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

Just been connecting the dot lately, the yf-23's exhaust nozzle has an inward saw tooth shape, which yields superior IR reduction than the outward pointy nozzles of the f-22. Lockheed later realized this and implemented it on their A/F-X bid. There was a flight global article in which Lockheed explained how an inward shape yields better IR reduction but don't exactly remember the details.
 
nice! thanks for keeping the site work on
 
So I've been looking at supacruze's updated section on the F-23 EMD. Based on his diagrams and BDF's CAD exercises, it seems impossible to fit as many AMRAAMs, even the clipped fin AIM-120C/D, into the F-23's bay as the F-22's seemingly due to an oddly shaped bulkhead. I recall that the YF-23's weapon bay capacity was also lower than the YF-22's. Perhaps the F-23's configuration simply makes it more difficult to create weapon bays than the F-22's?

Side note: given the description that the AIM-120C had clipped fins for internal carriage in the F-22, does this mean that the AIM-120A/B didn't fit in the F-22's bays due to the fin span? Or does it mean that it can't carry as many AIM-120A/B as it could carry the AIM-120C?
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
So I've been looking at supacruze's updated section on the F-23 EMD. Based on his diagrams and BDF's CAD exercises, it seems impossible to fit as many AMRAAMs, even the clipped fin AIM-120C/D, into the F-23's bay as the F-22's seemingly due to an oddly shaped bulkhead. I recall that the YF-23's weapon bay capacity was also lower than the YF-22's. Perhaps the F-23's configuration simply makes it more difficult to create weapon bays than the F-22's?

Side note: given the description that the AIM-120C had clipped fins for internal carriage in the F-22, does this mean that the AIM-120A/B didn't fit in the F-22's bays due to the fin span? Or does it mean that it can't carry as many AIM-120A/B as it could carry the AIM-120C?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that during DEMVAL, YF-22 fired an AIM-120 out of the bay and it wasn't a C. Clearly in the production version they planned to populate it solely with Cs; in the interest of costs and its expected IOC there would be little incentive to design an alternate launch environment for the previous versions.
 
One point to keep in mind is that all we have is N/McD's EMD proposal and there's nothing preventing them from reworking the bay and forward fuselage structure to increase the slammer load. Certainly the F-22 saw significant structural changes after downselect (although not weapons bay related).


I never heard that the F-23 designed failed on the core ATF requirement which was 6 AMRAAMs. If they did I think it would have been significant and we would have known just after down select. Also keep in mind I was actually able to fit 6 slammers in there it's just I don't know the precise geometry and I'm guessing that they would have to articulate one or more rounds to a firing position somehow. Interestingly Barry Watts, who worked on the F-23 team at Northrop, has said that it could have carried 2000lb class weapons, which is not possible with this bay configuration. He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.
 
On a curious note, how did the YF-23 actuate the flaps and ailerons? I don't see the actuator blisters under the wing.
 
BDF said:
He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.
Click to expand...


I find it very hard to believe such a difference would exist, espacially since the supercruise requirement back then was still around the 400 nm@ mach 1.5 + 100 nm @mach 0.9 radius.
 
There were no blisters on the wings, Northrop used 2 actuators per surface in the wings which were compact enough to not require blisters, just like their F-5 series. Even though most people think the core ATF requirement was for 6 AIM-120Cs, after carefully steadying the dwgs made available by Scott Lowther I really don't think 6 could fit in there.You have to allow for door thickness and the pallet system actuator mechanism, and the roof of the bay is arched further restricting space. The F-22 could have carried 4 A models I believe. Incidentally I have heard rumours that Edo had the contract to produce the F-22 launcher system and they were the ones who interfered with the ATF selection process to ensure that Lockheed won.
 
supacruze said:
Incidentally I have heard rumours that Edo had the contract to produce the F-22 launcher system and they were the ones who interfered with the ATF selection process to ensure that Lockheed won.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that a relatively small contractor like Edo would have enough clout to swing a major procurement like that.
 
Ogami musashi said:
BDF said:
He also stated that the F-23 was superior aerodynamically and could sustain M1.4 for the entire mission as opposed to the Raptors ~ 100nm radius.
Click to expand...


I find it very hard to believe such a difference would exist, espacially since the supercruise requirement back then was still around the 400 nm@ mach 1.5 + 100 nm @mach 0.9 radius.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation. I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly. Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements.
 
Now it appears that the F-23 EMD will need radar blockers for all aspect stealth. In fact, even from head on, there will be a tiny bit of the compressor face visible unless a blocker is installed. Has any blocker patent from Northrop popped up over these years? Images taken from Spudman.

F-23_1_zpsba17244c.jpg

F-23_2_zps2c05dd5b.jpg

F-23_3_zps659b2b2f.jpg
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
Now it appears that the F-23 EMD will need radar blockers for all aspect stealth. In fact, even from head on, there will be a tiny bit of the compressor face visible unless a blocker is installed. Has any blocker patent from Northrop popped up over these years? Images taken from Spudman.
Click to expand...

First, we don't know if the RADAR waves would bounce directly back from there. It's not necessarily as simple as what you can see. There's going to be interference with the waves bouncing in the serpentine duct. Also, this plane was designed to fly much higher than those of any other Air Force. So you shouldn't be looking at it from a directly forward view, but from the angle based on the range of the enemy RADAR and 20,000ft to 30,000ft lower than the F-23A. Having said that, I'm not sure that they didn't plan to have fan blockers, but those designs tend to be classified, so I'm not surprised that we wouldn't see them in the drawing.
 
F-14D said:
FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation. I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly. Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements.
Click to expand...


I understand that but here we're talking about a plane capable of doing 700 miles radius @ mach 1.4 vs a plane said to be capable on only 100 miles. We're not in the "advantage" zone, we're in the "not the same class" one if that is to be true.


@sundog:


Nice model! it seems the author borrowed some traits of the F-23A mixed with YF-23.


By the way, how is going the modelling of F-23A by Saintkatanalegacy and Stuka? :)
 
Sundog said:
Having said that, I'm not sure that they didn't plan to have fan blockers
Click to expand...
They didn't as didn't need 'em because of reasons you have described quite correctly.
 
TomS said:
I'm skeptical that a relatively small contractor like Edo would have enough clout to swing a major procurement like that.
Click to expand...

Well, once you do the research into corporate corruption, you'll find it has less to do with the size of the company and more to do with the networking ability of the co's CEO. It seems to come down to how well he is liked, how well he makes friends and how loyal those friends are. I'm talking about completely informal arrangements made on nothing but a handshake on the golf course. Looking carefully at the expression on the AF secretary's face as he announces the winner may offer a clue. Lockheed does have an aggressive reputation for swinging deals and for a long time that seemed to be the most likely scenario, but Donald Rice's CV doesn't really leave a trail of Lockheed influence, although it does show he moved in military contractor circles. He would have been on a first name basis with all interested parties, to put it mildly. All it takes is one game of golf. The research that I've done seems to indicate that the Edo CEO at the time had the motivation to pull some strings, and it would have theoretically been easier for Edo to do so than Lockheed, as Lockheed would have been very carefully watched. The Italian Prime Minister is a very public example of someone who does this sort of thing.
 
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
Click to expand...
The drawings of the F-23 made available recently depict the design as was submitted at 1991 or earlier. The F-22 had its design tweaked and adjusted all the way up to 1994 when it was finally frozen. Between 1991 and 1994, the number of saw tooth edges on access panels was decreased substantially for example to reduce RCS which was found to not meet projections.

Had the YF-23 won, the F-23A design would have been updated too with further changes... like a single piece canopy I'am sure.
 
Ogami musashi said:
F-14D said:
FWIW, I had heard the same thing about the ability to sustain M1.4, but have no independent confirmation. I wouldn't be surprised that they would attempt to exceed the requirement by that much back then, as long as it wasn't ridiculously costly. Northrop/MDD would think that to have a good shot at getting the contract their plane would really have to wow USAF, not just meet the requirements.
Click to expand...


I understand that but here we're talking about a plane capable of doing 700 miles radius @ mach 1.4 vs a plane said to be capable on only 100 miles. We're not in the "advantage" zone, we're in the "not the same class" one if that is to be true.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the delay, I haven't looked at this topic for a while. As far as the difference in distances goes, while the YF-23 could sustain supercruise longer than the YF-22, it might not necessarily be as great a disparity as that. The YF-22 could fly farther than the F-22 (which is where I believe the ~100nm number applies). The range requirement for the production birds was lowered when it was determined that to keep it meant that either the speed or maneuverability requirement woul dnot be met. The YF-22 carried noticeably more fuel than the F-22, IIRC.
 
lantinian said:
RadicalDisconnect said:
Regarding the altitude advantage, it may be effective against legacy fighters, but what about adversaries with comparable aerodynamics like the Typhoon, or PAK FA, or F-22 (for the sake of discussion)? I have a hard time believing the F-23 wouldn't have a blocker to anticipate future threats.
Click to expand...
The drawings of the F-23 made available recently depict the design as was submitted at 1991 or earlier. The F-22 had its design tweaked and adjusted all the way up to 1994 when it was finally frozen. Between 1991 and 1994, the number of saw tooth edges on access panels was decreased substantially for example to reduce RCS which was found to not meet projections.

Had the YF-23 won, the F-23A design would have been updated too with further changes... like a single piece canopy I'am sure.
Click to expand...

Huh, I'm not that sure. According to Code One, the present F-22 configuration, which is called 645, have very little change from 638, which was what won in 1991. I would imagine that inlet change would be rather drastic.

The F-22 program begins the transition from development to production this fall with the award of long-lead contracts for the first lots of production aircraft. Though the design currently stands at Configuration 645, the external lines have changed very little from Configuration 638, the design proposed for the engineering and manufacturing development phase in December 1990.
Click to expand...
 
ATF-23 Northrop McDonnell Douglas Team patch found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-USAF-Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas-ATF-23-Patch-ADVANCED-TACTICAL-FIGHTER-/301377854892?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item462b851dac
 

Attachments

  • ATF-23PatchA.JPG
    ATF-23PatchA.JPG
    134.8 KB · Views: 162
YF-23 interview videos uploaded by the producers of the YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified documentary:


www.youtube.com

InVisibleTechTV

www.yf23fighter.com https://www.facebook.com/YF23StealthDocumentary WELCOME TO THE CHANNEL. Life is an adventure worth seeing! We're filmmakers delving deep ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com


YF-23 Chicken Tests


Did the Airforce choose the wrong Airplane


What makes this Airplane invisible?


YF-23/YF-22 Engines


YF-23 Top Speed (1)


YF-23 Top Speed (2)
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UigtXumUYpE[/font]


YF-23 First Taxi Test & Flight
www.youtube.com

SECRET REVEALED! YF-23 First Appearance on the World Stage

http://yf23fighter.com/the-comments-2/ In August 1990, the work of 1000's of aerospace experts working for 60 subcontractor companies in 31 states, supportin...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com


Official site to watch the documentary free (ad supported)


 
G'day, for enthusiasts of the YF-23, I have organised some official petitions on the Revell.de site for new scale models to be released. Please take a moment to add your vote to these petitions and pass on the links to others you know who love the YF-23:

1/72 YF-23: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6227/
1/144 YF-23: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6257/
1/72 F-23A: http://ideas.revell.de/ideas/item/6242/

More and more cos are starting to realise that responding to immediate customer feedback is the way to go. Even if Revell doesn't end up producing them, rival companies will be watching these petitions to get ideas themselves. I really think this will work, I've had success with other subjects in the past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would be cool to have an F-23A.


By the way, stuka was about to finish his CAD model. Any news?
 
This is the model of the F-23 you want


1/32 YF-23 Black Widow II

Edit: This project is on hold! Please dont ask about the status. I will be continuing the project in the future! There is still a whole bunch of work required to bring this to kit form. I really wish that I could work on it full time, but for now I have to keep producing other smaller products to...
www.arcforums.com www.arcforums.com
 
Hi,


Many of you must be aware of that 3D model by aviakinetik:
www.turbosquid.com

yf-23 black widow max

YF-23 3D Model available on Turbo Squid, the world's leading provider of digital 3D models for visualization, films, television, and games.
www.turbosquid.com www.turbosquid.com


You'll immediately notice that this model is in fact a blend between the YF-23 and F-23.


What is surprising is that i mailed the author to ask why he did that and he answered me that it was not intentional and that it was only once the model finished that he discovered that the model was incorrect because of not enough high quality information available while doing the model.


This is very surprising, how could he know about the EMD fuselage+blending with nacelles, while not knowing the nacelles were not square anymore or the intakes were different?


This led me supposing there must be some other sources with incorrect depiction of the EMD. Anyone knows?
 
The digital artist simply made a mistake. This kind of error is quite common in the 3D digital world, they have different priorities compared to conventional modellers. 98% of the digital models I've seen and worked with were inaccurate and this is the same. The only accurate depiction I've seen is Stuka's work and a company called Real Air Simulations. Lack of reference info is not an excuse as factory dwgs of both versions are publicly available.
 
hi supacruze,


i don't know about the real air simulations F-23. Is it on your site?


Citrus90 made a 3D model of the F-23 that is quite close (posted in the 3D artworks thread here). Stuka's work is surely ahead but so far i've only seen the picture posted here.
 
No, because Real Air Simulations does not make a YF-23. They have a Spitfire and a SIAI SF260 which are really good. There are, however, screenshots of the Flight Sim Developers International YF-23 on my site. That 3D model is another example of inaccuracy that is prevalent among digital modellers.

I now have a RedBubble shop selling YF-23 themed items, guys... revenue generated from the sale of these items will go towards the upkeep of my site. :)


http://www.redbubble.com/people/yf-23
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom