Matej
Multiuniversal creator
Image removed - modified drawing in the next posts.
You can easily compare both variants overlaying each other in any CAD program (as sizes are known). In common, you are right.Ogami musashi said: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?
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-23.2. 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.
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.elmayerle said: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.
With all my circuits on YF-23, I can't disagree.CammNut said: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.
Hmm, what then did Northrop/MDC do with that BAC One Eleven?CammNut said:And don't forget Lockheed flew an avionics demonstrator; Northrop and McDonnell did their demos on the ground.
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.elmayerle said:Having said that, a F-23 with inlets shaped like the JIST inlet would work nicely.
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.Woody said: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?
Thats an interesting information for me and I think that also for the Nikolay.elmayerle said: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.
If you have text, here are the pics: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP07.htmWoody said: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 will not tell you anything, because it is better to see than hear.Woody said: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.
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.Matej said: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.
Unfortunately the video "YF-23 "Declassified" is no longer available at You-Tube due to a copyright claim by West Coast Images. :-[Does anyone else know where else on the internet you can get YF-23 video?
Maybe someone downloaded it with a tool/program!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.
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.Woody said:Thanks Matej,
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.Matej said: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.
Thanks Elmayerle/Matej,elmayerle said:Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.
Ahh, now I know why Matej's site nevered shows pictures...Woody said:Thanks Elmayerle/Matej,elmayerle said:Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.
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.
.........
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).Woody said:Do you have any of the plans you based your F/A-23A on or are they super super top secret?