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

[Orionblamblam]

Cleaning & restoration process undwerway.

 

[Apollo Leader]

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?

 

[flateric]

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

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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?

 

[Apollo Leader]

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

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ahem:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9449.msg87162/topicseen.html#msg87162

 

[supacruze]

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

 

[quellish]

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.

 

[Orionblamblam]

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

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

 

[MihoshiK]

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.

 

[supacruze]

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.

 

[Orionblamblam]

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.

 

[supacruze]

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

 

[SOC]

What we REALLY need is for someone to get off their butts and release an image of Northrop's NATF configuration!

 

[Sundog]

What we REALLY need is for someone to get off their butts and release an image of Northrop's NATF configuration!

Seconded.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, one day we can hope for flateric's YF-23 monography. Once he has written it

 

[SOC]

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

 

[flateric]

thanks to Anxiety for finding this exciting new stuff at http://uscockpits.com/
note complicated faceted pattern of instrument panel's shroud

 

[flateric]

...

 

[flateric]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NORTHROP-GRUMMAN-YF-23A-F-23A-COCKPIT-SIMULATOR-RARE-NR_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem1c1045b513QQitemZ120532088083QQptZMotorsQ5fAviationQ5fPartsQ5fGear

 

[lantinian]

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.

 

[supacruze]

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)

 

[SOC]

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.

 

[supacruze]

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???? :

 

[flateric]

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

 

[supacruze]

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.

 

[flateric]

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

 

[supacruze]

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?

 

[BDF]

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

 

[supacruze]

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.

 

[supacruze]

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason4/yf-23/index.php?Page=3

from Howard Mason on Prime Portal. Thanks Howard!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Does anybody have a better version of this picture?

 

[lantinian]

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.

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.

 

[supacruze]

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...

 

[Sundog]

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.

 

[supacruze]

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.

 

[Sundog]

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.

 

[foiling]

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?

 

[flateric]

Dark side of F-23 story revealed

very own F-23 by D.D. Funk Aviation Co., Salina, Kansas