yf23.jpg

[Troy24]

[E.D.]

I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the best
aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.


"Troy24" > wrote in message
...

[Ron Monroe]

There are a lot of people that thought the best airplane was the 23, but, I
think what happened was that the written proposal was not the best. DoD was
not confident that Northrop could do what was promised.
Ron

"E.D." > wrote in message
. net...
>I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the best
>aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.
>
>
> "Troy24" > wrote in message
> ...
>

[Bob Harrington]

[Ron Monroe]

What's ironic is the the YF-23 looks more like a Lockheed product than the
YF-22 does.
Ron

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
...
> "E.D." > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the
>> best aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.
>
> The YF-23 sure wins the 'wicked looks' competion. The F-22 looks a tad
> waddle-ish from some angles...
>
> Bob ^,,^

[Leroy Jackson]

The reason the F-22 won is based on the RCS part, they both were in the 5%
range on all factors except for one. but the truth is that the 22 was 6 feet
smaller than the 23 and had more room for internal stores, it makes a big
diffrence in operations.


"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> What's ironic is the the YF-23 looks more like a Lockheed product than the
> YF-22 does.
> Ron
>
> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "E.D." > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>> I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the
>>> best aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.
>>
>> The YF-23 sure wins the 'wicked looks' competion. The F-22 looks a tad
>> waddle-ish from some angles...
>>
>> Bob ^,,^
>
>

[Ron Monroe]

I've heard stories about the RCS. It depends on what aspect you are using.
The F-22 certainly has more surfaces that counter a lower signature from
certain aspects. I have also heard where the YF-23 was lower. Several of the
engineers were even mad that they concentrated too much on a low RCS when
the USAF seemed to dismiss it's importance when the selection was made. Then
again, the production F-23A had different inlets to adress the lower RCS .
Internal stores? I doubt it. The YF-23 had two huge bays. The claim I heard
was that the F-22 was a little bit more maneuverable, due to it's extra
surfaces. I wish I kept a copy of the report that came back from the USAF,
after the selection was made, giving their reasons for their choice.

The YF-23 was also much faster than the YF-22 in mil power, and able to
accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner or going into a dive.
This indicates it had less transonic drag, and would use less fuel over it's
lifetime. Supercruise was a driving point of the RFP. And Northrop was just
coming out of a period where they were not living up to their promises on
past projects. Even Druyan (SP?) was giving Northrop a hard time, which
didn't help politically.

But, if the aircraft are close, they make the selection based on the
aircraft they want, and then use the parameters they want, to justify their
decision. We saw this decision making again with the CSAR competition.

But, that was 14 years ago, and the YF-22 is finally going into service. I
hope it always works well, and everyone will be happy with it, because it's
really about the pilots.

"Leroy Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> The reason the F-22 won is based on the RCS part, they both were in the 5%
> range on all factors except for one. but the truth is that the 22 was 6
> feet smaller than the 23 and had more room for internal stores, it makes a
> big diffrence in operations.
>
>
> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> What's ironic is the the YF-23 looks more like a Lockheed product than
>> the YF-22 does.
>> Ron
>>
>> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "E.D." > wrote in
>>> . net:
>>>
>>>> I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the
>>>> best aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.
>>>
>>> The YF-23 sure wins the 'wicked looks' competion. The F-22 looks a tad
>>> waddle-ish from some angles...
>>>
>>> Bob ^,,^
>>
>>
>
>

[Lear-1]

Leroy Jackson wrote:

> The reason the F-22 won is based on the RCS part, they both were in the 5%
> range on all factors except for one. but the truth is that the 22 was 6 feet
> smaller than the 23 and had more room for internal stores, it makes a big
> diffrence in operations.
>
>
> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>What's ironic is the the YF-23 looks more like a Lockheed product than the
>>YF-22 does.
>>Ron
>>
>>"Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"E.D." > wrote in
. net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the
>>>>best aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone.
>>>
>>>The YF-23 sure wins the 'wicked looks' competion. The F-22 looks a tad
>>>waddle-ish from some angles...
>>>
>>>Bob ^,,^
>>
>>
>
>
Well Here we go!! I liked the F-23 also. The best design doesn't always
win. But anyway.
The YF-22 and YF-23 were competing in the USAF's Advanced Tactical
Fighter program. Conceived in the early 1980s, to specify a replacement
for the F-15 Eagle, contracts for the two most promising designs were
awarded in 1986, with the YF-23 delivered in 1989 and the evaluation
concluded in 1991.
The YF-23 was designed with all-aspect stealth as a high priority and
drew on Northrop's experience with the F-18 Hornet and B-2 Spirit. The
YF-23 was designed to meet USAF requirements for survivability,
supersonic cruise (supercruise), stealth, and ease of maintenance. It
introduced the novel feature of rear jet nozzle troughs lined with heat
ablating tiles developed by Allison, which shielded the exhaust from IR
detection from below. All the control surfaces were coupled together via
the VMS to provide 'net effect' aerodynamic control. The wing flaps and
ailerons deflected inversely on either side to provide yaw, while the
tail provided pitch. Aerodynamic braking was achieved by deflecting the
flaps and ailerons on both sides simultaneously.
Athough possessing an advanced design, in order to reduce costs and
development, a number of F-15 Eagle components were utilized including
the standard F-15 nosewheel unit and the forward cockpit of the F-15E
Strike Eagle.
Two aircraft were built. PAV-1 was fitted with Pratt & Whitney YF119
engines, while PAV-2 was fitted with General Electric YF120 engines.
The YF-23 was unofficially named "Black Widow II" by some crew members,
due to a marking resembling the red underbelly marking of the black
widow spider. The black widow marking was briefly seen under PAV-1 (and
made the cover of Aviation Week & Space Technology) before being removed
at the insistence of Northrop management.
The aircraft was close to Northrop's original ATF concept from 1986.
Both aircraft were furnished in the configuration specified before the
requirement for thrust reversing was dropped, although there has never
been any mention as to whether this feature was tested or not. The
weapons bay was not configured for weapons launch and no missiles were
carried, unlike Lockheed's demonstration aircraft. Northrop chose to
demonstrate this capability using computer simulations. The configuation
of the weapons bay has never publicly been revealed, although
examination of the flight manual suggests that provision for two AIM-9
Sidewinder missiles was made possible on the weapons bay doors. There
were tentative plans to fit a pallet inside the bay if the
Northrop/McAir team had won, but this was never done. Indications are
that the YF-23 weapons bay may have been less capacious and efficient
than the YF-22 system.
Although the precise results of the evaluation and the reasons
justifying the final decision are not public knowledge and probably
never will be due to commercial litigation issues, the USAF chose the
winning team based on an awarded points system, which put the YF-22/PW
F119 combination slightly ahead of the three other combinations. The
reason given at the time was sanitised but suggested that this
combination was less risky in terms of technology and project management
as well as being slightly cheaper. It has been claimed that the YF-23
was slightly faster and stealthier than the F-22, but was inferior in
terms of usable internal volume due to greater emphasis placed on
area-ruling. It is also likely that the YF-23 was less representative of
the final production configuation than the YF-22.
Although the final results were apparently very close, the YF-22 was
seen as a safer bet by the Air Force Evaluation Team than the YF-23, and
it won the competition in April 1991. It has been speculated in the
aviation press that the YF-22 was also seen as more adaptable to the
Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), though as it turned
out the US Navy abandoned NATF a few months later.
After losing the competition, both YF-23 prototypes were transferred
from Northrop to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, at Edwards AFB,
California. The engines were removed. NASA had no plans to perform
flight tests with the airframes, but a proposal was put forward to use
one of the two aircraft to study strain gauge loads calibration
techniques. The possible production configuration of the F-23A has never
been publicly revealed.
In the end, however, both aircraft remained in storage until the summer
of 1996, when the aircraft were transferred to museums. Aircraft PAV-2
was in exhibit at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California
and PAV-1[verification needed] was recently moved to the National Museum
of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio, where it sits along
side the Boeing X-32 in the Aircraft Restoration Hangar. Aircraft PAV-11
is now on display in an outdoor parking area at Northrop Grumman's
production facility in El Segundo, California.