raptormesh Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Here's a video some of you may find interesting if you haven't the chance to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlFxStiMw_g&feature=player_embedded If someone could point me to the YF-23 appreciation thread I would be much obliged. If there isn't one, there should be. She's a beaut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Nash Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The Best Figther Made! The worst: maintaning expensive. But, I wish could to fly one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobizon Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 If someone could point me to the YF-23 appreciation thread I would be much obliged. not an exclusive thread for the YF-23 but you have the Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII.And yes she's a beaut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UN Spacy Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Wow! It's like Macross Plus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
505thAirborne Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Wow! It's like Macross Plus! For sure, Kawamori was very influenced by this fighter when he designed the YF-21.Both awesome designs!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I like how they named the bird "Black Widow II," after the WWII P-61 Night Fighter. It wasn't a glorious name like Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Corsair. But Lockheed never forgot the old bird's name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Nice, thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Nash Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I like how they named the bird "Black Widow II," after the WWII P-61 Night Fighter. It wasn't a glorious name like Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Corsair. But Lockheed never forgot the old bird's name. They make other prototype named Grey GhostThese models are only two build until today. For sure, Kawamori was very influenced by this fighter when he designed the YF-21.Both awesome designs!! It's the reason I like the Macross Pluss YF-21 (VF-22 are good... but... I don't like him). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Nash Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I like how they named the bird "Black Widow II," after the WWII P-61 Night Fighter. It wasn't a glorious name like Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Corsair. But Lockheed never forgot the old bird's name. er... Lockheed don't build the "Black Widow II". They build F-22 Raptor.Nprthorp and McDonnell Douglas build the YF-23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reïvaj Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Really cool, thanks for posting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) Such a beautiful, awe-inspiring plane; it's too saddening for me to even watch the eventual failure of this aircraft in the video. Thanks for posting anyway, oh and GoooooOOOOO Hellcat! Edit: Man those raw chickens are MURDER! Edited April 15, 2012 by myk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormesh Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 No problem at all folks, send your thanks to the designers and engineers for their lovely creation. Does anyone have a better resolution picture of this? Much thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Great film! I've heard that before, though, that while the YF-22 is a damn good aircraft, the 23 was superior. I think it boiled down to costs and the 23 would be more expensive.... Something like that. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frothymug Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Absolutely fascinating watch. Thanks for posting. I wonder if I'll be lucky enough to participate in such a program sometime after I graduate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I think it boiled down to costs and the 23 would be more expensive.... Something like that. Plus, the fact that it just looked so cool/futuristic--there's way too many USAF generals that are "visually conservative"----it's amazing the SR-71 got approved. Many of them do not like "futuristic-looking" planes regardless of performance. The F-22 looks like an angular F-15--and they liked that, and gave it points for that. It's a primary reason no US fighter has canards, yet nearly all other highly-agile designs do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What? So "fashion" is a factor in consideration for new technologies? Great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Yup, gotta admit the Raptor is a MUCH more traditional looking design. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What? So "fashion" is a factor in consideration for new technologies? Great! Yup, would you expect anything less from the military-industrial-govt complex? The "look" of the Spruance-class destroyer was also highly controversial, compared to modern Soviet designs. (as in, the Spruance-class didn't LOOK very powerful, because most of the weapons/reloads were in the hull, whereas Soviet ships tended to have many single-shot non-reusable weapons all over the decks--so many people thought the Spruance class had vastly inferior firepower based on how it looked, and nearly got the thing cancelled, if not severely reduced in numbers---luckily it was pointed out in time that they were actually quite well-armed, you just couldn't see much of it) Imagine if the F-22 faced that---"I don't see very many missiles hanging off the wings, it's a waste of money!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Kyuun Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 From my time in the AF, and speaking with at least one fellow who actually worked on it, it was superior to the F-22 in terms of speed and stealth, which were two of the primary requisites of the design to be chosen. The only thing the F-22 had was its pitch vectoring, and Lockheed, with its excellent history of delivering on time and under budget, sold them on lower maintenance costs as well. The latter has proven false in retrospect. Moreover, conservatism from the top was certainly a major factor as well. The YF-23 pushed the envelope, and the old farts in the Pentagon were scared by that and fell back to what's been tried and true in the past, rather than gambling on a new design. In my opinion, one further factor at the time was that Northrop was still profiting from the sales of the B-2 at $2B per aircraft, and quite simply put, it was Lockheed's turn. As I'm sure everyone knows, the acquisition of a new aircraft is entrenched in politics, which is why we still don't have a new tanker to replace our 50+ year old KC-135s. Personally, I find the F-22 ugly from every angle except straight down. It does some neat manuevering with the pitch vectoring, but it's pretty useless, really, since the objective of war today is look first, shoot first. we don't want the enemy to see us, and, while it looks cool in movies, dogfighting isn't really what we want to do either, which is why we use our stealth bomber to eradicate an enemy's air combat resources so that we maintain air superiority from the beginning of the offensive. The YF-23 is beautiful, and I lament the short-sightedness of Pentagon and AF leadership during the late 80's, early 90's when the choice was made to go with the less superior of the two designs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Nash Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 YF-23 is a phenomenal fighter. But as stated above, he has a very high cost for maintenance, dont speak in technology it has. Sad to know that such items have cost him his mass production. I hear he would havea back, but now as a Bomber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) So did the Boeing X-32 lose the JSF contest to the Lockheed X-35 because the Lockheed looked way more conventional? I watched a similar video on the X-32 and it kind of left you with the same impression. Except, in that video, they also gave you the impression the X-32 would have been cheaper than the Lockheed vehicle. You'd think at some point the military would put its foot down about cost over-runs. Edited April 16, 2012 by jenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The X-32 was just plain UGLY. That's different. Plus, an intake like that actually is a serious safety concern on a carrier---the A-7 was legendary as a "sailor sucker", the F-8 a bit less so. Plus you know, the X-32 couldn't actually really hover without removing structural parts of it to reduce weight first. Finally, an actual F-24 (or F-32 if you prefer) would have had a different tail and possibly even delta wing----VERY different from the X-35, as Boeing admitted the current basic design wouldn't satisfy the requirements. The changes from X-32 to production JSF would have made the YF-22 vs F-22A changes look trivial. (and would have both cost and delayed the program a lot---and look how long it's taking to get the closer-to-production X-35 into service!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I've always found the YF-23 to rather unatractive. It's odd, because I like a lot of fictional fighters that are based on the YF-23 (YF-21/VF-22 form macross, X-02 from Ace Combat etc.) it's like the YF-23 is 80% of a cool looking design in of itself, but without the last 20% it just looks funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The YF-23 is such a beautiful looking plane. Side by side the YF-22 looks really ugly IMO. The wrong plane definitely won. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormesh Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 The YF-23 is such a beautiful looking plane. Side by side the YF-22 looks really ugly IMO. The wrong plane definitely won. Graham Damn straight: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I think the production F-22 looks much better than the YF-22. The YF is hideous. Oh well, I remember really hoping that the 23 would be reborn like the YF-17 that became the F/A-18. As for AF stuffiness, that was proven by the order to immediately remove the Red marking on the bottom when they saw it.......give me a break. Maybe that was when the decided they wouldn't select the 23! Lol Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Kyuun Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I believe Northrop themselves actually had the red hourglass removed, as "Black Widow II" was the team's unofficial nickname for the plane. The plane has such a great story...when the YF-22 won, we all lost (except for Lockheed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwmwww Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 YF-23 is a phenomenal fighter. But as stated above, he has a very high cost for maintenance, dont speak in technology it has. I can't say I'm much of an expert on either plane but based on the video it doesn't sound like the YF-23 flew long enough to get a good estimate of its maintenance costs. The only thing the F-22 had was its pitch vectoring, and Lockheed, with its excellent history of delivering on time and under budget, sold them on lower maintenance costs as well. The latter has proven false in retrospect. Sounds like the estimates for the F-22 didn't work out to be correct either. The thing that really surprised me about the video is how quickly they took the YF-23 apart after it lost the contract. Considering the time and money spent on it you'd think the AF would want to keep it even if they just had one or two. Am I correct in saying that the two which exist today are just empty shells and that neither is actually flyable? Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Very empty AFAIK. I do wonder if production F119 engines would fit in the #1 plane. Much of the actual systems were repurposed stock McDonnell parts---F-15 cockpit, F-18 hydraulics/gear AFAIK. Wouldn't have been so for production of course, but worked well enough for a prototype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkyrie_cadman Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 For those of you that live on the west coast, you can still see the Black Widow II at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, CA.!!! I went with my buddy, they have a few aircraft looking at, but the prize joy there is the YF-23... http://www.wmof.com/yf23a.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormesh Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks man definitely will hit there if I visit my buddy in CA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Kyuun Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Very empty AFAIK. I do wonder if production F119 engines would fit in the #1 plane. Much of the actual systems were repurposed stock McDonnell parts---F-15 cockpit, F-18 hydraulics/gear AFAIK. Wouldn't have been so for production of course, but worked well enough for a prototype. Very empty indeed. When we pickle a plane, of course all avionics, engines, certain antennas, egress and life support equipment, flight control and landing gear actuators (replaced by solid rods or some other rigid structure) are removed, and most servicing doors are riveted or welded closed. Additional parts, lines, wires, etc will be removed as deemed necessary. Oil, fuel, and hydraulic fluid is drained, and depending on whether the plane is going on a stick or to the boneyard, preservative hydraulic fluid may or may not be serviced. It's lot of work, but it's liberating knowing you don't have to reinstall the stuff. I helped pickle a B-1. Just as David says, alot of off-the shelf parts are used on demonstrators. Read Skunk Works by Ben Rich, chronicling the development of the F-117. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Just as David says, alot of off-the shelf parts are used on demonstrators. Read Skunk Works by Ben Rich, chronicling the development of the F-117. It makes a lot of sense. Not only does it keep developmental costs down, the parts are well tested. One less thing to worry about when developing craft that invariably are experimenting on some new application of technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Kyuun Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Just watched the video for the first time. I think this will go down as one of the greatest cheats in military aviation history, especially in 30 or 40 years when everything is finally declassified. I share their disappointment. There was talk of a possible bomber variant or derivative based on the YF-23, and I read somewhere that at least one of the testbeds was removed from exhibition for awhile. While I don't know specifics, I can believe that, even with the current trend towards unmanned aircraft, design and characteristic-wise, there are lessons to be learned still from this 20+ year old airframe. I'm exceedingly glad that both planes remain intact and are being looked after with care and pride. The crew chief made me smile...alot of stubborn pride there. Good stuff. Edited April 17, 2012 by M'Kyuun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Question: how old is the video? The interviewees all say that the max cruising speed is classified, but greater than Mach 1.3 (or something). Yet the wikipedia article states Mach 1.6. I'm asking because impressions are that more information as been declassified than the video lets on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.