Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II

[Neilster]

I personally liked the look of the YF-23 more than the YF-22. There's a decent argument to be made that it should have been selected too but it's a complicated topic. AFAIK, a strike/bomber version (admittedly quite different) might get built after all.

Here are some nice piccies anyway.

Cheers, Neilster

[Terminus]

Much better looking aircraft, that's for sure...

[AlvinS]

The YF-23 was built by McDonnell Douglas. I was crushed when we lost the competition. It is a beautiful aircraft.

[Terminus]

I remember a friend of mine's first comment when he saw the F-22: "It looks like a speed boat!"

The F-23 really looks the business.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: AlvinS

The YF-23 was built by McDonnell Douglas. I was crushed when we lost the competition. It is a beautiful aircraft.

That must really hurt. To be involved in a long, complicated project, requiring dedication, tough decisions, secrecy, hard work, sacrifice, that's potentially worth billions and that could last for decades; it would be impossible not to get emotionally involved. Jeez, I can remember being disappointed with the decision from far away Tasmania, with no real connection at all. That sleek manta-ray incorporated many a hope and dream.

An alternative history flight sim featuring the F/A-23 would be cool. I'd buy it. The F/A-23 would look even better with 15 years of development (gold canopy coating etc).

Cheers, Neilster

[chief]

AlvinS: If you work for Lockheed you may remember this slogan as printed on a Flight Engineers slide rule.
 
"L2LFLL2DFA"     [&:]
 
 
 
 
Translation....."Look to Lockheed for Leadership, Look to Douglas for Aircraft", that bird above proves the formula[:D]

[Terminus]

Hah![:D]

[Arctic Blast]

It seems like there are a few too many aircraft currently being produced. I mean, the F22 is coming online, there's talk of a strike YF23, and yet the F35 JSF starts being built next year. Wouldn't it make more sense to just pick one plane?

Anyway, enough of my judgments...it is a really nice looking aircraft.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

It seems like there are a few too many aircraft currently being produced. I mean, the F22 is coming online, there's talk of a strike YF23, and yet the F35 JSF starts being built next year. Wouldn't it make more sense to just pick one plane?

Anyway, enough of my judgments...it is a really nice looking aircraft.

It's all caught up in politics, changing needs, changing technology and the seemingly inevitable cost escalation of military projects. Originally, the ATF (for which the F-22 was selected) was going to be in service in the late 90s and would be bought in large numbers. Then there were a bunch of delays, the unit cost of the aircraft skyrocketed and it was decided that a cheaper, smaller aircraft with ground attack capability that took advantage of some new technologies that had been developed in the interim would be an advantageous adjunct to the no-compromise F-22, which was now going to be bought in far fewer numbers. Hence the JSF.

A new aircraft was needed to replace a bunch of 3rd and 4th generation fighters anyway. The F-35 also offers a STOVL capability for customers who want that (and hence buy that variant). It is hoped it will compliment the F/A-22 in much the same way as the F-16 has the F-15. Of course it's over-budget and over-time too, so they'll probably have to buy some UAVs or something. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

[Arctic Blast]

Yeah, the Marine Corps are buying the vert. version to replace the Harriers. I guess I can understand how this all happened, it just seems like an overspending of defense resources on one area is all. Especially if they DO end up buying some YF23's as well.

[FlipTrac_511]

Going by looks alone, I was hoping the YF-22 would win.  The YF-23 does look exotic, I'll give it that.

[Neilster]

The F-22 is a pretty funky looking aircraft, especially from certain angles. From others it looks like an F-15 that's been blended more and with the nose chined and most of the right angles adjusted for stealth reasons. Not that there's anything wrong with the F-15s looks.

Cheers, Neilster

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: AlvinS

The YF-23 was built by McDonnell Douglas. I was crushed when we lost the competition. It is a beautiful aircraft.

Ummmm it says "Northrop" in big letters and first on the nose.

I had the rare privelage of getting to see these two birds up close and personal while they were in storage at CTF inside EAFB. I was a NB2D employee at the time.

On the inside of the nosewheel doors, the nicknames of the two prototypes were stenciled in. The dark one was 'Spider' and the light one was 'Grey Ghost'.

Sweet looking planes. I always thought the YF-22 looked like a dump truck in caparison.

[Fredk]

Eh, i think they're both ugly as sin, but the engine nacelle (flight engineers fill me in on the real technical term here) humps really put the '23 into its own special category of disgusting asthetics. Surprised so many people find the look of it more pleasing than the -22.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Fredk

Eh, i think they're both ugly as sin, but the engine nacelle (flight engineers fill me in on the real technical term here) humps really put the '23 into its own special category of disgusting asthetics. Surprised so many people find the look of it more pleasing than the -22.

Jeez...tough audience. [:D]

What do you think of the looks of the S-37 Berkut?

Cheers, Neilster

[Fredk]

Pretty sweet Neilster, although to be fair I'm probably a bit biased as my parents gave me, what I recognize now as, the minautrized prototype of that aircraft to play with along with my GI Joes. [8D]

Also, is it actually going to be built? I'm I going to have to go to Paris to see it?

edited because I'm a grammar mong.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Fredk

Pretty sweet Neilster, although to be fair I'm probably a bit biased as my parents gave me, what I recognize now as, the minautrized prototype of that aircraft to play with along with my GI Joes. [8D]

Also, is it actually going to be built? I'm I going to have to go to Paris to see it?

edited because I'm a grammar mong.

Your childhood toy had forward swept wings? Probably more of an imaginative guess than any real aerodynamic knowledge on the part of the designer.

The S-37 is a technology demonstrator that uses some components from the Su-27 family and elsewhere. It now appears the Russkies are offering a production variant to potential customers. Wikipedia gives a good overview of this aircraft and you can see it fly here...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Px-qfKcAQKg

Cheers, Neilster

[pasternakski]

The United States experimented with a reverse-swept-wing forward-canard design called the X-29 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Development was abandoned because, although some performance advantages were gained from the design (particularly in stall and turn characteristics), the airframe proved unstable and subject to unpredictable severe yaw while in flight that caused a couple of near crashes of test aircraft.

Toymakers picked up on the exotic design, which was found only in sonny's toy chest until the Russians pulled it out and started playing with it again. Whether they have solved the odd problems presented by the innovations of the design is anyone's guess.

They seem to like producing bizarre, "gee whiz" looking aircraft (and tanks) for marketing purposes, kind of putting them into the toy designer category themselves...

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The United States experimented with a reverse-swept-wing forward-canard design called the X-29 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Development was abandoned because, although some performance advantages were gained from the design (particularly in stall and turn characteristics), the airframe proved unstable and subject to unpredictable severe yaw while in flight that caused a couple of near crashes of test aircraft.

Toymakers picked up on the exotic design, which was found only in sonny's toy chest until the Russians pulled it out and started playing with it again. Whether they have solved the odd problems presented by the innovations of the design is anyone's guess.

They seem to like producing bizarre, "gee whiz" looking aircraft (and tanks) for marketing purposes, kind of putting them into the toy designer category themselves...

Thanks for your interest pasternakski but I'm wondering what exactly you mean by "the airframe proved unstable" and do you have a reference for this "unpredictable severe yaw while in flight that caused a couple of near crashes of test aircraft"? I'm a fighter aircraft technician and have a keen interest in this field. All CCV vehicles (ie most modern fighters) are inherently unstable and are kept in a straight line by their computer controlled flight control system.

The Russians test flew the forward swept wing Ju 287 (captured from the Germans) in 1947 so they were very familiar with the concept before the X-29. What "bizarre, "gee whiz" looking aircraft (and tanks)" have the Russians marketed? I can only think of sober, capable and fairly conventional designs like the Flanker family and their Main Battle Tanks. Their WIG (Wing in Ground-effect) stuff looks unusual but AFAIK haven't been marketed. In what way does this put Russian designers in the "toy designer category"? I can assure you that Russian military technology was taken deadly seriously at my old Air Force squadron a few years ago. No one was too keen to get a Vympel R-77 up their arse.

Cheers, Neilster

[SemperAugustus]

Was the main problem with forward swept wings the stress on the wing tips? The Germans ran into some issue with the design, anyone know?