AeroFranz said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.

I sure hope so. I recently had a layover in Long Beach, and could see the iconic "Fly DC jets" sign that's been there forever. A reminder of times when thousands of entire airframes were rolling out of those hangars. But as we know, these days your production is dispersed throughout every single district in the country to give everybody a piece of the pie (whether it makes sense or not).

Labor is just one of the considerations. California has traditionally paid higher wages, but until the last 30 years or so, the benefits of being in Calif., especially the southern area, outweighed that. The ever-changing regulatory and tax climate are what are driving things away. To cite but one example, Towards the later part of the DC-10/MD-11 run, California regulations became so onerous it was actually cheaper for MDD to build the planes to an airworthy condition, then fly them out of state to be painted and then fly them back to be finished than it was to simply paint them within the State. When Boeing was considering setting up the 777 production line out of the Puget Sound area, a number of States put in proposals to get it there (it ended up in the Sound area). California's attempt didn't even place in the also-rans, and of course no one even thought about Calif. for the 787.

There is still some ongoing work, but it's not on the scale we're talking about here, such as an F-23 line. The C-17 is still there because with the trickle of orders coming in, it would be financial suicide to try and move the line. However, if in some alternate universe USAF or export customers came in and said, "We want another 200 C-17s", I'd bet money Boeing would move the line. In the case of Northrop, the F/A-18 sections are built there because they've been built there, and the higher costs are passed on to the taxpayers. B-1 and B-2 maintenance, same thing. Global Hawk was started there and is relatively small. The stuff's already there. But large scale (Global Hawk isn't very big) new production? A bidder for such would have a tough time competing with the much lower overhead and regulatory costs that a bidder planning to do manufacturing elsewhere would enjoy.

It may be that there are some still some design teams in Calif., but that's more a matter of design facilities being in place and the benefits of modern transportation and communication. Design teams now can be anywhere. Same thing for research, although I fear that may change. I can't see any reason why, if there was a large NGB production run any company would want to take on the grief of trying to comply with the onerous and fluid State and local regulations. Of course, aviation isn't the only manufacturing industry in this boat. Count up the number of non-taxpayer subsidized automobile plants left in California. Here, I'll make it easy for you, I'll list them.




The head of one of Aerojet's major facilities said to me back in 1990 that he would never do another manufacturing program in California. Not because of labor costs. And it wasn't just the onerous regulations they had to deal with. he pointed out that the environmental restrictions in, say, Nevada were just as tough. The thing was that once you complied with them, you could move on. In California, you'd do everything, get your clearance, and then they'd change the rules and you had to start over. Local entities would come up with new rules that put you in conflict with State of Federal rules, which then put you out of compliance with the other rules. Then, they'd change them and meanwhile the State would change its. It became just too expensive in money and resources to start something new unless the State was going to write you a blank check (California High Speed Rail is an example of that, but that's for another topic).

Sad, because I remember when not so long ago (or maybe long ago if you're under 30) it was so different.
 
PAV-2 on its way back to WMOF.

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,6460.msg259619.html#msg259619
 
What? They moving it back to Western Museum of Flight in Torrance? Oh, yeah! I live 30 minutes away, baby!
 
donnage99 said:
What? They moving it back to Western Museum of Flight in Torrance? Oh, yeah! I live 30 minutes away, baby!
can we expect that you have some free time and good camera?
 
Love the way they just tow the thing down a public highway like that :eek:

Check out the tiling in the exhaust channels though, wouldn't have thought there'd be that much variation in the colouring of them?
 
Flateric - Yes!

Concerning another matter. I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)

They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them.
 
donnage99 said:
Flateric - Yes!

Concerning another matter. I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)

They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them.

Is PAB-N an acronym? "P" After Burning Nozzle?
 
donnage99 said:
Concerning another matter. I sent an email asking for the image in this link:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_404:_PAB-N_(Northrop_ATF_Nozzle)
They said that any model with PAB were highly classified, thus there will be no available photos of them.

Simpsons_Cruel-fate-statue.jpg
 
Concerning the changes from YF-23 to F-23, i'm analysins the technical drawings;

To be sure, can anybody confirm the observations:

-The engine nacelles are inwards canted (the nozzles especially)
-the begining of the nacelles is more towards the center of plane, with the first humps being partly masked by the fuselage
-the nacelles/fuselage transition no longer have a "channel" between them I.E the nacelle's start is directly blended with the fuselage;
-the nacelles are slimmer than the YF-23 ones but of the same height.
-They seem to be area ruled I.E the start close to the fuselage, go outward then come back inward.
-the fuselage has an inverted U section while on the YF-23 it was rounder.
-The fuselage is slimmer than on the YF-23

thank you
 
Ogami musashi said:
Concerning the changes from YF-23 to F-23, i'm analysins the technical drawings;

To be sure, can anybody confirm the observations:

-The engine nacelles are inwards canted (the nozzles especially)
-the beginning of the nacelles is more towards the center of plane, with the first humps being partly masked by the fuselage
-the nacelles/fuselage transition no longer have a "channel" between them I.E the nacelle's start is directly blended with the fuselage;
-the nacelles are slimmer than the YF-23 ones but of the same height.
-They seem to be area ruled I.E the start close to the fuselage, go outward then come back inward.
-the fuselage has an inverted U section while on the YF-23 it was rounder.
-The fuselage is slimmer than on the YF-23

thank you

The nacelles are also shorter, due to not being designed to incorporate thrust reversers. The forward fuselage is also longer, to incorporate the tandem weapons bay's and the nose profile has been recontoured, with a diamond cross section, not chined, the inlets are now half shock cone inlets, the tail, probably due to the shorter nacelles, has been redesigned in planform and is now much cleaner; i.e.-less notches. Also, the main landing gear is no longer of the trailing link type.
 
Sundog said:
The nacelles are also shorter
I've have trouble seeing it since the tail has been moved aft.



Other than that, i 've trouble seeing the fuselage/nacelles integration.

a 3/4 view would help like for the NATF F-23.
 
A few more pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phantomphan1974photography/sets/72157624984467176/with/5020344632/
 
Don't you find it strange on the picture with all the Northrop models, that while some later and not as tested projects are present while the F-23A mockup is not there instead it is the YF-23..?
 
Ogami musashi said:
Don't you find it strange on the picture with all the Northrop models, that while some later and not as tested projects are present while the F-23A mockup is not there instead it is the YF-23..?

Well, it may be the F-23A production models were more limited, perhaps already in the homes of collectors? Although, I am shocked we haven't seen pics of such models, good point.
 
I was talking about that pic
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg81374.html#msg81374

And the recent one posted here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2392.msg107389.html#msg107389

It is strange that coming directly from northrop all that is shown is the YF-23 and not the production version.
 
Behold! You will see at least *two different* production version desktop models in next eAPR issue.
 
Mmm thanks.

Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?
 
Ogami musashi said:
Mmm thanks.

Is there any date for that new issue with F23 models? On what are they based? The latest technical drawings?

There will also be color multi-views/profile art.
 
Stuka said:
A few more pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phantomphan1974photography/sets/72157624984467176/with/5020344632/

Very nice pix, Stuka!

I'm pleased to say that Grey Ghost (aka Spider, PAV-02) is now reassembled and on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Beautiful aircraft and it was fun to work on (I was one of the guys that put it back together). Got to meet a good number of people that worked on it, engineers and technicians, and all say it would've won if politics hadn't reared it's ugly head. PAV-02 had the GE YF120 engines, giving a definate speed advantage over PAV-01 and the competition.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes
 
Welcome aboard Russell! And thanks for sharing! The F-23 was simply the most amazing might-have-been fighter of the past 30 years and you really must have felt privileged to be working on this restoration... :)
 
any idea on eAPR release date? Can't wait to read about NATF 23 / F 23 / Yf 23. Any teasers /information by any chance? Sorry to ask but is the F23 plan still available, can't find it. Cheers.
 
month, two, three...we can't hurry Scott

teasers are here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10158.msg96306.html#msg96306

F-23A plans
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg58965.html#msg58965
 
no.teaser was just in text form.

well, no
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5918
 
Yes, but the teaser is generally about the possible articles in future eAPRs, nothing really specific about the F-23 derivates, so you know generally what we know.
 
well, other teaser would be "funny nose" ;)
 
russcal said:
I'm pleased to say that Grey Ghost (aka Spider, PAV-02) is now reassembled and on display at the Western Museum of Flight. Beautiful aircraft and it was fun to work on (I was one of the guys that put it back together).Russ

Beside putting it together, did you guys do anything else to it?
 
I recall reading on a newsgroups from 97 that the YF-23 exhibited two aerodynamic problems, one was vortex burst stalling the tails, the other was interference drag with the two nacelles...anybody heard about it?

The fact that the production (the 12/12/90 version) had a progressive profile instead of a flat channel between nacelles may explain this.
 
The YF-23 is one of the wildest fighter designs I've ever seen. What really grabbed my attention is the realization that its fuselage seems to be attached to its wings rather than its wings being attached to its fuselage. Then there are its amazing ruddervators. -SP
 
Ogami musashi said:
I recall reading on a newsgroups from 97 that the YF-23 exhibited two aerodynamic problems, one was vortex burst stalling the tails...

A simple comparison may hold the answer.

The Vortex Burst on the F-18 right at the vertical tails is well documented.

Comparing the F-18 and YF-23, there are a few major differences:

1. The YF-23 tails are further from centerline and canted out
2. The YF-23 clipped diamond wing is a higher sweep (both LE and TE) than the F-18. (Results in the vortex generating geometry being further away from the tails)

I believe the YF-23 and F-18 were about the same length and span. Although Vortex Burst is a complicated phenomenon, these difference may have improved the YF-23 over what is seen in the F-18.
 
I'm not quite sure we can draw conclusion just from the sweep as the surface is different and usually large surface like the diamond wings trigger separation early, thus needing large vortex at the LE to be compensated.

Maybe the YF-23 had too strong vortex, the fact that they removed the chine on the fuselage on the production version may have something to see; IIRC the initial production version had also sawtooth TE to cure this problem (but this was deleted on later iterations).

The aerodynamics interference by the nacelles may be the reason why the put the engine nacelles almost together on the production version. (with a progressive decrease in profile in between as opposed to the almost flat channel on the YF-23)

Anyway, i'm really impatient to see the two different production models, hope Scott is not so far from release.
 
many of us can't go to WMOF in person...so thanks to strykerxo, we can go there at least virtually

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-n3tNrec0
 
"Compitition" - seriously a spell error on the first word? The titles sucked a lot and the music was lousy. But, hey better than nothing I guess.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom