Northrop / McDonnell Douglas ATF - YF-23 and EMD F-23

[lantinian]

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 in light of the new material we found.

Here is part of their kind and prompt reply:

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

 

[donnage99]

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 .

 

[Stargazer]

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...

 

[sferrin]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkOSxc6nmKM&feature=channel_page

 

[Lampshade111]

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.

 

[donnage99]

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!

 

[supacruze]

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....

 

[Matej]

Waiting, looking forward to...

 

[flateric]

tail jags were changing numbers through all design stages

 

[supacruze]

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.

 

[flateric]

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.

 

[Matej]

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, ...

 

[Andrew]

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 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

 

[Evil Flower]

I'm interested, now I can model a proper YF-23 pit. Thanks a lot!

 

[Machdiamond]

I would be particularly interested to see the performance charts if they have been made public.
--Luc

 

[SOC]

The performance charts aren't included in this version.

 

[Scorpion82]

The link doesn't work, any other links?

 

[Matej]

Re-updated:

http://rapidshare.com/files/338495075/zzdd23.rar.html

 

[Scorpion82]

Damn it I was to slow :-[

 

[Skyraider3D]

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...

 

[elmayerle]

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.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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... :-[

 

[elmayerle]

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).

 

[donnage99]

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/

 

[Lampshade111]

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.

 

[flateric]

the supplier sued them

Rohr Industries?

 

[donnage99]

......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.

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.

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.

 

[elmayerle]

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).

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[F-14D]

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

 

[F-14D]

<snip>

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

 

[donnage99]

Interesting post, F-14D! However, the question is whether the Navy still had a say in the final down selection?

 

[Lampshade111]

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.

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.

 

[flateric]

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

 

[F-14D]

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.

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

YF-23 walkaround by forum member Bill Spidle

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

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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...

 

[flanker]

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.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.