:50:41 pm
This looks interesting...
http://books.google.com/books?id=eyPfgGGTfGgC&pg=PA65&dq=yf-23#PPA62,M1
Where did you get these pictures? Great ones, by the way. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 14, 2009, 01:23:34 pm
first one, f-16.net forum, posted by SoCal_CJ
second is from ATF-23 promotional brochure
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: doolyii on January 14, 2009, 03:46:41 pm
i am trying to get the original somewhere to get it scanned...
This is something I scanned from collection, quality may not as good as original 5 MB pictures..
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 14, 2009, 07:02:08 pm
Thanks, guys! I found those pix a while ago uploaded by someone named Jon borlin, but they were not as big as the ones doolyii posted:
http://picasaweb.google.com/jonborlin/YF23#
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 10, 2009, 04:51:46 am
Well, guys, I've thought, that I, Matej and Lantinian are nuttiest YF-23 nuts around. But...not...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on February 10, 2009, 07:39:33 pm
Any other photos of the YF-22 and YF-23 flying in formation?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 11, 2009, 07:58:34 am
...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on February 11, 2009, 09:58:18 am
at the cost of repeating something that has been said a million times - But looking at these pictures one cannot help but think DAMN the YF-23 is sexy! It makes the F-22 look pedestrian in comparison.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on February 11, 2009, 10:46:25 am
Flateric, do you have any higher res versions of those pictures?  (Great pics BTW.)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 11, 2009, 11:36:16 am
Yes, but due to some obligations can't post, sorry...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pometablava on February 11, 2009, 01:48:51 pm
Thanks Flateric,

Now I see there is something sexier than a F-23, a couple of F-23 flying in formation. That 05.jpg pic is gorgeus!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 11, 2009, 02:10:25 pm
note that the last one is not famous photo from Dryden site - it's another from a series
there were made more than dozen thousands of photos of YF-23 by Northrop and USAF during ATF program, several hundreds hours of footage
where did they go, no one knows...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 11, 2009, 02:15:44 pm
...sad twins... :'(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 11, 2009, 04:42:48 pm
the yf-22 looks butt ugly when flying around yf-23. 

P.S. and Flateric, you ROCK!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on February 11, 2009, 04:48:09 pm
Yes, but due to some obligations can't post, sorry...

Dang, okay. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: tacitblue on February 12, 2009, 07:52:28 am
Comparing the YF-22 prototypes with the production F-22, its apparent that Lockheed and the USAF sacrificed speed for lower speed maneuverability.  The YF-22 was in its own right a very unique appearing aircraft that as it was redesigned it became a very conventional looking airframe.  Sure they will tell you that it still meets the requirements, but its also obvious that the prototype airframe was probably capable of faster cruising speeds (with the production PWs) than the F-22A. 

I wonder what the F-23A would have looked like in its final design should it have beat Lockmart. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 12, 2009, 09:15:29 am
I wonder what the F-23A would have looked like in its final design should it have beat Lockmart. 

Try to read this thread from the beginning=)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: dreamstar on February 12, 2009, 09:50:12 am
I am probably going to star a heated argument here but I think the YF-23 wins aesthetically compared to the YF-22. The continuous curvature gives it sense of aerodynamic fluidity and therefore beauty that the angled YF-22 just does not have.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on February 12, 2009, 10:47:47 am
I am probably going to star a heated argument here but I think the YF-23 wins aesthetically compared to the YF-22. The continuous curvature gives it sense of aerodynamic fluidity and therefore beauty that the angled YF-22 just does not have.

Agreed. it's like arguing over blondes or brunettes. This being said, the YF-23 is more likely to satisfy the aesthetical needs of your average aviation enthusiast (me included).
As you mentioned, the curvaceous nature of the mold lines is more pleasing to the eye. On a side view, the YF-23 shows a slim, 'flattened' profile, while the Raptor is a little bit 'deep' or pudgy.
From the front, the YF-23 lines flow one into the other, whereas the F-22 has that very angular, almost canoe-like look. About the only angle that was not entirely satisfying on the YF-23 was looking at it from the bottom. I can't quite figure why, but I think that it's the very wide surface between the engines.  That flattened area contributes to lift too, but it does throw off the usual ratio of fuselage width/wing span that I am accustomed to see on a fighter.
I realize this is a highly subjective and utterly non-technical discussion, so I'll stop here! ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Remko on February 12, 2009, 12:50:10 pm
It might have been posted in this thread alrady, or be common knowledge to many members, but why was the YF-22 chosen over the YF-23? From what I've heared the YF-23 had a better performance (much faster than the YF-22) and vastly improved stealth qualities. So it should have won the competition, if only because it's just a damn sexy and much better looking aircraft  B).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 12, 2009, 02:21:12 pm
If you are lazy to tead the thread from the beginning, why you will bother to read the answer to the question you have asked right here?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on February 12, 2009, 04:21:38 pm
Yeah, it is ironic isn't is. (the ATF selection or your reply Remko I cannot tell).

Perhaps the down-select commission was full with guys like you, unwilling to look through the long papers submitted by Lockheed and Northrop. Maybe ready to pass judgement based on their political state of mind not facts, if the facts do not support their decision as you say.

Well,  the facts are, that you have 22 pages of opinions from different people answering and debating your question, Remko.

I suggest you spend few hours reading this whole thread. I bet you will learn things you have not even though of asking for.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 12, 2009, 06:03:57 pm
It might have been posted in this thread alrady, or be common knowledge to many members, but why was the YF-22 chosen over the YF-23? From what I've heared the YF-23 had a better performance (much faster than the YF-22) and vastly improved stealth qualities. So it should have won the competition, if only because it's just a damn sexy and much better looking aircraft  B).
Start from page 14, from my reply #202 (as far as I know that's where the debate started to get down and dirty).  From there, me, lantinian, and f-14d are probably the 3 most active in the debate (if I'm missing out anyone else, I'm sorry).  I can't give you my opinion here, or anyone else, because it's just gonna spam the thread with repeated posts. 

You gotta understand how we feeling considering all the words that have been said and for someone else just come in ressurrecting the same question that has been beaten and phased out in the process. 

EDIT: as for someone who said that he/she probably gonna start a heated debate when he/she said that the yf-23 is more beautiful.  Is that even a debate ;D ? I hardly find anyone in this thread that thinks the yf-22 more beautiful. If it's even a debate at all, it would be a very one sided one.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on February 12, 2009, 10:22:13 pm
Quote
EDIT: as for someone who said that he/she probably gonna start a heated debate when he/she said that the yf-23 is more beautiful.  Is that even a debate  ? I hardly find anyone in this thread that thinks the yf-22 more beautiful

Yes, YF-23 wins all beauty contests hands down.

Its also interesting to note that most people also find the F-117 to be ugly. This of course has to do with Lockheed and Northrop basic stealth philosophy in the early 80s. As the F-22 happens to be half in between those two philosophies (at least in shape), I guess you can either think of it as half as beautiful as the YF-23 or the F-117 but never #1.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 12, 2009, 10:49:43 pm
Quote
EDIT: as for someone who said that he/she probably gonna start a heated debate when he/she said that the yf-23 is more beautiful.  Is that even a debate  ? I hardly find anyone in this thread that thinks the yf-22 more beautiful

Yes, YF-23 wins all beauty contests hands down.

Its also interesting to note that most people also find the F-117 to be ugly. This of course has to do with Lockheed and Northrop basic stealth philosophy in the early 80s. As the F-22 happens to be half in between those two philosophies (at least in shape), I guess you can either think of it as half as beautiful as the YF-23 or the F-117 but never #1.
Talking about beauty, I think the yf-23 is the best representation of what 5th generation fighter should look like.  The yf-22 is butt ugly and awkward.  The f-22 looks a hell lot of an improvement, but still looks like just a f-15 on stealth steroid, not true " aesthetically next generation" like when we move from the f-5 to the f-14 and f-15. 

As for the f-117, it looks beautiful from afar, but up close, its nose is the big killer.  Same with b-2, the separated blending of the 3 "tubes" (the 2 inlet/engines on the side and the main body inbetween) is the killer, though the overall beauty overwhelms this shortcoming.  If only 2 engines and the main body are closer and blends together like the 2018 proposals, it would have looked perfect.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Remko on February 13, 2009, 09:47:43 am
If you are lazy to tead the thread from the beginning, why you will bother to read the answer to the question you have asked right here?

Ah yes... Good point.  :-[

Well, of to read the whole thread from the beginning then...  ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on February 13, 2009, 07:48:43 pm
Although, at least the production F-22 isn't near as ugly as the YF-22. However, in my book, the YF-23 is the best fighter never built.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on February 13, 2009, 08:21:09 pm
I think we can all agree YF-23 was prettier than YF-22. Perhaps this can be the final time someone mentions it?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 13, 2009, 09:22:23 pm
I read on several times that there was a problem with yf-23's aft being heavy, due to its b-2 like design, but I don't recall these so called information coming from reliable sources, so can anyone refute or validate this? 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: doolyii on February 25, 2009, 11:55:31 pm
These are all beautiful pictures...I love it. Thanks !!
As an engineer who thinks X-32 was an engineering beauty (not for looks), probably I will be the last one eligible talking about which one is better looking. However, I kinda believe that it's little weird even to think about F-22 dogfighting close in against any threat (just compare price tag), so low speed handling issue is little moot point. Speed and stealth were prioritized parameters, but then again both design kinda met performance requirements. I was able to see both F-119 version for YF-23, YF-22 while working at Pratt, both were pretty impressive engineering marble...Variable pitch nozzle of YF-22 looked heavy and complex, but it was at least tried before in previous F-15 experimental work, but YF-23/F-119 nozzle looked incredibly complex and difficult problem (those perforated tiles to deal with afterburning F-119..oh boy..)..

I do think they both met minimum requirements, and decision was made based on (setting aside politics at least) how credible project plan they were presenting and previous record...F-117/Skunkworks vs. B-2/Northrop (not known for good relationship with air force), hard to beat. USAF seems like preferring something looks familiar except A-10 (USAF never liked it) / F-16.. F-15 / F-22 / F-35 are looking pretty evolutionary at least in airframe side.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on February 26, 2009, 11:18:09 am
These are all beautiful pictures...I love it. Thanks !!
As an engineer who thinks X-32 was an engineering beauty (not for looks), probably I will be the last one eligible talking about which one is better looking. However, I kinda believe that it's little weird even to think about F-22 dogfighting close in against any threat (just compare price tag), so low speed handling issue is little moot point. Speed and stealth were prioritized parameters, but then again both design kinda met performance requirements. I was able to see both F-119 version for YF-23, YF-22 while working at Pratt, both were pretty impressive engineering marble...Variable pitch nozzle of YF-22 looked heavy and complex, but it was at least tried before in previous F-15 experimental work, but YF-23/F-119 nozzle looked incredibly complex and difficult problem (those perforated tiles to deal with afterburning F-119..oh boy..)..

I do think they both met minimum requirements, and decision was made based on (setting aside politics at least) how credible project plan they were presenting and previous record...F-117/Skunkworks vs. B-2/Northrop (not known for good relationship with air force), hard to beat. USAF seems like preferring something looks familiar except A-10 (USAF never liked it) / F-16.. F-15 / F-22 / F-35 are looking pretty evolutionary at least in airframe side.

Just my opinion.

Doesn't do the US Air Force much good to order the better looking and superior performing aircraft and then have problems with the contractor or have the project cancelled for political reasons.  Can't blame the US Air Force for backing the aircraft that meets requirements and has the greatest chances of being built in the numbers required and the one that is less costly to maintain.

The McDonnnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II was described as "Double Ugly", but I don't think the US Air Force regrets its decision to buy it.

As for the A-10 Thunderbolt II, I thought that the US Air Force wanted to take the planes out of service because it wanted to get out of the Close Air Support mission and give it to the United States Army. I didn't think it was because the plane in some eyes was considered ugly.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 26, 2009, 11:41:53 am
As an engineer who thinks X-32 was an engineering beauty (not for looks)

Second on that;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: doolyii on February 26, 2009, 03:28:20 pm
The McDonnnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II was described as "Double Ugly", but I don't think the US Air Force regrets its decision to buy it.

As for the A-10 Thunderbolt II, I thought that the US Air Force wanted to take the planes out of service because it wanted to get out of the Close Air Support mission and give it to the United States Army. I didn't think it was because the plane in some eyes was considered ugly.
[/quote]

If I remember correctly, USAF bought F-4 because the performance difference (competing with F106 back then ?) was just too much to keep the pride (not buying Navy plane)...As for close air support business, I think Air Force never wanted that task to any other service (part of the big fight between USAF and Army...restarted with this UAV stuff), A-10 was too slow and too vulnerable to some, that's why they wanted to replace A-10 to F-16 CAS version before Gulf War changed all that...

Still, only A-10 vs A-9 (A-10 was pretty out of trend), YF-16 vs. YF-17 (F-16 were pretty revolutionary) comes to my mind when Air Force selected higher risk (more exotic) design...F-117 was followed different development track as well as SR-71/U-2/B-2..

For fighter, F-15 (better everything than F-4, from same manufacturer)/F-22 (based on F-15 mission, higher-faster-stealthier) /F-35 (single engined F-22, for CAS and interdiction minded) appear to be following pretty general trend of selection..
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 26, 2009, 08:20:01 pm
I read an article a while ago that talked about a legal fight between northrop and one of its subcontractor for the yf-23 exhausts.  Apparently, the exhaust was more complex then they had predicted, and the subcontractor sued northrop for hiding the information before they put their hands to work.  The legal fight didn't settle until 2003 or so, I think.  I forgot most of the content.  Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on February 27, 2009, 04:20:01 am
What makes you say the X-32 was a beauty from an engineering standpoint? How was it better engineered than the X-35?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 27, 2009, 04:45:37 am
I read an article a while ago that talked about a legal fight between northrop and one of its subcontractor for the yf-23 exhausts.  Apparently, the exhaust was more complex then they had predicted, and the subcontractor sued northrop for hiding the information before they put their hands to work.  The legal fight didn't settle until 2003 or so, I think.  I forgot most of the content.  Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.

Rohr Industries? Or Allison?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 27, 2009, 01:22:55 pm
I read an article a while ago that talked about a legal fight between northrop and one of its subcontractor for the yf-23 exhausts.  Apparently, the exhaust was more complex then they had predicted, and the subcontractor sued northrop for hiding the information before they put their hands to work.  The legal fight didn't settle until 2003 or so, I think.  I forgot most of the content.  Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.

Rohr Industries? Or Allison?
Allison.  I found the article:

Quote
GM Wins $68M State Court Judgment Against Northrop
Regarding ATF Subcontract

An Indiana court May 3 awarded General Motors Corp. and Allison Engine Co. Inc. $67.7 million in a long-running dispute with Northrop Grumman Corp. regarding a subcontract under the Air Force Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program (General Motors Corp. v. Northrop Corp., Ind. Super. Ct., No. 49D05-9902-CP-154, 5/3/02).

The judgment reflects a jury award of $31.3 million on four counts and $36.4 million in prejudgment interest on the jury award.

In 1986 Northrop and Lockheed were competing to develop the Air Force's next generation Advanced Tactical Fighter. Like the B-2 stealth bomber, also made by Northrop, its version of the ATF, known as the YF-23, incorporated a number of features to promote stealth, including burying the engines in the aircraft fuselage to shroud rotating engine parts and hot engine exhaust from radar and infrared detection.


Allison Incurred Increased Costs
In September 1987, Northrop's Aircraft Division--which, along with Lockheed, was a prime contractor on the demonstration/validation phase of the ATF program--awarded GM's Allison Gas Turbine Division a $13 million research and development subcontract to design, develop, and fabricate nine sets of Engine Exhaust Liners--actively cooled exhaust troughs that shielded and channeled the engine's exhaust over the YF-23's aft deck. Allison used a patented, proprietary cooling technology known as Lamilloy® to design the Exhaust Liners.

In 1988, Northrop ordered a second component from Allison known as the Trailing Edge, which closed out the Exhaust Liners at the end of the aircraft's aft deck.

Allison incurred large cost increases on the Exhaust Liner (EEL) and Trailing Edge (TE) subcontracts. The EEL subcontract experienced increased costs, including associated profit, of $29.6 million beyond the $13 million price that Northrop paid, i.e., total costs of $42.6 million.

The TE subcontract had incurred costs and associated profit of $7.3 million. For that contract, there was no agreed to price, and Northrop had paid nothing for that work.


Allison Claimed Northrop Withheld Information
The liners performed successfully during flight tests of Northrop's YF-23 in August 1990. However, in April 1991, Northrop lost the ATF competition to the YF-22 built by Lockheed.

In September 1991, Allison sued Northrop in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Ind., to recover its increased costs.

Allison claimed that Northrop:

- withheld "superior knowledge" of the environment in which the liners would have to function,

- provided defective specifications, and

- made major changes to the work during the course of contract performance.

Allison claimed that Northrop's conduct required Allison to develop a more complex, heavier, and much more expensive to manufacture Exhaust Liner system, and that the master agreement executed by the parties entitled Allison to be reimbursed for its increased costs.

With respect to the Trailing Edge contract, Allison alleged that the parties had failed to agree on a price for that added work and that it was entitled to be paid a reasonable price measured by its actual costs.

The sum of incurred costs and profit for the EEL and TE work totaled about $49.9 million, but Northrop had previously paid about $13 million of that, leaving the $36.9 million sued for ($29.6 million plus $7.3 million), an attorney familiar with the case told FCR May 6.

The case was originally scheduled for trial in July 1995, but the original trial judge reconsidered earlier rulings and granted summary judgment to Northrop on the Exhaust Liner claims. In September 1997, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for trial, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied further review.

A jury trial was held before a new trial judge commencing Jan. 22, 2002. It resulted in a jury verdict in favor of GM and Allison on March 13. The jury found for GM and Allison on each of the Exhaust Liner counts--superior knowledge, defective specifications, and major changes--and awarded $25.8 million as Exhaust Liner damages.

The jury also found for GM and Allison on the Trailing Edge claim and awarded $5.4 million for that claim. The jury rejected Northrop's arguments that Northrop had not withheld superior knowledge, provided defective specifications, or made changes to the work.

The jury rejected Northrop's argument that Allison had not given proper notice of its claims. Finally, the jury rejected Northrop's defense on the Trailing Edge claim that Allison was limited to the $2.2 million Allison initially proposed for that work--but not accepted by Northrop--as a not-to-exceed ceiling price. The jury also found against Northrop on its counterclaim.

Thus, Allison recovered $31.3 million, or about 85 percent of the $36.9 million it had sought on the two claims.

Then, on May 3, Judge Gary L. Miller awarded $36.3 million in prejudgment interest for the 11-year period from the dates Allison submitted its Exhaust Liner and Trailing Edge claims--August and December of 1990--through the date of judgment. Together with the $31.3 million jury verdict on the underlying claims, Allison's total recovery is $67.7 million.

Sources said Northrop is considering filing an appeal.

Allison Engine Company Inc., based in Indianapolis, was formed to succeed Allison Gas Turbine Division in 1993, and later became part of Rolls-Royce in 1995. Northrop Aircraft Division became part of Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 27, 2009, 02:47:14 pm
Thanks, an interesting finding. As I know, this is not the only filing related to YF-23.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: crash dummie on February 27, 2009, 07:50:21 pm
what are the BUMPS in front of the intake of the -23
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: aim9xray on February 27, 2009, 08:05:21 pm
The plastic material was swelling and delaminating from the substrate due to exposure to the weather.  The material originally conformed to the outer moldline when the aircraft was flying.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on March 01, 2009, 01:36:58 pm
If you mean the holes, I think they were intended to suck away boundary layer air.  That Allison feature is amusing, I hadn't realized that the exhaust system was "actively cooled". 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: crash dummie on March 03, 2009, 04:53:14 pm
doesnt look like its coming apart, looks look it was made this way
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: crash dummie on March 03, 2009, 04:54:33 pm
whats your idea flatric
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 03, 2009, 05:48:56 pm
what do you mean? this is metallic plate with zillion laser-made holes that was intended to suck turbulent boundary layer to prevent it from coming to intake. PAV-2 was stationed at the open storage for 15+ years, plus, it was mothballed in 1990, with preservative coatings sprayed on all the open holes, including these plates to prevent water/condensate. I presume  that plate got its bumps either while WMOF staff removed coating, or it was just matter of a/c age and storage conditions. It never was intended to look so bad...

That's how it did in 1997. You can see remaining stains from coating. Photo (c) Yuichi Yokokava
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: crash dummie on March 04, 2009, 06:09:20 pm
what intake is this one
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 04, 2009, 06:22:02 pm
right one
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: crash dummie on March 09, 2009, 08:57:23 pm
looks kinda pointed like an arrow instead of boxed
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on March 10, 2009, 08:21:18 am
It's one of the essential features of the YF-23 inlets, and it's meant to lower RCS. It's kinda hard to wrap your head around it unless you see a 3D model. You are correct, the four corners of the inlet do not lie in a plane, which is the opposite of all other fighters like F-14, F-15, MiG-29, MiG-31 etc.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on March 12, 2009, 05:46:12 am
Something for Gregory: http://www.milviz.com/modeldetail.php?type=1&id=F-23%20Black%20Widow%20II#

Edit: And for Nikolay of course. SHAME ON ME THAT I FORGOT!!  :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 12, 2009, 05:53:04 am
well, nice, but too many mistakes to name)))
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 12, 2009, 05:56:41 am
Matej,
You missed me but I won't notice...this time ;)

Anyway, I am especially impressed by the wepons bay. Still, I think we need to contact him and let him know that right weapons arrangement for the F-23A.

Maybe provide him with enough data, so he can make the first accurate 3D model, based on Matej's drawings in the first page of this tread

Anyway, AWESOME FIND Matej

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on April 05, 2009, 01:35:53 am
Nice drawings.... ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: blackkite on April 05, 2009, 02:01:51 am
Oh! I want to see such a detailed front and aft view.
This fighter was very fascinating.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 05, 2009, 03:45:31 am
Wow, the IRST system is visible.
Overscan, you obviously got more of those ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on April 05, 2009, 05:28:03 am
The pictures come from this presentation about fighter design:

files.asme.org/asmeorg/Governance/KnowledgeCommunity/8800.ppt

They are the only two new F-23 pictures in the presento. By some coincidence I found this presentation this evening and came here to upload the two pictures to find that Overscan had beaten me by a few hours...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 05, 2009, 05:40:19 am
Guys, needless to say, that you ROCK!!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 05, 2009, 06:40:21 am
Yes... this slide from the presentation made for some very educated smiles  ;D
Titled:
LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DESIGN GROUPS HAVE THEIR WAY
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 05, 2009, 07:18:10 am
The presentation authors contact info is on the last page. So... who's going to contact him to see if more info is available regarding those drawings? I'd recommend *one* person, not the whole group.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 05, 2009, 07:53:39 am
well, it should be US citizen as well I, suppose...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: johnnyjetpilot on April 05, 2009, 08:46:55 am
I don't mean to add a frivolous reply to what's been a very thoughtful and intelligent discussion of one of the most beautiful and unusual birds ever to fly, but there's a new straight-to-DVD Wonder Woman animated movie where Steve Trevor, the American pilot who crashes into Paradise Island, is flying an F-23. There are three F-23s in the scene, in fact, and it's cool to see them in action, even in a cartoon. Again, not trying to be frivolous. But I thought it would be of interest to scholars of the plane that the animators went with the YF-23 when looking for the perfect design for their fighter jets in the movie. The movie itself is good -- Batman Begins meets 300, with a shocking amount of really intense action and violence (and a lot of humor, too, thanks to Nathan Fillion, who voices Steve Trevor).

(The last time I got this excited about seeing a plane in a movie was the two F-35s escorting the shuttle in Superman Returns.)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on April 05, 2009, 09:17:55 am
well, it should be US citizen as well I, suppose...

With some clout.  I'd think either Scott, Tailspin Turtle, or LowObservable.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on April 05, 2009, 11:19:29 am
I was reading through this topic and it seems several people here have seen official photos/concepts/artwork of the proposed NATF version of the YF-23. Does anybody have any of these to share?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 05, 2009, 11:54:48 am
well, it should be US citizen as well I, suppose...

With some clout.  I'd think either Scott, Tailspin Turtle, or LowObservable.

TT would, I suspect, have the highest "name recognition," but I'd be happy to do so. If nobody else is dying to do so by tomorrow AM, I'll contact the author, and see what more might be available.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on April 05, 2009, 08:45:53 pm
Millions of thanks, this is just too good to be true!
Wow, the IRST system is visible.
Overscan, you obviously got more of those ;)

So the IRST is located under the nose instead of dual sensor on the sides of the f-22 proposal.  Anyone who is "tasked" ;D to contact him, would you be very kind to also ask if he knows anything about the overall sensors proposal (such as the lockheed and boeing bets to have RWR embedded antennas placed around the leading edges of the aircraft while GE to have dual IRST on the sides).  I'm dying to know this information! Thanks!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on April 05, 2009, 09:17:25 pm
I really like that picture of what happens when design groups get their way...

Hilarious!


KJ Lesnick
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 05, 2009, 10:36:04 pm
So the IRST is located under the nose instead of dual sensor on the sides of the f-22 proposal.

Not quite so in case of F-22...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on April 05, 2009, 10:48:35 pm
So the IRST is located under the nose instead of dual sensor on the sides of the f-22 proposal.

Not quite so in case of F-22...
That's a wind tunnel test for growth potential after the dual IRST have been cancelled, right? I meant the original proposal.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 06, 2009, 09:26:24 am
If nobody else is dying to do so by tomorrow AM, I'll contact the author, and see what more might be available.


Attempts at contact are underway. I'll advise on what, if anything, transpires.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 06, 2009, 10:28:40 am
just in case it will not work, I have Bob Sandusky contacts
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 06, 2009, 10:44:27 am
That's a wind tunnel test for growth potential after the dual IRST have been cancelled, right? I meant the original proposal.

Just to put timeframe right.
Quote
By July 1988, [Lockheed ATF] Configuration 632 had evolved into Configuration 634, which had a relocated cockpit, a shortened inlet, and an improved structural arrangement. More importantly, it had a $9 million cap on flyaway cost for avionics. The cost cap on avionics had a profound effect on the program.[...]The infrared search and track system bit the dust and so did a lot of other systems, including the side-looking radar apertures.

I bet F-23A shown on drawings was born much later then 1988...summer of 1990.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 06, 2009, 03:03:24 pm
Quote
I bet F-23A shown on drawings was born much later then 1988...summer of 1990.
Makes sence. I resembles the Matej drawings more than an YF-23 but still leaves a couple of details out that might have come up after flight testing. Differences like the sawtooth edge on the flaps and the distance between the engines
I notice the following changes by comparing them to some YF-23 drawings in my head.
- nose radome has significant more volume
- there seams to be enough space now for a second smaller weapons bay in front of the main one. I think the front undercarriage was moved forward among other things.
- there are inlet cones (absent from the YF-23) as seen in the F-23A drawings by Matej
- Tailerons appear to be smaller
- engine nacelles are narrower
- Exhaust nozzles appear to have something else other than ceramic tiles

There are probably many other changes to access door and systems but there are more qualified people in that forum to make those observations

I don't remember uploading those here, but in light of recent discoveries, I don't think certain people would mind. Years ago, superimposed the outlines of the prototype and what 3-view I had of the F-23A  with those of the YF-23 and differences are quite obvious.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 07, 2009, 06:06:13 am
Excuse me but where do you see an F23A on the presentation? i can only see the side view labelled as F23 and i don't really see an inlet cone, and the top view is labelled as YF-23.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 07, 2009, 06:33:34 am
Quote
Excuse me but where do you see an F23A on the presentation? i can only see the side view labelled as F23 and i don't really see an inlet cone, and the top view is labelled as YF-23.
You have to be blind no to see that these drawings are not of the YF-23. The nose section is different enough.
Re the nose cone. The YF-23 contained no such bulge in the inlet.

You are right on one thing. Its not the F-23A, but its neither the YF-23. Its just an F-23 drawing before the final proposal were submitted.

Looking at the F-22 program, the proposal that was submitted in 1991 differed slightly from the F-22 we know today. So, it is natural that the F-23 would evolve further had it won the contract. We will never know what would the F-23A look like because it was never fully developed.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 07, 2009, 06:38:43 am
Excuse me but where do you see an F23A on the presentation? i can only see the side view labelled as F23 and i don't really see an inlet cone, and the top view is labelled as YF-23.

well, you'd imrove your recognition scills a little, friend
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 07, 2009, 07:01:55 am
Well as lantinian said it is not the F23A; and it is not labelled F-23A but YF-23A so that's why i was asking..Never said it was the yf-23 without differencies.

As for the inlet cone, i noticed that part but as nothing indicates it and as on this precise sideview some parts are missing i wasn't sure.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on May 16, 2009, 04:34:11 am
So, did anyone have luck contacting Mr. Burt Dicht?

I am currently building a model of Yf-23 (here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=181769&hl=) and i wounder if you guys could help me with some things:

1: I remember reading earlier in this thread that there are very few Yf-23 cockpit pictures...Quick google search said it was indeed the case. Could you guys be bothered to show those that exists?

2: To my knowledge Yf-23 used parts of F-15 cockpit, but what version of F-15, and what parts? Only instrument panel or sideconsoles too? Wikipedia says it was F-15E instrument panel, true, or error in Wiki article?

3: Does anyone have a good close picture of the area between the engines? I need them because i have to find out where the panellines go.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 16, 2009, 07:38:52 am
YF-23 used F-15E off-the-shelf equipment
you surely must get one of these
http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-Northrup-Grumman-YF-23-Black-Widow-FLIGHT-MANUAL_W0QQitemZ110360352319QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item19b1fd563f&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

the only known YF-23 operational cockpit pic (low quality, just part, and shoot from a long distance) was here
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Stealth-Fighters-Bombers-F-117/dp/0879386096/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242484846&sr=8-36

you may also try to contact Chris Wilson who's building 1/32 YF-23 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=89934

your believe in Italeri's panel lines at the bottom of fuselage was a big mistake

in 1/72 scale, I'm hardly think that any panel lines should be shown at all, but here goes little help

don't forget to check excellent walkarounds by Dale Elhardt aka 'LAX' http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/yf-23/yf-23.htm
and Bill Spindle http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23_walk_2.htm
and Michael Benolkin's one http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-23/f-23_walk.shtml

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: frank on May 16, 2009, 07:42:06 am

     Why can't some people spell 'NorthrOp' correctly?


YF-23 used F-15E off-the-shelf equipment
you surely must get one of these
http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-Northrup-Grumman-YF-23-Black-Widow-FLIGHT-MANUAL_W0QQitemZ110360352319QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item19b1fd563f&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 16, 2009, 07:51:08 am
Northrup often being used by insiders - dunno why, in fact
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on May 16, 2009, 08:06:57 am
Frankly I think it's just that spelling is not exactly given a high priority in the US educational system. It doesn't help that compared to other languages, in English there is less correspondence between how you pronounce words and how you write them (hence the common mistakes of using 'to' when you really mean 'too', or 'then' when you mean 'than'...and the list goes on).
I cringe every time i read 'Northrup'  >:(

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on May 16, 2009, 08:49:45 am
Flateric, thanks for the info.

you may also try to contact Chris Wilson who's building 1/32 YF-23 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=89934

If you read my first reply in the thread i linked to, i have already spoken with Chris.

your believe in Italeri's panel lines at the bottom of fuselage was a big mistake

in 1/72 scale, I'm hardly think that any panel lines should be shown at all, but here goes little hel

Well, i respectively disagree. You can see hardly see the panellines on it in 1/1, so they should be invisible in *any* scale. But the thing is, if you scale down a panelline from any plane (not just Yf-23), down to either 1/32, 1/48 or 1/72, they should not be invisible. How deep is a panelline on a normal airplane in 1/1 scale? 1 mm maybe or so? Scale it down to 1/72 and it should be invisible. But IMHO, a totally smooth plane (again, pick any, not just Yf-23) in 1/72 is going just to look like a toy, and resemble the reality less than with panel lines.

A normal panelline depth on a kit in 1/72 scale is about half mm. If a panelline is 1mm on a real plane, that means half mm should be on a model in 1/2 scale, not 1/72. Basically, there is no perfect model. You can not duplicate a real plane.

I had all of those walkarounds from before, but thanks anyway. Those two pictures certainly help!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on May 16, 2009, 12:07:47 pm
I remember there were several pix of the cockpit in hornets80.net which I provided the link several pages back.  I was such an idiot for not saving them.  The website is now gone. Archive does not have the pix.  Anyone here saved them can attach the images here?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 16, 2009, 12:22:40 pm
All photos by Yuichi Yokokava
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on May 17, 2009, 02:25:53 am
Again, thanks for the pictures. Helped a lot.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mark Nankivil on May 28, 2009, 08:10:32 pm
Hi All -

I think some of you might enjoy this drawing....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on May 28, 2009, 09:46:28 pm
Yes we do ;D Where did you get this? Is it from the same source?

Anyway, I just moved to Wesminster, California, which is about 40 minutes drive from western museum of flight in Hawthorne.  I heard that the yf-23 pav-2 was taken back by Northrop, but did they return it to the museum? If they did, I might drive there to take some vid/pictures. Anyone knows of its where about I would greatly appreciate.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 28, 2009, 10:05:32 pm
Its still in the parking lot at El Segundo, you can probably see it from the road out front. The YF-23 is there for workforce morale and to provide something very cool near the corporate history centre. I doubt they are going to give it back to the museum.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 29, 2009, 12:22:47 am
Hi All -

I think some of you might enjoy this drawing....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

This is brilliant. But what bugs me is the file name is 'small'... when are we going to see 'big'!!! Keep it coming MN!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mark Nankivil on May 29, 2009, 06:50:05 am
File attachment size limitations "forced" me to resize it :-)

I'll see what I can do to give you the "bigger picture".

Drawing is from a different source - lucky question and response on my part.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on May 29, 2009, 10:16:48 am
Hello Mark, would it possible to upload the full version here?

http://www.megaupload.com/

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Machdiamond on May 29, 2009, 01:08:52 pm
Fantastic drawing ! This makes my day. It even has the Aitoff plot on it  B)
Me too I want to see the bigger picture...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on May 29, 2009, 02:15:43 pm
I can upload higher quality copies to the forum.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 29, 2009, 04:16:28 pm
If you want to see the 'compass blue' YF-23A it is visible on Google Maps at "Spirit Avenue, El Segundo".
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 29, 2009, 04:32:36 pm
NG will not return PAV-2 to WMOF, according to my correspondence with museum officials. Anyway, after moving to a new place, WMOF still has a bunch of interesting stuff like YF-17 and F-20.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 03, 2009, 02:00:58 pm
Interesting to note, how official F-23A drawings match 1990s Koku-Fan one, except some minor differences.
Also note - Koku-Fan has much more detail on weapon placement...hmm...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on June 04, 2009, 12:27:46 am
Thanks so much for that image which shows a beautiful plane. I actually do not like the YF-23 that much (i found the engines bays far too large and the proportions of front fuselage to wing area not so good) but the F-23 is far sleeker and better looking.

So bad we can't see any 3D drawing and even more that the plane didn't make it to the win.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on June 04, 2009, 06:29:11 am
Interesting to note, how official F-23A drawings match 1990s Koku-Fan one, except some minor differences.
Also note - Koku-Fan has much more detail on weapon placement...hmm...

Yeah, I noticed that as well. But you have to remember, we only have one page of what may have been a multiple page set. I can't read it that clearly, but does it read "4" in the title block? If so, I'm willing to bet one of the other pages had the weapons bay/weapons system info. But you can kind of tell where the missle bays are on the drawing we have, based on the fuselage break you can see on the side view and the open areas in the section view. Although, it would have been nice to be able to see the weapons bays door configurations in this drawing. ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Machdiamond on June 04, 2009, 09:11:50 am
Mark or Overscan, I am still very much looking forward to see a higher rez of this drawing if possible.
Thanks!
--Luc
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on June 05, 2009, 03:15:00 am
High res copy here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif (1.35mb)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Machdiamond on June 05, 2009, 05:19:23 am
Awesome.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on June 05, 2009, 08:44:23 am
Easily in the top five of most awesome files I saw on this forum. Thanks :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: doolyii on June 05, 2009, 09:34:07 am
It is such an inspirational airplane..as an aerospace engineer, that thing has been my benchmark plane (and F-20) all along. Thanks for sharing. Now I need to find drawing for F-5/F-20..ha.

--
JH
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on June 05, 2009, 10:37:27 am
Thanks for the full size image guys!  ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 05, 2009, 12:49:00 pm
Now I need to find drawing for F-5/F-20

http://www.f20a.com/f20inboard.gif
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pesholito on June 05, 2009, 01:22:37 pm
High res copy here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif (1.35mb)

Hi guys,
I am having problems  opening this high - res pic. Is it something with the link having gone bad or is it my computer?
Thanks!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on June 05, 2009, 02:33:19 pm
Your computer. Link is fine. Its pretty huge though - try right clicking the link, save, and then open from your computer into an image viewer.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on June 05, 2009, 04:44:07 pm
Taking that one down to the print shop, get an A1 copy printed up and mount it on my wall! Great stuff.

Interesting to note that the engines are canted inboard about 2 degrees.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Creative on June 06, 2009, 02:49:30 pm
Amazing, thank you for sharing that!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on June 06, 2009, 05:03:01 pm
Frankly I think it's just that spelling is not exactly given a high priority in the US educational system. It doesn't help that compared to other languages, in English there is less correspondence between how you pronounce words and how you write them (hence the common mistakes of using 'to' when you really mean 'too', or 'then' when you mean 'than'...and the list goes on).
I cringe every time i read 'Northrup'  >:(



Nothing to do with any perceived failings of the US educational system, most likely it is because there are folks who spell their name Northrup and others who spell it Northrop. The divergent spellings are considered variations of a single name.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on June 08, 2009, 05:50:41 pm
This guy at milviz (http://www.milviz.com/) says the drawing just posted by Mark is a fake by Matej at this site. (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=188372&posted=1#post188372) Based on people I know and other information I've been able to acquire, this drawing seams to match what I know. Besides, I didn't know Matej knew how to calculate area distribution plots and as good as Matej's drawings are, I've not seen anything like this from him. ;)

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on June 08, 2009, 06:24:48 pm
I sincerely doubt that the F-23A drawing provided by Mark Nankivil is a fake. It matches those drawings found in this power point presentation by Burt Dicht, former Northrop lead engineer on the YF-23A program:

files.asme.org/asmeorg/Governance/KnowledgeCommunity/8800.ppt

The drawing is also credited to the ‘F-23 Team’ the commercial entity designing the aircraft for the USAF. Northrop was a part of this team (though lead) and it also included McDonnell Douglas. Seems like this Milviz guy is just another idiot on the internet...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on June 08, 2009, 08:19:42 pm
Its not a fake. Perhaps he's confusing it with Matej's earlier drawings based on the Koku-fan drawing.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on June 08, 2009, 10:08:55 pm
This guy at milviz (http://www.milviz.com/) says the drawing just posted by Mark is a fake by Matej at this site. (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=188372&posted=1#post188372) ....
Any thoughts?

I've seen other drawings in the same series... and they back up the claim that this drawing is legit. If it's a fake, it's quite an elaborate one, involving a whole bucket of effort for little percievable gain.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on June 08, 2009, 11:13:25 pm
Thanks guys, that's what I thought as well. Based on what I've heard and read it matches the production configuration quite accurately.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 08, 2009, 11:29:33 pm
Let's leave MilViz guy at his own forum with his rather strange conclusions.

I can't understand his strange depreciative attitude to Matej drawings - remember, that he made them based on 1990s Koku-Fan 3-view that he didn't ever pretend to be ultimate truth.

Once more, I wonder how 19 years old leak close to real F-23A drawings, even showing weapons placement (that much more detalied drawings do not, BTW)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on June 26, 2009, 03:25:45 am
Matej, now that we have all seen the F-23 EMD dwgs, I take your drawings more seriously. You were very very close.
Hats off to you.  ;)
I was surfing the net on the 23rd, and I stumbled across the dwgs here for the EMD.
23, 23.  ;)
A big thankyou to Mark, you must feel really guru right now.
How long have we waited?

I'd like to cut a deal with Matej:
Matej, if you would be willing to upload a scan of the KokuFan FSD dwgs (orig, not your copies) and any diags showing more info
in the weapons bay of the YF-23 (protoype), I will post something here that will prove that Mark's upload is not fake.
 :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 26, 2009, 04:29:29 am
you can proceed without all these. i will post original Koku-fan drawing in the evening
we know for sure that what Mark has posted, is not a fake

all we still know nothing of weapon launch system on YF-23 (Matej, Lantinian, me and bunch of other hard YF-23 nuts)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on June 26, 2009, 04:54:11 am
Well, this guy was working on his interpretation of F-23 for four (?) years and now comes the drawing, that can prove that he is in many details wrong and must 1. delete his hard work as inaccurate  2. repair all the inacurracy. So I think that to say it is fake is a natural defence reaction. But I do not care, he can think what he want.

supacruze: Here it is. Regarding the weapon bays of the YF-23, I am reffering to my reply no 39 in this thread and I think that it is the closest thing we were able to find till now.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 26, 2009, 04:57:50 am
BTW, Matej, have you comapred the sizes on Koku-Fan and Northrop's drawings?

And, once more, sincere thanks to Lantinian who has discovered that Northrop's patent for me and other world.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on June 26, 2009, 06:41:06 am
No, I dont. Now I do.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 26, 2009, 07:08:41 am
interesting. yes? japanese magazine knows EMD design 18 years earlier than other white world
no other edition went further than verbal description

and if we to believe it in other details, definitely launch system wasn't that one shown in patent
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: airman on June 26, 2009, 08:46:09 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-23

an history of YF-23 taken by Wikipedia
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on June 26, 2009, 10:46:29 am
interesting. yes? japanese magazine knows EMD design 18 years earlier than other white world
no other edition went further than verbal description

and if we to believe it in other details, definitely launch system wasn't that one shown in patent

This patent?
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=WQI8AAAAEBAJ
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on June 26, 2009, 12:59:11 pm
No, that patent appears to be by the Northrop "White" team, of people not cleared to work on ATF, as described by Bill Rogers here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,185.msg35725.html#msg35725

The weapons bay patent is here:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bBA8AAAAEBAJ
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on June 26, 2009, 01:19:22 pm
No, that patent appears to be by the Northrop "White" team, of people not cleared to work on ATF, as described by Bill Rogers here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,185.msg35725.html#msg35725

The weapons bay patent is here:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bBA8AAAAEBAJ

That makes more sense, thanks. The patent had some... odd ... names on it.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 26, 2009, 03:35:04 pm
supacruze, your turn now to spill the beans...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on June 29, 2009, 07:05:40 am
There was a program that aired yesterday called "Hitler's Stealth Fighter". It is about the Ho-229. I haven' seen the full program myself, but there are some interesting footage of the facility where they test RCS. You can see some fragments of the base on the video here:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview#tab-Videos/06887_00

The video that shows the base is at the far end with the text in the yellow box "The modelers have created...". So, my question is: I guess Yf-23 was tested at this base? I think i remember seeing a picture of Yf-23 (i presume it is full scale model, not the PAV-1 and -2) on the pole, somewhere. (not even sure if it was here) Any more info on that?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 29, 2009, 09:26:52 am
Movie shows Northrop Grummann staff at the place, so the RCS range can be Tejon Canyon (I'm not sure, at the meantime, that NG still uses it). And yes, RCS test range at Tejon Canyon was the place, where full scale YF-23 model was tested.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on June 29, 2009, 02:39:31 pm
How did the RCS of the YF-23 compare to the production F-22A?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 29, 2009, 02:45:01 pm
unknown/unknown size marble ball for X-band = unknown
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Trident on June 29, 2009, 02:57:05 pm
I only saw that F-23A drawing just now - fantastic :o Thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on June 30, 2009, 02:14:50 am
I must have been on the other side of the moon for a while to miss this....

Excellent stuff guys. I am seriously thinking of making that A0 wall poster and putting it beside the awesome Flight International F-22A cutaway on the wall.

The date on the Full F-23 drawings does show 12th Dec 1990, so it must have been what Northrop submitted as an EMD proposal. Had they won the contract however, I bet there might have been some more small changes. The F-22A design was frozen sometime on 1992 in my recollection and additional redesign was done again in 1994 (reducing panel edges and JDAM integration).

It's interesting to note how the EMD designs highlighted even more the company ATF philosophy. F-23 was longer and sleeker than YF-23 to emphasize even more Stealth and Speed, while F-22A had reduced length and wing sweep to improve maneuverability.

Now that we have found the shape of things that could have come, all we need are those XXX in the drawing.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on July 01, 2009, 03:52:55 am
OK,  just to let everyone know. I contacted again the guys making this model  http://www.milviz.com/modeldetail.php?type=1&id=F-23%20Black%20Widow%20II (http://www.milviz.com/modeldetail.php?type=1&id=F-23%20Black%20Widow%20II) in light of the new material we found.

Here is part of their kind and prompt reply:
Quote
So, here is the deal with our plane:  The model that we made is the YF-23
and not the F-23A. We used photographs and measurements that we took of the
actual plane to build it. I can tell you that our model has two
"discrepancies" as compared to the real thing and those were both "artistic
license":  It has a gun port and two missile bays.  Other than that, it is
in no way either fake or wrong.  It is merely not an F-23A.  It is, in fact,
the YF-23.  Please don't take offence but though that is not exactly how we
bill it, that is what it is. If it really bothers your team that much that
we have labeled it the F-23 and not the YF-23, we will change it at some
point in the future.

That said, were we to make a F-23A, we would most certainly enlist the aid
of these drawings as they are pretty good.

So next I am thinking contacting the guys that made the wonderful YF-23 model for FS2004.
I will be very cool to see a 3D model of our favorite plane, let alone fly it in a SIM

P.S. I send an email to Daniel Buechter the man responsible for the 3D Model, Textures and Flight Manual. I hope his email is till the same
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on July 02, 2009, 07:52:43 pm
In the new buzz of Olsen vs. Lockheed in which Darrol Olsen, one of the top expert in the field of stealth, having been working on the f-117, b-2, and f-22 back in the 80's and 90's, sued Lockheed with claim that Lockheed has been using defective stealth materials on the f-22 while concealed the truth from the USAF.  While this doesn't relate to the yf-23, but one thing in the lawsuit, it noted that "despite the newness of the stealth work, Northrop met the Government’s low observable stealth specifications.  Olsen confirms that every square inch of the B-2's coatings was carefully inspected and successfully tested for conductivity, smoothness, thickness and reparability.  Olsen later recalled Northrop’s integrity in ensuring the B-2's stealth, when he witnessed a radically different attitude and conduct upon returning to Lockheed." 

The whole file can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16864124 

Don't know if this guy is for real or he just wants money, but I'm pretty sure that for now, this adds weight against USAF to choose yf-22 over yf-23 :D.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on July 03, 2009, 12:59:44 am
I for one always believed that the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 was strange.
For a while, I even saw it as a way to conceal a hidden procurement of an F-23 derivative...
Anyway, makes you wonder how Lockheed can win the deal with an inferior design and less integrity, unless there's bribery and/or dubious friendships in high places...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on July 03, 2009, 11:00:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkOSxc6nmKM&feature=channel_page
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on July 04, 2009, 12:02:23 am
You know, both were such amazing aircraft that I wish there had been an excuse that allowed us to buy some 500 of both.

I have always thought a YF-23/F-22 hybrid would be an interesting aircraft. Similar wing shape and overall design as the YF-23, but with a weapon bay layout and engine bays including 2D thrust vectoring nozzles based off the F-22.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on July 04, 2009, 03:14:31 pm
Concerning the video,

The freakin' youtube copy right system cut my music again, even though I got the music from youtube audio swap! Somebody need to kill that system!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on July 07, 2009, 06:00:20 am
you can proceed without all these. i will post original Koku-fan drawing in the evening
we know for sure that what Mark has posted, is not a fake, all we still know nothing of weapon launch system on YF-23 (Matej, Lantinian, me and bunch of other hard YF-23 nuts)

Thanks for the dwg, flateric. Looks like the funny little jagged edge on the trailing edge was their misinterpetation of a scan... its where the page would have creased...
ok... looks like I have to get some stuff scanned and uploaded... stay tuned.... ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on July 07, 2009, 06:05:49 am
Waiting, looking forward to...  :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on July 07, 2009, 06:07:47 am
tail jags were changing numbers through all design stages
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on July 16, 2009, 03:11:18 am
Here go images which support Mark's upload as authentic. They are excerpts from a technical drawing included in Document NB92-115, which shows some of the fuel tank areas. Notice how the tanks have been delineated: with an extra inner line. Now check Mark's upload. Only someone with inside industry knowledge would know about how the tanks are drawn.

As to more information on the YF-23 weapons bay, here is an abridged excerpt from the Northrop YF-23A Flight Manual, NTM 1F-23(Y)A-1, Armament System page 1-123. For scale modellers intent on making an accurate model complete with authentic weapons bay, this passage holds a vital clue:

"The armament system described is the configuration after the weapons integration enhancement. Some hardware might not be installed and weapon switches described may not be functional prior to the enhancement. The internal weapons carriage system consists of the weapons bay insert, Advanced Technology Launcher(s) (ATL), the door launch assembly, and the weapons bay doors and drive mechanism. Each... door is mechanically linked to an airflow spoiler. The spoilers extend 6 inches below the mold line when deployed. The weapons bay insert supports the advanced technology launcher and a modified LAU-106 for captive carriage of an AIM-120A. The platform, suspended at an outward angle of 17 deg, imparts a 'down-and-out' trajectory to missiles ejected by the launcher. ... After the missile is launched, the launcher automatically retracts... The ATL ejects the AIM-120A by releasing the missile at the end of the launcher linkage arm extension stroke. The missile is aligned 4.5 deg nose down on release with a slight nose down momentum. The launcher also has provisions to rail launch AIM-9 missiles with the installation of a LAU-114 launcher. Structural provisions are included to mount a weapons bay door launch assembly for AIM-9 carriage and release."

The last thing I will say is that Document NB92-115 includes a technical drawing which has the following written annotation in the NOTES section:
4. FIXED ARMAMENT AIR TO AIR: (PROVISIONS FOR) GE M61 20MM CANNON (500 RDS)
5. MISSILES:   3 AIM-120A AMARRAM,
                    2 AIM-9L SIDEWINDER

I did not make a typo on the number of AMRAAMs.

 ;)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on July 16, 2009, 03:54:43 am
Having YF-23 flight manual for many years, I'm still tryin' to imagine how damn system looks - not verbally, but graphically
As I suspect, NB92-115 have blind point when it goes to the weapon bay filling.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on July 16, 2009, 04:02:05 am
Well, considering what happened during the last few months, I think/hope that your imagination wont be overloaded for a long...

supacruze: Many thanks. You don't need to say anything if you don't want to, just write and attach, write and attach, ...  ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Andrew on July 21, 2009, 11:32:45 pm
Hey guys, i am the beginner, sorry for my english but in some way it can be not very brilliant because i am from post Soviet country. Anyway i managed to find YF-23 Flight Manual, i can post it if anyone are interesting in  ;)

I guess no one are really interesting in it, oh well, it seems that i have simply to post it and to make the easiest way  :D By the way, be carefull, manual is large and downloading it takes some time.

Northrop. YF-23A. Utility flight manual. 1990 - http://www.civilavia.info/al/la/yf-23/northrop.yf-23a.utilityflightmanual.1990.zip
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Nils_D on July 23, 2009, 03:10:54 am
I'm interested, now I can model a proper YF-23 pit. Thanks a lot!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Machdiamond on July 24, 2009, 06:45:47 am
I would be particularly interested to see the performance charts if they have been made public.
--Luc
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on July 26, 2009, 12:42:09 am
The performance charts aren't included in this version.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Scorpion82 on August 21, 2009, 11:23:59 am
The link doesn't work, any other links?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on August 21, 2009, 02:04:48 pm
Re-updated:

http://rapidshare.com/files/338495075/zzdd23.rar.html
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Scorpion82 on August 24, 2009, 03:26:40 pm
Damn it I was to slow  :-[
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyraider3D on September 16, 2009, 02:06:47 pm
Awesome YF-23 drawing, Overscan! Thanks for sharing.

I can't seem to make this file to work tho'. Has it been removed?
http://www.f20a.com/f20inboard.gif



Well, this guy was working on his interpretation of F-23 for four (?) years and now comes the drawing, that can prove that he is in many details wrong and must 1. delete his hard work as inaccurate  2. repair all the inacurracy. So I think that to say it is fake is a natural defence reaction.
Having dealt with this guy before on similar accuracy issues on some of his other 3D models, I can only confirm that he will indeed defend his own work, however inaccurate, with the strangest of statements. He for sure can't take crits...


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle on September 16, 2009, 06:51:18 pm
I for one always believed that the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 was strange.
For a while, I even saw it as a way to conceal a hidden procurement of an F-23 derivative...
Anyway, makes you wonder how Lockheed can win the deal with an inferior design and less integrity, unless there's bribery and/or dubious friendships in high places...
Well, actually, according the post-decision debrief, Northrop lost the competition not on tecknical grounds but on management grounds (credibility of promises, met schedules & budgets, etc.).  I was working another program at Northrop at the time where a lot of folks had ties to teh ATF program and we heard the unvarnished truth.  On strictly technical merit, the YF-23 with the GE engines was the best perpesfomring of the four competing ATF prototypes.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on September 16, 2009, 06:55:40 pm
Well, actually, according the post-decision debrief, Northrop lost the competition not on tecknical grounds but on management grounds (credibility of promises, met schedules & budgets, etc.).

Obviously not based on a comparative of the F-104 and F-5 projects...  :-[
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle on September 16, 2009, 08:11:53 pm
I read an article a while ago that talked about a legal fight between northrop and one of its subcontractor for the yf-23 exhausts.  Apparently, the exhaust was more complex then they had predicted, and the subcontractor sued northrop for hiding the information before they put their hands to work.  The legal fight didn't settle until 2003 or so, I think.  I forgot most of the content.  Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.

IIRC, it was more to do with a material selection that Northrop had originally contracted with a certain supplier for.  WHen Northrop found they had to change to a different material, the supplier sued them on these grounds (I wasn't directly party to this suit, but I carpooled with someone who was).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 16, 2009, 11:32:25 pm
they moved pav-1 from the right side to under the Valkyrie now, which admittedly gave me some inappropriate thought.  Courtesy GRB_Ott:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottcan_520/3843817228/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on September 16, 2009, 11:52:24 pm
I for one always believed that the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 was strange.
For a while, I even saw it as a way to conceal a hidden procurement of an F-23 derivative...
Anyway, makes you wonder how Lockheed can win the deal with an inferior design and less integrity, unless there's bribery and/or dubious friendships in high places...
Well, actually, according the post-decision debrief, Northrop lost the competition not on tecknical grounds but on management grounds (credibility of promises, met schedules & budgets, etc.).  I was working another program at Northrop at the time where a lot of folks had ties to teh ATF program and we heard the unvarnished truth.  On strictly technical merit, the YF-23 with the GE engines was the best perpesfomring of the four competing ATF prototypes.

Regarding the endless debate, I think claims of the YF-23s superiority over the YF-22 are quite exaggerated, both were great aircraft and perhaps we would have been better off with F-23As today. Yet the claims that the YF-22 was far inferior are rather tiring. Same goes for the F120 engine. The F120 may have had an edge in overall thrust compared to the F119, but by most account it was significantly more fuel thirsty and less efficient.

Now I have known many who have worked for P&W, as I live in the general area of their headquarters, so perhaps I am bit biased in this regard. Yet if the F120 should have clearly been the winner, I doubt GE would have so many problems turning the F136 into a production-ready competitor that can match or exceed the F135. I mean no offense to any GE fans here, I don't want P&W to have a monopoly on the whole business or anything like that.

That said, it would had been great if the F-23 had happened to be easily adaptable to carrier usage, and could have lived on in the Navy's use today. Physics is a cruel mistress indeed.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 16, 2009, 11:53:06 pm
the supplier sued them

Rohr Industries?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 17, 2009, 12:20:09 am
......and perhaps we would have been better off with F-23As today.
If yf-23 was chosen, I doubt that we would have ANY f-23 flying right now.  As I have quoted from president of Mcdonnell Douglas, avionics were their weak point. Yf-22 team did much better homework on this subject, and still avionics were a major headache and cause of cost overrun for the lockheed led team during the f-22 development phase.  
Quote
Now I have known many who have worked for P&W, as I live in the general area of their headquarters, so perhaps I am bit biased in this regard. Yet if the F120 should have clearly been the winner, I doubt GE would have so many problems turning the F136 into a production-ready competitor that can match or exceed the F135.
Even if the f120 was a clear winner, that doesn't mean anything for the JSF engines, because the f120 was only at a prototype phrase, they lost out to P&W with all those years of experience gained from building the actual combat ready engine for the actual aircraft f-22.
Quote
That said, it would had been great if the F-23 had happened to be easily adaptable to carrier usage, and could have lived on in the Navy's use today. Physics is a cruel mistress indeed.
IIt would have been greater if the Air Force and DoD knew that Navy would pull its legs out of the NATF right after the selection.  Not that I know it would have changed anything.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: elmayerle on September 17, 2009, 05:28:14 am
Well, actually, according the post-decision debrief, Northrop lost the competition not on tecknical grounds but on management grounds (credibility of promises, met schedules & budgets, etc.).

Obviously not based on a comparative of the F-104 and F-5 projects...  :-[

Actually, I believe at least part of it was how well, or not, that Northrop managed a couple classified programs in the 1980s (the B-2 being one of them).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on September 17, 2009, 08:25:43 am
Yet if the F120 should have clearly been the winner, I doubt GE would have so many problems turning the F136 into a production-ready competitor that can match or exceed the F135.

The F136 is not based on the F120.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 17, 2009, 11:07:32 am
Yet if the F120 should have clearly been the winner, I doubt GE would have so many problems turning the F136 into a production-ready competitor that can match or exceed the F135.

The F136 is not based on the F120.


I suspect the reason the F136 is thought of as a derivative of the YF120 is because when the JSF Alternate Engine Program selection was made in 1996, that's how it was announced.   Here's a link to a press release of the time: 
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_19960902b.html.

Since then, GE Rolls have essentially gone with a clean sheet engine optimised for JSF using some technologies learned during YF120 development.   They now accurately describe it as a new engine, not a derivative.  Using newer technology, it might indeed have greater overall performance than the derivative F135.  As far as having problems bringing it to production, although one recently ate part of its test stand,it doesn't appear they're having dramatic problems, except what's due to the funding stream.  Perhaps because the actual development of the F136 is "under the radar", they are benefiting from less "help" from the bureaucracy. ;D   It's interesting to note that the projected costs for the admittedly derivative F135 are $6.5 billion  while those for the new F136 are $3.4 billion
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 17, 2009, 11:18:06 am

<snip>
Quote
That said, it would had been great if the F-23 had happened to be easily adaptable to carrier usage, and could have lived on in the Navy's use today. Physics is a cruel mistress indeed.
IIt would have been greater if the Air Force and DoD knew that Navy would pull its legs out of the NATF right after the selection.  Not that I know it would have changed anything.



There was discussion on this a while back.  FWIW, here's what I bloviated about at the time:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg24140.html#msg24140


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 17, 2009, 12:09:00 pm
Interesting post, F-14D! However, the question is whether the Navy still had a say in the final down selection?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: GAU-8 Avenger on September 17, 2009, 05:08:48 pm
If yf-23 was chosen, I doubt that we would have ANY f-23 flying right now.  As I have quoted from president of Mcdonnell Douglas, avionics were their weak point. Yf-22 team did much better homework on this subject, and still avionics were a major headache and cause of cost overrun for the lockheed led team during the f-22 development phase.  

I have no doubt any problems could have been worked out, but the idiots politicians could have killed it earlier. Although maybe the fact that it looks nice would have saved it.

Quote
IIt would have been greater if the Air Force and DoD knew that Navy would pull its legs out of the NATF right after the selection.  Not that I know it would have changed anything.

That would have been a greater scenario how? From what F-14D said, it seems like everybody rather expected the Navy to pull out due to the radical redesign needed and only being able to select the winner, plus I imagine the recent cancellation of the A-12 program made getting an A-6 replacement the priority again. If either aircraft was adaptable to carrier operations with rather minimal modification, there could have been a chance the program went somewhere.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 17, 2009, 05:14:32 pm
Interesting post, F-14D! However, the question is whether the Navy still had a say in the final down selection?

as I got from Aronstain/Piccirillo book, Navy quietly pulled out even before contractors have offered 'em something plausible to put it on carrier desk and didn't like NATF idea right from the start
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 17, 2009, 06:29:46 pm
If yf-23 was chosen, I doubt that we would have ANY f-23 flying right now.  As I have quoted from president of Mcdonnell Douglas, avionics were their weak point. Yf-22 team did much better homework on this subject, and still avionics were a major headache and cause of cost overrun for the lockheed led team during the f-22 development phase.  

I have no doubt any problems could have been worked out, but the idiots politicians could have killed it earlier. Although maybe the fact that it looks nice would have saved it.

Quote
IIt would have been greater if the Air Force and DoD knew that Navy would pull its legs out of the NATF right after the selection.  Not that I know it would have changed anything.

That would have been a greater scenario how? From what F-14D said, it seems like everybody rather expected the Navy to pull out due to the radical redesign needed and only being able to select the winner, plus I imagine the recent cancellation of the A-12 program made getting an A-6 replacement the priority again. If either aircraft was adaptable to carrier operations with rather minimal modification, there could have been a chance the program went somewhere.


NATF essentially died before the ATF selection was even announced, but after the YF-23 rollout. 

Factors included:

Too expensive, especially after the Major Aircraft Review said the ATF and NATF would be produced at slower rates than had been planned, dramatically raising costs.  In August 1990, Admiral Richard Dunleavy, in charge of Navy aircraft requirements at the time, said he did not see how the NATF could fit into any affordable Naval Aviation plan. 

The statement that Navy wouldn't be allowed to pick an NATF that wasn't based on the ATF the Secretary of the Air Force picked, even if it would have been better for the Navy.

The feeling that the F-14, especially with AIM-152 and other enhancements could meet Navy fighter needs for at least the next 25 years. 

The strong need to replace the A-6 was where they wanted their priority.   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 07, 2009, 01:01:32 am
YF-23 walkaround by forum member Bill Spidle

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23_walk_1.htm

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on October 07, 2009, 10:50:25 am
Very interesting topic, lots of nice photographs and information. So despite all of the NATF banners and so forth, Northrop never shown any concepts/drawings/etc. of their NATF offering publicly? Seems a bit odd.

What was the basis behind the decision that the Navy could only choose the winner of the ATF competition? It must have been evident rather quickly that commonality between the NATF and ATF would be rather limited. Is it known what flight characteristics make the F-23 design unsuitable for carrier ops without major changes? Too fast takeoff or landing speeds?

Much of what I have read describes the F-22 as a better basis for the NATF than the F-23. Do you guys think this is an accurate assessment? It seems the F-22 based, variable sweep wing, NATF would have been a significantly different design from the F-22 anyway.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 07, 2009, 03:29:47 pm
What was the basis behind the decision that the Navy could only choose the winner of the ATF competition? It must have been evident rather quickly that commonality between the NATF and ATF would be rather limited. Is it known what flight characteristics make the F-23 design unsuitable for carrier ops without major changes? Too fast takeoff or landing speeds?

US Congress, had nothing to do with the F-23 design.

Much of what I have read describes the F-22 as a better basis for the NATF than the F-23. Do you guys think this is an accurate assessment?

No its not accurate. The YF-23 has that great big wing (945 ft2) compared to the smaller wing on the YF-22 (840 ft2) that was later chopped back for the F-22A. It also has lift from the lifting body fuselage and its wing appears to be of lower aspect ration. This gives the F-23 more lift and therefore potential to be made into a suitable carrier aircraft than the F-22 without a new wing. While the YF-23 looks longer because it is sleeker the difference in length is only 3 feet which shouldn't dramatically increase its spotting factor.

The idea that the YF-23 would be unsuitable as the NATF is just one of those unsubstantiated assumptions that floats around the ether...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on October 07, 2009, 04:27:56 pm
Speaking of walkarounds, besides the usual ones, i havent seen this one untill a week ago: http://airpower.callihan.cc/?tag=/yf-23-black-widow

Interesting stuff there. And it seems those magic weapon doors always escape us. :(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on October 07, 2009, 04:49:28 pm
US Congress, had nothing to do with the F-23 design.

Are you referring to how only the winner of the ATF could be chosen, or the "need" for major modifications to the F-23 design?

No its not accurate. The YF-23 has that great big wing (945 ft2) compared to the smaller wing on the YF-22 (840 ft2) that was later chopped back for the F-22A. It also has lift from the lifting body fuselage and its wing appears to be of lower aspect ration. This gives the F-23 more lift and therefore potential to be made into a suitable carrier aircraft than the F-22 without a new wing. While the YF-23 looks longer because it is sleeker the difference in length is only 3 feet which shouldn't dramatically increase its spotting factor.

Well from what little is known it seems the Northrop's NATF design was significantly different from the F-23, are you such extensive changes weren't necessary?

The idea that the YF-23 would be unsuitable as the NATF is just one of those unsubstantiated assumptions that floats around the ether...

If the Russians were able to get something the size of the Flanker to operate off their Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, I have little doubt the F-23 could have been adapted to become the NATF. Yet the question is how much modification this would require. From how some have described Northrop's proposal, it seems to have included significant changes.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 07, 2009, 08:47:40 pm
Are you referring to how only the winner of the ATF could be chosen, or the "need" for major modifications to the F-23 design?

I’m referring to the NATF program and how it was constructed by the US Government long before there was a design downselect. In particular the 1986 agreement by SECAF and SECNAV for reciprocal consideration of the ATF and ATA for corresponding roles in the other services. With a lot of nudging from the holders of the purse strings at Congress.

Well from what little is known it seems the Northrop's NATF design was significantly different from the F-23, are you such extensive changes weren't necessary? 

NATF was not just a carrier capable ATF. The Navy requirement had increase loiter range, sensor range and weaponry. In the bare essence of making the YF-22 or YF-23 carrier capable the YF-23 is just as if not more suited. I was trying to illuminate the illogic of the assumption that the ATF aircraft configurations weighted the ATF downselect towards the YF-22 because of NATF. Of course what Northrop may or may not have offered as their NATF solution might have had something to do with it.

If the Russians were able to get something the size of the Flanker to operate off their Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, I have little doubt the F-23 could have been adapted to become the NATF.

The Russians can operate a FLANKER from a carrier? That’s news to me... Besides the US Navy does not need to take the experiences of the Russian dabbling in the carrier arts to know how to operate big aircraft from a carrier. Tomcat, Vigilante, Skywarrior, Savage, etc is a real knowledge base in this kind of thing.

As I said before the NATF was a lot more than just modifying the ATF to land on and takeoff from a carrier. The US Navy only expected the avionics and engines to be common between the two.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on October 07, 2009, 10:51:51 pm
NATF was not just a carrier capable ATF. The Navy requirement had increase loiter range, sensor range and weaponry. In the bare essence of making the YF-22 or YF-23 carrier capable the YF-23 is just as if not more suited. I was trying to illuminate the illogic of the assumption that the ATF aircraft configurations weighted the ATF downselect towards the YF-22 because of NATF. Of course what Northrop may or may not have offered as their NATF solution might have had something to do with it.

I agree that it certainly wouldn't have been harder to navalize than the F-22. I'm just curious to find out the reason for such airframe changes in Northrop's NATF proposal. Yet considering the lack of information and drawings of their proposal, I doubt we will find out anytime soon.

The Russians can operate a FLANKER from a carrier? That’s news to me... Besides the US Navy does not need to take the experiences of the Russian dabbling in the carrier arts to know how to operate big aircraft from a carrier. Tomcat, Vigilante, Skywarrior, Savage, etc is a real knowledge base in this kind of thing.

Yeah the Su-33 also has the the NATO name of Flanker right? I didn't mean to imply the USN doesn't have the experience and ability to operate such large aircraft. It is just that standard Su-27, like the "normal" F-22 and F-23 variants, is a large fighter that wasn't designed with naval operations in mind. First impressions are that it would be a nightmare to navalize, as with ATF designs, yet first impression aren't always accurate.

Quote
As I said before the NATF was a lot more than just modifying the ATF to land on and takeoff from a carrier. The US Navy only expected the avionics and engines to be common between the two.

I see, but if it was largely a matter of range, sensors, and weaponry I wonder the reasoning behind the different wing and elevator configuration that Northrop's NATF was said to have.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 07, 2009, 11:44:23 pm
I agree that it certainly wouldn't have been harder to navalize than the F-22. I'm just curious to find out the reason for such airframe changes in Northrop's NATF proposal. Yet considering the lack of information and drawings of their proposal, I doubt we will find out anytime soon.

Because the NATF needs to be bigger than the ATF for its larger radar, weapons bay and fuel fraction. Also the Navy wants better control at low speed so it needs more tail. When you factor or this in on top of the carrier takeoff and landing then you need to start redesigning the airframe. It’s not just an issue of is the wing able to support low speed approach.

I see, but if it was largely a matter of range, sensors, and weaponry I wonder the reasoning behind the different wing and elevator configuration that Northrop's NATF was said to have.

Because these things have weight and volume and the ATFs were not built with Dr. Who TARDIS technology.

Yeah the Su-33 also has the the NATO name of Flanker right? I didn't mean to imply the USN doesn't have the experience and ability to operate such large aircraft. It is just that standard Su-27, like the "normal" F-22 and F-23 variants, is a large fighter that wasn't designed with naval operations in mind. First impressions are that it would be a nightmare to navalize, as with ATF designs, yet first impression aren't always accurate.

The Su-33 could not operate from a US Navy carrier to US Navy standards. Being able to ski jump off a big ship and have high speed landing approaches during your one day at sea is enough to shoot the video required to make it appear that you have a carrier. However it’s a very different thing to sustain frequent and safe flight operations over an eight month deployment.

In short the Su-33 is not really a naval aircraft. It’s a typical air force aircraft that can have short term carrier operations at high risk to provide a naval aircraft capability for short periods. Classic Soviet tactics in providing a burst capability for two weeks of war and that’s it and not dissimilar to the RN's early marks of Seafire in WW2.

So the experience of the Su-33 has little or no bearing on anyone wanting to make a real naval aviation capability. Something the Indian Navy has had to suffer through thanks to the pro Russian public servants in their ministry. No surprise with MiG-29Ks on order the IN is still trying desperately to get their hands on SHAR FRS.2s...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on October 08, 2009, 12:31:01 pm

Because the NATF needs to be bigger than the ATF for its larger radar, weapons bay and fuel fraction. Also the Navy wants better control at low speed so it needs more tail. When you factor or this in on top of the carrier takeoff and landing then you need to start redesigning the airframe. It’s not just an issue of is the wing able to support low speed approach.
Because these things have weight and volume and the ATFs were not built with Dr. Who TARDIS technology.

Well I suppose we can't get an accurate assessment of how the design was changed unless Northrop releases some information about their proposal someday. The Navy must have had some very high range specifications however.


The Su-33 could not operate from a US Navy carrier to US Navy standards. Being able to ski jump off a big ship and have high speed landing approaches during your one day at sea is enough to shoot the video required to make it appear that you have a carrier. However it’s a very different thing to sustain frequent and safe flight operations over an eight month deployment.

In short the Su-33 is not really a naval aircraft. It’s a typical air force aircraft that can have short term carrier operations at high risk to provide a naval aircraft capability for short periods. Classic Soviet tactics in providing a burst capability for two weeks of war and that’s it and not dissimilar to the RN's early marks of Seafire in WW2.

So the experience of the Su-33 has little or no bearing on anyone wanting to make a real naval aviation capability. Something the Indian Navy has had to suffer through thanks to the pro Russian public servants in their ministry. No surprise with MiG-29Ks on order the IN is still trying desperately to get their hands on SHAR FRS.2s...

Well the Russian Navy clearly doesn't have a high rate of readiness, but I presume the Su-33 was designed with operating off carriers more than the one or two days a year the Russian Navy does now. Regardless, the multi-role MiG-29K seemed like it would have been a better choice for the Russian Navy, but I doubt any more funding will go towards Russian naval aviation in the near future. Is the Indian Navy having any problems with their MiG-29Ks besides for delays in actually getting them and the Russians finishing INS Vikramaditya?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 08, 2009, 03:16:46 pm
Well I suppose we can't get an accurate assessment of how the design was changed unless Northrop releases some information about their proposal someday. The Navy must have had some very high range specifications however.

No we can. “ATF to F-22” is the authoritative source and it is pretty strong in pointing out the differences between ATF and NATF. 4,000 lbs more *empty* weight is one figure and:

Quote
For these reasons, the greatest commonality was expected in the engine and avionics, whereas the greatest difference would be in the airframe.

Certainly a lot of stuff already covered in this forum in the NATF and AF/X discussions.

 
Well the Russian Navy clearly doesn't have a high rate of readiness, but I presume the Su-33 was designed with operating off carriers more than the one or two days a year the Russian Navy does now. Regardless, the multi-role MiG-29K seemed like it would have been a better choice for the Russian Navy, but I doubt any more funding will go towards Russian naval aviation in the near future. Is the Indian Navy having any problems with their MiG-29Ks besides for delays in actually getting them and the Russians finishing INS Vikramaditya?

The Russian Navy doesn’t have high readiness because of two factors: lack of budget and design. Like the Soviet Navy before it the high seas fleet of the Russian Navy was designed to be a fleet in being kept mostly at port that only sorties for war. Unlike the US Navy that was designed to be a globally deployed force 365 days of the year.

What this means is the Soviets/Russians can support a carrier air wing with far lower safety standards in takeoff and recovery than a US Navy carrier air wing because they spend far less time at sea operating. The Russian carrier aircraft all have comparatively high carrier approach speeds (around 140-150 knots) compared to the US Navy (100-120 knots). Watching video of Russian carrier operations (see YouTube) for anyone who has been on deck of a US Navy ship is a frightening thing. Also launching conventional aircraft over a ski jump means there is no one engine out safe takeoff and the margins for error are far less than in cat shots.

This all adds up to far more accidents during flight operations compared to a US Navy standard carrier or a STOVL carrier. For the Soviets it was acceptable in order to provide some air cover for their ASM launchers as they sprinted towards the US CVBGs. For anyone else who may seriously want to be in the deployed air power business it is probably less attractive.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on October 08, 2009, 04:55:05 pm
This all adds up to far more accidents during flight operations compared to a US Navy standard carrier or a STOVL carrier.

Right. Numbers please? Concrete facts would be nice.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 08, 2009, 07:44:23 pm
Right. Numbers please? Concrete facts would be nice.

It would be nice to have the safety data of the Russian carrier operations. But two things stand in the way of this. One they haven't operated their carrier for extended operations at sea. Three short term trips to the Med. (96, 07/08 and 0/8/09) is it with the laters being only two and three months long. Secondly the Russians haven't been releasing statistics or allowing for open analysis of their operations.

But the numbers of approach speeds stand. They should be concrete enough for you? A 25-50% increase in approach speed is not going to make things safer...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 09, 2009, 02:01:50 am
one would think, what has it to do with YF-23...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 09, 2009, 02:53:15 am
one would think, what has it to do with YF-23...

The last several pages have been about the F-23 and NATF. Should they be split of into a NATF thread? Probably. But still legitimate discussion about 'converting' a CTOL plane to a CV plane.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 09, 2009, 08:50:10 am
but still legitimate discussion about 'converting' a CTOL plane to a CV plane.

ugh...http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4927.0
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on October 09, 2009, 03:40:21 pm
ugh...

Hang on a second... Do you seriously expect everyone engaging in dicussion about a particular aircraft - in this case the F-23 and its suitability for NATF - to keep looking over their shoulders to make sure their discussion doesn't enter some generic area when they should then move it to another generic thread?

Maybe if this thread became 10 pages of CTOL to CV then sure but its only been a post or four.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 09, 2009, 07:23:19 pm
There's absolutely no problem with the discussions.

It *might* be better to continue in the other topic if we want to discuss the general idea of adapting planes to carriers rather than YF-23 specifically as we tend to use the forum both for discussion *and* as a reference. In which case, the moderators can and do split out digressions to other topics.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 15, 2010, 03:22:57 am
I am not sure if this is old news or not, but i have received some pictures of Yf-23 weaponbay. PAV-2. I am in proses finding out if the sender is the author, and if i can post them here for you guys. (Crediting him of corse)

If i am not mistaken, i have never ever seen pictures of the weapon bays in that thing. ??? (before now)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 15, 2010, 03:28:04 am
oh, good news. waiting eagerly
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 15, 2010, 08:28:18 am
A small update. It is a friend of him that took the pics, so he will ask him and find out he can share the pics...His friend is also in process of taking some shots of Yf-23 cockpit. (the area behind the cockpit actually)

So, cross your fingers, toes, legs, arms, everything, so that i am allowed to show the pics.  ;D

From those shots i for first time noticed that weaponbaydoors is different on PAV-2, lacking the "tooth" of PAV-1. I have looked at this walkaround 18500302 times but never noticed.

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23_walk_1.htm

http://data.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23/YF-23_87-0801_017.JPG

Also, does anyone know if there is rumors or anything, if PAV-1 had a different weaponbays than PAV-2? The weaponbaydoors are different, so i guess the weaponbays themself must be different too...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 15, 2010, 08:39:13 am
yep, PAV-1 was intended for weapon carriage/vibration/acoustic tests and hold an 'advanced technology launcher'
PAV-2 weapon bay was empty of weapons and launcher, carried instrumentation boxes inside

but anyway, bay walls, ceiling are the same on PAV-2 and surely subject of interest
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 15, 2010, 09:49:21 am
yep, PAV-1 was intended for weapon carriage/vibration/acoustic tests and hold an 'advanced technology launcher'
PAV-2 weapon bay was empty of weapons and launcher, carried instrumentation boxes inside

but anyway, bay walls, ceiling are the same on PAV-2 and surely subject of interest

Thanks for the info. I suspected it was something along these lines.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 18, 2010, 07:47:11 am
Okei, now i was cleared to show them. Pictures taken and copyright to Tony Chong.

The magic doors are now opened!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 18, 2010, 08:41:59 am
Flanker and Tony Chong, you are receiving zillion internetz today! Thanks, thanks, thanks!
But, then, it was made at Northrop Grumman facility??
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 18, 2010, 08:42:13 am
Great pics, thanks!


Are the trapeze/triangular brackets at the top for holding large pallets/boxes of testing equipment in the bay? It's funny seeing them just wire tied at the end of the bracket to hold them up. I wonder if those wire ties are g-rated? ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 18, 2010, 08:51:50 am
But, then, it was made at Northrop Grumman facility??

I am not sure about the location Flateric. I guess it must be, since you can see hangar door and tools etc on pics.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 18, 2010, 08:57:26 am
triangular brackets are for stiffening PAV-2 WB doors AFAIR, they were put down and connected to doors at the centerline during flight tests (no way they are part of unexisting PAV-2 lauch system
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 18, 2010, 09:32:34 am
some were waiting for this pics about 20 years
what a day, really
thanks once more!

and...wait a minute...we have seen Tony before in one article by Chad Slattery (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7524.0.html);)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 18, 2010, 09:56:43 am
triangular brackets are for stiffening PAV-2 WB doors AFAIR, they were put down and connected to doors at the centerline during flight tests (no way they are part of unexisting PAV-2 lauch system

Why would they need to connect them to the doors? Were they mounting the test equipment to the inside of the doors, then using those stiffeners to increase the doors load capability, since the doors weren't designed to handle those loads? Or was it just to make sure the doors didn't open no matter what happened during flight testing to protect the test equipment?

I knew that name sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember why. Thanks for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 18, 2010, 10:22:02 am
PAV-2 doors were not intended to be open in flight ever, that's I know for sure (just look at the internal side of bay doors)
all other things are just a matter of guesses
perhaps, PAV-1 weapon launcher had longtitudonal vertical 'frame' at the centerline, and those brackets on PAV-2 were a substitute for added giant weapon bay stiffness in position like shown on attached screenshot you know where from - If I was an engineer I would surely thought of it
once more, till we see how PAV-1 bay did look during tests, we can only guess
I'm pretty sure now it's empty of its main subject of interest
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 18, 2010, 02:19:53 pm
That's an excellent picture. It almost seems they didn't even have the actuators for the doors in it, so they would have used those brackets to bolt them closed as you stated earlier. It makes sense when you have to get something done fast. The people in the latest pic adds scale to it as well.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Fox_One on March 07, 2010, 05:16:13 am
Here go images which support Mark's upload as authentic. They are excerpts from a technical drawing included in Document NB92-115, which shows some of the fuel tank areas.



Where can I find the complete drawings? I'm searching for anything useful (beside walkaround pictures) in order to start an accurate YF-23A scale drawing, and the F-23A technical drawings posted earlier are useful, but the drawings excerpts in the quoted post appear to be of the YF, so they would be really useful.

Thanks
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 05:29:13 am
Quote from: Fox_One link=topic=1092.msg86800#msg86800

Where can I find the complete drawings?

Like the one in upper left?

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fup-ship.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fdsc_3749.jpg&hash=a3c63caf0d51d56b2c09f676fa2af19f)

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5514
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 07, 2010, 05:39:21 am
Just WOW!  :o
I just so want to see the details in the top right corner of the F-23A a diagram. This diagram is like the Grail in YF-23 research

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 05:42:19 am
Full-color prints are being produced in limited quantities. The one shown has already been passed on to another forum member, who might comment on it if he so chooses.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 07, 2010, 05:48:31 am
Scott, do you offer these printouts yourself. Cause if you do, I am buying one right now!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 05:59:28 am
Scott, do you offer these printouts yourself.

Yes. Or more accurately, "will soon." As hinted at on the blog post, those in the first batch of prints I got from the shop were just tests to see how they looked. Some look *awesome,* some look *meh.* The F-23 blueprint is one that, IMO, falls in the former category.

See here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9449.0/viewResults.html

<Threadjack over>
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 07, 2010, 06:02:22 am
Quote
Yes. Or more accurately, "will soon."
Please let us (me) know, cause I looked at your site and it ain't there..yet. ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on March 07, 2010, 06:19:47 am
I bought a couple of large drawings from these guys
http://aviationshoppe.com
They are nice, but they are just reprints of cutaways found in airplane magazines, not official manufacturer's drawings (and the title blocks are all wrong). Now, the ones you have are a different story. Provided the resolution allows it, have you considered larger prints than 16x20? A larger size would show them in all their splendor. My two cents ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 06:40:03 am
have you considered larger prints than 16x20?

Yes. I am currently looking at a couple different sizes. The printer can go up to 24X36; the F-23 drawing is 9745X6552 pixels, and at 300 dpi, that works out to 32X21 inches. I've currently got files set up to print four F-23's per sheet... 12X18 inches. Actually a very nice size, easily framable, looks good on an office wall, makes your co-workers jealous. 21X32 inches would of course cost four times as much and would be a pain to try to frame.

Two per sheet would be 18X27 inches, which might not be too bad.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Fox_One on March 07, 2010, 06:47:51 am
Quote from: Fox_One link=topic=1092.msg86800#msg86800

Where can I find the complete drawings?

Like the one in upper left?


No, that's the F-23A drawing. The drawing excerpts supacruze posted are for YF-23A. I want to make a scale drawing of YF-23A PAV 1, so due to differences the F-23A drawings usefullness is (for my task) somewhat limited. Any ideas where he got the drawings from ?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 06:50:23 am
I bought a couple of large drawings from these guys
http://aviationshoppe.com
They are nice, but they are just reprints of cutaways found in airplane magazines....

Or at least in the case of the V-2 drawings, simply repackaged versions of drawings painstakingly restored and released by Certain Poverty-Stricken Individuals.

Grrrr....
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 07:05:29 am
The drawing excerpts supacruze posted are for YF-23A. ... Any ideas where he got the drawings from ?

Not a clue. I know where I got my copies of the drawings from, however. I might go ahead and clean & process these into large-format prints as well, if there's interest.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Fox_One on March 07, 2010, 07:35:47 am
Yes, that's exactly what I need. I need it, and I need it bad  ;D

I don't need prints, the drawings in electronic form are good enough for me, if necessary I can print them myself in the convenient scale, correct any angular misalignment, etc

Please, prepare some hi-res (rather huge-res) versions for sale, I will buy them right away. Please hurry   :)

Last year I bought from your website the A-12/YF-12 drawings. Do you have something similar for SR-71 ?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 07, 2010, 10:11:47 am
Yeah, I am joining the "I'd buy any good F-23 drawing" club too.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 07, 2010, 10:19:13 am
Cleaning & restoration process undwerway.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Apollo Leader on March 07, 2010, 05:09:43 pm
I got to ask, but are there any official F-23 drawings showing final AIM-9 and AIM-120 placement and carriage?  Or are those prints still classified?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 07, 2010, 05:40:59 pm
Still classified . Short description of yf-23 launcher construction and operation given in Flight Manual, and someone here recently found out that prototype would carry just three aim-120s
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on March 08, 2010, 10:04:52 am
I loathe Wikipedia but I recently read on their YF-23 page that PAV-2 was grabbed by Northrop by 2004 and used to make a mock up of their interim bomber (FB-23?) proposal.

Is this true and if so have any photos of the resulting mockup been shown?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Apollo Leader on March 08, 2010, 02:42:52 pm
I loathe Wikipedia but I recently read on their YF-23 page that PAV-2 was grabbed by Northrop by 2004 and used to make a mock up of their interim bomber (FB-23?) proposal.

Is this true and if so have any photos of the resulting mockup been shown?

Here's some pictures from a few years ago.  Apparently Northrop cleaned the aircraft up, but I don't think it's been said what PAV-2's final fate will be.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.75.html
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 09, 2010, 09:36:16 pm
Ahem:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9449.msg87162/topicseen.html#msg87162
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 10, 2010, 06:04:20 pm
Orion: could you please post a larger res image of those YF-23 cross sections... I havent seen those and I cant make out the details..... they are just what we need to make a scale model.... thanks
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on March 10, 2010, 07:16:07 pm
Is this true and if so have any photos of the resulting mockup been shown?

From those I have talked to, it was not built. The YF-23 had been on loan to the Western Museam of Flight, the museam was moving and NG took the opportunity to take back the YF-23 and restore it for display in a more secure location - that is what two NG El Segundo employees have told me.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 10, 2010, 11:02:50 pm
Orion: could you please post a larger res image of those YF-23 cross sections...

Tomorrow I'll put the 16"X24" F-23A blueprint on eBay. Hopefully the proceeds from that will be enough to fund going forward with similar prints of the YF-23.

UPDATE: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250595015775
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on March 11, 2010, 07:03:38 pm
The YF-23 had been on loan to the Western Museam of Flight, the museam was moving and NG took the opportunity to take back the YF-23 and restore it for display in a more secure location - that is what two NG El Segundo employees have told me.

When I was visiting said location and checking out the 'lighter grey' YF-23 I was told it had been brought back to Northrop hands as a morale booster for the El Segundo and Northrop in general workforce. It is located in the parking lot between the building with the history centre and the corporate centre.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: MihoshiK on March 12, 2010, 05:01:54 am
Orion: could you please post a larger res image of those YF-23 cross sections...

Tomorrow I'll put the 16"X24" F-23A blueprint on eBay. Hopefully the proceeds from that will be enough to fund going forward with similar prints of the YF-23.

UPDATE: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250595015775
I'm in on this. Allways loved that plane.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 13, 2010, 02:33:14 am
Orion, I already have a different copy of those dwgs, its just the sections view you uploaded that Im after, and I dont need them cleaned up, I have all the software to do that, I just need sections shown on that particular dwg. Higher res: 1024 or greater. Thanks, mate.  :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on March 13, 2010, 12:50:06 pm
The two YF-23 drawings will be in the next set of releases for digital images/docs, with the FW Grosstransporter report and Saturn Ib painting diagrams.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 15, 2010, 11:17:04 pm
Ok guys, I just got the dwgs from Orion's up-ship.com site. We finally have an official set of YF-23 dwgs released. I can assure you that these are the real McKoy. They are very detailed, and show for the first time how the YF120 looks, esp from underneath which is what counts if you are a Modeller. Note that the nozzle configs are for the thrust reverse version (the decision to delete thrust reversal came too late to affect YF production).

Thanks, Orion. You, along with Overscan, Tony Chong, and Mark Nankivil, have done a great service to the YF-23 Community.

2009 was the Year of the F-23; 2010 is the Year of the YF-23 (20th Anniv of First Flight soon). Now, after all this time, we can make the damn models.

Now guys, we almost have everything we need. We need to really push now for pics of PAV-1's weapons bay (it was different to PAV-2), and pics of the slide-down nose avionics bay would be nice. If there is anyone at the National AF Museum or at Northrop Grumman who has Pics of PAV-1's weapons bay, please seriously consider uploading them here. If anyone has got pics of the engine bay with the access hatches open (with engines in situ, either PAV-1 or -2) that would be really nice too.  ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on March 16, 2010, 12:58:37 am
What we REALLY need is for someone to get off their butts and release an image of Northrop's NATF configuration!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on March 16, 2010, 11:46:51 am
What we REALLY need is for someone to get off their butts and release an image of Northrop's NATF configuration!

Seconded. :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on March 16, 2010, 12:57:19 pm
Well, one day we can hope for flateric's YF-23 monography. Once he has written it :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on March 16, 2010, 08:37:12 pm
Well I certainly gave him enough photos for it to be well illustrated  ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 23, 2010, 04:42:13 am
thanks to Anxiety for finding this exciting new stuff at http://uscockpits.com/
note complicated faceted pattern of instrument panel's shroud
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 23, 2010, 04:43:42 am
...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 23, 2010, 06:46:49 am
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NORTHROP-GRUMMAN-YF-23A-F-23A-COCKPIT-SIMULATOR-RARE-NR_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem1c1045b513QQitemZ120532088083QQptZMotorsQ5fAviationQ5fPartsQ5fGear

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 24, 2010, 01:24:36 am
Quote
note complicated faceted pattern of instrument panel's shroud
That's a new for me.  ::)
With the YF-23 Northrop paid attention to some details affecting RCS in ways we have not fully seen in a production aircraft, let alone the YF-22. No wonder it's RCS is still classified.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 24, 2010, 09:21:51 pm
New cockpit shots... that's great  ;D

Well I certainly gave him enough photos for it to be well illustrated  ;D

SOC, you got me curious.... have you got any high res pics of the YF-23 at high altitude? (ie no desert, just clouds and sky)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on March 25, 2010, 09:00:23 am
Not that I can think of.  The pictures I was referring to were a whole mess of them that I took of PAV-1 at the USAF Museum.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 25, 2010, 10:54:05 pm
Ok, so you did a walkaround. DID YOU, by chance............ take any shots of PAV-1's weapons bay while you were there (doors open showing internal structure) or did you get any shots of the slide-down avionic rack just ahead of the front wheel well????  ::)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 26, 2010, 12:11:10 am
no, bay doors were open only during some period of restoration process
you must know that mystery weapons launcher was removed from bay loooooong way ago, even before PAV-1 wat mothballed at EAFB
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 26, 2010, 03:16:24 am
Ok, fair enough.
Guys I have a theory: you know I said that PAV-1 was capable of carrying 3 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9, well I have a hunch that PAV-1 was ONLY rigged to carry ONE AIM-120 and that's all. Based on what Ive read in the pilot's manual, Northrop docs, and Jay Miller's Aerofax on the F-22 (in which he asserts that PAV-1 actually carried an instrumented AIM-120 captive inert round for acoustic tests) I think that it never carried anything other than one AIM-120, and the launcher was constructed to just carry that one round. If you look carefully at the PAV-2 bay pics of Tony Chong, you'll see that the V swing arms are quite light gauge (there doesnt even seem to be a hydraulic actuator for the arms), so I'm thinking that PAV-1's bay was the same except for the colour (which was zinc chromate not white) and there was no ECS in there like PAV-2. The more I look at the dwgs for the YF-23 and compare them to the F-23 EMD, I dont think Northrop ever planned the YF-23 to be representative of the ATF. All the work for that went into the F-23 EMD. Theres just no space in the YF-23 fuselage for anything practical, it was too tightly conforming to area rule to be a practical fighter, therefore I think Northrop just built it as a bare-bones hot-rod. The F-23 fuselage is much more bulky which gives more space for weapons and fuel. Hence my theory that there was just one launch point for one missile inside the bay in PAV-1.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 26, 2010, 03:38:52 am
Ok, fair enough.
Guys I have a theory: you know I said that PAV-1 was capable of carrying 3 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9
can you show the crop of this document where it's written?


well I have a hunch that PAV-1 was ONLY rigged to carry ONE AIM-120 and that's all. Based on what Ive read in the pilot's manual, Northrop docs, and Jay Miller's Aerofax on the F-22 (in which he asserts that PAV-1 actually carried an instrumented AIM-120 captive inert round for acoustic tests) I think that it never carried anything other than one AIM-120

well, I thought this fact was revealed as early as autumn 1990 in AWST article on YF-23A testing

If you look carefully at the PAV-2 bay pics of Tony Chong, you'll see that the V swing arms are quite light gauge (there doesnt even seem to be a hydraulic actuator for the arms), so I'm thinking that PAV-1's bay was the same except for the colour

bay is the same, but V-arms have nothing to do with launcher and nothing common with PAV-1 bay

my request to you - can you take pen and plain sheet of paper and try to imagine YF-23 bay as you see it after reading WB description in YF-23A Flight Manual (carefully reading every word) - there are many clues there hidden behind phrases

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on March 27, 2010, 10:05:36 pm
Ok, let me think about it. I can envision 2 configs, one with just one missile, and one with a full complement. Let me see what I can come up with.

You seem adamant that the V-arms are for something else. If you are sure they are not for the launcher, then what would you say they are for? And I missed the AWST article, do you have the details of what they actually said re the instrumented round?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on April 02, 2010, 05:02:58 pm
Perhaps I missed it in this thread, but has there been a confirmation of the YF-23's empty weight? I've seen anywhere from 29,000lbs to 37,000lbs. 

Thx
BDF
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 10, 2010, 01:55:48 am
Ok, here is the stuff: the Northrop dwg annotation, and a small teaser of my idea for the weapons bay to let you you know I have not forgotten. It's gonna take a little more time before I upload the hirez version, but you'll understand why when I do. But even with this image, you can make out where I'm headed and probably work out the rest.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 10, 2010, 02:54:20 am
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason4/yf-23/index.php?Page=3 (http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason4/yf-23/index.php?Page=3)

from Howard Mason on Prime Portal. Thanks Howard!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on April 11, 2010, 09:42:06 am
Does anybody have a better version of this picture?

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg190.imageshack.us%2Fimg190%2F6194%2Fyf2311.jpg&hash=6a43a47390fb0e9aad3c83626e4ab84b)


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 11, 2010, 11:27:09 am
Quote
Perhaps I missed it in this thread, but has there been a confirmation of the YF-23's empty weight? I've seen anywhere from 29,000lbs to 37,000lbs. 
I second that request.

Quote
Ok, here is the stuff: the Northrop dwg annotation, and a small teaser of my idea for the weapons bay to let you you know I have not forgotten. It's gonna take a little more time before I upload the hirez version, but you'll understand why when I do. But even with this image, you can make out where I'm headed and probably work out the rest.
That actually makes complete sence. It fits in with the airforce complain of single point failure affecting the launcher. While the prototype would cary only 5 missiles this way, it it possible to add 1-2 more AMRAAM due to the shorter wing span and with 3 AIM-9X at the front bay for a total of 9-10 missiles.

Northrop were reported to have modified the AMRAAM launcher for the production version to have two separate launching mechanisms, probably each holding 2 missiles.

Still, this particular configuration of the launcher is a complete waste of space.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 14, 2010, 04:34:16 am
I think the key really lies in careful study of the factory dwgs, which we can do now thanks to the generosity of people contributing to this thread... you can all see there is a big diff between the PAVs and the EMD, particularly with alteration on useable fuselage volume. I am convinced that Northrop never intended the PAVs to be a viable ATF as such, they were simply conceptual demonstrators.... they put all the effort into the EMD variant which quite clearly has enough volume to fit the ATF requirement in regards to weapons carriage. I think trying to work out how many missiles could fit into the the bay of a PAV from a weapons platform point of view is a waste of time, because it was not Northrop's intention to develop the PAV config. The EMD is really a totally new design from a clean sheet of paper. It shares very little in terms of fuselage cross sections, the structure is totally diff.... only the wing is the same. They just wanted to test acoustics on the PAVs, thats what I suspect, so I think ultimately they may have just made a rudimentary launcher to hold just one missile and thats all. But we wont know until someone at Northrop or the Nat AF Mus at Ohio is generous enough to give us some shots of PAV-1's bay..... hint.......hint........

Cant help with the weight figure... just yet...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on April 14, 2010, 12:08:49 pm
I think the key really lies in careful study of the factory dwgs, which we can do now thanks to the generosity of people contributing to this thread... you can all see there is a big diff between the PAVs and the EMD, particularly with alteration on useable fuselage volume. I am convinced that Northrop never intended the PAVs to be a viable ATF as such, they were simply conceptual demonstrators.... they put all the effort into the EMD variant which quite clearly has enough volume to fit the ATF requirement in regards to weapons carriage. I think trying to work out how many missiles could fit into the the bay of a PAV from a weapons platform point of view is a waste of time, because it was not Northrop's intention to develop the PAV config. The EMD is really a totally new design from a clean sheet of paper. It shares very little in terms of fuselage cross sections, the structure is totally diff.... only the wing is the same. They just wanted to test acoustics on the PAVs, thats what I suspect, so I think ultimately they may have just made a rudimentary launcher to hold just one missile and thats all. But we wont know until someone at Northrop or the Nat AF Mus at Ohio is generous enough to give us some shots of PAV-1's bay..... hint.......hint........

Cant help with the weight figure... just yet...

It isn't that they are totally different by design, it's just that the PAV's actually were development aircraft, just as the YF-22 was to the F-22, and they have to decide what "tech" they need to test to prove they can win the contract. However, once the PAV designs were frozen, that doesn't mean they stopped work on the configuration. They continue to optimize the design through more R&D/Design work and also use the data from the flight test results to help inform them on the continuing design evolution until it became the EMD aircraft. I seriously doubt there is much commonality between the YF-22 and F-22 as well, as that's exactly what LM did during the development of the F-22.

Having said that, I believe NG had said during the testing of the program that the weapons bay of the YF-23 was intended primarily to carry test equipment and, it is true as you stated, to gather data about the "weapons bay" during testing, such as acoustic, vibration, aerodynamic loads, in and around the bay and how they affect the aircraft, etc. I don't think they ever intended it to be weapons capable. Because that was back when they were pointing out they had all of the data they needed to "prove" the concept, whereas LM had actually fired a Sidewinder from their YF-22. I think they launched an AMRAAM as well, but I don't recall. But I do recall that being an argument for "risk reduction" in favor of the YF-22 during the competition.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 15, 2010, 03:58:50 am
Very true, but my comments were based on debate in the past about the viability of the YF-23 PAVs as actual ATFs, given that at the time we did not have access to the EMD dwgs, or even the PAV dwgs... people were trying to figure out how to fit all the required missiles into the YF-23 bay, without realising that the bay was not representative of the EMD config. Now that these dwgs are available, the situation is alot clearer. We can all see where Northrop's effort went and how they would have done it. I would contend that even though it's obvious the design process continues constantly until the money stops, I think that in hindsight, the YF-22 was much closer to EMD even allowing for the obvious evolution that occurred. The bay config remained essentially the same.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on April 15, 2010, 05:20:01 pm
Very true, but my comments were based on debate in the past about the viability of the YF-23 PAVs as actual ATFs, given that at the time we did not have access to the EMD dwgs, or even the PAV dwgs... people were trying to figure out how to fit all the required missiles into the YF-23 bay, without realising that the bay was not representative of the EMD config. Now that these dwgs are available, the situation is alot clearer. We can all see where Northrop's effort went and how they would have done it. I would contend that even though it's obvious the design process continues constantly until the money stops, I think that in hindsight, the YF-22 was much closer to EMD even allowing for the obvious evolution that occurred. The bay config remained essentially the same.

I believe the bay redesign from the YF-23A to the F-23A was a result of criticism from the customer. ;)

With regard to the design changes, if you look closely at the F-22 wrt to the YF-22, you can see major differences in the fuselage design. I think it's just that those changes aren't as noticeable in the F-22. It's entire nose was redesigned for better viz from the cockpit, the center section underwent a big redesign for the reworked MLG configuration and you can see the tail changed completely in shape; I mean from the mid fuselage to the nozzles, that's all markedly different, it had the redesigned wing, the redesigned horizontal tail, the smaller vertical tails...

Of course, some of those changes were the same reasons the F-23 changed from the YF-23. Such as removing the requirement for thrust reversers, etc. To me, the biggest change noticeable is the inlet redesign. Of course that's all water under the bridge now. I'm just happy we have such amazing drawings of this plane. I never would have guessed we would have seen these in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: foiling on May 12, 2010, 09:59:53 am
I found this 3-view in Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1991 -1992. Is it of any value to you guys? and how accurate does it seem to be?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 26, 2010, 05:09:42 pm
Dark side of F-23 story revealed ;)

very own F-23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_F-23) by D.D. Funk Aviation Co., Salina, Kansas
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on June 27, 2010, 05:49:09 pm
So this is what the rumor about the yf-23 being built into a super spy and deep penetration plane is about.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pesholito on July 06, 2010, 05:18:30 am
A couple of questions:Did the tail planes also create lift in straight and level flight or were they aerodynamically neutral? Is it known what type of airfoil was used for the tail?
Thank you!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pesholito on July 06, 2010, 06:05:05 am
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...


Here's what I found:
http://www.aeromechengineering.com/prodncap.php?iframesrc=lcat&breadcrumb=%7CUnmanned%20Air%20Vehicles%7CLCAT
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on July 06, 2010, 03:30:02 pm
The external shape of the yf-23 might be stealthier than yf-22 (I think the word "more balanced in term of stealth" would be more appropriate, since the yf-23's stealth is pretty balanced from all aspects, unlike yf-22, which does not represent the same level of attention for stealth from the rear aspect in comparison to frontal aspect).  However, in real combat aircraft design, external shape is but one factor among others in term of stealth.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on July 16, 2010, 03:42:53 am
Large picture of security men guarding the yf-23
http://defensorfortis.info/AP/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FXPLANEsecurity.jpg
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: saintkatanalegacy on July 16, 2010, 04:21:26 am
^second that since the spike points are "cleaner in distribution" hence, a stealthier platform from the side and rear aspect. although having less 2 tails is one major factor IMHO
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on August 23, 2010, 09:37:29 pm
EDIT: Duplicate photographs removed.

Sources:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?166065-YF-23-Black-Widow-II-pictures/page11 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?166065-YF-23-Black-Widow-II-pictures/page11)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on August 23, 2010, 10:34:07 pm
EDIT: Duplicate photographs removed.


Sources:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=141025
http://007.shanbara.jp/airplane/html/1222125/
http://sportscarforums.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=18204
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on August 23, 2010, 11:59:27 pm
Triton, third of these are reposts of photos first time posted here at SPF and stolen by '2495' of MilitaryPhotos without mentioning source.
One third are low-res versions of those from YF-23A factsheet at USAFM site
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: OM on August 24, 2010, 12:09:25 am
Triton, third of these are reposts of photos first time posted here at SPF and stolen by '2495' of MilitaryPhotos without mentioning source.

...But that's not the offensive aspect of those pictures. What's offensive is that the F-22 (c)Raptor was chosen over the YF-23. Yet another reason to despise Dick Cheney.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 24, 2010, 03:14:32 am
I was wondering if someone had sufficient drawings to create a CG model of the F-23 (latest version we know that is the blue prints that orion posted)?

I have difficulties imaging the upper part of the fuselage.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on August 31, 2010, 05:46:56 pm
Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23 program patch found on eBay

URL:
http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-USAF-Patch-/130425551405?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df7fa2d (http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-USAF-Patch-/130425551405?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df7fa2d)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 01, 2010, 08:35:59 am
From Code One magazine website:

Quote
YF-22 flying alongside YF-23 over California during the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition in 1990.

Source:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=19 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=19)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 01, 2010, 12:49:51 pm
Does anyone know what the projected (expected) unit cost would have been for the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 if the aircraft had been chosen? I have just heard vague claims that the F-23 would be more expensive than the F-22.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 01, 2010, 02:59:04 pm
Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23 collectibles

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-Paper-Collectibles-/130425554879?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df807bf (http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-Paper-Collectibles-/130425554879?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df807bf)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 07, 2010, 05:25:12 pm
I just read couple articles of turning f-22 and f-35 into BMD platforms (due to the ability to infiltrate defended airspace), and it makes me wonder if the EMD f-23 would make a much better candidate. 

1 - It has, presumably, better rear aspect stealth, which would aid it in penetrating deep into enemy's territory (where alot of  enemy's radars gonna look at your behind).  The higher speed and range also help as well.

2 - Completely theoretically, its AMRAAM bay and AIM-9 bay can be merged by taking out the wall inbetween to give a longer internal space to house a NCADE internally without having to build a external weapon pod (which compromises range, speed, and stealth).

The weapon bays of the f-23 might have looked unfavorable, but consider the political climate during the debate to cancel f-22 production at 187, f-23's weapon bay layout might have been an advantage if it was to be in the f-22's shoes instead.  One of the argument against f-22 was its weapon bay being too shallow for anything useful beside JDAM and SDB in air to ground mode.  This is not the case for the f-23 however. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 07, 2010, 06:58:19 pm
Does anyone know what the projected (expected) unit cost would have been for the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 if the aircraft had been chosen? I have just heard vague claims that the F-23 would be more expensive than the F-22.

It's really hard to say. In general, you go by the weight of the aircraft for aircraft in the same class. If the F-23 weighed more than the F-22, then it probably would have cost more. Basically, weight=more stuff= more cost. However, I think some of that was BS as Northrop had a lot of experience with large stealth structures as a result of their B-2 work. Of course, the costs were definitely higher on their nozzle design, due to all of the thermal protection tiles in the nozzle trough. Something they obviously corrected with the FB-23 design. Of course, the airframe tends not to be the most expensive part of the program. That's usually the avionics/weapons/intel systems.

As for Ogami's question, I do plan to make a 3D model of it, basically for MSFS, but that will be a while, as I have other projects and artwork to complete first.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 07, 2010, 07:59:09 pm
Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 07, 2010, 11:03:22 pm
Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?

According to who I knew at the time there wasn't any relationship between the two decisions. But that was just one persons perspective from the inside, so I can't say definitively, but I've never heard of any relationship between the two decisions.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on September 08, 2010, 01:27:42 am
Is this type of "arrangement" still in order, anyway? There used to be a time when the armed forces made sure that each of the major contractors got a bone to chew, but is this still any of their business? Lots of companies disappeared, were taken over or shifted their activity to subcontracting over the past 20 years because major contracts promised by the military were canceled unexpectedly...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 08, 2010, 01:48:15 am
I remember something like F-23A would be somewhat more expensive (surprisingly, while it didn't have expensive TVC engine nozzles) due to cost of large composite panels manufacturing (proprietary Northrop's) technology - something like that
don't beat me - I don't remember where I heard that and if it was *true facts*
well, Lamilloy exhaust trenches wouldn't be cheap, too, but they were planned to be replaced with high-temp RAM composites on serial a/c (not cheap stuff, too, judging waist trenches area)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on September 08, 2010, 02:12:16 am
Sundog: Ah cool thanks!

I asked because i read someone saying the F-23 fuselage would have been bulckier than YF-23;
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 08, 2010, 03:54:40 pm
Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?

It's doubtful that the two are related.   For one thing, the A-12 was canceled prior to the decision on ATF.  For another, USAF only committed to "considering" the aircraft.  I consider it unlikely that they wanted it to go into service, let alone actually buy it even if it had worked. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 08, 2010, 06:22:53 pm
Is this type of "arrangement" still in order, anyway? There used to be a time when the armed forces made sure that each of the major contractors got a bone to chew, but is this still any of their business? Lots of companies disappeared, were taken over or shifted their activity to subcontracting over the past 20 years because major contracts promised by the military were canceled unexpectedly...

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy.  DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations.   It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished.  If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win.  If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive.  The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.  

Both teams produced fine aircraft that met or exceeded all evaluation points.  Like everyone else, I have my opinion of which plane was the best,  but all that matters is that in the final analysis the Secretary of the Air Force  chose Lockheed.  There were some generic references to "documentation" and "produceability", but nothing like the information dump that comes out on major contracts like this, before or since.   There was nothing  about which the contractors could complain, because they agreed to those terms.  Personally and with nothing definitive to back me up, and given that both proposals were very good, I believe the decision came down to preserve the largest number of aircraft companies, and this was necessary to keep Lockheed in that field (at the time it was still thought that Northrop would be building 75 B-2s).  

With all the mergers and consolidation since then, I don't think this happens in this field that much anymore.  Note that had the F-35 met the original schedule, Boeing would have pretty much gone out of the fighter business and DoD didn't seem too concerned about that.  We have seen some of that kind of maneuvering in shipbuilding, though, because of the concern  that if certain yards leave the business, they're not coming back and the expertise is lost.    
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 08, 2010, 08:19:35 pm
Thanks for your insight F-14D.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on September 09, 2010, 02:24:44 am
Thanks for your insight F-14D.

I second that.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Gridlock on September 09, 2010, 05:38:43 am
"Decisions on large capital projects with significant employment implications are made by politicians"

 ::)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 09, 2010, 12:39:21 pm
Thanks for the nice words from the two members of the "2K+ Posts" club.   This is not the only case. The same rationale used in the ATF decision, I believe is why there are Super Hornets rather than Super Tomcats on the decks of carriers today (beyond this statement, that's a topic for another discussion at another time).   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 09, 2010, 12:44:09 pm

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy.  DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations.   It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished.  If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win.  If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive.  The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.  
We have had a great debate in this.  However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 09, 2010, 01:26:03 pm

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy.  DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations.   It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished.  If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win.  If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive.  The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.  
We have had a great debate in this.  However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?



It was part of the public solicitation for ATF, as well as being covered by the trade press at the time.  It's also shown up in a number of writings discussing the competition as well. 

Basically, USAF set out a number of criteria.  The proposals were evaluated on their ability to meet these criteria and reported through a series of "traffic lights".  I think they were red for not met, yellow for met but with caution or reservations, green for fully met and I believe blue for significantly exceeds.  the evaluation teams were kept separate, and were not to compare the aircraft.  The USAF pilots  involved were assigned to fly one of the aircraft and unlike previous competitions were not to fly both.  I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two. 

The evaluation teams made their report of findings (the traffic lights) to the Secretary of the Air Force and were enjoined from making any recommendations.  The Secretary of the Air Force then decided the winner.   He was not required to pick who got the most green or blues, who cost less or more, etc.   He decided was most important and made his choice.  The teams knew this going in. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 09, 2010, 06:30:59 pm
I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.

We'll have to wait for the auto-biography after he retires to find out what he thinks in that regard. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading that account.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 09, 2010, 11:30:07 pm
I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.

We'll have to wait for the auto-biography after he retires to find out what he thinks in that regard. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading that account.

Unless of course Lockheed, Northrop or USAF require him to sign a confidentially agreement.  
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on September 09, 2010, 11:48:39 pm
Bear in mind that the competition wasn't between Northrop and Lockheed (no Grummans or Martins in their names at this time) but between Team F-23 and Team F-22. I don't want to go into specifics because it’s not my place to do so in relation to information passed on in confidence. But Team F-23 comprised Northrop and McDonnell Douglas which were at that time responsible for the F-5, F-15 and F/A-18 fighter projects. Team F-22 was Lockheed, Boeing and GDFW of which only the minor partner had an ongoing fighter project: the F-16. The Team F-22 project also included moving production of the F-22 from Palmdale to Marietta where Lockheed were building C-130s… While no one can call Lockheed’s Skunk Works an inferior design team their production plan was full of holes but loads more political capital.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 10, 2010, 11:09:41 am
Bear in mind that the competition wasn't between Northrop and Lockheed (no Grummans or Martins in their names at this time) but between Team F-23 and Team F-22. I don't want to go into specifics because it’s not my place to do so in relation to information passed on in confidence. But Team F-23 comprised Northrop and McDonnell Douglas which were at that time responsible for the F-5, F-15 and F/A-18 fighter projects. Team F-22 was Lockheed, Boeing and GDFW of which only the minor partner had an ongoing fighter project: the F-16. The Team F-22 project also included moving production of the F-22 from Palmdale to Marietta where Lockheed were building C-130s… While no one can call Lockheed’s Skunk Works an inferior design team their production plan was full of holes but loads more political capital.

The Skunk Works (which back then was still the kind of operation it's famed for and not the regular corporate division it became) always knew that they wouldn't be building the production versions.  Large scale and high production rate operations are not where its expertise lay and not the kind of operation they wanted to be in.   Team F-22 would decide where the series production would take place and how it would happen.   Even in those days it was becoming apparent that California was becoming no longer a good place to do large manufacturing, especially heavy manufacturing, so Palmdale wouldn't necessarily be the place for the line.  The fact that they decided to build it in Senator Sam Nunn's state was mere coincidence, I'm sure. ;) 

I've wondered if the YF-23 had won, whether they would have built it in California. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on September 13, 2010, 07:43:36 am
a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...  :(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 13, 2010, 03:20:42 pm
a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...  :(

On the other hand, Sacramento (California's capital) still has lots of politicians producing plenty of hot air in case someone wants to open a balloon factory. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on September 14, 2010, 12:54:01 am
a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...  :(

On the other hand, Sacramento (California's capital) still has lots of politicians producing plenty of hot air in case someone wants to open a balloon factory. 

LMAO!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: mkellytx on September 15, 2010, 12:23:11 am
Quote from: AeroFranz link=topic=1092.msg104057#msg104057 fdate=1284389016
a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...  :(
d
The C--17 plant hasn't yet closed, but the point is taken.  The F-18 E/F rear fuse is still produced within eyesight of LAX as are a large portion of the satelites about to be put on rockets.  This isn't to say that California has become decidedly un friendly to business (it has), but that some operations persist in SoCal.  FWIW I have worked here in SoCal, in the Aerospace/Defense Industry since 2005.  Provided that you structure things properly, you can still do business down here.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Abraham Gubler on September 15, 2010, 01:59:22 am
a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...  :(

That’s a bit extreme. In LA there is the Long Beach and El Segundo precincts with lots of work by Boeing, Northrop and Raytheon. Northrop still build Hornet centre barrels at El Segundo in the old wooden buildings used by Douglas in WWII. They also do major large scale carbon fibre forming there.

Then there is Palmdale in the Mojave. The Global Hawk and F-35 centre barrel production lines are there. Also the X-47B was built there and B-1 and B-2 depot level maintenance/rebuilding. In San Deigo’s Rancho Bernado Schweizer 333s are converted into Fire Scouts.

Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on September 15, 2010, 07:26:41 am

Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.

I sure hope so. I recently had a layover in Long Beach, and could see the iconic "Fly DC jets" sign that's been there forever. A reminder of times when thousands of entire airframes were rolling out of those hangars. But as we know, these days your production is dispersed throughout every single district in the country to give everybody a piece of the pie (whether it makes sense or not).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 15, 2010, 10:55:47 am

Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.

I sure hope so. I recently had a layover in Long Beach, and could see the iconic "Fly DC jets" sign that's been there forever. A reminder of times when thousands of entire airframes were rolling out of those hangars. But as we know, these days your production is dispersed throughout every single district in the country to give everybody a piece of the pie (whether it makes sense or not).

Labor is just one of the considerations.  California has traditionally paid higher wages, but until the last 30 years or so, the benefits of being in Calif., especially the southern area, outweighed that.  The ever-changing regulatory and tax climate are what are driving things away.  To cite but one example, Towards the later part of the DC-10/MD-11 run, California regulations became so onerous it was actually cheaper for MDD to build the planes to an airworthy condition, then fly them out of state to be painted and then fly them back to be finished than it was to simply paint them within  the State.   When Boeing was considering setting up the 777 production line out of the Puget Sound area, a number of States put in proposals to get it there (it ended up in the Sound area).  California's attempt didn't even place in the also-rans, and of course no one even thought about Calif. for the 787. 

There is still some ongoing work, but it's not on the scale we're talking about here, such as an F-23 line.  The C-17 is still there because with the trickle of orders coming in, it would be financial suicide to try and move the line.  However, if in some alternate universe USAF or export customers came in and said, "We want another 200 C-17s", I'd bet money Boeing would move the line.  In the case of Northrop, the F/A-18 sections are built there because they've been built there, and the higher costs are passed on to the taxpayers.   B-1 and B-2 maintenance, same thing.    Global Hawk was started there and is relatively small.   The stuff's already there.   But large scale (Global Hawk isn't very big) new production?  A bidder for such would have a tough time competing with the much lower overhead and regulatory costs that a bidder planning to do manufacturing elsewhere would enjoy. 

It may be that there are some still some design teams in Calif., but that's more a matter of design facilities being in place  and the benefits of modern transportation and communication.  Design teams now can be anywhere.   Same thing for research, although I fear that may change.  I can't see any reason why, if there was a large NGB production run any company would want to take on the grief of trying to comply with the onerous and fluid State and local regulations.   Of course, aviation isn't the only manufacturing industry in this boat.  Count up the number of non-taxpayer subsidized automobile plants left in California.  Here, I'll make it easy for you, I'll list them.




The head of one of Aerojet's major facilities said to me back in 1990 that he would never do another manufacturing program in California.  Not because of labor costs.  And it wasn't just the onerous regulations they had to deal with.  he pointed out that the environmental restrictions in, say, Nevada were just as tough.  The thing was that once you complied with them, you could move on.  In California, you'd do everything, get your clearance, and then they'd change the rules and you had to start over.  Local entities would come up with new rules that put you in conflict with State of Federal rules, which then put you out of compliance with the other rules.  Then, they'd change them and meanwhile the State would change its.  It became just too expensive in money and resources to start something new unless the State was going to write you a blank check (California High Speed Rail is an example of that, but that's for another topic). 

Sad, because I remember when not so long ago (or maybe long ago if you're under 30) it was so different. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Stuka on September 22, 2010, 07:55:40 pm
PAV-2 on its way back to WMOF.

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,6460.msg259619.html#msg259619
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 22, 2010, 10:24:46 pm
What? They moving it back to Western Museum of Flight in Torrance? Oh, yeah! I live 30 minutes away, baby!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 23, 2010, 12:00:23 am
What? They moving it back to Western Museum of Flight in Torrance? Oh, yeah! I live 30 minutes away, baby!
can we expect that you have some free time and good camera?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Gridlock on September 23, 2010, 03:33:29 am
Love the way they just tow the thing down a public highway like that  :o

Check out the tiling in the exhaust channels though, wouldn't have thought there'd be that much variation in the colouring of them?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 23, 2010, 01:59:56 pm
Flateric - Yes!

Concerning another matter.  I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)

They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them. 

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 23, 2010, 05:06:32 pm
Flateric - Yes!

Concerning another matter.  I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)

They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them. 



Is PAB-N an acronym? "P" After Burning Nozzle?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on September 24, 2010, 12:29:09 am
Not quite ;) PAB stands for Propulsion Aerodynamics Branch
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 24, 2010, 02:04:46 am
Concerning another matter.  I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)
They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them.  

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starstore.com%2Facatalog%2FSimpsons_Cruel-fate-statue.jpg&hash=c5a3ad622265f4791ec00bd73df10e41)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on September 24, 2010, 03:39:17 am
Concerning the changes from YF-23 to F-23, i'm analysins the technical drawings;

To be sure, can anybody confirm the observations:

-The engine nacelles are inwards canted (the nozzles especially)
-the begining of the nacelles is more towards the center of plane, with the first humps being partly masked by the fuselage
-the nacelles/fuselage transition no longer have a "channel" between them I.E the nacelle's start is directly blended with the fuselage;
-the nacelles are slimmer than the YF-23 ones but of the same height.
-They seem to be area ruled I.E the start close to the fuselage, go outward then come back inward.
-the fuselage has an inverted U section while on the YF-23 it was rounder.
-The fuselage is slimmer than on the YF-23

thank you
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 24, 2010, 09:01:12 am
Concerning the changes from YF-23 to F-23, i'm analysins the technical drawings;

To be sure, can anybody confirm the observations:

-The engine nacelles are inwards canted (the nozzles especially)
-the beginning of the nacelles is more towards the center of plane, with the first humps being partly masked by the fuselage
-the nacelles/fuselage transition no longer have a "channel" between them I.E the nacelle's start is directly blended with the fuselage;
-the nacelles are slimmer than the YF-23 ones but of the same height.
-They seem to be area ruled I.E the start close to the fuselage, go outward then come back inward.
-the fuselage has an inverted U section while on the YF-23 it was rounder.
-The fuselage is slimmer than on the YF-23

thank you

The nacelles are also shorter, due to not being designed to incorporate thrust reversers. The forward fuselage is also longer, to incorporate the tandem weapons bay's and the nose profile has been recontoured, with a diamond cross section, not chined, the inlets are now half shock cone inlets, the tail, probably due to the shorter nacelles, has been redesigned in planform and is now much cleaner; i.e.-less notches. Also, the main landing gear is no longer of the trailing link type.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on September 24, 2010, 09:02:01 am
Not quite ;) PAB stands for Propulsion Aerodynamics Branch

Thank you. :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on September 25, 2010, 11:59:54 am


The nacelles are also shorter
I've have trouble seeing it since the tail has been moved aft.



Other than that, i 've trouble seeing the fuselage/nacelles integration.

a 3/4 view would help like for the NATF F-23.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Stuka on September 30, 2010, 05:06:15 pm
A few more pictures here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/phantomphan1974photography/sets/72157624984467176/with/5020344632/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on October 26, 2010, 01:07:51 am
Ok guys, some more news: For the very FIRST time ever.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30752171@N02/5040722364/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 27, 2010, 02:09:46 am
Don't you find it strange on the picture with all the Northrop models, that while some later and not as tested projects are present while the F-23A mockup is not there instead it is the YF-23..?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on October 27, 2010, 09:56:25 am
Don't you find it strange on the picture with all the Northrop models, that while some later and not as tested projects are present while the F-23A mockup is not there instead it is the YF-23..?

Well, it may be the F-23A production models were more limited, perhaps already in the homes of collectors? Although, I am shocked we haven't seen pics of such models, good point.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 27, 2010, 10:32:57 am
I was talking about that pic
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg81374.html#msg81374

And the recent one posted here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2392.msg107389.html#msg107389

It is strange that coming directly from northrop all that is shown is the YF-23 and not the production version.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 27, 2010, 12:29:20 pm
Behold! You will see at least *two different* production version desktop models in next eAPR issue.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 27, 2010, 12:31:19 pm
Cool! what is eAPR?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 27, 2010, 12:46:47 pm
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 27, 2010, 02:29:11 pm
Mmm thanks.

Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on October 27, 2010, 02:55:06 pm
Photos of official desk models.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on October 27, 2010, 03:02:41 pm
Mmm thanks.

Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?

There will also be color multi-views/profile art.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: russcal on October 27, 2010, 10:09:09 pm
A few more pictures here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/phantomphan1974photography/sets/72157624984467176/with/5020344632/

Very nice pix, Stuka!

I'm pleased to say that Grey Ghost (aka Spider, PAV-02) is now reassembled and on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Beautiful aircraft and it was fun to work on (I was one of the guys that put it back together). Got to meet a good number of people that worked on it, engineers and technicians, and all say it would've won if politics hadn't reared it's ugly head. PAV-02 had the GE YF120 engines, giving a definate speed advantage over PAV-01 and the competition.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 28, 2010, 12:25:14 am
About eAPR: now that's great. I'm looking forward to the new issue!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on October 28, 2010, 12:38:29 am
Welcome aboard Russell! And thanks for sharing! The F-23 was simply the most amazing might-have-been fighter of the past 30 years and you really must have felt privileged to be working on this restoration...  :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: ubiquitous08 on October 28, 2010, 01:52:02 am
any idea on eAPR release date? Can't wait to read about NATF 23 / F 23 / Yf 23. Any teasers /information by any chance? Sorry to ask but is the F23 plan still available, can't find it. Cheers.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 28, 2010, 02:21:00 am
month, two, three...we can't hurry Scott

teasers are here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10158.msg96306.html#msg96306

F-23A plans
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg58965.html#msg58965
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: ubiquitous08 on October 28, 2010, 03:24:40 am
thanks for links. Teaser is off limits.  Is my ranking too low?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 28, 2010, 03:38:37 am
no.teaser was just in text form.

well, no
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5918
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Matej on October 28, 2010, 03:43:17 am
Yes, but the teaser is generally about the possible articles in future eAPRs, nothing really specific about the F-23 derivates, so you know generally what we know.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 28, 2010, 04:11:22 am
well, other teaser would be "funny nose" ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on October 29, 2010, 12:20:30 pm
I'm pleased to say that Grey Ghost (aka Spider, PAV-02) is now reassembled and on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Beautiful aircraft and it was fun to work on (I was one of the guys that put it back together).Russ

Beside putting it together, did you guys do anything else to it?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 30, 2010, 08:07:23 am
I recall reading on a newsgroups from 97 that the YF-23 exhibited two aerodynamic problems, one was vortex burst stalling the tails, the other was interference drag with the two nacelles...anybody heard about it?

The fact that the production (the 12/12/90 version) had a progressive profile instead of a flat channel between nacelles may explain this.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on October 30, 2010, 09:18:58 am
The YF-23 is one of the wildest fighter designs I've ever seen. What really grabbed my attention is the realization that its fuselage seems to be attached to its wings rather than its wings being attached to its fuselage. Then there are its amazing ruddervators. -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: aero-engineer on November 03, 2010, 08:08:22 pm
I recall reading on a newsgroups from 97 that the YF-23 exhibited two aerodynamic problems, one was vortex burst stalling the tails...

A simple comparison may hold the answer.

The Vortex Burst on the F-18 right at the vertical tails is well documented.

Comparing the F-18 and YF-23, there are a few major differences:

1. The YF-23 tails are further from centerline and canted out
2. The YF-23 clipped diamond wing is a higher sweep (both LE and TE) than the F-18. (Results in the vortex generating geometry being further away from the tails)

I believe the YF-23 and F-18 were about the same length and span.  Although Vortex Burst is a complicated phenomenon, these difference may have improved the YF-23 over what is seen in the F-18.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on November 04, 2010, 03:15:11 am
I'm not quite sure we can draw conclusion just from the sweep as the surface is different and usually large surface like the diamond wings trigger separation early, thus needing large vortex at the LE to be compensated.

Maybe the YF-23 had too strong vortex, the fact that they removed the chine on the fuselage on the production version may have something to see; IIRC the initial production version had also sawtooth TE to cure this problem (but this was deleted on later iterations).

The aerodynamics interference by the nacelles may be the reason why the put the engine nacelles almost together on the production version. (with a progressive decrease in profile in between as opposed to the almost flat channel on the YF-23)

Anyway, i'm really impatient to see the two different production models, hope Scott is not so far from release.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on November 17, 2010, 10:24:55 am
many of us can't go to WMOF in person...so thanks to strykerxo, we can go there at least virtually

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-n3tNrec0
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on November 24, 2010, 06:44:01 am
"Compitition" - seriously a spell error on the first word? The titles sucked a lot and the music was lousy. But, hey better than nothing I guess.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on November 24, 2010, 06:46:16 am
Is this sure the next APR review has the two F-23 models? I was browsing unwanted blog and Scott didn't speak of it in its APR update post.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on November 24, 2010, 07:39:18 am
Isn't gray spelled gray? -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on November 24, 2010, 07:52:01 am
Isn't gray spelled gray? -SP

Absolutely! And that's because the F-23 is American. "Gray" is spelled (spelt) "GREY" in British English.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on November 24, 2010, 09:26:17 am
Is this sure the next APR review has the two F-23 models?

The *next* issue has the Convair Nexus booster, and the one after that will have F-23 derivatives. Everything is *really* late.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on November 24, 2010, 10:01:56 am
Thanks.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on November 24, 2010, 10:30:25 am
Isn't gray spelled gray? -SP

Absolutely! And that's because the F-23 is American. "Gray" is spelled (spelt) "GREY" in British English.

Generally, gray is the name given to the cool, blue based, variations of the color and grey is the name given to warm, brown based, variations of the color.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on November 24, 2010, 10:37:30 am
Generally, gray is the name given to the cool, blue based, variations of the color and grey is the name given to warm, brown based, variations of the color.

What're you, a girl? "Gray" is "somewhere between black and white."

Pfff.

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on November 24, 2010, 01:11:36 pm
Isn't gray spelled gray? -SP

Absolutely! And that's because the F-23 is American. "Gray" is spelled (spelt) "GREY" in British English.

Generally, gray is the name given to the cool, blue based, variations of the color and grey is the name given to warm, brown based, variations of the color.

Are you quite sure this is a generalized usage? Are most people in the US aware of there being two spellings, anyway?? Your description could be of a local usage, perhaps? Or related to a certain trade? I don't know, never heard it before visiting this forum.
All I can say is that "GREY" is in use in a large part of the world, and "GRAY" just doesn't exist in British English. I was always told at school and university it was the American spelling of the word, not a subtle variation of its tones.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on November 24, 2010, 01:19:09 pm

What're you, a girl? "Gray" is "somewhere between black and white."

Pfff.

No, I'm the guy doing the F-23 profiles (Yes, I'm working on them as I type, except for the actual typing part. A four day weekend means profile work time, not shopping!)  who wants them correct ;) ; and I also do aircraft textures for 3D models for MSFS and I don't hear the the end of it if the correct colors aren't used. If you think modelers are bad when it comes to rivet counting, you should encounter some of the flight simmers I've seen online. ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on November 24, 2010, 01:47:19 pm
Gray:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gray
–adjective
1. of a color between white and black; having a neutral hue.
2. dark, dismal, or gloomy: gray skies.
3. dull, dreary, or monotonous.
4. having gray hair; gray-headed.
5. pertaining to old age; mature.
6. Informal . pertaining to, involving, or composed of older persons: gray households.
7. old or ancient.
8. indeterminate and intermediate in character: The tax audit concentrated on deductions in the gray area between purely personal and purely business expenses.
–noun
9. any achromatic color; any color with zero chroma, intermediate between white and black.
10. something of this color.
11. gray material or clothing: to dress in gray.
12. an unbleached and undyed condition.
13. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of the Confederate army in the American Civil War or the army itself. Compare blue ( def. 5 ) .
14. a horse of a gray color.
15. a horse that appears white but is not an albino.
--------------------------------

Grey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grey
adjective, -er, -est,  noun, verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 

gray
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on November 24, 2010, 02:07:24 pm
Ah scott, can you please specify the F-23 content?

Is this production F-23 desktop models or different planes based on the F-23 (so outside the ATF program)?

Clearly, in the APR issue, will we see desktop model of what would be the production F-23 or different program?

thank you

P.S: i too love cats.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on November 24, 2010, 02:17:28 pm
This is way more fun than going to English, King's English classes in school! -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: XP67_Moonbat on December 22, 2010, 04:28:05 pm
FOLLOW ME 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11350.msg111410.html
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: 20421 on January 20, 2011, 12:24:31 pm
check this out!

[Link removed. File is genuine but hosting website is full of copyright violations  and dodgy ads - Admin]

new link: http://hotfile.com/dl/98220889/ca53797/Northrop_YF-23A_Utility_flight_manual.rar.html

Northrop YF-23 Aircraft Utility Flight Manual NTM 1F-23(Y)A-1
Northrop Corporation | 1990 | ISBN: N/A | 199 pages | PDF | 58.8 MB
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: mz on January 20, 2011, 03:52:39 pm
Hmm, is the link above safe and genuine?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 22, 2011, 04:35:22 pm
From the "iron bird" model?

http://cgi.ebay.com/yf23-northrop-yf-23-actual-nose-piece-/150551713371?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item230d94d65b
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 22, 2011, 04:53:21 pm
I'm not sure if it has any connection to YF-23...check geometry.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 24, 2011, 01:39:34 pm
I'm not sure if it has any connection to YF-23...check geometry.

Yeah, i noticed it. I looked at the only picture i have of the iron bird (the pic taken in 90, in workshop) and the nose doesn't match. So it is some kind of fake i guess.

Not sure if these pictures are posted, although they are not any special, any picture of YF-23 is gold worth to me.  :P

Such a shame that such a nice bird has been through so much suffering... :(

PS: And current status. :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/moto_club4ag/5353422290/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: russcal on January 28, 2011, 01:22:33 pm
I'm pleased to say that Grey Ghost (aka Spider, PAV-02) is now reassembled and on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Beautiful aircraft and it was fun to work on (I was one of the guys that put it back together).Russ

Beside putting it together, did you guys do anything else to it?

Heya, Donage99!

Sorry about the late reply!

Nothing has been done to it save for cleaning trash out of it. The plane is, for the most part, in really good shape... a plus for it's composite construction! There are a few aluminum access panels that are suffering corrosion, especially the air refueling door topside. The canopy and windscreen are in poor shape, the acrylic being stress cracked and degraded. The windscreen was painted over at some point during NG displaying it. I've talked with someone that said the canopy can be polished out so it looks decent, this is potentially on the future "to-do" list. Other than that, the plane can use a good scrubbing... this being a logistical problem as the plane is bigger than either of the two wash racks at the airport!

We have all the typical non-profit museum problems: never enough money, lack of personnel / expertise, etc. We're forming up a maintenance / restoration team, but are going to be limited to what we can do until we move into new facilities.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 10, 2011, 12:00:04 am
in late 00s, on several AIAA conferences (2007 AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference) - Bob Sandusky was presenting a one hour lecture, titled “Designing a Fighter Jet - A Case Study of the YF-23A Advanced Tactical Fighter Prototype”

was anyone lucky to attend?

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on March 30, 2011, 09:31:49 pm
Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?

Perhaps I missed it, but has this issue already come out?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on March 30, 2011, 11:10:14 pm
Heya, Donage99!

Sorry about the late reply!

Nothing has been done to it save for cleaning trash out of it. The plane is, for the most part, in really good shape... a plus for it's composite construction! There are a few aluminum access panels that are suffering corrosion, especially the air refueling door topside. The canopy and windscreen are in poor shape, the acrylic being stress cracked and degraded. The windscreen was painted over at some point during NG displaying it. I've talked with someone that said the canopy can be polished out so it looks decent, this is potentially on the future "to-do" list. Other than that, the plane can use a good scrubbing... this being a logistical problem as the plane is bigger than either of the two wash racks at the airport!

We have all the typical non-profit museum problems: never enough money, lack of personnel / expertise, etc. We're forming up a maintenance / restoration team, but are going to be limited to what we can do until we move into new facilities.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

Russ, I'm sure you could find a few volunteers on this forum to help with a good washing ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on March 31, 2011, 10:58:54 pm
Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?

Perhaps I missed it, but has this issue already come out?

No,

I'm still working on the artwork, which has been difficult, since I'm working my butt off at my day job. But it is progressing, slowly but surely.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on April 01, 2011, 08:14:58 pm
No,

I'm still working on the artwork, which has been difficult, since I'm working my butt off at my day job. But it is progressing, slowly but surely.

Ok thanks. Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on May 06, 2011, 08:19:53 pm
I don't think this was posted previously:

Another YF-23 walkaround

http://svsm.org/gallery/yf23
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BAROBA on May 07, 2011, 01:55:10 am
Thanks for the link, Paul :)
Some shots are of parts I haven't seen yet..
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on August 30, 2011, 11:43:19 am
Alrighty guys, at long last here it is... ;)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on August 30, 2011, 02:24:54 pm
That's a nice surprise. Thanks supacruze! :o but it's such a waste of internal space if true :( I so hope they had a better idea for the production version
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on August 30, 2011, 03:22:58 pm
Lovely Tony Chong's (http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.com/) photo
about quarter of century after first sketches made, she still out of this world
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on August 30, 2011, 04:03:22 pm
That's a nice surprise. Thanks supacruze! :o but it's such a waste of internal space if true :( I so hope they had a better idea for the production version

In the drawing the missiles look like AIM-120As, which take up more space than AIM-120Cs.  However, the development of the C was still classified at the time, although Lockheed and Northrop knew it existed.  So, any Northrop illustrations or unclassified technical info (such as the pilot manual) would be based around and refer to only the A. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on August 31, 2011, 02:35:51 am
about quarter of century after first sketches made, she still out of this world

I agree. Best-looking modern fighter there ever was! The new PAK-FA and J-10 come close, but the F-23 is still the top!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on August 31, 2011, 05:32:56 am
From all the research I've done, I'm totally convinced the YF-23 weapons bay was never meant to be a full-capacity unit; they were just trying to make a bare-bones flying testbed... and this is where so many observers go wrong. They don't understand that the bay was not designed to accomodate the full service requirement. That was done in the F-23A, as we now all know. There's more details on my new site.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: straycat 2269 on September 04, 2011, 07:25:16 pm
dear all,
i've just came to USAF Museum in Ohio and saddly the YF-23 is not longer on a public site.
they don't know when is going to be back.
very sad thing
br
M
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on September 05, 2011, 10:32:18 am
Wow, did they tell the reason?  :o
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 05, 2011, 11:17:52 am
YF-23 was never at *public* part of USAFM
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/r&d/index.asp (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/r&d/index.asp)

Presidential/R&D Requirements
The Presidential and Research & Development Galleries, located on the controlled-access portion of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, are accessible using the shuttle bus service from the main museum complex. This service is offered on a first-come, first-served basis. Sign up early as buses fill up quickly!
Shuttle buses are not handicapped accessible. Individuals requiring special assistance should contact the museum's Operations Division in advance at (937) 255-3286 to arrange transportation.
Military and Department of Defense civilians with government ID may use their private vehicle to visit the Presidential and R&D Galleries.

Note: A current government-issued photo ID (i.e. state ID or driver's license) is required for citizens of the U.S. and U.S. territories over age 18. All foreign visitors must present an original passport (a NEXUS card is an acceptable form of ID for Canadian citizens) or a foreign enhanced driver's license. Those under age 18 must be escorted by an adult (one adult per two children); children are not required to produce identification when accompanying their parents.

Hours of Operation
The Presidential and R&D Galleries are now operating on the following schedule:
Bus departs museum at 10 a.m., 11 a.m., noon, 1 p.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. seven days a week.
Participants must attend a briefing 15 minutes before their bus departs the museum. For those with base access, the galleries will be open from 9:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. daily (use Gate 19B).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: straycat 2269 on September 05, 2011, 01:53:10 pm
Sorry, that is what i meant.
The grey ghost is no longer at the R&D hangar.
They remove it "for restoration" and since it is not a usaf aircraft, it is not a priority
I told them, it should have been a fighter and it should be a priority.
They just smiled.

Still pretty good stuff to see, on both public and restricted areas, but no yf-23.

They said to have no idea how long it will take to have it on display again.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on September 05, 2011, 09:52:09 pm
That's really weird.  I saw it in July of 2009 (granted, that was a while ago, but it's not like it accumulates a lot of wear and tear) and it looked to be in great shape.  I wonder why they decided to pull it?  The "not a priority" bit does explain the significant amount of time it's taking to get the MiG-25 restored, at any rate!  Maybe I need to get onto one of the R&D tours and see what's what.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 05, 2011, 11:30:44 pm
Sorry, that is what i meant.
damn...(((
since it is not a usaf aircraft, it is not a priority
I wonder then what those big white letters on PAV-1 engine nacelles should mean. those, you know - 'U.S. AIR FORCE'
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on September 06, 2011, 09:35:26 pm
All that means is that they prioritize the display of in-service types.  Hence why the X-32 they've got is still being restored as well, and why they gave up the B-1A and YF-22 for a B-1B and F-22A.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Machdiamond on September 07, 2011, 05:13:25 am
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an R&D hangar?
Having said that, when you look at the build quality of a new prototype relative to a new production aircraft, one can understand that they are a bit more challenging to keep in good shape over the years.
--Luc
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on September 07, 2011, 05:26:48 am
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an R&D hangar?

Not at all.  The purpose of the R&D hangar is to house the XB-70 and try to mask its awesomeness by surrounding it with other aircraft  ;D
 
The R&D hangar is where test planes get displayed, yes, but if one needs to be restored it doesn't rank ahead of in-service types in priority, that's all they're saying.  And I can buy that.  Most of the recent restoration work has been going towards getting the Memphis Belle ready for display anyway, from what I've heard.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on September 07, 2011, 06:09:33 am
well, but PAV-1 was restored (kind of) already? what they going to restore now? if they want add HUD ...well, I agree
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on September 07, 2011, 09:11:17 am
Hopefully they'll open up the weapons bay!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on September 12, 2011, 10:23:11 pm
That doesnt make sense.... ??? 
I know they rotate different aircraft thru the R&D hangar from time to time to freshen the display, so maybe they decided to pull the YF-23 for a while and display something else. I don't think the 'restoration' story stacks up because it's already been restored to static condition. Perhaps one of you guys who lives near the site can go in and get a clear definitive answer to the current situation...?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Supertom on September 27, 2011, 10:19:58 am
It's not restored.  It looks like it's put back together and just sitting there.  Definitely looks like it's been sitting out for a while.  I took a few photos of it in May - I'll post those up when I pull those out of my external drive.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: cookegmp on September 28, 2011, 07:04:29 am
I am lucky enough to live 7 miles away from the NMUSAF. I am quite sure it's still on display. I will try to sneak on base this week and check it out. It had definitely been restored prior to going on display. I went through the restoration hanger while it was still there and it was in poor shape. It's much better now. However, the poor X-32...  :-[
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on September 28, 2011, 09:31:33 am
I am lucky enough to live 7 miles away from the NMUSAF. I am quite sure it's still on display. I will try to sneak on base this week and check it out. It had definitely been restored prior to going on display. I went through the restoration hanger while it was still there and it was in poor shape. It's much better now. However, the poor X-32...  :-[

I dont get it. One million people seems to have passed PAV-1 during restoration, but noone took pictures of the bays.  >:(
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on September 28, 2011, 11:09:45 am
However, the poor X-32...  :-[

Only thing that could help the X-32 is a brown paper bag.  ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: OM on September 28, 2011, 06:48:33 pm
However, the poor X-32...  :-[

Only thing that could help the X-32 is a brown paper bag.  ;)

...And even then I still wouldn't fly'er with your joystick  :o
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: cookegmp on September 28, 2011, 09:03:11 pm
I am lucky enough to live 7 miles away from the NMUSAF. I am quite sure it's still on display. I will try to sneak on base this week and check it out. It had definitely been restored prior to going on display. I went through the restoration hanger while it was still there and it was in poor shape. It's much better now. However, the poor X-32...  :-[

I dont get it. One million people seems to have passed PAV-1 during restoration, but noone took pictures of the bays.  >:(


When I was there it really wasn't in any position where you could get a good shot of the bays. At the time it was also sitting near a restricted area that ended up being a production F-22A so the staff wasn't appreciative of someone hanging out over there with a camera.


(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalmuseum.af.mil%2Fshared%2Fmedia%2Fphotodb%2Fphotos%2F070313-F-1234P-036.jpg&hash=846c7fece55ce8ef5b543f918c239812)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Stuka on October 11, 2011, 08:28:19 pm
Just wanted to dispel the rumor about PAV-1 being removed from public display.  It is currently on display in the R&D Hangar which is off site and requires a bus ride to get to.  The bus only gives you 45 minutes for the Presidential and R&D Hangars which is way too short to experience everything.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on October 11, 2011, 09:12:51 pm
I could never see the R&D hangar when I was last there.  I only saw the standard museum displays so I completely missed out on the good stuff.  It's good to see a recent pic of PAV-1.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on October 13, 2011, 05:59:52 pm
With regards to performance, how would the EMD F-23A compare to the YF-23? Is it more area ruled? Also, since the thrust reversers are removed, would that mean the engine housings are smaller and therefore less drag and therefore even greater speed? The F-23A is also longer, so would that make the plane more heavy?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on October 13, 2011, 08:20:23 pm
With regards to performance, how would the EMD F-23A compare to the YF-23? Is it more area ruled? Also, since the thrust reversers are removed, would that mean the engine housings are smaller and therefore less drag and therefore even greater speed? The F-23A is also longer, so would that make the plane more heavy?

Yes, the engine nacelles would have been slimmed down.  The prototypes had nacelles sized for the thrust reversers.  Whether that would've made up for the weight increase brought about by the longer forward fuselage, I'm not sure.
 
I could never see the R&D hangar when I was last there.  I only saw the standard museum displays so I completely missed out on the good stuff.  It's good to see a recent pic of PAV-1.

Some of the best stuff is hidden away in the R&D hangar:  the YF-12A, the YF-23A, the D-21B drone, the Kestrel, the YF-107...and the sheer insane awesomeness of the XB-70A.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on October 13, 2011, 11:07:56 pm
I saw the XB-70 already back in 2001 when it was still in one of the main hangars I think.  Unfortunately I was only 10 at the time and too mentally under-developed to fully appreciate its glory.  I also saw the Kestrel in the same hangar as the XB-70 and YF-22 and the like but again, this was 10 years ago.  When I revisited in 2009 with my folks we completely forgot about this supposed R&D hangar (shame on me) so I never got to see any of the good stuff again.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on October 14, 2011, 11:22:33 am
With regards to performance, how would the EMD F-23A compare to the YF-23? Is it more area ruled? Also, since the thrust reversers are removed, would that mean the engine housings are smaller and therefore less drag and therefore even greater speed? The F-23A is also longer, so would that make the plane more heavy?

It probably would have had less weight, as being a production design, they would have performed more analysis which would allow them to "weight optimize" the deisgn. That's probided they didn't get anything wrong and need to strengthen certain areas. Also, the longer fuselage would have given it a higher finess ration and therefore, lower supersonic (wave) drag.
 
It may have had the same or higher speed capabilities than the prototypes, which were already quite fast, but it's main limitation most likely would have been material/thermal limitations.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on October 14, 2011, 11:54:56 am
With regards to performance, how would the EMD F-23A compare to the YF-23? Is it more area ruled? Also, since the thrust reversers are removed, would that mean the engine housings are smaller and therefore less drag and therefore even greater speed? The F-23A is also longer, so would that make the plane more heavy?

It probably would have had less weight, as being a production design, they would have performed more analysis which would allow them to "weight optimize" the deisgn. That's probided they didn't get anything wrong and need to strengthen certain areas. Also, the longer fuselage would have given it a higher finess ration and therefore, lower supersonic (wave) drag.
 
It may have had the same or higher speed capabilities than the prototypes, which were already quite fast, but it's main limitation most likely would have been material/thermal limitations.


Not quite sure; The nacelles were slimmer, the fuselage was bulkier in addition to being longer though; It would have all the avionics inside and more than that, there's no reason the F-23 wouldn't have been striken by the same plight than the raptor that is the cost overrun & material difficulties resulting in usage of more conventionnal and heavier materials resulting in a big overweight (and performance decrease) 95's circa.


I'm sure the F-23 would have ended at the same weight more or less than the F-22.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on October 18, 2011, 12:43:13 am
Also, didn't the production F119 matched the YF120's thrust due to its slightly increased fan diameter? The changes from the YF-23 to the EMD F-23 doesn't seem as radical as from the YF-22 to the F-22.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: OM on October 19, 2011, 11:38:21 am
I saw the XB-70 already back in 2001 when it was still in one of the main hangars I think.  Unfortunately I was only 10 at the time and too mentally under-developed to fully appreciate its glory.  I also saw the Kestrel in the same hangar as the XB-70 and YF-22 and the like but again, this was 10 years ago.  When I revisited in 2009 with my folks we completely forgot about this supposed R&D hangar (shame on me) so I never got to see any of the good stuff again.

...Damn kids. Spouting off how young they are just to make the rest of us feel that much older than dirt  >:( :P ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mark Nankivil on October 21, 2011, 06:08:40 am
Greetings All -

A few stickers that showed up in a recent donation to the Museum...

Enjoy the Day!  Mark
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on October 22, 2011, 12:47:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ZqLukqmy8
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on October 25, 2011, 09:42:47 am

The video above is of the P&W YF119 as fitted to the YF-23 PAV-1.

Great find, flateric!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mark Nankivil on November 07, 2011, 08:35:26 pm
Greetings All -

Found another ATF-23 decal at the Museum - rather like this one!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on November 07, 2011, 10:36:46 pm
thanks, Mark!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on December 08, 2011, 09:06:52 am
Finally......... from Scott Lowther at upship: http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=144 (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=144)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on December 10, 2011, 01:43:37 am
Is it me, or does Ken Scott's impressions of the F-23 EMD and the YF-23 make it seem that the F-23 is actually less bulky (except for the nose)? The fuselage and engine housings seem to be slimmed down.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on December 10, 2011, 05:36:22 am
o'rly? ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SOC on December 10, 2011, 08:29:55 am
Is it me, or does Ken Scott's impressions of the F-23 EMD and the YF-23 make it seem that the F-23 is actually less bulky (except for the nose)? The fuselage and engine housings seem to be slimmed down.

The engine nacelles definitely lost weight.  They were able to be smaller as there was no longer a short-field capability requirement.  That requirement drove the size of the YF-23's nacelles, as they were designed to fit thrust reversers.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on December 10, 2011, 10:45:52 am
Also, if you look at the cross sections in the drawings, you will see the nacelles became more triangular in shape, not rectangular like the YF-23's, which also gives it a more slender appearance. As I commented to a friend after making these, the production version of the F-23A almost makes the YF-23 look clunky by comparison.

You should also note the F-23A was more slender than the EMD YF-23A because it was longer and would have had a higher fineness ratio than the YF-23A. That was a result of changing the weapons bay design from one deep bay to two tandem bays, the forward one for sidewinders and the rear one for AMRAAMs.

Edit: You should also note that the nacelles, as noted by SOC w/o the TR's, were moved slightly forward and they were also moved closer together; toward the centerline of the aircraft. This adds to giving the aircraft a more slender appearance.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on December 10, 2011, 11:54:35 am
The YF-23 always looked chunky and horrible to me; Thanks to your artworks and Orion's drawing i can finally confirm my idea that F-23A was the design that showed all the beauty of the general arrangement of the project.



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on December 10, 2011, 12:22:38 pm
1997
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on December 12, 2011, 05:07:25 pm
The F-23 EMD looks gorgeous. Although wouldn't the closer spacing of the nacelles result in reduced adherence to the Sears-Haack shape? I also noticed that the enlarged nose gives the impression of the fuselage being better contoured.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on December 12, 2011, 05:20:02 pm
IIRC The deviation from the Sears-Haack body can be attributed to the fact that Northrop was taking into account the improvements in the weapons bay that needed to be made as well as several other structural changes that needed to be made in order to make a production fighter that was actually capable of carrying all of the advanced avionics and other sorts of systems that would come to be placed on a production aircraft as opposed to a cheap bare-bones demonstrator.  These design changes necessitated that sacrifices in aerodynamic shaping be made in order to optimize more for internal volume.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on December 12, 2011, 05:20:48 pm
Although wouldn't the closer spacing of the nacelles result in reduced adherence to the Sears-Haack shape?

In a word, no, as the Sears Haack shape is based on the volume distribution. Just because the engines are moved closer together, it wouldn't necessarily in and of itself change the volume. However, moving them closer together, partly behind the forward fuselage spine, reduces the frontal area and possibly surface area. As usual, it's always a trade-off and you can see the volume distribution in the drawings included in the article.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on December 15, 2011, 04:39:36 am
Now that we can see in detail how the F-23A would have looked, all the speculation is basically over and we can see Northrop's thinking and logic in the production proposal. But I still find myself liking the shape of the YF. The YF-23 is one of the rare instances where the prototype looked as good as or better than the production version, for me anyway.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on December 15, 2011, 01:34:04 pm
Although wouldn't the closer spacing of the nacelles result in reduced adherence to the Sears-Haack shape?

In a word, no, as the Sears Haack shape is based on the volume distribution. Just because the engines are moved closer together, it wouldn't necessarily in and of itself change the volume. However, moving them closer together, partly behind the forward fuselage spine, reduces the frontal area and possibly surface area. As usual, it's always a trade-off and you can see the volume distribution in the drawings included in the article.

The reduced frontal and surface area would reduce form and frictional drag. What's the overall effect on the wave drag due to the reshaped rear fuselage? Apparently, the higher fineness ratio due to the aircraft being longer also reduces wave drag.

As I currently understand it, minimizing wave drag is to minimize the derivative of the area of the cross sections when viewed from the front? In other words, keeping the distribution of area as uniform as possible? I'm a first year college student, so I have never taken a course on aerodynamics. I apologize for my lack of knowledge, so please bear with me.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Kryptid on December 15, 2011, 08:36:02 pm
Minimizing wave drag at Mach 1 has to do with making the volume distribution of the aircraft as close to that of a Sears-Haack body as possible. The actual shape of each individual part doesn't matter, just the cross-sectional area. In practice, it's not normally possible to get it identical to such an ideal. An average fighter has about twice the wave drag efficiency factor as a Sears-Haack body of similar total volume.
 
Above Mach 1, the ideal volume distribution for reducing wave drag changes. You need to base the volume distribution on so-called "Mach plane cuts" which are derived from the angle that shockwaves form at that given speed (the higher the speed, the sharper the angle). This is difficult to "eyeball" so I imagine there's a lot of computer work involved these days in shaping an aircraft for low drag at high Mach numbers. A good design can reach low wave drag at Mach 1 and speeds above by using blended shapes (like we see in the B-1). Stealth aircraft often have blending between various design features (wing, fuselage, canopy, etc.) so that likely aids in a similar fashion.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 14, 2012, 03:00:01 pm
Has the YF-22's supercruise speed with the YF-119 engine been declassified? According to Paul Metz, the YF-23 reached mach 1.43 with those engines.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 14, 2012, 08:36:54 pm
Has the YF-22's supercruise speed with the YF-119 engine been declassified? According to Paul Metz, the YF-23 reached mach 1.43 with those engines.

I don't think that speed  remained classified, if it ever actually was.  The only one that stayed classified, and still is AFAIK, was the YF-23 with the YF120 engines. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 14, 2012, 08:49:18 pm
I don't think the performance figures for the YF-22 were ever classified with regards to their cruise performance with each engine.  I can't recall what the YF-22's supercruise speed was with the YF-119 but the only classified figure was the YF-23 and YF-120 combo which is merely stated as "Mach 1.6+" and said figure remains classified to this day.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: ADVANCEDBOY on January 15, 2012, 08:39:44 am
For me this airplane is a benchmark in jetfigter design. Absolute beauty this beast is. I have no choice but to do my best to match it one day. Now back to practising....:)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 23, 2012, 03:19:51 am
Has the YF-22's supercruise speed with the YF-119 engine been declassified? According to Paul Metz, the YF-23 reached mach 1.43 with those engines.

I don't think that speed  remained classified, if it ever actually was.  The only one that stayed classified, and still is AFAIK, was the YF-23 with the YF120 engines.

Hmmm, it's strange because I've never found YF-22's YF-119 speed anywhere. I'm listing the official speeds below.

YF-22 w/ YF-119: ???
YF-22 w/ YF-120: M. 1.58 (official declassified speed)
YF-23 w/ YF-119: M. 1.43 ("standard day supercruise speed" according to Paul Metz in AIAA 92-1039)
YF-23 w/ YF-120: Classified

I would guess YF-23 with YF-120 reached 1.8, possibly 2.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on January 23, 2012, 09:42:11 am
According to David C. Aronstein, Michael J. Hirschberg, Albert C. Piccirillo in

Advanced tactical fighter to F-22 raptor: origins of the 21st century air Dominance Fighter


YF-22 No 2 (YF-119 did supercruise at Mach 1.43 (YF-119) on Dec 27 1991.
YF-22 No 1 (YF-120) did supercruise at Mach 1.58 on Nov 3 1991,  the latter stated to be the maximum achieved with this aircraft.
YF-23 No 1 (YF-119) did supercruise at Mach 1.43 on Sept 18 1991.
YF-23 No 2 (YF-120) did supercruise at Mach 1.6 on Nov 29 1991. This is not actually stated to be the maximum achieved with this aircraft.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 23, 2012, 11:06:01 am
I'll have to check my AW&ST articles, but IIRC, the max supercruise achieved with the YF-23/P&w engine was around M=1.8
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on January 23, 2012, 12:47:40 pm
Well, i knew it was fast, i was thinking around 1.6 mach fast. If it really was 1.8+, then my face just melted out of sheer awesomeness...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 23, 2012, 01:08:29 pm
I may have posted this elsewhere, so sorry if I'm repeating myself.

In the middle '90s I was talking with an official who was not part of the evaluation team, but would have been involved with the logistical support of the ATF/F-22 had the original plans been followed.   I mentioned that the supercruise figures of the YF-23 with the YF120 engine were still classified, whereas all the other ATF combinations were not.   His opinion (and it was his opinion, not a statement of fact; he wouldn't be in a position to know) that if it was still classified, "...then they probably did M2".   I have

FWIW
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 23, 2012, 01:45:07 pm
It seems weird that the supercruise performance figures of the P&W powered aircraft would be the same.  Also if the figure was indeed mach 2 for the PAV-2/YF-120 combo, then I would officially be astonished beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's times like these where I wonder if the F-119 will be compatible with an ADVENT style third flowpath/extra duct for a possible future upgrade?  It might be a bit overly complex but still, one can dream. :)

Also Sundog, don't you mean the YF-23/GE combo?  It is already understood that both P&W powered aircraft achieved mach 1.43.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 23, 2012, 04:31:46 pm
Once again, based on info from AW&ST, IIRC, the YF-23/GE combo's max supercruise was M=2.2 and other sources report it's top speed around M=2.8+. Though I haven't any doubt if it did reach that top speed it would have been quite limited based on airframe heating. IIRC, that's what set the limit for the ATF design's one hour supercruise design spec limit, the ability to absorb the amount of heat generated in that time.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 23, 2012, 04:51:11 pm
OMG!  Mach 2.2?!  That just makes me love the YF-23 even more!  To think that aerodynamic heating was the main limiting factor of speed performance as opposed to aerodynamic issues such as drag and the limitations on efficiency/performance inherent in a fixed geometry inlet/intake really does serve as a testament to the wonderful engineering prowess of Northrop and MDD!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 23, 2012, 07:19:33 pm
Well, i knew it was fast, i was thinking around 1.6 mach fast. If it really was 1.8+, then my face just melted out of sheer awesomeness...

The F-22A will supercruise at Mach 1.7+ (Jay Miller puts it at Mach 1.82).

"“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said.“To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on.  The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.”  (Courtesy of Air Education and Training Command News Service)"
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: unclejim on January 23, 2012, 07:27:41 pm
Better have a tanker nearby before and after that!



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 23, 2012, 07:32:46 pm
Better have a tanker nearby before and after that!

It wasn't using afterburner.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 23, 2012, 07:42:28 pm
I'll have to check my AW&ST articles, but IIRC, the max supercruise achieved with the YF-23/P&w engine was around M=1.8

That's blistering fast. The plane certainly looks like it can punch through the air at such high speeds. Although I'm confused as to why Paul Metz stated that the plane with YF-119 only achieved mach 1.43. Was he deliberately downplaying the aircraft's speed to maintain classified information?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Arjen on January 24, 2012, 12:37:01 am
Better have a tanker nearby before and after that!

It wasn't using afterburner.
You're moving ~30 tonnes at M1.6+. Even without A/B, you're making Exxon very happy.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 24, 2012, 01:54:02 am
other sources report it's top speed around M=2.8+.
Though I haven't any doubt if it did reach that top speed it would have been quite limited based on airframe heating.
I bet composites used in YF-23 plainly limit her max speed to something about M=2.35 at 40.000
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on January 24, 2012, 02:10:23 am
I think one can take an educated guess at the max super cruise speed of the YF-23/YF119 combo by the method they employed in testing. They accelerated the aircraft to the theoretical max supercruise speed in afterburner and then switched back to full military power and allowed to plane to reach speed/trust equilibrium. B)


All public statements by Northrop personal say the aircraft flew faster than expected.



Official sources point to the YF-23/YF-119 reaching Mach 1.8 with afterburner. Speed/Altitude chart from the testing also show Mach 1.8 being the fastest testing point planned but clearly no the fastest the airframe can achieve.


My rhetorical question is:
Why would Northrop chose to test the YF-23/PW up to Mach 1.8 with afterburner when this is neither the design limit nor a program requirement? ::)


The only answer that makes sense to me is that it was in support of establishing the maximum supercruise capability of the airframe. This speculation is backed further by the fact that the YF119 were the more mature engines (being delivered according to the original 30,000 trust requirement) and both Lockheed and Northrop chose the PW powered prototypes as the workhorse for the test program.


Northrop famously finished the YF-23 DEM/VAL program with the YF-23/PW performing 6 sorties in 1 day and still finishing in condition 1 > ready to fly again. :o  The Mach 1.8 number was also reached on that day.


Actually, instead of dusting off my memories, how about I dust off something I created back in 2008 as part of an article about this topic. Updated and fleshed up a bit.


(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F5302558%2FATFs%2520Power%2520and%2520Speeds.png&hash=5175d25f9d76a620d8cb692b4eed35d8)


And here is the google docs file (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6LyF8qNyoudFU1LU1tTVBxMkVGYUhwamRlX1Nobnc)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 24, 2012, 08:24:17 am
other sources report it's top speed around M=2.8+.
Though I haven't any doubt if it did reach that top speed it would have been quite limited based on airframe heating.
I bet composites used in YF-23 plainly limit her max speed to something about M=2.35 at 40.000

Depends what they're using.  There are forms of BMI good up to 500F+ . 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on January 24, 2012, 11:33:15 am
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg26550.html#msg26550
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: unclejim on January 24, 2012, 05:01:48 pm
F-22 still a fuel guzzler in "supercruise" and needs tanking up after such operations. More Air Force hoo-ha!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 24, 2012, 06:38:15 pm
F-22 still a fuel guzzler in "supercruise" and needs tanking up after such operations. More Air Force hoo-ha!

Any idea what the sfc of an F119 in dry thrust is vs the sfc of an F110 in afterburner?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 24, 2012, 06:47:22 pm
I don't know the exact numbers, but all I know is that that ratio of sfc for F-119 vs. F-110 is a LOT less than 1:1  that's for sure!

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 26, 2012, 03:31:54 am

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F5302558%2FATFs%2520Power%2520and%2520Speeds.png&hash=5175d25f9d76a620d8cb692b4eed35d8)


And here is the google docs file (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6LyF8qNyoudFU1LU1tTVBxMkVGYUhwamRlX1Nobnc)

Are you sure you got the estimated thrust for the F-120 right?  :o

Or doesn't variable cycle produce that much more efficiency at high altitude/speed.

Also, where did Mach 1.82 for the F-22 come from? IIRC, the highest supercruise speed released by the Air Force is Mach 1.78. I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on January 26, 2012, 05:53:58 am
Also, where did Mach 1.82 for the F-22 come from? IIRC, the highest supercruise speed released by the Air Force is Mach 1.78. I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?

Mach 1.82 is listed in Jay Miller's book.  The 2.42 I'd guess is from Paul Metz's quote about "the top speed is secret but it'll do 1600 mph".
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 30, 2012, 10:47:58 am
I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?

Only in the sense that the changes to go from YF to F on the -23 were said to be not as extensive as on the -22, although there would be some fuselage stretch to accommodate all of the front missile bay.   

As far as speed goes, my understanding is that the F-22 is faster than the YF, but the a/c carries less fuel. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 30, 2012, 12:23:13 pm
I believe the reduction in fuel was called for by the AF as I seem to recall reading somewhere that out of speed, maneuverability, and range, Lockheed stated that the AF had to pick any two of those performance criteria to optimize the a/c for.  The AF decided to sacrifice the latter characteristic to increase speed and maneuverability.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 30, 2012, 01:06:12 pm
I believe the reduction in fuel was called for by the AF as I seem to recall reading somewhere that out of speed, maneuverability, and range, Lockheed stated that the AF had to pick any two of those performance criteria to optimize the a/c for.  The AF decided to sacrifice the latter characteristic to increase speed and maneuverability.

I think I wrote something similar to that elsewhere on the Forum.   I believe I phrased it isomething like in going to EMD and thence production Lockheed advised, "We can meet the requirements for speed, range, maneuverability.  Pick any two". 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 30, 2012, 03:03:35 pm
I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?

Only in the sense that the changes to go from YF to F on the -23 were said to be not as extensive as on the -22, although there would be some fuselage stretch to accommodate all of the front missile bay.   

As far as speed goes, my understanding is that the F-22 is faster than the YF, but the a/c carries less fuel.

I recall that one of the reasons that the F-22 gained so much weight is that they had to replace quite a lot of composites with titanium because of strength and ballistic impact concerns. It's rather surprising considering that the F-22, which is noticeably more slender than the YF-22, is 13000 lbs heavier (43000 lbs empty vs 30000 lbs empty).

From the drawings, the F-23 doesn't seem to have lost any bulk compared to the YF-23, although it appeared more slender due to its increased length. If the F-23 also ran into problems incorporating composites, it's possible that it may gain even more weight than the F-22 did.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 30, 2012, 07:17:09 pm
I recall that one of the reasons that the F-22 gained so much weight is that they had to replace quite a lot of composites with titanium because of strength and ballistic impact concerns. It's rather surprising considering that the F-22, which is noticeably more slender than the YF-22, is 13000 lbs heavier (43000 lbs empty vs 30000 lbs empty).

From the drawings, the F-23 doesn't seem to have lost any bulk compared to the YF-23, although it appeared more slender due to its increased length. If the F-23 also ran into problems incorporating composites, it's possible that it may gain even more weight than the F-22 did.

I would actually trust the weight figures from Northrop, more so than Lockheed at the time, simply due to their extensive knowledge with large composite structures, re: B-2. Besides, bulk in and of itself isn't the problem. It's the lift and thrust and drag that go with it that determine how well it will turn out.

Of course, the fact that F-22 was so much heavier than the YF-22 leads me to believe that even our "prototyping" in competitions leaves a lot to be desired, since the end product is so different from what's first flown. It practically renders the competition useless.

Granted, all of these problems aren't the contractors fault alone. Many of them start and end with the Pentagon and ever changing mission needs and "gold plating" the system. At this point in time the Pentagon could definitely use a new Boyd, but that isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AAAdrone on January 30, 2012, 07:51:28 pm
Even if there was a weight gain from YF to F for the F-23 I'd imagine the changes made to the airframe design would help make improvements in certain capabilities despite making some sacrifices.  For example the F-22's inlets aren't the same as the YF-22's.  Who's to say that Northrop wouldn't have been able to develop their inlets to offer a vastly superior stagnation pressure recovery by the time the flow gets to the engine face?  It isn't just the engines that are responsible for aircraft performance so the performance of the prototype to production model may actually increase regardless of weight gains. 

As estimated earlier there should have been a reduction in frontal and wetted area so the parasitic drag should be reduced and even if the area ruling is reduced from the prototype to accommodate a better payload bay and avionics suite then that is where the presence of trade-offs becomes apparent.  You can't have a fighter that looks like the Sears Haack shape and expect it to actually fulfill the military's requirements.  It's good to area rule an aircraft, but to do it perfectly would mean sacrificing other important characteristics like being able to hold a radar and an ESM system and the like.


Which reminds me, were there any new methods of laminar flow control/boundary layer suction incorporated in the EMD F-23 variant?  I'm aware of those patches in front of the inlets that were supposed to suck the thin and not-so-turbulent boundary layers and discharge them through the upper surface of the airframe before they became an issue but I don't see them on the EMD blueprint.  Thanks in advance.
 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 31, 2012, 02:45:10 am
Given the low number of F-22s in service, is it possible that the F-22 get something like enhanced composite wings and other structures that takes advantage of advances in technology in a future SLEP program?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on February 02, 2012, 10:36:11 pm
PAV-2 at new WMOF place at Louis Zamperini Field
late autumn or winter 2011-2012
http://www.helikopterhysterie.com/2012/01/stealth-star.html (http://www.helikopterhysterie.com/2012/01/stealth-star.html)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on February 03, 2012, 06:20:55 pm
Given the low number of F-22s in service, is it possible that the F-22 get something like enhanced composite wings and other structures that takes advantage of advances in technology in a future SLEP program?

They made 6 sets of extra wings before the Raptor line was closed. So it doesn't seems like they are interested in making completely newly designed wings just yet.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on March 12, 2012, 11:44:00 pm
I did a rough blackout of the silhouettes. The top is the YF-23 and the bottom is the F-23A. Thanks to Scott Lowther for the outlines. The F-23A does seem to have a much smaller frontal area than the prototype.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on March 17, 2012, 01:39:57 pm
one of her best shots
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on April 01, 2012, 12:26:56 am
...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on April 01, 2012, 01:19:37 am
...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on April 11, 2012, 06:25:31 pm
Came across an interesting bit of information from the past...

In a recent interview, one of the members on the YF-23 team noted that the YF-23 could fly an entire mission at M 1.4.  Now we know that the YF-23s supercruise was much higher than that, its ultimate number remains classified.  So I take this to mean something else.  The specifications for the solicitation required the aircraft to be able to achieve a certain range, with a (still) non-disclosed portion of that in supercruise. In other words, you had to be able to fly X total miles, and part of that being in supercruise of a certain minimum speed.  This seems to say that the YF-23 could launch and fly the entire mission in supercruise at at least M1.4 while still meeting the total range requirement.  I wonder if that included a certain amount flown at the higher supercruises of which it was capable. 

Quite an aircraft...




Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on April 12, 2012, 01:03:41 am
This totally makes sence.

The major limiting factor to F-22's super cruise duration is the heat build up from the two engines working closely side by side.

The YF-23 design avoided that in at least 4 ways:
- could fly as fast as the YF-22 at lower throttle setting > less generated heat & lower fuel consumption
- the engines are further appart > no heat build up in between
- Aft section with a much greater surface area > engines have more cooling area
- no TVC > less trust is lost and converted to heat & better fuel consumption

 B)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 12, 2012, 02:16:33 am
I strongly remember that YF-23 PAVs HAD HAD problems with engine bays unpredictably high temperatures though
like 'designers thought that they will get high T from aerodnamic heating in engine cowlings that - as it turned out - were less than they got from engines itself'
it was in Polish book that was in fact one of the best compilations of program development tidbits published in open press here and there
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 12, 2012, 04:12:45 am
F-23 would have had far closer nacelles spacing; I wonder if that was really an unsolvable problem;


I actually browsing archive to try and found when did the requirement for supercruise range went down but have trouble finding it; back in 95 the F-22 was still planned to make 15 tons empty (even with the approved weight increase) so that's probably somewhere between 95 and 99 that requirements were lowered; Another possibility is that requirement were relaxed far before probably in 92..





Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on April 12, 2012, 10:20:29 am
F-23 would have had far closer nacelles spacing; I wonder if that was really an unsolvable problem;


I actually browsing archive to try and found when did the requirement for supercruise range went down but have trouble finding it; back in 95 the F-22 was still planned to make 15 tons empty (even with the approved weight increase) so that's probably somewhere between 95 and 99 that requirements were lowered; Another possibility is that requirement were relaxed far before probably in 92..

I wasn't aware that the nacelles on the F-23 would be any closer, and don't really see it in sketches of the proposed production variant.  As I recall, the major changes to the shape were:

1. Radar nose ('natch)
2. Redesign of the inlets to incorporate the fixed conical centerbody and revised shape.
3. Increase in length sufficient to allow for the forward missile bay.
4. Reduction in the size of the engine housing since there was no longer a need to provide streamlined, stealthy space for the thrust reversers and their associated operating mechanisms.  You can see this in the silhouette posted by Radical and in other depictions of frontal views of the F-23.  The actual engines, though, weren't any closer together AFAIK; that would be a major redesign. 
5.  Revised exhaust treatment.   The YFs used a design for IR suppression and heat dissipation that was unique to them that didn't work as well as ultimately would be needed and would require unacceptable levels of maintenance.  Reportedly, Northrop/MDD had known and acknowledged this from  the start.  They had a revised design using different material that was proposed for production. They would also have additional cooling available.  However, it would involve some significant chunks of change to fully develop.  They didn't want to spend the money to do that unless they had the production contract, so they opted for a short-lived system that would demonstrate the capability but only needed to last for DEM/VAL.   

Regarding relaxed requirements for the F-22, I believe this has been discussed under another topic.  Basically, in the early '90s it became apparent that of the expected performance in speed, maneuverability and range, the F-22 would be able to meet any two of the three, and the choice was to relax the range goal. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 12, 2012, 10:29:45 am
They were indeed.


Just by the fact the engine centerline was 1,5° out of the plane center line (I.e: engines were going inward ) and the engine nacelles themselves were closer which led to redesign of the aft section much narrower than on the YF-23.




You can see that with ease in sundog's drawing in  scott's APR.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on April 12, 2012, 10:43:20 am
I'll look tonight when I return to my cave.   :D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on April 13, 2012, 01:51:24 am
5.  Revised exhaust treatment.   The YFs used a design for IR suppression and heat dissipation that was unique to them that didn't work as well as ultimately would be needed and would require unacceptable levels of maintenance.  Reportedly, Northrop/MDD had known and acknowledged this from  the start.  They had a revised design using different material that was proposed for production. They would also have additional cooling available.  However, it would involve some significant chunks of change to fully develop.  They didn't want to spend the money to do that unless they had the production contract, so they opted for a short-lived system that would demonstrate the capability but only needed to last for DEM/VAL.   

I don't know, it had some interesting features...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mat Parry on April 19, 2012, 10:01:09 am
That is interesting.
 
As we've often seen in low observable technology, function defines form. Northrop have used this chevron planform for exhaust decks on at least one other stealthy aircraft but I've never seen a close up shot of the B-2 from the angles shown above... has anyone else?
 
I'd be surprised if a similar array of slots (as seen on the lower surface of the YF-23 exhaust) are present on the B-2A, I do however, like surprises.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 26, 2012, 12:17:02 am
Hi guys, I just found some new pics of the GE YF120 posted on Scott's site:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12482 (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12482)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 30, 2012, 07:47:00 am
A high-rez of the F-23A diagram is posted here:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=422 (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=422)
 
 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on May 12, 2012, 12:38:06 pm
Hi guys... I have named Scott Lowther as the single greatest contributor to the YF-23 community for his outstanding APR publication and recent GE YF120 walkaround. More details at my site...

 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yf-23.net%2FPics%2FPublications%2FAPR+Award.jpg&hash=6c63aa3d0667e440925afe946d9516c4)
http://www.yf-23.net/award.html#APR (http://www.yf-23.net/award.html#APR)


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on May 30, 2012, 01:44:47 pm
Just spotted what could a blooper in Steve Pace's book F-22 Raptor - America's Most Lethal War Machine, published by Aviation Week (McGraw Hill).

In that book, he claims that the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23A bore the inhouse designation "N-14".

However, other sources have made it clear that "N-14" was given to a pre-B-2 bomber project for the USAF's ATB program, not the ATF!

Any idea, folks? Maybe BillRo could help us out on this one?

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on June 01, 2012, 03:05:49 am
Quote

<...> introduced Bob Sandusky '57. Bob has been called an 'honorary class of 1957 member' because he didn't actually graduate with the class. He would have had it not been for his family moving out of the area at the beginning of his senior year.
But Bob has always considered West his Alma Mater, regularly attending the class of 1957 class reunions.


Bob told the group he got interested in airplane design at West when his drafting teacher, C.S. Kennedy, pulled out some plane pictures one day in class and told Bob to 'look at them!'



   Bob has over thirty years of experience in aircraft design working at Boeing and Northrop. His is the first named inventory on both the F-20 Tigershark and the YF-23A Advanced Tactical Fighter. He was appointed Professor of Engineering and Applied Science for The George Washington University at the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. Bob now resides in Yorktown Virginia with his wife, Marcia



http://www.westhighalumni.com/cafateria_elements/2011%20HallofFame.htm (http://www.westhighalumni.com/cafateria_elements/2011%20HallofFame.htm)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 10, 2012, 11:05:24 am
Model of Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23 manufactured by Topping found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-ATF-Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas-YF-23-Precise-1-72-Desk-Model-/140846975212?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20cb2248ec
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on September 10, 2012, 12:46:59 pm
I went to Factory Direct Models online and its MSRP is $211.95 and the Factory Direct Models price is $149.95. -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 10, 2012, 12:56:38 pm
Are Factory Direct Models considered "official" like models manufactured by Verkuyl, Precise, or Topping?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on September 10, 2012, 02:06:38 pm
I honestly don't know - SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: circle-5 on September 10, 2012, 02:31:44 pm
Are Factory Direct Models considered "official" like models manufactured by Verkuyl, Precise, or Topping?

No, these are all Philippine-made and available to the public for as long as there is a demand. Aerospace manufacturers may collect a licensing fee, especially if their name is Boeing, but do not check for accuracy, etc.

Topping models were not sold to the public -- only to manufacturers, to be offered as corporate gifts for those involved with the programs. Robert McNamara killed that practice (and most of that industry) through another one of his questionable legislations.

The closest thing remaining to an independent model maker is Pacific Miniatures (PacMin), who contracts directly with aerospace manufacturers and uses their original CAD files to make extremely accurate tooling for the models.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on September 25, 2012, 10:03:59 am
Model of Northrop YF-23 given to employees who worked on the program found on eBay.

Seller's description:
Quote
ATF Northrop YF-23 USAF 800.  This model was given out to employees who helped with design.  It is a 1:72 model and never came with a box.  This is in great shape, the color variation in the picture is dust and can easily be wiped off. The model does have some yellowing from being on display.  It makes it appear more brown than grey, but still looks really good.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ATF-Northrop-YF-23-USAF-800-/330796104133?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d04fbf9c5

NOTE: The model is dusty, not a different paint scheme.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on September 25, 2012, 10:29:30 am
Is it just me or does the fuselage (nose section) of the YF-23 appear to be attached to the wings instead of the wings being attached to the fuselage (nose section)? -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on November 28, 2012, 02:43:25 pm
Maybe I missed it somewhere but does anyone know the N number and/or P number of the YF-23 airplanes? -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on November 28, 2012, 10:29:59 pm
Maybe I missed it somewhere but does anyone know the N number and/or P number of the YF-23 airplanes? -SP

No. I have seen the designation DP117K for the YF-23A, but I seem to recall some blueprint carry a number beginning with "400-" which could indicate "N-400" as the designation, but that's only speculation on my part.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on November 28, 2012, 11:10:48 pm
N- numbers were restarted by the Northrop Black Projects team. It will probably have a low N- number, above 14.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on November 29, 2012, 06:03:24 pm
Paul is correct - the Northrop N- number ledger stayed with the white world Advanced Design team who continued with the numbering sequence, while the black programs - B-2, Whale and YF-23 etc? started with a new numbering system.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on November 29, 2012, 06:16:15 pm
Thanks guys - it'll nice to discover these numbers when they finally come to light. -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: allysonca on December 05, 2012, 09:25:59 pm
I was the producer of this  YF-23 model. We had a mandated price of $9.99 so in order to keep the price down they were delivered with only the canopy painted. Decals were in the box for both the GE and PW versions.
The base was hot stamped with the Northrop Grumman logo and the YF-23 name.  I made 10,000 of them........whew! Each was also hand painted grey due to color variations in the injected plastic. Was easy to paint one side, wait till dry, and then paint the other. I then painted the canopy with a special gold lacquer that dried quickly. I had a paint mask to allow for fast paint application. I also made the 2nd release of the B-2 and the Super Tucano.


Needless to say we were crestfallen when that ugly Lockheed plane was selected. Plans were to make 25,000 more models.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on December 05, 2012, 10:05:40 pm
Thank you for verifying that the model is authentic, allysonca. Thank you also for telling us the story of its creation.  B) Was this model manufactured at the Northrop Grumman model shop? I would also be very interested in other anecdotes that might share.

Super Tucano model? Northrop Grumman might have manufactured the Super Tucano?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on December 06, 2012, 01:01:27 am
Needless to say we were crestfallen when that ugly Lockheed plane was selected. Plans were to make 25,000 more models.

I can imagine! The YF-23 seemed to have so much going its way... except politics or close bureaucratic connections, maybe?
I'm still waiting to read an unbiased, official account on how superior the F-22 was over the F-23.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: allysonca on December 15, 2012, 06:16:58 pm
The models we made derived from a 1/72nd super master model in the same scale. An aluminum mold was paragraphed  from this master. We chose this material as a cost saving measure as steel would have been too expensive. The base was from an existing Northrop mold.

Decals were provided for both the Pratt and Whitney and GE versions.

As I previously mentioned we had a huge problem with plastics flow that resulted in an uneven coloration to the model. The solution was to use an FS color matched laquer that was applied 2 applications, one on the top.... rotate .... and paint the bottom. We used conformal printing in the base. When we did the B-2's the methodology had advanced and we were able to conformal print these as well.

The super Tucano was done the same, with the exception that the white flowed with no issues. Decal for Navy and Air Force were included in the box, and we used the same base as the YF-23, Again I used a paint mask to apply a blue toned canopy to the model. We started the project with a 4 blade prop and had to change to a 5. Sadly Northrop lost this project as well.

All in all we produced 10,000 of the Yf-23's, and 5,000 B-2's and if I recall correctly 1000 Super Tucanos.

If the Company needed a presentation example, the model shop they did their magic to super detail one of the "stock" models.

As an aside there was a story floating around that out at Edwards one of the test pilots took another pilots young son for a ride in the Tucano. During the ride the kid pulled the seat lever somehow and punched out. Plane landed as did the kid... alive and with a story to tell to his kids someday.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on December 15, 2012, 08:59:51 pm
Northrop Grumman's Super Tucano lost to the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on December 17, 2012, 09:35:35 pm
Northrop Grumman's Super Tucano lost to the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II

Thank you.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Mark Nankivil on December 18, 2012, 01:53:25 pm
Actually, the AT-6 was excluded without notice and the Super Tucano "won".  However, Beechcraft filed suit against the decision and the program was stopped.  There's supposed to be a second "selection" but I don't believe that has even been opened though both manufacturer's continue to refine their potential entries.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on March 02, 2013, 10:00:12 am
 I’ve been teaching myself sketchup for hobby applications and I thought about looking into the F-23’s weapon bay geometry to see how many AMRAAMs could actually be crammed in there.  A couple of caveats:
1.       I’m still very new to sketchup and CAD work in general
2.       I was super tired last night so the models are a bit sloppy
3.       The plans come from Scott’s Aerospace Projects Review electronic addendum. While these are excellent the plans they appear to be scanned from actual blueprints and thus have some distortions in the reproduction. They also aren’t high enough resolution to scale up without too pixilation.

That all being said I think I was able to come up with pretty decent models of the bay (the missile models are very accurate). From what I can tell, without knowing the actual launcher technology to be employed, it would have been very difficult to fit more than two AMRAAMs in there without a redesign of some of the structural components in the bay itself.  The most limited factor is the wing-join bulkhead in the aft of the bay. It greatly restricts the aft bay volume and prevents vertically stacking three AMRAAMs on each side (yes I understand that the vertically stacked arrangement was a Northrop patent unrelated to their ATF bid.)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FF23WeapsBay1.jpg&hash=25d0283fc586f7a3d4471a199e30b08f)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FF23WeapsBay2.jpg&hash=d177d427e1aa475b9c8224fc0ad0dd17)
I tried to mess around with various configurations and despite the great bay volume, the bay door design and the wing-join bulkhead greatly restrict separation clearances.  Perhaps others can see these photos and suggest an alternate configuration but the closest that I could get is the fit two AMRAAMs vertically (like the patent) with an additional one to the side.  There’s plenty of room in the bay to fit this extra missile but the big question is the door actuators. They protrude into the bay about 6” (the dashed line represents how far into the bay they go) but if there’s just two of them it might work. If there are more than two then it won’t work and being that the prototypes had at least three I’d say that’s a high probability.
 
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FF23WeapsBay4.jpg&hash=a25619efec40b5ef982369f70a2dbf1f)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FF23WeapsBay3.jpg&hash=243029cc94318a137e5a42449520c497)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 02, 2013, 02:14:52 pm
That's a really interesting exercise BDF. :) I applaude you for using something a lot of people are passionate about to develop your CAD skills.
Because I've been staring at the YF-23/F-23A weapons bays for hours myself (got them printed on the wall), I would like to offer you the following observations.

1. From the unclassified F-23A plan few - left side, the main weapons bay does appear to have such bulkhead preventing you to stack the missiles this way

2. The bay the forward bay door actuators are visible on Cuts J and K and since the way the rear door open the same way, the actuators should look and be positioned similarly.

3. The famous Northrop stacked AMRAAM missile launcher makes practical sense if you have vertical space for at lest 3 missiles, preferably 4. The F-23A weapons bay is a lot shallower than the YF-23 one, so I believe Northrop might have meant to implemented this trapeze launcher instead. [link]http://www.google.com/patents/US6250195[/link] It would have allowed for wider range of weapons to be launched.

4. The bay doors themselves were each capable of mounting 1 AMRAAM toward the opening, which may explain why the middle section of the main bay if deeper.

5. Rather then stacking the missiles vertically as they were on the YF-23, try misaligning the them like on the F-22A. You should be able to fit 4 on the inside of the main bay with extra 2 mounted on the bay doors.

7. I'd be interested to see if fitting 2x 1000lb JDAMs would still allow for any other AMRAAM to be mounted in the bay.

The reason I believe this is the best configuration is failure in any of the trapeze launchers to deploy would not affect the ability to of any of the others to do so.

Good Luck!


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on March 07, 2013, 04:43:47 pm
 I’ve wrestled with this a little more.  I didn’t go through great lengths to make good models just extruded some of the cross-sections and then connecting them.  To be succinct, there’s no room in the forward Sidewinder bay to nose an AMRAAM into.  So the only way I think they could fit a third AMRAAM into the bay would be to mount the third along the longitudinal bay wall and have some sort of trapeze or an angled ejection (sort of like how an F-15 ejects AMRAAMs off the cheek missile stations.  The problem is that there is a very small window to shoot that missile through during the ejection process; approximately 21” of clearance at most. I’d be very interested to see how Northrop’s engineers planned to accommodate the ATF requirement.  I should also point out that that aft wing-join bulkhead would prevent carriage of a GBU-31 too.
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FWeaponsBay5.jpg&hash=0aec9f8d9e464b687e239077f156b8cd)
 
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FWeaponsBay6.jpg&hash=2b613ab9d65bf4d0af7828d28a441007)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn196%2FBDFisch22%2FWeaponsBay7.jpg&hash=ab29203509c4ed17dc504be3d36aba25)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: EricChase88 on March 07, 2013, 06:35:26 pm
F-23 weapon bay is shallower than YF-23? I thought F-23 area ruling was not as strict compared to YF-23 in order to accommodate the weapon bays.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on March 07, 2013, 08:20:20 pm
F-23 weapon bay is shallower than YF-23? I thought F-23 area ruling was not as strict compared to YF-23 in order to accommodate the weapon bays.

The YF-23 weapons bay had to handle the long and short range missiles. IIRC, the long range AAM's were mounted within the bay and the SRAAM's (Sidewinders) were the missiles mounted on the doors. But the USAF didn't like that, because they said a missile jam could keep the rest of the missiles from firing, though they never explained how.

So for the F-23, the forward fuselage was lengthened and instead of one deep missile bay it had two shallow missile bays. The one where the YF-23's bay was located still housed the LRAAM's, but the smaller bay just ahead of it handled the SRAAM's.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the F-23 wasn't area ruled as well as that of the YF-23. In many ways, the aerodynamics of the F-23 seem much more refined than those of the YF-23.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on March 08, 2013, 04:49:55 am
Quote
the long range AAM's were mounted within the bay and the SRAAM's (Sidewinders) were the missiles mounted on the doors. But the USAF didn't like that, because they said a missile jam could keep the rest of the missiles from firing, though they never explained how.
I think USAF had an issue with a single combined trapeze launcher for all missiles, where if the opening mechanism failed, no missle could be fired. Also if some of the bottom (outer)missiles failed to launch, the top (inner) ones could not launch too.

That would explain the 1999 Northrop patent where every weapon gets its own trapeze launcher.

I think the door mounted pylon could launch either Siderwinder or AMRAAMs.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: EricChase88 on March 10, 2013, 10:54:17 pm
Has the cross-sectional area plot of the YF-23 ever been released? Wierd they release the F-23 EMD plot but not YF-23.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on June 20, 2013, 06:57:33 am
The cross sectional area of the YF-23 was published in certain Northrop dwgs, but at this stage I'm not at liberty to elaborate more precisely. I can say that if you carefully study what has been publically released so far, you will see that the YF-23 did indeed conform more closely to the Area Rule than did the final F-23 configuration. This is because the fuselage shape of the YF did not have to accomodate equipment that would be installed on the production variant, so the 'waisting' of the fuselage could be more pronounced. The F-23 fuselage is thicker and more voluminous in certain areas to accommodate more weapons and fuel, particularly right at the wingtips, which is where you usually want it to be the slimmest. If you carefully scrutinise the YF in profile, you'll see that the longitudinal synchronisation between the wingspan and "waisting" of the fuselage is one of the most precise ever flown. In most area ruled aircraft, there is stagger between the extremeties of the wingspan and the narrowest point on the fuselage, but with the YF, you could draw a line laterally from the very centre of the wingtips and it would pass almost directly thru the narrowest point of the fuselage. This is very unusual.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on June 20, 2013, 07:48:57 am
The previous comment made me look around for a LIKE button.

I always thought that if we compare the YF-22 & 23 cross section diagrams of how the frontal area increases from tip to toe we will see a correlation to their supercruise speeds.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Trident on June 20, 2013, 11:51:01 am
I think the lack of stagger is because the wing is essentially unswept at 50% chord, so its cross-sectional area contribution isn't spread out along the longitudinal axis as it is with more typical designs. In other words, my guess is that the correlation in the waisting you noticed is directly related to its equally unusual wing planform.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on June 20, 2013, 01:15:01 pm
I the wing own geometric center is also unusually close to the aircraft's own one.

It is as if Northrop started with the wing then attached the front fuselage and the engines to it. The wing high front and rear sweep helps created even more structural link points.

The wing and not the fuselage being the main structural element is not surprising given Northrop's other big project at the time: B-2

 

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on June 20, 2013, 02:35:16 pm
The cross sectional area of the YF-23 was published in certain Northrop dwgs, but at this stage I'm not at liberty to elaborate more precisely. I can say that if you carefully study what has been publically released so far, you will see that the YF-23 did indeed conform more closely to the Area Rule than did the final F-23 configuration. This is because the fuselage shape of the YF did not have to accomodate equipment that would be installed on the production variant, so the 'waisting' of the fuselage could be more pronounced. The F-23 fuselage is thicker and more voluminous in certain areas to accommodate more weapons and fuel, particularly right at the wingtips, which is where you usually want it to be the slimmest. If you carefully scrutinise the YF in profile, you'll see that the longitudinal synchronisation between the wingspan and "waisting" of the fuselage is one of the most precise ever flown. In most area ruled aircraft, there is stagger between the extremeties of the wingspan and the narrowest point on the fuselage, but with the YF, you could draw a line laterally from the very centre of the wingtips and it would pass almost directly thru the narrowest point of the fuselage. This is very unusual.

This is quite an incorrect statement. As a matter of fact, the YF-23 was designed to carry equipment that the production variant didn't have to carry, namely thrust reversers. Also, you can't determine which had the better area rule by comparing the two against each other, you have to compare them to the ideal Sears-Haack volume distribution for a given Mach number to know how good they really are in terms of minimizing wave drag.

Edit: I should add, though, that the production variant of the F-23 has one of the smoothest distributions I've seen in a fighter design. About the only one I've seen smoother is Bud Nelson's N-353-4 (P900) design.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: NUSNA_Moebius on June 27, 2013, 01:48:10 pm
Hi guys, I just found some new pics of the GE YF120 posted on Scott's site:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12482 (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12482)

As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn't mind seeing that engine getting a quarter cut out of it so we can finally see how the variable cycle system was designed.  I have ponderings as to how it was or could be designed, but I want to see for myself, unless someone actually has a YF120 engine cutaway drawing/image.........(still classified I would imagine?).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Kryptid on June 28, 2013, 12:42:08 pm
As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn't mind seeing that engine getting a quarter cut out of it so we can finally see how the variable cycle system was designed.  I have ponderings as to how it was or could be designed, but I want to see for myself, unless someone actually has a YF120 engine cutaway drawing/image.........(still classified I would imagine?).

There is one in Albert C. Piccirillo's book on the F-22. It's not particularly detailed, but it does show the general internal layout.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on July 16, 2013, 02:04:10 pm
I'm curious about why the F-23 EMD didn't adopt a one piece canopy like the F-22. Unless the F-23's higher speed puts more stress on the canopy?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: _Del_ on July 16, 2013, 02:47:14 pm
Lower signature?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: aim9xray on July 16, 2013, 03:04:39 pm
Different philosophy and engineering trade-offs for things such as bird strike durability?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on July 20, 2013, 03:40:07 am
from ePay
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on July 21, 2013, 03:38:26 pm
I found it interesting how ATF morphed from "Advanced Tactical Fighter" to "Advanced Threat Fighter" in the second picture. ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on July 22, 2013, 12:10:33 am
I found it interesting how ATF morphed from "Advanced Tactical Fighter" to "Advanced Threat Fighter" in the second picture. ;D

That is in reference to the adversaries, rather than the ATF.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on July 22, 2013, 06:40:07 am
I found it interesting how ATF morphed from "Advanced Tactical Fighter" to "Advanced Threat Fighter" in the second picture. ;D

That is in reference to the adversaries, rather than the ATF.

Ah right, MiG-1.44/42 etc. Still interesting.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on July 29, 2013, 08:49:48 pm
Hypothetically, can fluidic thrust vectoring be fitted onto the F-23 to increase maneuverability? Or would the nozzles be too close to the CG so the moment be too small to really matter? Though it might not be necessary, since the YF-23 didn't need thrust vectoring to meet the ATF maneuverability requirements, unlike the F-22.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on July 30, 2013, 04:21:25 am
Was there any document specifically pointing toward the idea that the yf-22 needed thrust vectoring to meet maneuverability requirements set out by USAF?

Unless such document exists, stating that yf-22 needed thrust vectoring to meet maneuverability requirements is as logical as saying that unlike the yf-22, the yf-23 needed V-tail in order to meet stealth requirements. 

 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on October 16, 2013, 06:43:52 pm
For those who have YF-23 models, Caracal has just announced a new sheet for the YF-23 in 1/48 to be released in December.
I have suggested that he release 1/72 and 1/144 sheets as well. Please register your interest in these new sheets here:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268862


Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on October 24, 2013, 06:14:52 pm
23rd Anniv of PAV-2's first flight soon: 26th Oct 2013. :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on October 30, 2013, 07:51:29 pm
Artwork preview for the 1/48 decal sheet from Caracal is now posted:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268862&st=20 (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268862&st=20)

he has just announced 1/72 and 1/144 versions of this decal as well. 1/48 to be printed in December.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LEG on November 19, 2013, 02:28:14 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.

I believe that the only 'cigarette pack' was the one which showed AAAM in a tiltdown encapsulated container, first on the ATF, and then later on the F-14D.  This podded missile system approach has a _LONG_ history behind it, in fact, if you look at some of the pictures of the early GD/Rockwell ATF configuration-

http://notreally.info/transport/planes/atf/gd/img//ATF_Evol_part1_05_1267828237_5961_Missileer.JPG

 (which has been called a 'missileer' though it is clearly high performance, akin to the SDM not the SLO flying wing which the original F6D derived 'missileer' concept was noted as being) you will note that it seems to have this very same installation.

In the early 1980s.

Such a geometry is indeed similar to the old flip-top box cigarette pack.

What bothers me is that all known descriptions of the YF-23 weapons bay include only reference to a flat pallet, X3, layout of the AIM-120 AMRAAM.  Which is simply not competitive with the known ATF requirements that the YF-22 met as being minimum four, preferrably six BVR shots, by suggesting that the sidebays (before the intake trunks were cropped back) were capable of AIM-120 AMRAAM carriage too.

The last X3 BVR shooter we had was the YF-108 firing 100nm capable nuclear GAR-X.  Given the mixed history of long range weapons in general, something is very wrong in jets that are both credited with having met every requirement spec but the one which justifies the system: multiple fire and forget, very long range, attacks.

With that in mind, consider the following-

1.  It's the AMRAAM.
A piece of junk missile whose 350lb weight and 7" case diameter classes were all nominally set by F-16 wingtip carriage requirements.  On a jet which is larger than the F-15, this is utter sillyness.  AMRAAM is actually longer than AIM-7M and yet AIM-7M with an airframe of 8" has a list range in the 52-56nm category with, presumably, an MH digital strapdown autopilot loft.  Whereas AIM-120 has always been more modestly appraised at 35nm.

2.  You did it where?
The YF-23 is touted as having done 'the hard part' of supersonic launch constraints validation out to Mach 1.5 vs. the 'for show' subsonic launches of the YF-22 team.  But using LAU-106A/A ejectors to fire AIM-120 into a Mach 1.5 slipstream through open bay doors without mechanical assist as AVEL rams seems an exercise in YF-12 level positive ejector control. 
Keep in mind that the design weapons solution was to clear multiple shots away from each other on a canted 20` index from vertical, which means that pallet has to come a long ways out or the AMRAAM risk a doorstrike.  This creates multiple carriage box issues but more importantly, the pallet won't seal the bay, aero-acoustically, (it can't due to the swing down rotation of the trapezes which effectively mandates a large gap ahead of the pallet creating a potential 'vacuum pump' differential pressure effect in the void behind the pallet which the spoilers can only partly mitigate).  What it will do is create a huge 'surfing' boundary layer interaction mode like a jetski.
I cannot image this as being an effective solution either.

3.  It's a very expensive aircraft.
As I've said before, nobody in their right minds believed the spec sheet for the ATF would come in at 35 million.  Not given what they were asking '+ stealth' in a dynamic maneuver airframe with the agility of an F-16 and the size of an F-15.  The X3 pallet approach sounds like a save penny : spend pound, non-solution on what had to be a very heavily gold-plated system approach.

4.  No See'em Too Good.  NOT INVISIBLE TO RADAR.
Which means the farther you stay away from SARH and RFCG weapons, the better.  Part of this is simple motor impulse.  Part is extending and retracting a full rack into launch position underneath the single point attachment trapeze vee-frames.  Which is apt to be both unstable, prolonged and a great waste of internal bay volume while presenting a flat panel set of corner reflectors to any radar that is able to look up vertically from below.

5.  It's not inline with what earlier presentations had (mis?)represented the YF-23 weapons bay as having a rotary missile launcher and the AIM-120 as a 'compressed carriage' (aka folding fin) variant.
If you look at the YF-23 weapons bay, there are enormous 'patches' in the front and aft walls which could be covers for mounts of a rotary system.  Comparitively, the trapeze vee-frames have little if any functional indication of utility (no hydraul connections, no rams or rotary drives etc.).

ARGUMENT:
I find it beyond suspicious that a generic weapons bay with no stealth features took so long to be photographed and when it was, it was a void, the primary weapons deployment feature having been removed.  Why?  The described system is not anything all that sophisticated.  Why pull the pallet?  Why show NO PICTURES of the high Mach tests when Lockheed made sure /everyone/ saw the AIM-9 and AIM-120 shots as both video and still?
Indeed, if you look at PAV-2 which is the only weapons bay aircraft we have seen, it makes even less sense-

http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/Walkaround/Weapons%20Bay/PAV2%20weapons%20bay%20fwd%201%20623.jpg

Because fully a quarter of the forward end of the bay is blocked off by what appears to be cylindrical drive motor containers.  Yet look at the distances and the lack of articulated struts between these and the trapezes.  If the trapeze have a function, it is strictly as load suspension and pitch alignment (weapons were also canted downwards) not extension/retraction mechanisms.
In fact, I don't think it was a pallet at all.  It may have been a pack.  But if so, it was a very large one firing missiles that did not drop-clear as the Northrop story suggests, they forward fired as most AAAM illustrations show, from prepackaged tubes.
Alternatively, the rack was in fact a rotary and again, not a flat-tray or pallet.
Now, a conventional rotary launcher will not work in the YF-23 bay because it doesn't have the clearance margin to rotate a weapon past the roof (can't, in fact, if the trapezes are functional lift points).  But what if it's not a conventional rotary?
What if it's a fixed spindle and the individual ejector rails, which function as LAU-142s from a complex stacked 'box' condition, rotate around it?
The USAF doesn't like to stack munitions in their internal weapons bays because doing so means that if a single unit fails, it sterilizes the entire system.  But the LAU-142 was not pyro based cartridge ejector, it was pneumatic with both an on-rack bottle and aircraft supplied emergency ejection option.
Now, if a weapon doesn't intitialize, you drop it and retract the AVEL and then rotate down the next one.  And this is possible by longitudinally displacing the individual launchers on separately geared drives, within or around the spindle.

Note the flaws in the following diagram of a three shot trapeze:
http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/Plans/PAV1%20weapons%20bay%20schematic%201023.gif

There is no place for the pallet to rest that isn't potentiallly conflicted by the carriage box of the period AIM-120A/B weapon fins with their 21" spans, rotated sideways so that their controls extend even higher into the bay.  There is no way for the trapezes to swing down without also (assuming fixed not translating pallet hinges) swinging forward and where you have 144" AIM-120s already longitudinally stagger-overlapped by at least 10" to clear the fins, this means you have less than 6" to clear the nose of the bottom most weapon from the bay edge as it passes the -shortest- point in the 160" bay, at the centerline notch.
I don't believe there is enough room for the system to articulate like it is suggested to and it gets worse when you consider door mounting the AIM-9Ms with their own 25" displacement from the panels (remember, the lateral AIM-120s are only partly extended into the airflow and have a 17` outward cant to their ejection axis).

CONCLUSION:
Something is wrong or misrepresented about the way the YF-23 weapons bays worked and particularly with the non-presence of the pallet in a nominally declassified (public display in unmonitored conditions) PAV-2 prototype weapons system.
Particularly with the still-hidden nature of PAV-1 whose weapons bay has never been photographed and the contradictory explanations of a rotary and palletized launcher system, at different pointsi in the DemVal program, it just doesn't make sense.
The USAF would not put an emphasis upon BVR solutions in a NATO, 'target rich', environment and then set the threshold so low on numbers carried in the minimum requirements as to convince the likes of McDonnell Douglas (X4 AIM-7, F-4 series, X6 AIM-120 F-15 series) that Northrop/MDD felt they could meet or exceed specs on a 'three will do' basis.  Noth with weapons that have suffered from 10-30% historical SSPK.
With the prevalence of industrial espionage, it's a certainty that Northrop/MDD had spies within the Lockheed camp and they would also tell them that the YF-22 was a minimum four shot weapons platform.
If nothing else, a technical historical survey would reveal that the only fighter aircraft manufacturer to have ever gone with three was North American and Lockheed themselves and the YF-108/YF-12 didn't even get to FSD.
Either:
With tubed AAAM fired from a custom, 'dense pack', box launcher out of a Mach 1.6 parent, you have a 100nm+ firing zone as the ability to strictly avoid penetrating the escorts in taking down HVAs.  Theoretically allowing a flight of four F-23A to engage and avoid as many as ten agile threats from as much as 50nm out before tackling the bigger fish.
Or.
You are expecting a variant of AIM-120 of sufficient compressed carriage modality as to be nestable on a rotary in sufficient numbers to make a five + two (with the center position over the spindle take by roof suspension gear) option plausible.
Or.
You are expecting a tandem carriage weapon like CUDA as a bolt replaces arrow shortened missile body solution and can afford to keep your weapons bays short and palletized as a result.
Any other condition results in a weapons system which, in my opinion, is by itself sufficient to default the platform from the program.
It may be telling that the final EMD design shows, not a 13'4" weapons bay but a tandemized 11' + 13.3' enclosure.  Could the Northrop/MDD team have been awaiting a technical solution to their weapons bay issues which did not eventuate and thus been forced to revert to a (sleeker, prettier but HAS challenging) elongated shape for the EMD configuration?
And where does that leave strike?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 19, 2013, 12:18:35 pm


I believe that the only 'cigarette pack' was the one which showed AAAM in a tiltdown encapsulated container, first on the ATF, and then later on the F-14D. 

Very well though out  and valuable post., IMO 

Some thoughts, FWIW.

FWIW, only the GD proposal for AIM-152 (AAAM) was podded.  Hughes' rocket-ramjet proposal wasn't.    Wonder how it would have been mounted had  AAAM gone to fruition and USAF actually adopted the system (which they said they wouldn't do).    Have heard some speculation that it wouldn't fit in F-22's bay. 

I do remember reading that although Northrop didn't talk much about their launching system, they did say it wasn't a trapeze.  One other thing noted was that the launch mechanism would be modified for production to avoid the single failure sterilization concern you note. 

Not sure what you mean by, " 'compressed carriage' (aka folding fin)".  The compressed carry, to my understanding, was the smaller fins of the AIM-120C which, although not yet publicly revealed, development of which was certainly known to the two teams. 

Regarding YF-12 and three missiles, in order to reduce cost for the prototypes they stuck the fire control in one of the bays, leaving only three available.  It would have been repackaged for the production F-12B, and what few drawings/illustration we have of that indicate that it could use that bay for a fourth AIM-47, or in some depictions a cannon, which never made that much sense to me. 

All in all, a fascinating post. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on November 19, 2013, 12:29:36 pm
I don't think the YF-23 bay and launcher was in any way representative of the production system but was there just to fulfill DEM/VAL requirements.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 19, 2013, 03:49:05 pm
I don't think the YF-23 bay and launcher was in any way representative of the production system but was there just to fulfill DEM/VAL requirements.

I believe Northrop/MDD said they computer and wind tunnel simulated the firings. 

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: LEG on November 22, 2013, 02:19:09 am
F-14D,

"FWIW, only the GD proposal for AIM-152 (AAAM) was podded.  Hughes' rocket-ramjet proposal wasn't.    Wonder how it would have been mounted had  AAAM gone to fruition and USAF actually adopted the system (which they said they wouldn't do).    Have heard some speculation that it wouldn't fit in F-22's bay."

The thing about stealth and LRAAM is that they are more positively reinforcing than most might assume, especially over a 'busy' air defense environment like NATO/WARPAC.

The Stealth jet gets reach-in to match it's new AESA lookin, a noted problem for F-15s trying to CAP threat baselanes as Iraqi jets came south to intercept the inbound raid columns was that the 25nm AIM-7 simply didn't have the oomph to hit threats at distances beyond which the 2,000ft shotfloor nominally protected lolo ingressers.  Assume that's not an issue for an 'everyone's an indian' condition, 200 miles the other side of the cowboy fence and you still have an aperture lookdown restrictor that inhibits the jet from scoring in-close because the AESA is fixed and likely tilted upwards to keep from hogs nosing any radar that looked up when the radome was fenestrated to dielectric state.  A long lance gives you a long E-pole standoff and the radar isn't look-angle scan limited from tracking through to impact because terminals comes about the point where you would be launching a Sparrow.

Now, there was mention of cheek arrays and the like on the F-22 from early on by I honestly don't know if there was space for that (or a proper fuselage inclination angle) on the YF-23 or not.

The Converse is also true, in that a supercruise shooter with some height on him, trying to chase down high value assets like Mainstay and Midas is going to be moving at a pretty good clip.  And irrespective of what the pole boost provides, that means he's gonna catch a lot of shots in the teeth from the likes of SA-4/5/10 which, at altitude, have ranges well above 35nm.

Traditionally, this has been why the USAF has 'disregarded the Phoenix shots' as being impractical in a tactical environment.  The Phoenix was slow.  The AAAM with a relight terminal and a high energy loft from an ATF-23 would be anything but.  And the _stealth aspect_ lets you remain essentially wings level and pointed at the target for the entire time of flight on the weapon.  So that even if that A-50 is doing pylon turns around an SA-10 site, you can shoot it from as far as your weapons system will reach without worrying about a dozen other, 'minor' SA-2-3-6 threats beneath you.

"I do remember reading that although Northrop didn't talk much about their launching system, they did say it wasn't a trapeze.  One other thing noted was that the launch mechanism would be modified for production to avoid the single failure sterilization concern you note."

See, I always thought that the LAU-142 was universal to the ATF program and had been in design all the way back in DemVal.  It has an advantage in that, by extending the weapon away from the launcher roof/spindle mount, you can tandem stagger the fins so that total separation as carriage box volumetric numbers are determined by fin:body rather than fin:fin adjacency.

When I hear words like LAU-106A/A (which is basically a stubby ejector for insert into another pylon) and LAU-114 (which is essentially a vanilla Sidewinder analogue rail without the digitals to support a -9X, let alone a dropfire mode) it all brings me to a conclusion that the internals on the YF-23 were not terribly well thought out.  And yet that cannot be because internal carriage is essential to both the low-RCS and the high-fast mission function of the entire airframe design.  So you know they wouldn't be so careless unless there was a major technical shortcoming inherent to the design which they could not otherwise overcome within the DemVal period.

Of course, maybe the USAF evaluators were just doofuses.

You look at the Boeing PWSC, almost decade later with the (Ex-MDD) Phantom Works once more in the driver's seat on Boeing's ugly duckling and it's clear that the entire JSF DEMVAL downselect is flawed because there is no effective way to compare the tailed delta F-32 to the all-delta X-32.  And the X-32's up and away performance -vastly- exceeded that of the X-35 in all areas except carrier approach and STOVL while the Boeing was much easier to manufacture.

Going back to the YF-23, I know I would not want to explain to my board why we thought it was necessary to go from a 13ft structural void to a 24ft equivalent in the middle of our new jet fighter, because we hadn't read the requirements document carefully enough.

And that's where things get interesting in answering your next question.

"Not sure what you mean by, " 'compressed carriage' (aka folding fin)".  The compressed carry, to my understanding, was the smaller fins of the AIM-120C which, although not yet publicly revealed, development of which was certainly known to the two teams."

In a traditional rotary launcher, if you fold the fins flat, your principle concern in sizing the bay volume becomes how many weapons you can fit in a given cube of volume around the rotary spindle without touching the sides of the fuselage.  The latter in turn having fixed limits as a function of frontal area, area rule and fineness ratio as 'pinch and flow' in fuselage design.

If you want positive control over the weapon all the way through the boundary layer flow field around the lower fuselage, another issue raises it's head however as even the most compact of long-arm rams-

http://www.exelisinc.com/solutions/Launchers/PublishingImages/Launchers/Launchers%201.jpg
http://phunkworks.com/content/f221p.jpg

Adds significantly to the spindle + ejector + missile condition.  So much so that you can really only make it workable by biasing the spindle upwards towards the roof of the bay and widening the fuselage to accomodate a grape cluster effect whereby each weapon hangs at an angle below the other other and the rotation of the weapon axis is only sufficient to bring the new missile to vertical -after- the preceding one has left the jet clearing the space.

If you have fixed fins, however small, your rotary launcher is now designed around a presumption of a sterilized central volume and a clearance arc defined by the fuselage sidewalls while your total carriage count of weapons is determined by how far around the art tanget circumference of the spindle each weapon can be placed to ensure that your largest fin span doesn't interfere with the next weapon over (because the weapons are now no longer nestable, fin:body, at all).

Hence your spindle+ejector-arm defines not just the centerline to bay wall limit but the pie slice void of wasted space between weapon bodies defined by the edges-of-fintips not touching (almost as big as another missile body).  And this so rapidly swells the belly as to become impossible to integrate within a fighter sized weapons bay enclosure.

Scraping the bay walls is still an issue but the missiles are effectively pushing each other apart as much as the bay is pushing them in, around the width of that spindle, removing the very reason for setting round objects around a round centerpole condition for volumetric efficiency reasons.
If you cannot fold missile fins it may result in a rotary launcher simply being incompatible within a fighter mission fuselage diameter.

For comparison, here is the B-1 CSRL loaded with SRAM-
http://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/kolb1j.jpg

See how fat that cluster is?

Standard AMRAAM fin span is 21".  AMRAAM C/lipped fins are 19".  AMRAAM body diamter is 7"  by at least 50%.  The GD AAAM had a 5" forebody and an 8" booster can.  The difference, is fit the folding fins.

Now, there are alternative means to designing a /multiple/ launcher.

One, which I mentioned, is a reverse spindle as a mount for individual rotary collared launch rails which are sufficiently tandemized as to clear missile fins.  The first missile is carried, oriented towards the bay opening, launches weapon and with the missile out of the way, the launcher retracts into a compact volumetric box so that the next round can rotate past it.

And then both those launchers can rotate away from vertical baydoor alignment as the missiles cycle in geared rotation around a _fixed_ spindle whose upper index point has suspension blocks of it's own, providing stiffness through a centerline keel as well as through end collars mounted to the weapons bay bulkheads.

Another option would be what I would call a 'hollow rotary' in which there is no spindle but rather the weapons are set in tubes with four point pin collars each end and racked on the walls of a frame matched to the shape of the fuselage.  Let's call this a weapons cage.  The upper and lower pins in each end of the tube collars provide secure mounting in the cage frame when maneuvering.  And a robotic service unit moves on slide rails in each end of the cage, moving up to the roof or across to each sidewall to grab appropriate weapons from the wall racks with rotating docking clamp armatures.

As it docks with each chosen weapon, the clamp inserts it's own pins, cross-axially and the opposed pins in the cage mounts retract as the arm pulls the tube to a single door in the middle of the cage.

Obviously, this will slow firing rates and implies a single-point vulnerability as the weapons cannot reach the bay door opening if the robotic transfer armature fails.  However; there are also benefits in that you do not duplicate multiple launcher arm volume/weight penalities.  You can move towards a single bay door sized to the appropriate, maximum, weapon clearance envelope, greatly reducing the keel effects of an F-22 type bay mechanism and removing aeroacoustics from the issue almost completely because the missile tube blocks the bay opening until release.

While the entire cage, complete with outer-moldline stealthed, body contour matching skin can be extracted and replaced as a unit, rather like the 30mm ADEN package on a Lightning.  Which further means that, when the cage is inplace, it locks with the fuselage and restores maximum rigidity to the fuselage station frames.

Because the tubes are universal, weapons handling inside the bay and ejection clearance through the boundary flow is largely a 'one shape clears all weapons configurations' compatibility condition even as downards canted pitch strakes on the docking collars force the encapsulation tubes away from the jet as the weapons fire through frangile covers at the front.

Whether you have an SRM or a JDAM or an MRM inside then doesn't matter because the wall mount docking racks on the cage walls slide up and down to provide separation indexing relative to the size of the tube and again, only the door has to be big enough for a 'biggest bang you want to drop' condition.

And then we come to this-
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4681013.pdf

Which incorporates a more standard approach to a rotary launcher as well as some of the features I highlighted above.  But importantly, it dense-packs _two_ missiles on single ram ejectors, right next to each other.  Why is this critcal?

Because the weapons are doubled they have to eject off of paired (LAU-106A/A) stubs on-mount but when they drop the extending arm solution they cannot be tandem staggered t reduce fin clearances (if they are full finned and not folding).  Further, since the patent was filed in 1985 and released to public view in 1987, just about the time the ATF team leads came back and said "Not good enough, we gotta start all over again...", it implies that the discontinuation of the launcher came about because the new configuration would no longer support it.

And last but certainly not least.  This launcher configuration is compatible with a rounded upper fuselage sectional profile, was filed, not by Northrop.

But Lockheed.

If I may be permitted a further digression, let's talk about the Lockheed ATF design since so little has been revealed about the YF-23's design history as configurations.

First, here's the Boeing ATF concept submission-
http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Boeing/Boeing%20ATF%20impression%20623.jpg

Here is a later iteration-
http://notreally.info/transport/planes/atf/img//atf_boeing_-_01.jpg

And here is the Rockwell Missileer-
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2KZx17UBJoE/TMTexfdeu_I/AAAAAAAANdU/CKA1nuHVc8k/s1600/ATF_Evol_part1_05_1267828237_5961.JPG

And here it is as a 'conventional' MRM carriage variant-
http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Rockwell/Paris%20model.jpg
http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atf3.jpg

And here is the Lockheed ATF-
http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1101/27_161510_db151a1abe31d91.jpg?75

All big bellied, wide hipped, aircraft designed around a large wing supporting a big internal or external weapons carriage capability equivalent to _LRM_.  Bigger than Sparrow.  Not an MRM, 60% AIM-7's size/mass.

Here are the Boeing, Lockheed and GD ATFs together-
http://images.wikia.com/aircraft/images/9/90/F22_2.jpg


Whose 'blended' configurations supposedly lead to this-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg

At which point I have to object and press the BS Alarm button.

http://www.soundsnap.com/fire_alarm_whooping_and_rising_x3

Why?  Becasue what is it that all of these jets have in common with each other and -not- the Raptor?

They are long, weak, fuselage torsion body forms with just enough width to fit _one_ internal bay.  Not three.

Something that might be indicative of a common solution deriving from a common weapon system/launcher configuration, coming to these companies out of the Black World.

Indeed, if you would believe Lockheed's official historiagraphers, the ATF design shape is essentially an F-117 flipped upside down.

That's wishful thinking based on facet angle reverse symmetries.  Look at where the wings are that's what counts, structurally.

Midwing monoplanes have little in common with low or shoulder mounted monoplanes.  Does an F-5 share more structural commonalities with an F-15 than an F/A-18?

Humbug.

The Lockheed ATF concept looks like a supersonic F/A-18.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2KZx17UBJoE/TRrEbg4h05I/AAAAAAAAOEg/1h1GDagJhZY/s1600/ATF_Evol_part1_14_1267828237_6935.JPG

a.  It has a vertical or 'differential' area rule allowing a big spine as deep forebody with a
      reduced engine area.
b.  A long, uninterrupted yet, relatively slender underbelly with waist mounted inlets.
c.  It has highly swept fins mounted directly to the fuselage engine nacelles.
d.  It has an enormous LEX.

Now look at this-
http://www.aviationearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/lockheed-martin-f-22-4.jpg
And what do you see?

1.  A sturdy if not chubby box frame fuselage sans discrete nose/engine/empennage
      elements.
2.  Sidebays on inlet trunking mounted ahead of the main bays, broadenign the shoulders of
      the airframe.
3.  Shoulder mounted wing leading to minimal differential rule and minimal structural
      pathway issues with carry through along the entire corner of the box vs. internal volume
      within it (midwing monoplanes have to size their fuselage ring frames to the amount of
      torision and compression each individual frame will endure while connected via weak
      longerons).
4.  Very compressed, almost bodybuilder like squatness of the airframe.  'Powerful, not
      Pretty'.  It's area rule theory is limited to the extent that the afterbody doesn't exist as
      much as reverse-tapers smoothly.  It's a delta with integrated Stabs as TEF.

What is wrong with the F/A-18?  What has plagued it's midlife decline?

Center barrel cracking due to both carrier landing stresses and the tendency of pilots to abuse it's high AOA capabilities by 'wheelie-ing' into high off angle missile pointing solutions.

What has plagued the early F-22 with possible sabotage from Russian titanium suppliers? 

Poor annealing which led to severe cracks in the tailboom mounts.

In 1987, Lockheed's President, Sherm Mullin (sp.) came back from a meeting in which he had been _told_ that the jet wasn't up to snuff.  And the skunkworks went into a major overhaul of the configuration, top to bottom, back to front that burned the midnight oil for about 3 months.

During TAC Brawler testing, the principle threat was found to be, not radar but IRST.  The point by which turning across the scan arc of a GCI radar brought the attention of fighters was 20-30 miles past the point which a simple lighting of the afterburners would cause the threat to go pointer on it's own.

And yet the USAF wasn't worried about the MiG-23 or 25, both of which could outsprint the F-22 at similar heights, over considerable distances.  They were afraid of the Su-27 and MiG-29 which had greater installed T/Wr to the prior generation but in no way to equal (wing sweep as aspect ratio + materials) their high Mach performance.

'All things being equal' as RFLO reduced frontal signatures, sensor wise, what's the difference between the Flogger/Foxbat and the Fulcrum/Flanker?

The earlier fighters have their IRST below a long nose.  The other looks up from in front of the canopy.

What's the principle F-22 'last best move' SAM evasion?   A 7G pull thru into a split ess that radically changes the intercept geometry by taking the slantrange downhill some 4-5 miles from FL50 at Mach 1.5 or better.  Which is at least part of why it's built on a short, rigid, torque box fuselage, not a long, skinny, supersonic area rule superior, one.

i.e.  Why it no longer looks like a cubist F/A-18.

Starting in the late 70s, the Syrians played red rover come over games with their MiG-25s looking into Lebanon and northern Israeli territory.

After Bekaa, the Israelis were in no mood for this kind of nonsense and set a trap.  Using CH-53s, they heliportaged HAWK SAM to a mountain well north of their established lines, and shot up into the ground track of the Foxbat whizzing by.  Whether damaged or simply out of energy and altitude in it's evasion, the MiG-25 was subsequently killed by F-15s (some versions of the story reverse the pusher-impaler roles).

Finally, the Soviets maintain a significant inventory of both long and short burn AA-10 Alamo IR variants with one of the first capabilities to 'ride the beam' of a simple RF uplink through the radar, boresighted to the IRST.  This missile is solely associated with the Su-27 and MiG-29.

So what happened?

Something put a squirrel in the USAFs shorts, that's what.

Either a new radar or waveform became available to the Soviets, allowing them to detect the ATF baseline RCS and denying them the deep penetrating high-fast profile.

Or the USAF fighter pilot community decided they wanted more than a niche role, assassinating HVAs (the entire Tom Clancy 'Frisbees of Dreamland' first mission scenario in _RSR_ being a veiled threat if not an honest method indicator of what the ATF was supposed to do) as conventional options to dogfight with.  And TAC Brawler supported this via issues with high-cold plume  or Mach shock IRST tracking as burner use to change-lane in the 50K supercruise envelope.

Or a significant, blackworld and early LRM package/launcher mechanism hit a major stumbling block and did not eventuate.

With the result that we reverted to another (then) non-existent missile baseline which, because it wasn't really compressed carriage compatible (and never would be, even as the 120C) required a major change in the configuration of the fuselage.

The YF-23, with it's tubular forebody, was not adaptable to this late breaking change and the new, big-span, AMRAAM and the pallet/cradle system they kluged together to make it so was so obviously incompatible with the _mission requirement_ as much as bay design that they have hidden it's adhoc nature from the public for decades of embarrassment since.

IMO, it is highly indicative of the total structural failure of the YF-23 to be adaptive to the changed (?) mission profile that the NATF variant was in fact basically a different airframe that looked like the delta version of the Super Hornet 2000.

At some point, the USAF wrote or rewrote the specification in such a way that SD&M became SC&M and Northrop/MDD failed to pick up on the implications of this or knew it and couldn't do a thing about it because the USAF was demanding that they deconflict weapons on non-functional launchers as single point vulnerabilities which could sterilize the whole weapons bay.  And the only answer was to cut an EVEN BIGGER (66-69ft fuselage increase overall, 13->25ft long weapons bay aperture cutouts in same) hole in the belly of their jet, to shift the Sidewinders forward and away from a conventional, pathetic, X3, AIM-120 side-by-side launcher pallet configuration.

The very slender, sleek, lines which makes the Ghost beautiful, also renders it torsionally weak as soon as you cut the longerons around the weapons bays.

Likely rendering the YF-23 'double inferior' as both insufficiently rigid to function as an SC&M platform and insufficiently armed, to be a viable BVR sniper when the AIM-120 is such a mediocre performer due to class limits deriving from it's F-16 compatibility compromise origins.

You will recall I said that explaining to the Northop/MDD board why the YF-23 lost the ATF competition when it was at least .4 Mach Points and 15-20db stealth superior from all aspects would be ugly?

Imagine what it means when the answer is:  "The USAF wanted an airplane which could execute minimum 6G breakaway turns after firing a minimum four, discrete launcher redundant, MRM and we couldn't make our airframe both fast and rigid enough to compete because the launcher and/or encapsulate missile system we were relying on, broke in design."

Lockheed dumped their big internal bay design in 1987 by effectively rendering public their rotary launcher patent and going back to the drawing board on the airframe.

By compacting it to a squat pyramidal delta shape, they completely redesigned their weapons system to allow for discrete carriage of AIM-120 across a broad body and they dumped their '10%' as either STOL reversers, supersonic drag penalty or operating weight = fuel margin on a now 60,000lb jet to get sufficient transverse rigidity to support the enormous, hollow, spanwise, void in what became a big, flat, boxframe fuselage with a shoulder not mid mounted wing.

Or as the Russians call it: a Suitcase.

All this so that, even if the jet was detected, it could maneuver under the massive Q loads of supersonic speed sufficient to breakaway into cross track conditions that prevented threat missile shots from making the cutoff across a hypotenuse of changing range as opening range-rates.

"Regarding YF-12 and three missiles, in order to reduce cost for the prototypes they stuck the fire control in one of the bays, leaving only three available.  It would have been repackaged for the production F-12B, and what few drawings/illustration we have of that indicate that it could use that bay for a fourth AIM-47, or in some depictions a cannon, which never made that much sense to me."

And I thought 2nm Aphids on the Foxbat was crazy...  Maybe it was a death ray.

"All in all, a fascinating post."

Thanks!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on November 22, 2013, 11:30:26 am
Considering the YF-23 was at least as maneuverable as an F/A-18 and in some parts of the envelope was more maneuverable than the YF-22, I can't buy into what your selling regarding maneuverability. The main reason the F-22 is a squat box is due to how they packaged the weapons bays, which don't allow for the carriage of strike weapons. The YF-23 was designed to also be able to deliver strike weapons from the start, and I don't just mean SDB's. I think that's the main reason they went with a single deep bay instead of the shallower tandem bays they ended up with on their final submission. Also, if the squat box was so much better structurally, it shouldn't have been so much overweight. Span loading is good at reducing structural weight, but you can't really consider those F-22 bays placed laterally across the airframe as really reducing the span loading. I think L-M did that more for C.M. management than any other reason.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BioLuminescentLamprey on November 23, 2013, 12:21:20 pm
Source for the YF-23 being "15-20db better from all angles" would be fantastic. Thanks. Never heard a number pegged to the "YF-23 was stealthier" idea before.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on November 25, 2013, 07:11:38 pm
LEG,

Addressing some of your discussion,

I did find out how the Hughes AIM-152 would be mounted on existing aircraft.  One of the requirements was that AIM-152 had to be able to use at least existing Sparrow mounts (remember this was early 1990s).   In the case of the F-14D, at the time the only a/c that could use it to its full effectiveness,  four would be mounted in the tunnel right where the AIM-7s went.  Four more would be mounted on the shoulder pylons, using the AIM-7 and AIM-9 positions.   Diameter of the Hughes/Raytheon missile was 9" as opposed to GD'/Westinghouse's 5.5", GD saying that up to 15 of theirs could be carried by the Tomcat. 

Regarding cheek arrays on a production F-23, at the time USAF wasn't willing to accept the narrower field of view that is a byproduct of an AESA antenna.  Therefore, the choices to overcome that would have been side arrays, as used by the PAK-FA/T-50 and originally planned for F-22, or a mechanically movable AESA, as espoused by Captor-E.  I don't know Whit they planned for whichever avionics system USAF selected, but I doubt if anyone thought of the rather elegant solution that SAAB is using on the Gripen E. 


Phoenix is not the fastest accelerating missile off the aircraft, but it keeps speeding up.  Top speed is M3.5 plus  launch speed, up to a max of M5.5, which isn't exactly snail's pace.  As to why USAF didn't like the 'Phoenix shots' in those days, I think there are three reasons.  First, "NIH", it's a concept invented by the Navy.   Second, it might be perceived as a threat to funding for the F-22.  Don't forget, USAF kept playing down requirements for A2A capability in JSF requirements until they accepted that they weren't going to get any more F-22s.  Third, it's not macho.

USAF evaluators were not doofuses, if I understand your point.   Remember that the evaluators never got to compare  the a/c to each other, only to how well the design they were evaluating (the evaluators were kept separate from each other) met the criteria points through a series of "stoplights".  This is discussed in more detail elsewhere.  They were the ones that identified the issue of one jammed missile blocking all launches, which Northrop showed how they would address that in the production model, to their satisfaction. 

My question regarding "compressed carry" was in light of what was going on then.  Although it hadn't been publicly announced, the contractors unquestionably had to have been briefed about the forthcoming AIM-120C.  They would have to in order to optimize their design.  So they knew that the new AMRAAM had clipped, not folding, fins.  Knowing this it wouldn't be prudent to design a launching system around the characteristics of missile that wouldn't exist.   

Regarding the F/A-18 and its midlife decline.  Part of it is that it, like most other a/c we have, has been flying many more hours faster than projected without a comparable increase in maintenance funds.  Regarding the "wheelie",  high AoA is the Hornet's air combat trick.  They will and have to,use it as much as they can.   Also, although it's a fine a/c, having talked to a number of maintainers over the years, they say it's not as rugged an airframe as was the F-4 and F-14.  helps keep the weight down, I guess. 

What significance do you ascribe to the location of the IR/IRST on the Soviet a/ you mention?  In US a/c they've been located above (F-101, F-106, F-8, etc), below (F-4, F-14, F/A-18E, NATF and probably F-22) and both (F-16, F-15).  I'm not counting the F-12B which would likely have had two on the sides because it never entered  production.   

Regarding the "...it is highly indicative of the total structural failure of the YF-23 to be adaptive to the changed (?) mission profile that the NATF variant was in fact basically a different airframe...", then what is your opinion of the Lockheed NATF design, which Lockheed said was so different that it would have to be built on a separate production line?   

I agree that IR was developing to be a  more potent counter-stealth technology than originally envisioned, but it certainly appears that the YF-23 design took this into account much more than did the YF-22. 

I, for one, am enjoying your analysis.    When the Secretary of the Air Force looked at the two independent reports and made his decision, he mostly focused on the backup documentation as the reason for the choice.  MDD itself said afterwards that they should have done a better job on that.   There were some questions unofficially raised about whether Northrop could indeed produce a single piece structure of the size and shape of the center section, but the fact that two aircraft were sitting on the ramp seemed to indicate that they could. 

A question does spring to mind:  If the Northrop/MDD YF-23's missile launching system and operation were as inferior as your analysis seems to indicate, why didn't the Air Fore just come out and say so, and say that's why they picked it?  They stated why the MDD design was picked for the F-15 (even over the NAA design which some said had higher performance), why the YF-16 was picked over the YF-17, the A-10 over the A-9 and the X-35 over the X-32.  It seems to me that the weapons operation would be a major factor and certainly would be a non-controversial and totally understandable reason for selection.   So, why didn't they just come out and say it? 


Again, a fascinating piece.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on December 02, 2013, 01:50:06 am
I have personally spoken to the chief engineer of the YF-23 and he said it had a pallet system. The pallet schematic is shown in the dwgs accompanying Northrop's XF-23 NASA Proposal. This same proposal quotes provision for 3 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s. The YF-23 was not intended to emulate the final F-23A weapons bay config. I asked him about details on the F-23A and he refused to comment.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Dreamfighter on December 05, 2013, 12:02:38 am
Considering the YF-23  ... in some parts of the envelope was more maneuverable than the YF-22


As I remember the YF-23 was stealthier and faster then the YF-22 (weither with PW YF119 or GE YF120), whereas the YF-22 was more manoeuvrable, especially with regard to WVR manoeuvres. Of course the YF-22 already had TVC, whereas the aft-design of the YF-23 prohibited TVC-installment.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 05, 2013, 10:37:25 am
Considering the YF-23  ... in some parts of the envelope was more maneuverable than the YF-22


As I remember the YF-23 was stealthier and faster then the YF-22 (weither with PW YF119 or GE YF120), whereas the YF-22 was more manoeuvrable, especially with regard to WVR manoeuvres. Of course the YF-22 already had TVC, whereas the aft-design of the YF-23 prohibited TVC-installment.

What's leaked out over the years was that both designs exceeded the requirements for maneuverability.   The consensus seems to be that the YF-22 was more maneuverable on the left side of the envelope, especially in the lower left.  This is believable, because that's where TVC has the most effect.  TVC helps you point the nose, and at high AoA/low speed can make a big difference, but it doesn't make you turn tighter.  As speed increased, the advantage lessened and some say disappeared completely.   TVC would have less benefit at higher speed, but it would be a more (radar) stealthy tool for trim. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on December 05, 2013, 10:59:16 am
However, where the TV does help in the right side of the envelope is in lowering trim drag. you can use the TV for trimming, lessening the overall trim drag on the right side of the envelope.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on December 05, 2013, 04:41:22 pm
I wonder roll rate of the yf-23 fair against the yf-22.  Yf-23's body creates great lift but would means suffering in roll rate I believe.  Don't know if or how the horizontal tails and the diamond wings would factor into this. 

Regardless, I truly believe has the yf-23 been chosen, it could have become a much more flexible aircraft than the yf-22.  The exclusiveness of the air superiority is no longer relevant today, thus I believe the yf-23 could have made for a far better deep strike asset or the so relevant to the missile defense mission today.

During Desert Storm, it was a real pity that many fighter pilots could only watch helplessly against Scud missiles without ability to strike them down.  The yf-23 with its rear stealth and higher speed can fly deep in the enemy's airspace to hunt missiles in the ascending stage.  The deeper weapon bay and the fact that the WVR missile and the BWR missile bays are adjacent means that they could be modified to form a longer bay to accommodate a large ramjet missile to hit these time critical target.   
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on December 05, 2013, 06:53:05 pm
I wonder roll rate of the yf-23 fair against the yf-22.  Yf-23's body creates great lift but would means suffering in roll rate I believe.  Don't know if or how the horizontal tails and the diamond wings would factor into this. 


The tailerons were massive, and IIRC, I believe the wing control surfaces could also operate differentially
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on December 22, 2013, 10:05:04 am
Has this excellent video been posted before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 27, 2014, 04:42:09 pm
Was there ever a reason given for why the EMD F-23's chine is much less pronounced than the YF-23's? Also, it seems like the F-23 would need a radar blocker as well, since the engine compressor face is visible.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on January 27, 2014, 05:35:26 pm
Sorry but I failed to see how the production model's chine is less pronounced.  And I don't think the engine is visible given that the production model uses divertless inlets like f-35
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 27, 2014, 07:04:46 pm
Could it be an illusion based on the reshaping of the nose to accommodate a radar?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 27, 2014, 07:22:46 pm
Sorry but I failed to see how the production model's chine is less pronounced.  And I don't think the engine is visible given that the production model uses divertless inlets like f-35

The production model's nose has a cross section like the F-22's nose; there it isn't a "lip" so to speak, like the YF-23 has at the waterline from the front of the wing to the nose. My guess is they did it because it probably reduced production costs and was aerodynamically just as beneficial as the YF-23's without hurting signature reduction.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Radical on January 27, 2014, 10:08:06 pm
Sorry but I failed to see how the production model's chine is less pronounced.  And I don't think the engine is visible given that the production model uses divertless inlets like f-35

In this rendering of the F-23 by user named Stuka, which I believe is based off declassified schematics, shows that the engine compressor face is visible. Of course, I don't know how accurate this model really is.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on January 27, 2014, 10:18:31 pm
The engine face is only visible from an odd angle and there may have been a fan blocker as well. I'm quite sure Northrop knew how to mitigate the fan face return and they aren't about to tell us. ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on January 28, 2014, 07:01:09 pm
The engine face is only visible from an odd angle and there may have been a fan blocker as well. I'm quite sure Northrop knew how to mitigate the fan face return and they aren't about to tell us. ;)

This is true.  As these pictures I stole borrowed from the excellent YF-23.net site (reproducing the Koku-fan and World AirPower Journal drawing) show, the engines were buried in the fuselage and were not in line with the front intakes.  The front compressor faces would not be visible.  No compressor faces would be visible even without the radar attenuators that would have been in the redesigned intakes of the F-23A.  Northrop wouldn't screw up like that. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Grey Havoc on February 04, 2014, 09:22:10 am
Has this excellent video been posted before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc)

I think that this is the original trailer for that program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPgm-4TZ9Kk
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on February 04, 2014, 04:44:04 pm


I think that this is the original trailer for that program:


I actually think it's a trailer for a DVD about the YF-23 that I've got stored  somewhere.  I think they used to sell it at the Western Museum of Flight (where PAV-2 now resides), but I don't know if it's still in print. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: kagemusha on February 10, 2014, 06:17:11 am
YF-22 and YF-23 Competition

http://www.sfte2013.com/files/78588500.pdf
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on February 13, 2014, 08:54:16 pm
Link is wrong. Edited.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on February 24, 2014, 10:00:11 pm
Just been connecting the dot lately, the yf-23's exhaust nozzle has an inward saw tooth shape, which yields superior IR reduction than the outward pointy nozzles of the f-22.  Lockheed later realized this and implemented it on their A/F-X bid.  There was a flight global article in which Lockheed explained how an inward shape yields better IR reduction but don't exactly remember the details. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 09, 2014, 12:32:45 am
F-23A page updated...

http://www.yf-23.net/F-23A.html (http://www.yf-23.net/F-23A.html)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on April 09, 2014, 01:56:46 am
nice! thanks for keeping the site work on
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RadicalDisconnect on May 05, 2014, 12:27:45 am
So I've been looking at supacruze's updated section on the F-23 EMD. Based on his diagrams and BDF's CAD exercises, it seems impossible to fit as many AMRAAMs, even the clipped fin AIM-120C/D, into the F-23's bay as the F-22's seemingly due to an oddly shaped bulkhead. I recall that the YF-23's weapon bay capacity was also lower than the YF-22's. Perhaps the F-23's configuration simply makes it more difficult to create weapon bays than the F-22's?

Side note: given the description that the AIM-120C had clipped fins for internal carriage in the F-22, does this mean that the AIM-120A/B didn't fit in the F-22's bays due to the fin span? Or does it mean that it can't carry as many AIM-120A/B as it could carry the AIM-120C?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on May 06, 2014, 11:43:37 am
So I've been looking at supacruze's updated section on the F-23 EMD. Based on his diagrams and BDF's CAD exercises, it seems impossible to fit as many AMRAAMs, even the clipped fin AIM-120C/D, into the F-23's bay as the F-22's seemingly due to an oddly shaped bulkhead. I recall that the YF-23's weapon bay capacity was also lower than the YF-22's. Perhaps the F-23's configuration simply makes it more difficult to create weapon bays than the F-22's?

Side note: given the description that the AIM-120C had clipped fins for internal carriage in the F-22, does this mean that the AIM-120A/B didn't fit in the F-22's bays due to the fin span? Or does it mean that it can't carry as many AIM-120A/B as it could carry the AIM-120C?

Don't forget that during DEMVAL, YF-22 fired an AIM-120 out of the bay and it wasn't a C.  Clearly in the production version they planned to populate it solely with Cs; in the interest of costs and its expected IOC there would be little incentive to design an alternate launch environment for the previous versions. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BDF on May 06, 2014, 04:02:36 pm
One point to keep in mind is that all we have is N/McD's EMD proposal and there's nothing preventing them from reworking the bay and forward fuselage structure to increase the slammer load. Certainly the F-22 saw significant structural changes after downselect (although not weapons bay related).


I never heard that the F-23 designed failed on the core ATF requirement which was 6 AMRAAMs.  If they did I think it would have been significant and we would have known just after down select. Also keep in mind I was actually able to fit 6 slammers in there it's just I don't know the precise geometry and I'm guessing that they would have to articulate one or more rounds to a firing position somehow.  Interestingly Barry Watts, who worked on the F-23 team at Northrop, has said that it could have carried 2000lb class weapons, which is not possible with this bay configuration.  He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RadicalDisconnect on May 06, 2014, 09:01:17 pm
On a curious note, how did the YF-23 actuate the flaps and ailerons? I don't see the actuator blisters under the wing.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on May 06, 2014, 10:59:04 pm
He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.


I find it very hard to believe such a difference would exist, espacially since the supercruise requirement back then was still around the 400 nm@ mach 1.5 + 100 nm @mach 0.9 radius.



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: donnage99 on May 08, 2014, 10:39:39 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA2Rr5Ejf_U



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on May 19, 2014, 08:38:07 am
There were no blisters on the wings, Northrop used 2 actuators per surface in the wings which were compact enough to not require blisters, just like their F-5 series. Even though most people think the core ATF requirement was for 6 AIM-120Cs, after carefully steadying the dwgs made available by Scott Lowther I really don't think 6 could fit in there.You have to allow for door thickness and the pallet system actuator mechanism, and the roof of the bay is arched further restricting space. The F-22 could have carried 4 A models I believe. Incidentally I have heard rumours that Edo had the contract to produce the F-22 launcher system and they were the ones who interfered with the ATF selection process to ensure that Lockheed won.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: TomS on May 19, 2014, 08:46:37 am
Incidentally I have heard rumours that Edo had the contract to produce the F-22 launcher system and they were the ones who interfered with the ATF selection process to ensure that Lockheed won.

I'm skeptical that a relatively small contractor like Edo would have enough clout to swing a major procurement like that.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on May 19, 2014, 03:28:04 pm
He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.


I find it very hard to believe such a difference would exist, espacially since the supercruise requirement back then was still around the 400 nm@ mach 1.5 + 100 nm @mach 0.9 radius.

FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation.  I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly.  Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane  would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on May 19, 2014, 04:18:20 pm
A nice 3D model, even though the bump maps are way overdone.

YF-23 at Turbosquid (http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/733714).
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RadicalDisconnect on May 22, 2014, 04:13:00 pm
Now it appears that the F-23 EMD will need radar blockers for all aspect stealth. In fact, even from head on, there will be a tiny bit of the compressor face visible unless a blocker is installed. Has any blocker patent from Northrop popped up over these years? Images taken from Spudman.

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt271%2FSpudmanWP%2FMisc%2FF-23_1_zpsba17244c.jpg&hash=da497f088e92c8efb9c62f68c867b197)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt271%2FSpudmanWP%2FMisc%2FF-23_2_zps2c05dd5b.jpg&hash=a51019fb6e769e95216062747fa1609c)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt271%2FSpudmanWP%2FMisc%2FF-23_3_zps659b2b2f.jpg&hash=b2657ac54c784e4ea37b19cb3ca48c04)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on May 22, 2014, 06:32:29 pm
Now it appears that the F-23 EMD will need radar blockers for all aspect stealth. In fact, even from head on, there will be a tiny bit of the compressor face visible unless a blocker is installed. Has any blocker patent from Northrop popped up over these years? Images taken from Spudman.

First, we don't know if the RADAR waves would bounce directly back from there. It's not necessarily as simple as what you can see. There's going to be interference with the waves bouncing in the serpentine duct. Also, this plane was designed to fly much higher than those of any other Air Force. So you shouldn't be looking at it from a directly forward view, but from the angle based on the range of the enemy RADAR and 20,000ft to 30,000ft lower than the F-23A. Having said that, I'm not sure that they didn't plan to have fan blockers, but those designs tend to be classified, so I'm not surprised that we wouldn't see them in the drawing.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on May 22, 2014, 11:23:13 pm

FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation.  I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly.  Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane  would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements.


I understand that but here we're talking about a plane capable of doing 700 miles radius @ mach 1.4 vs a plane said to be capable on only 100 miles. We're not in the "advantage" zone, we're in the "not the same class" one if that is to be true.


@sundog:


Nice model! it seems the author borrowed some traits of the F-23A mixed with YF-23.


By the way, how is going the modelling of F-23A by Saintkatanalegacy and Stuka? :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 23, 2014, 01:55:13 am
Having said that, I'm not sure that they didn't plan to have fan blockers
They didn't as didn't need 'em because of reasons you have described quite correctly.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on May 28, 2014, 06:57:15 am
I'm skeptical that a relatively small contractor like Edo would have enough clout to swing a major procurement like that.

Well, once you do the research into corporate corruption, you'll find it has less to do with the size of the company and more to do with the networking ability of the co's CEO. It seems to come down to how well he is liked, how well he makes friends and how loyal those friends are. I'm talking about completely informal arrangements made on nothing but a handshake on the golf course. Looking carefully at the expression on the AF secretary's face as he announces the winner may offer a clue. Lockheed does have an aggressive reputation for swinging deals and for a long time that seemed to be the most likely scenario, but Donald Rice's CV doesn't really leave a trail of Lockheed influence, although it does show he moved in military contractor circles. He would have been on a first name basis with all interested parties, to put it mildly. All it takes is one game of golf. The research that I've done seems to indicate that the Edo CEO at the time had the motivation to pull some strings, and it would have theoretically been easier for Edo to do so than Lockheed, as Lockheed would have been very carefully watched. The Italian Prime Minister is a very public example of someone who does this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RadicalDisconnect on June 22, 2014, 03:32:30 pm
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 02, 2014, 01:27:35 pm
Great walkaround of the gray ghost


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8DR2abFfxc
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on August 03, 2014, 02:25:54 am
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
The drawings of the F-23 made available recently depict the design as was submitted at 1991 or earlier.  The F-22 had its design tweaked and adjusted all the way up to 1994 when it  was finally frozen. Between 1991 and 1994, the number of saw tooth edges on access panels was decreased substantially for example to reduce RCS which was found to not meet projections.

Had the YF-23 won, the F-23A design would have been updated too with further changes... like a single piece canopy I'am sure.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ardavan.K on September 29, 2014, 01:36:54 pm
I went through the posts again, and could not find this photo, a bit late but ...
The photo is for $14.95 on (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Post-Cold-War-Era-YF-23-Stealth-FighterContinental-Size-Postcard-1-1-/390375553613?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae4323a4d)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: F-14D on September 29, 2014, 02:59:46 pm

FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation.  I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly.  Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane  would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements.


I understand that but here we're talking about a plane capable of doing 700 miles radius @ mach 1.4 vs a plane said to be capable on only 100 miles. We're not in the "advantage" zone, we're in the "not the same class" one if that is to be true.




Sorry about the delay, I haven't looked at this topic for a while.  As far as the difference in distances goes, while the YF-23 could sustain supercruise longer than the YF-22, it might not necessarily be as great a disparity as that. The YF-22 could fly farther than the F-22 (which is where I believe the ~100nm number applies).   The range requirement for the production birds was lowered when it was determined that to keep it meant that either the speed or maneuverability requirement woul dnot be met.  The YF-22 carried noticeably more fuel than the F-22, IIRC. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: RadicalDisconnect on October 07, 2014, 10:18:45 pm
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
The drawings of the F-23 made available recently depict the design as was submitted at 1991 or earlier.  The F-22 had its design tweaked and adjusted all the way up to 1994 when it  was finally frozen. Between 1991 and 1994, the number of saw tooth edges on access panels was decreased substantially for example to reduce RCS which was found to not meet projections.

Had the YF-23 won, the F-23A design would have been updated too with further changes... like a single piece canopy I'am sure.

Huh, I'm not that sure. According to Code One, the present F-22 configuration, which is called 645, have very little change from 638, which was what won in 1991. I would imagine that inlet change would be rather drastic.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=41
Quote
The F-22 program begins the transition from development to production this fall with the award of long-lead contracts for the first lots of production aircraft. Though the design currently stands at Configuration 645, the external lines have changed very little from Configuration 638, the design proposed for the engineering and manufacturing development phase in December 1990.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Triton on November 06, 2014, 01:47:47 pm
ATF-23 Northrop McDonnell Douglas Team patch found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-USAF-Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas-ATF-23-Patch-ADVANCED-TACTICAL-FIGHTER-/301377854892?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item462b851dac
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on November 11, 2014, 12:00:16 am
YF-23 interview videos uploaded by the producers of the YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified documentary:


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6DT7LOZe9DJjc4x3FroKGw


YF-23 Chicken Tests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXYudTiJP3Q


Did the Airforce choose the wrong Airplane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKLkULSkJ1I


What makes this Airplane invisible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq4lw3AQ150


YF-23/YF-22 Engines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFuZI6Ao_IQ


YF-23 Top Speed (1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPcxVUdD8aw


YF-23 Top Speed (2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UigtXumUYpE


YF-23 First Taxi Test & Flight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmfY0oWWfqU


Official site to watch the documentary free (ad supported)


http://www.flixhouse.com/movie/web-secrecy-black-widow-ii-declassified/

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on November 11, 2014, 03:41:13 pm
Is this the correct thread to discuss Northrop's NATF proposal as well?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on November 11, 2014, 11:21:47 pm
Northrop NATF is discussed here:

NATF: planned Navy versions of the F-22 and F-23
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2730.0.html
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on January 12, 2015, 08:46:44 pm
G'day, for enthusiasts of the YF-23, I have organised some official petitions on the Revell.de site for new scale models to be released. Please take a moment to add your vote to these petitions and pass on the links to others you know who love the YF-23:

1/72 YF-23: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6227/
1/144 YF-23: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6257/
1/72 F-23A: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6242/

More and more cos are starting to realise that responding to immediate customer feedback is the way to go. Even if Revell doesn't end up producing them, rival companies will be watching these petitions to get ideas themselves. I really think this will work, I've had success with other subjects in the past.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on January 13, 2015, 03:25:47 am
Would be cool to have an F-23A.


By the way, stuka was about to finish his CAD model. Any news?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: VH on January 14, 2015, 12:03:01 pm
This is the model of the F-23 you want


http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=89934

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on January 15, 2015, 07:41:05 pm
Ive added a petition for a 1/72 F-23A

http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6242/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on January 15, 2015, 09:08:25 pm
1:32 scale would be awesome! -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on January 27, 2015, 11:04:05 pm
Ok, I've now added a petition for a 1/32 scale model:
http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6331/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on February 28, 2015, 08:23:32 am
Hi,


Many of you must be aware of that 3D model by aviakinetik:
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/yf-23-black-widow-max/733714


You'll immediately notice that this model is in fact a blend between the YF-23 and F-23.


What is surprising is that i mailed the author to ask why he did that and he answered me that it was not intentional and that it was only once the model finished that he discovered that the model was incorrect because of not enough high quality information available while doing the model.


This is very surprising, how could he know about the EMD fuselage+blending with nacelles, while not knowing the nacelles were not square anymore or the intakes were different?


This led me supposing there must be some other sources with incorrect depiction of the EMD. Anyone knows?



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on April 01, 2015, 11:13:19 pm
The digital artist simply made a mistake. This kind of error is quite common in the 3D digital world, they have different priorities compared to conventional modellers. 98% of the digital models I've seen and worked with were inaccurate and this is the same. The only accurate depiction I've seen is Stuka's work and a company called Real Air Simulations. Lack of reference info is not an excuse as factory dwgs of both versions are publicly available.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on April 01, 2015, 11:18:06 pm
hi supacruze,


i don't know about the real air simulations F-23. Is it on your site?


Citrus90 made a 3D model of the F-23 that is quite close (posted in the 3D artworks thread here). Stuka's work is surely ahead but so far i've only seen the picture posted here.



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on May 02, 2015, 06:39:17 am
No, because Real Air Simulations does not make a YF-23. They have a Spitfire and a SIAI SF260 which are really good. There are, however, screenshots of the Flight Sim Developers International YF-23 on my site. That 3D model is another example of inaccuracy that is prevalent among digital modellers.

I now have a RedBubble shop selling YF-23 themed items, guys... revenue generated from the sale of these items will go towards the upkeep of my site. :)


http://www.redbubble.com/people/yf-23 (http://www.redbubble.com/people/yf-23)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on May 09, 2015, 02:21:11 am
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-advanced-fighter-woes-20130616-dto-htmlstory.html

Some interesting factoids on ATF contest there

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on May 09, 2015, 04:46:32 am
"If everybody involved would be more realistic and didn't lie about risk, technical difficulty and cost, we wouldn't have these problems," said Thomas P. Christie, a retired official who spent nearly 50 years working in Pentagon acquisitions. "We jump into these decisions, then get surprised about the outcome."

Sure, because the bean counters would say, "Whoa, don't buy it."  Can't have problems with a program if you don't buy it.  Of course you'll never make advancements without encountering obstacles so one can see where that puts us pretty easily.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: AeroFranz on May 09, 2015, 08:18:12 pm
The problem is that the AF does not have design engineers in acquisition anymore - at any rate not any that can double-check the figures presented by industry and call bull where necessary. Truth to be told it's hard to be well-versed on all aspects of complex weapons systems. These are no longer your grampa's airplanes, so you need to have specialists in all the disciplines double check figures.

At least that's been my first hand experience. This is harmful because i have seen competitors win contracts by downplaying risk, only to have the program get cancelled after Phase I because the proposed approach would not work. Eventually the proof is in the pudding, not in the powerpoint.


If bean counters are not happy with realistic cost numbers proposed by all the contenders, then they should either revise their funding, or cancel the competition. Any other alternative is a waste of tax payer money.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on May 29, 2015, 09:13:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpj1uoAkURY
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: lantinian on May 29, 2015, 09:41:48 pm
Thank You Bring_it_on.  :)
Haven't see that  version yet and it maybe the best visual presentation of YF-23 in flight. :o

I also recommend avert body here to subscribe to your YouTube channel and check out the other videos you have uploaded. ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on May 29, 2015, 11:01:53 pm
The problem is that the AF does not have design engineers in acquisition anymore - at any rate not any that can double-check the figures presented by industry and call bull where necessary. Truth to be told it's hard to be well-versed on all aspects of complex weapons systems. These are no longer your grampa's airplanes, so you need to have specialists in all the disciplines double check figures.

At least that's been my first hand experience. This is harmful because i have seen competitors win contracts by downplaying risk, only to have the program get cancelled after Phase I because the proposed approach would not work. Eventually the proof is in the pudding, not in the powerpoint.


If bean counters are not happy with realistic cost numbers proposed by all the contenders, then they should either revise their funding, or cancel the competition. Any other alternative is a waste of tax payer money.


I couldn't agree more. In fact with regard to the ATF competition, I wish we had access to all of the original submissions. We're always told the McDonnell Douglas submission was too heavy, but I've always heard they had an excellent weights group. As a result, I've often wondered if it was really too heavy or just too accurate?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on June 29, 2015, 05:27:04 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCV8pijnAPU
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: SpudmanWP on June 29, 2015, 07:20:43 pm
(0:15) Vertical climb after takeoff to 100k feet "like a rocket" :o
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on June 29, 2015, 07:24:49 pm
(0:15) Vertical climb after takeoff to 100k feet "like a rocket" :o

I hope somebody eventually posts the clip of Paul Metz talking about the F-22A's speed.  "the top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph".   :'(   I wonder if he'll ever be able to give a nothing-held-back tell all of how the YF-23 and F-22A compare.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on June 30, 2015, 06:51:19 am
Does that video clip exist??
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2015, 07:05:58 am
Does that video clip exist??

Yes, on one of the plethora of aviation videos from Discovery/TLC/History Channel/ etc. etc. back in the early '00s.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on June 30, 2015, 07:18:47 am
I'll look it up ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2015, 07:35:19 am
I'll look it up ;)

Good luck.  I spent several hours one day trying to run it down from best recollection with no luck.  I "acquired" every documentary I could put my hands on and it wasn't in any of them.  Some were not available from any source, not from Amazon, not from the network (TLC/Discovery/etc.), so I couldn't check those. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on June 30, 2015, 12:16:05 pm
I know for sure that the 1600mph quote atleast once came from an text interview. Sure you are not mixing things up?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2015, 12:28:37 pm
I know for sure that the 1600mph quote atleast once came from an text interview. Sure you are not mixing things up?

Positive it was in the show.  Could be the text interview was from the program.  Still remember the emphasis he put on, "I mean it's really fast".
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on June 30, 2015, 01:28:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-v2OLrYCFw
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on June 30, 2015, 01:58:09 pm
What a bird! -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on July 02, 2015, 02:05:51 pm
I'm not sure this one has been already posted but it has two interesting graphs: the reasons behind supercruise and stealth combination and the max speed and max G achieved by the YF-23


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbcMsB8Hn24
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on July 02, 2015, 02:44:14 pm
This one makes reference to the vertical climb by the YF-23 (at 0:30)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KciMPGUrlOU
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: pedrospe on July 03, 2015, 06:32:53 am
They are some great and unique videos,it is a pity that the image quality isn't the best,never the less is always good to see this superb aircraft flying,thanks a lot for this.


  best regards


  Pedro
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on July 03, 2015, 06:32:37 pm
I hope somebody eventually posts the clip of Paul Metz talking about the F-22A's speed.  "the top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph".

You mean the F-23 here?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on July 03, 2015, 06:57:31 pm
I hope somebody eventually posts the clip of Paul Metz talking about the F-22A's speed.  "the top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph".

You mean the F-23 here?

No.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on July 25, 2015, 06:45:06 am
We badly, badly, need a couple of Secretproject representatives for this event;

http://www.wmof.com/upcomingevents.pdf

Please, hope someone could show up and ask some good questions and take pics etc. (suggest a few in here?)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ian33 on July 25, 2015, 08:04:24 am
I hope somebody eventually posts the clip of Paul Metz talking about the F-22A's speed.  "the top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph".

You mean the F-23 here?

No.

I remember seeing that figure mentioned but it melted the skins so it had to be reigned in.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on July 25, 2015, 05:00:33 pm
We badly, badly, need a couple of Secretproject representatives for this event;

http://www.wmof.com/upcomingevents.pdf (http://www.wmof.com/upcomingevents.pdf)

Please, hope someone could show up and ask some good questions and take pics etc. (suggest a few in here?)


While I doubt they can tell us much about the YF-23's actual performance, I would love to be at that talk. I would actually ask them if the simulators were "upgraded," for lack of a better term, to simulate the production F-23's performance and if they also had one for the NATF and how they performed.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: aim9xray on July 25, 2015, 09:48:41 pm
FWIW, the Peninsula Seniors organization records the monthly lectures at the Western Museum of Flight and uploads them (among others) to YouTube on their channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfuy6jW-23cUtB9CoxVm6y-0Gn-LxQJOw (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfuy6jW-23cUtB9CoxVm6y-0Gn-LxQJOw). Video upload ranges from one to two months after the event.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on July 26, 2015, 04:41:22 am
Oh nice, thanks for the heads up! Still hope some Secretproject suspects are able to show up and ask relevant questions.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 03, 2015, 10:54:04 am
devian art user tommow created a F-23A mesh. Textures are maybe a little bit poor but geometry seems pretty stop on.


http://tommow.deviantart.com/
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 04, 2015, 04:56:13 pm
Official Northrop Image of the FB-23 -

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs11.postimg.org%2Fexnc7u4f7%2FFB_23.jpg&hash=2b57151ac71c1c1168b1ab648311ca4d)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flateric on August 04, 2015, 06:22:12 pm
Official Northrop Image of the FB-23 -
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 06, 2015, 05:38:38 pm
FWIW, the Peninsula Seniors organization records the monthly lectures at the Western Museum of Flight and uploads them (among others) to YouTube on their channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfuy6jW-23cUtB9CoxVm6y-0Gn-LxQJOw (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfuy6jW-23cUtB9CoxVm6y-0Gn-LxQJOw). Video upload ranges from one to two months after the event.

They have some very very interesting videos..The F-14 and F-15 talks were great. Hopefully they would upload the YF23 one soon after the event :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ6KJEv309w
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 07, 2015, 12:24:27 pm
A Tailless YF23 with Yaw-Vectoring

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273847968/Fighter-Agility-Aircraft?secret_password=IERNzh0m6mLxOPhPOCx7
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 08, 2015, 12:08:47 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5CKECtCwCQ
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 12, 2015, 01:12:06 pm
Guys, I've mailed the WMOF about the YF-23 reunion this saturday asking them if it would be possible for us to forward one or two questions for paul metz and jim sanberg since it seems no one can attend and they kindly accepted.


So i offer you this: let's ask two questions, one on the YF-23 and one on the F-23A. We have to find two questions that are sufficiently large to bring as much information as possible. Additionnal questions are maybe possible but let's try and focus on the two ones.


Only one day left so please hurry! (If not i'll chose for you)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 12, 2015, 01:55:41 pm
I am planning on going - send me questions.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 12, 2015, 02:05:38 pm
I think the person i contacted will see Paul and Jim on friday so maybe she'll ask the questions then. If you are going there on saturday (great!) maybe we can have more questions. So it is better if we gather the questions here so as not ask the same twice :)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on August 12, 2015, 05:47:59 pm
What was your opinion of the YF-23 prototypes' maneuverability?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on August 13, 2015, 05:05:07 am
"F-22 or F-23?"
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on August 13, 2015, 06:37:59 am
Maybe these have been answered before, but anyway;

1 - Did either PAV-1 or -2 go supersonic with open weaponsbays or was that done always subsonic? Either break the soundbarrier with open bays or open them while being supersonic.
2 - It has been suggested that USAF was worried about the single bay and the rack system on YF-23 (jamming), was that the reason why F-23 had two weaponsbays? Or was that just a natural design progression not necessarily tied to USAF?
3 - PAV-2, faster than 1700mph top speed? (i know, veeeeeeeeeeeeery unlikely question to be answered, but what the heck)
4 - In your opinion, did the canceled NATF weigh in a lot on the decision to go with F-22 over F-23?
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 13, 2015, 12:54:40 pm
What was your opinion of the YF-23 prototypes' maneuverability?

And also, would having TV factored into the design would have helped in any way.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on August 13, 2015, 02:53:54 pm
it seems no one can attend


I heard there will be punch and pie, so...
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: kagemusha on August 13, 2015, 03:19:25 pm
1) What was the top speed in supercruise of the YF-23?

2) How was the main weapons bay configuration (type of launchers and number of missiles) of the F-23?

Thank you!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 13, 2015, 03:41:21 pm
Here are the questions sent, If you have questions that are not on the mail i sent then i suggest asking Billro if he can forward them.



Main questions:


YF-23:


1/What is your opinion on the YF-23 maneuverability. It has been said that thanks to TVC, the YF-22 was more maneuverable, but was it the case across the tested envelope or just low speed?


2/There's some confusion about supercruise speed achieved by the YF120-GE-100 powered YF-23. The legend is that it is still classified. Is it the case? According to available data the maximum mach tested for YF-23 PAV-2 was mach 1.72 so it suggests the supercruise speed was not greater. How can you confirm this data?






F-23:


1/Recently declassified blueprints of an F-23 EMD version dated December 1990 were released. Those drawings show a much altered design. Was it supposed to be the almost definitive version of the F-23? The mid fuselage section seems to be much larger than on the YF-23. How this version differed in estimated performance over the YF-23 in term of supercruise speed, weight,speed, range, maneuverability and weapons load out?


2/The weapons bays on the F-23 EMD seem to be much shallower than the one on the YF-23. This has prompted some questions:
Would the F-23 EMD be able to carry 8 AMRAAMS + 2 SRAAMS? Recently Barry Watts said that the F-23 would have been able to carry 2000lbs weapons and that the plane would have been able to supercruise at mach 1.4 for the all mission as opposed to the supercruise radius of F-22 of 100nm. Was it something planned back in 1990 with this version?


 


Additional questions:


YF-23:


1/Did either PAV-1 or -2 go supersonic with open weapons bays or was that done always subsonic? Either break the sound barrier with open bays or open them while being supersonic.


2/In your opinion, did the canceled NATF weigh in a lot on the decision to go with F-22 over F-23?




F-23


1/It has been suggested that USAF was worried about the single bay and the rack system on YF-23 (jamming), was that the reason why F-23 had two weapons bays? Or was that just a natural design progression not necessarily tied to USAF?


2/The two weapons bays seem to be connected (their doors are connected) on the F-23. Was there a separation between the two or loading a weapon across both would have been possible?


3/It has been suggested that USAF was worried about the single bay and the rack system on YF-23 (jamming), was that the reason why F-23 had two weapons bays? Or was that just a natural design progression not necessarily tied to USAF?


4/And finally a very broad question to both Jim and Paul and surely will be asked during the lecture but: "In retrospect what would you choose for ATF, F-23 or F-22?"






Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 13, 2015, 04:50:16 pm
I am planning on going - send me questions.

Hope you are planning to make a video (if its allowed)...I know it would be put up on there channel but something much quicker never hurts :)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 13, 2015, 04:58:09 pm
That is a lot of questions and I am not sure that they will let me monopolize the proceedings, but I will do my best. I am planning on making an audio recording but video may not be practical. I am sure that a video will become available in the future as they have for the other WMOF talks. I will ask and see if they will confirm that.

Bill
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on August 13, 2015, 05:35:07 pm
Bill, use your best judgement. I guess most of them can be summarised as - did the USAF make a mistake not to order the F-23? I don't think you'll get an answer to that.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on August 13, 2015, 06:17:30 pm
Bill, use your best judgement. I guess most of them can be summarised as - did the USAF make a mistake not to order the F-23? I don't think you'll get an answer to that.

Hopefully someday he'll be able to tell all.  He's one of the very few to have flown both the YF-23 and F-22A. 
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 13, 2015, 06:19:19 pm
That is a lot of questions and I am not sure that they will let me monopolize the proceedings, but I will do my best. I am planning on making an audio recording but video may not be practical. I am sure that a video will become available in the future as they have for the other WMOF talks. I will ask and see if they will confirm that.

Bill

Thanks Bill. Have fun!!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 13, 2015, 11:08:28 pm
Actually there may be some misunderstanding.


The questions here have been sent. They will be printed and Paul and Jim will see them not on Saturday during the lecture but today hence why i was allowed to ask more than a couple of questions.


Thus if you have questions that were not on the mail, i suggest you may ask Billro if he can ask them during the lecture:)



Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: flanker on August 14, 2015, 03:16:29 am
I assume they will both stick around for a bit after the presentations, so it should be possible to ask some additional questions after presentations. :) And if we have atleast two mos eisley cantina representatives asking two questions each in plenum that is already 4 questions covered.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 14, 2015, 04:32:03 pm
OK Ogami I will ignore that big list since you have it covered; we hope that the presentation will include answers, in which case my recording can be a record until the video comes out. I have a couple of other question from a few including Grigory and will concentrate on those.

Bill
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 15, 2015, 03:28:11 am
OK Ogami I will ignore that big list since you have it covered; we hope that the presentation will include answers, in which case my recording can be a record until the video comes out. I have a couple of other question from a few including Grigory and will concentrate on those.

Bill


great!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 15, 2015, 04:24:07 pm
I went to the WMOF event today in Torrance and saw a bunch of my "old" Northrop colleagues; some came from as far away as the US East Coast and some that I hired from college were retired. PAV-2 was parked outside and both Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg were there and shared the presentation. The whole thing was video taped by the Palos Verdes couple who have done the rest and it will be available in a month. I thanked them for their efforts and told them how much the historical aviation community enjoys their work.

Attached are a few pix. I will pick up the previous threads and answer as many questions there that I can plus some I received separately. You will be able to get more precise answers when the video is released. I made a recording but I have not checked as to its quality yet.

Bill
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 15, 2015, 04:57:34 pm
Thanks BillRo!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 15, 2015, 05:32:13 pm
Thanks BillRO..appreciate your effort. I just noticed that they had put pictures of the YF23 getting prepped for the event on their Facebook page. .




https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=886984998057724&id=130363370386561
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: quellish on August 15, 2015, 06:12:00 pm


I heard there will be punch and pie, so...


No punch and pie, but even better - hot dogs!
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Sundog on August 15, 2015, 06:56:19 pm
For reference, I asked Bill to ask if the EMD F-23 or the NATF were ever in the simulator. Bill said he spoke with Paul Metz afterward and Mr. Metz said neither of those aircraft were ever in the simulator, but the actual YF-23s matched what he flew in the simulator and that the YF-23 was the best handling aircraft he has ever flown.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Skyblazer on August 16, 2015, 02:19:10 am
That's awesome, BillRo!! Thanks for your efforts, and I can't wait to hear the answers to some of the questions...  ;)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Steve Pace on August 16, 2015, 08:29:04 am
Way to go BillRo! -SP
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 19, 2015, 11:54:54 am
Paul Metz/Jim Sandberg talk
at the YF-23 25th Anniversary of First Flight, WMOF Torrance, CA 15 Aug 2015

Summary; These are my interpretations of what was said during a 90 minute talk, based on a tape recording of the event. Prior to commenting, I would suggest waiting until you have viewed the video, due in a month or so, in case I have misinterpreted the words and figures. Also some useful charts and familiar videos were shown.

The talk was divided into 3 parts:

Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot: Introduction - How ATF and the Northrop submission came about.
Jim Sandberg, Test Pilot PAV-2: YF-23 Flight Test.
Paul Metz: Conclusions.

Paul Metz:

ATF started in 1971 in response to increased Soviet capability - IL-76-based Mainstay AWACS with look-down radar, MiG-29 Fulcrum and SU-27 Flanker with look-down, shoot-down capability and next-generation improved, higher performance SA-2-type missiles. USAF and many companies were involved; an interesting chart was presented here showing the various study configuration planforms. Seven companies responded in 1981 to a Request for proposal but no-one had thought about stealth. 

Reduced signature was mentioned in terms of levels - Generation 0, Horton 229; Generation 1, SR-71; Generation 2, F-117; Generation 3, B-2 and Generation 4, ATF which had to have long range, large internal payload AND maneuverability. It also had to have the ability to find the enemy without giving away its position. Sandusky had a team embedded within B-2 at Pico Rivera to assimilate the technology.

When Northrop and Lockheed were selected there were no specs - the contractors determined them. Three months before the proposal was due the Air Force made a change and asked for a demonstrator - the requirement was for it to fly once. Northrop and its team contributed half the cost and invested $1.1B.

The competition was not a fly-off and you cannot make apples to apples comparisons since the NAD and Lockheed flight test programs were not the same.

Jim Sandberg: Flight Test

The YF-23 has very large canted tails which add to the lift, give an unmatched rearward view and with their powerful fast actuators provide agility equivalent to 2D thrust vectoring. Vectoring was considered by Northrop but discarded in favor of the cooled trough (which obviously offered significant signature advantages) and powerful controls.

The aircraft used parts and pieces from several different planes including wheels and brakes from the F-18 - a lighter aircraft, so care had to be taken after landing and while taxiing. Ground crews checked the temperatures after roll out.

Original test program called for 350 sorties, actually it was 3 months and 50 sorties. Five pilots flew the aircraft, as well as Paul and Jim, Joe Lowe? From McAir and two from the USAF.

The first flight was practiced for over a year (due to delays). The test program was designed to demonstrate supercruise, flying qualities throughout the envelope and aerial refueling, since that was employed to maximise flight test time. A chart shown with test results - number of flights, max speed (demonstrated) PAV-1 M=1.8 PAV-2 M=1.7, max angle of attack and max altitude about 50K feet.

PAV-1 flew perfectly with no problems until flight 6 but PAV-2 (Jims plane) was a different story; it flew 2 months later and he also had a team that practiced everything at the Air Forces insistence. Jim thought it would be easy - Paul had flown PAV-1 (with the PW engine) and Lockheed had flown the GE engine.

They used runway 8 at Edwards, opposite to the normal flow of traffic (so that in case of problems the aircraft would be heading away from populated areas). As soon as he released the brakes and was rolling he saw a white light at the end of the runway and thought it was a truck, it soon disappeared and he continued only to see a T-38 landing in the opposite direction in spite of all the practice. Then after retracting the gear, the mains failed to extend leaving just the nose gear. They discussed it for a while, cycled the gear again, and everything locked in position. The crew suggested Jim leave the gear down - Jim agreed!

On the second flight, approaching the tanker Jim found the difference between the two engines. He had flown PAV-1 (Pratt) and had no problems refueling, but the GE motor was difficult to modulate and in the end he set one engine idle and the other at power to achieve engagement. Then before any testing could be accomplished there was an engine malfunction and he had to RTB.

On the third flight climbing to 27K with Paul in chase, he heard “You are venting” and ground said “Descend, descend” A valve in the fuel tank pressurization equalization system had malfunctioned, over-pressurizing the tank to almost 150% of design load.

Interesting supercruise chart here showing the comparative speed (no scale) of the two Northrop and the two Lockheed aircraft. The GE powered aircraft were slower than the Pratt planes and the YF-23 PAV-1 was faster than the YF-22 aircraft. The Air Force chose the slowest plane with the slowest engine!

Paul: Conclusion

“In prototyping competitions there is a tangible and intangible impression you leave with your customers”. Northrop engineering skills are beyond compare and they successfully predicted the YF-23 performance and other aircraft with which he was associated. Northrop presents the aircraft in engineering terms - graphs charts etc. But not every one who is in a position to select your aircraft is an engineer, so there is another way to leave an impression. He then showed that classic picture of the contrails of an F-16 turning inside an F-4, a picture of the F-22 at a 60 deg angle of attack and another of it launching a missile. Northrop could have done the exact same thing but Lockheed understands how to leave those impressions.

Questions:
The YF-23 can stand beside anything out there and in many cases exceed them. The airplane is a Mach 2 class airplane but neither Northrop nor Lockheed took the aircraft to their absolute maximum. Both aircraft were judged to be technically acceptable, so the decision must have been made on non-technical issues. (The airplane only represents 1/3 of the solution - the other 1/3 is avionics and the final 1/3 is management, support manufacturing etc) Sec. Rice said both planes were qualified but he had greater confidence in Lockheed’s ability to manage the program!
Supercruise: Started at M=.85 at 42k and ran full Mil power till it conked out. Speed increased steadily and AB was not required to punch through the number. They felt that perhaps the engine decision was influenced by the need to preserve the capabilities of more than one fighter engine producer, but that was not the case for the airframe. The main benefits in technology carried forward was in the area of avionics. YF-23 would not have been carrier capable - NATF looked completely different.

How much fun was it? Pilots are really focused but when the test cards were made up for Paul, Jim put in between two points once everything had settled “Look out the window and enjoy”. When they were production test pilots delivering F-5s all over the world one time Jim, who was a country western fan, played a recording of Willie Nelsons “On the Road Again” over the radio as they took off from Palmdale headed for Singapore.  So on the first flight of PAV-2 Jim got a call from Mission Control “Standby we have a special message for you” and over the radio came the strains of “On the road again”.

Did they do any dog fighting with other fighters? No, but Jim had to find out max sustained G at M=1.3 and 35K in Mil and AB power on both air vehicles. A couple of days later he was in an F-16 for proficiency and at 25K , M=0.85 he did the same test and the numbers were pretty close.

Yu Ping Lu.
RCS testing. .4 scale test model. The numbers were so good that the colonel did not believe them. He said you must have left something off the model like control gaps. So Yu Ping drove him out to Grey Butte, put him on the cherry picker and had him examine the model. “Colonel can you put your fingers in the control gaps?” and he had to admit that he could. 6db makes a difference of 50% detection range. 

In the proposal Northrop was planning to include the RCS numbers predicted, projected and measured. The colonel told us that we did not have the experience and the model did not represent the true number so we had to take them out. The other team was given credit for the F-117 and they were checked up such that we were even, and they could not pick a winner. “We did much better”.

I observed one telling moment prior the event as a key flight controls engineer approached; both pilots spontaneously raised their arms and bowed down to him, so high was their regard for the excellence of the airplane as a flying machine.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: sferrin on August 19, 2015, 12:12:35 pm
Interesting.  I'd always heard that the F120 powered YF-23 was the faster of the two but apparently that is not the case.  (PAV-1 was the F119 powered aircraft.)

"A chart shown with test results - number of flights, max speed (demonstrated) PAV-1 M=1.8 PAV-2 M=1.7, max angle of attack and max altitude about 50K feet. "


"The GE powered aircraft were slower than the Pratt planes and the YF-23 PAV-1 was faster than the YF-22 aircraft. The Air Force chose the slowest plane with the slowest engine! "

 ???
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: bring_it_on on August 19, 2015, 12:16:43 pm
I think it was a typo..Also I always thought a 12dB reduction in RCS results in 1/2 the range.. :-[
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: kagemusha on August 19, 2015, 02:29:26 pm
Thanks BillRo!

Interesting.  I'd always heard that the F120 powered YF-23 was the faster of the two but apparently that is not the case.

Did you read this Paul Metz's presentation?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg211876.html#msg211876 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg211876.html#msg211876)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Ogami musashi on August 20, 2015, 07:05:22 am
Thanks BillRo,


Were the graphics in the presentation similar to those?


https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=240857181AD39E16!220&authkey=!AAimWTC1FnEfmuA&ithint=file%2cpdf
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: BillRo on August 20, 2015, 09:39:13 am
Yes, some of the charts were identical as far as I can remember; the briefing above is more comprehensive. I expect they were used since they had been cleared for public release.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: supacruze on August 24, 2015, 10:59:36 am
Guys, PAV-2 with the GE engines was not slower. That powerpoint presentation was sanitised. The top speed of PAV-2 and indeed PAV-1 is classified. They just put some generic figures in for that presentation. You have to understand that those people are living and working in a highly political environment and they are not going to say what they really think, you have to read between the lines. Its not a case of freedom of speech, these guys are muzzled. You have to do really thorough detective work to find what really happened. If you look up Edo and their involvement in the F-22 programme, you will get a clue. Another clue is the Air Force ATF evaluation committee was directly ordered not to make a recommendation, they were only allowed to give "stoplight colours" on various aspects of the performance criteria. I have been referred to a source on the net that claims that Donald Rice has since tacitly admitted that Northrop's design was better. My intuition is that he was bribed to choose Lockheed, but not necessarily by Lockheed. No matter how much you think you live in a free democracy, no one one is going to whistle-blow on this programme because they dont want to jeodardise their careers. Read between the lines.


I have updated my Lockheed page with new images...


http://yf-23.net/Lockheed.html (http://yf-23.net/Lockheed.html#Lockheed)
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: fightingirish on September 06, 2015, 09:16:40 am
I went to the WMOF event today in Torrance and saw a bunch of my "old" Northrop colleagues; some came from as far away as the US East Coast and some that I hired from college were retired. PAV-2 was parked outside and both Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg were there and shared the presentation. The whole thing was video taped by the Palos Verdes couple who have done the rest and it will be available in a month. I thanked them for their efforts and told them how much the historical aviation community enjoys their work.

Attached are a few pix. I will pick up the previous threads and answer as many questions there that I can plus some I received separately. You will be able to get more precise answers when the video is released. I made a recording but I have not checked as to its quality yet.

Bill


Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFHywoWzNQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFHywoWzNQ)
Code: [Select]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFHywoWzNQ
Quote
YF-23 PAV2 First Flight and Walk Around by Test Pilot Jim Sandberg
Betty Wheaton interviews YF-23 PAV2 Test Pilot Jim Sandberg about the PAV2 first flight (landing gear problem), and Jim conducts a walk-around of the aircraft discussing typical checks he performed prior to a test flight. The YF-23 PAV2 is on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org (http://www.pvseniors.org)


 B) :)

Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: fightingirish on September 06, 2015, 09:23:05 am
Next video:
https://youtu.be/iU8gWgz9n4U (https://youtu.be/iU8gWgz9n4U)
Code: [Select]
https://youtu.be/iU8gWgz9n4U
Quote
YF-23 Walk Around and Design Features by Test Pilot Paul Metz
Betty Wheaton interviews YF-23 Test Pilot Paul Metz who conducts a walk around of the aircraft highlighting design features. YF-23 PAV2 is on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org (http://www.pvseniors.org)


Awesome video!  B) :D
I especially enjoy how PAV2 got the nickname 'spider' with 'black widow hourglass' marking.  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Colonial-Marine on September 06, 2015, 10:52:46 am
I have updated my Lockheed page with new images...
http://yf-23.net/Lockheed.html (http://yf-23.net/Lockheed.html#Lockheed)
I think the images of the Lockheed's "6th generation" concept with the comments about plagiarism are a bit unfair and unprofessional. In this industry everybody who survives tends to "borrow" from each other. More than anything it may reflect a subtle admittance that the F-23's balance of key characteristics was a better fit for the future than those of the F-22. Lockheed's work seems more in-line with views on aerial combat from the late '80s and '90s. Concepts like super-maneuverability were a big deal at the time and their ATF had a configuration including TVC to achieve that while Northrop forgo those in favor of greater stealth. Yet the value of super-maneuverability was much overrated in the face of continued air-to-air missile and situational awareness related developments.
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: fightingirish on September 06, 2015, 01:05:23 pm
Third video:
https://youtu.be/Vpkv1ErWIf8
Code: [Select]
https://youtu.be/Vpkv1ErWIf8
Quote
YF-23 DEM/VAL Presentation by Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg
YF-23 DEM/VAL program presentation by YF-23 Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg commemorates the 25th anniversary of the first flight. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org
Title: Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
Post by: Kryptid on September 06, 2015, 09:07:30 pm