Jump to content

Talk:Northrop YF-23/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Engine Design

I came to the article curious about the unusual shape of the engines. Is there a particular name for the squared off shape and a rational as to why it is better than the historical round one? SteveCoppock (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The engine nozzles are round. There is a square type opening after the nozzle for heat shielding to reduce the infrared signature. The B-2 and F-22 have recessed areas something like this. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The square shape of the engine nacelles was to make room for thrust reversers which were then dropped from the requirement. The production F-23 would have had round engine nacelles, it's not related to the heat shielding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ix-ir (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought that the square nozzle was for 2D thrust vectoring. Since this was one of the advantages of the YF-22, wasn't this even considered for YF-32? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriok (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 July 2010 {UTC)

The difference revealed

The YF-23 was stealthier, because it provided some shield against vintage meter-band radars, e.g. the ex-ussr serbian P-18 that nailed the F-117. Unlike the Raptor, the F-23's had no fuselage per se, all equipment was contained in three separated "humps" (cockpit+radar+fuel, engine left, engine right) and these were kept together by the large wing.

Radar bounce from the individual "humps" cancelled out each other's waves somewhat, so meter band couldn't see it from more than 5km, which is an effectively useless short range. This is important because meter-band radar waves bounce back from the inside of large objects, so exotic stealth skin tech is inefficient against them, as long as there is metal inside the aircraft.

For contrast, an F-117 can be plotted by a slightly modified (replace four caps) P-18 at 20km range, ideal for an SA-3's fire control UNV radar sweep and quick double launch (that's a total of 20 seconds and the F-117 is inevitably history). 87.97.106.38 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First and second YF-23 numbers

Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson

Please have a look at [1], and see which one is which. The fifth image is of a grey aircraft, with the reg. 87-0801. The second image is a black YF-23, with the reg. 87-0800. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the colors go with the names. The numbers part could have been switched incorrectly in the text. That's another matter. Use the article talk for article issues. That's what their purpose. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Even the book by Jenkins and Landis says otherwise. I've got a pic here of a black jet (and no, I'm not colourblind!) with the caption "The first YF-23 (87-0800/N231YF) during its rollout at Edwards on 22 June 1990...". Also, have a look at [2] – note the "800" painted on the tail. Sorry about posting this on your user page, but you were the one who reverted my edit. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't know, but 2 books of mine mention that the gray one was the first one completed. The serial numbers could have been switched for some reason though. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts, pre-FAC

Hi,
Sp33dyphil suggested I drop in and look over the article to see if there are any final improvements which could be made before going to FAC. I'm not familiar with en.wiki conventions for military aircraft; maybe an outside view will help, maybe not. ;-)

  • The lede seems to repeat itself - there's a very brief summary in the first paragraph and then a summary with slightly more history in the second paragraph. Could that be rearranged?
  • "The two YF-23s were donated to museums and are now exhibits" looks a little odd, to my eye; perhaps the final four words could be omitted, or replaced with "in 1996".
  • Should the first mention of F-14 be wikilinked, or would that make the lede a little "overlinked"?
  • "the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon" might be a little verbose; could it be simplified in terms of "emerging technologies" or something like that?
  • "yaw was supplied by opposite movement": could that be reworded somehow? I thought that a yawing force would be created by what is effectively simultaneous clockwise rotation or anticlockwise rotation of both surfaces of the v-tail when looking from above (you get a pitching force by moving one surface anticlockwise and one clockwise) so with different ways of looking at control inputs, "opposite" may not be a helpful word here.
  • Are the tail surfaces all-moving? I believe so, and the article implies it, but it's never said explicitly. There's a link to V-tail but that article assumes a fixed tail surface with a movable control surface on the trailing edge; that article ought to be updated too (yes yes, other linked articles should be outside the scope of a FAC, but once you let a pedant off the leash...).
  • Would it be practical to include a third image, showing some other aspect of the YF-23? (either a photo of a whole aircraft from a different angle, like this or this; or perhaps a detail photo, or a chart or diagram... or if it's possible to find an image comparing the YF-22 and YF-23 in some way, that would be very helpful.
  • Is any particular altitude known for those cruise speed and max speed measurements?
  • Is anything known at all about equipment other than engines and weapons? Avionics, radar, that kind of thing..? Even if not fitted to prototypes, what was planned to be fitted to production aircraft?
  • Not much coverage. I can't find anything. After all, this was only a demonstrator.
  • The runway requirement was increased to 914m in 1987. What was it beforehand?
  • Where some of the sources are themselves notable enough to have articles, should some of them be wikilinked in the References section?

Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Image sizes

I think having the images different thumbnail sizes looks bad. It's better to leave them on default and folks can choose their own thumbnail sizes or click on the image to enlarge. --John (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of using the upright parameter is to work with user defaults. This falls under allowed uses at MOS:IMAGES. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure it's allowed. I just don't think it is a net benefit on this particular image. --John (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll go with whatever the consensus is here. We need input from others for that. Do you think the exhaust image should to be larger than normal or not? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In its current position, I'm happy for the image to be a little larger. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be larger than normal. I can't see much difference with the larger image on my screen. However, we often use a larger image, usually 3-views, in the specs section to help fill out the white space on the right side of the specs. In the absence of a 3-view, we usually use some picture of a detail of the aircraft, often the cockpit displays or the engines. As such, the exhausts fill that space well. - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Weight

Hi, the listed weight is "Empty weight: 29,000 lb (14,970 kg)". 29,000 lb is actually 13154.18 kg. Making it much lighter than the YF-22's 33,000 lb weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.181.74.222 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is one reason auto-converting air-specs template are great, IMHO. Perhaps the article should be changed to use one? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on intro

If this aircraft never actually made it past the "prototype" stage, could it be clearly stated in the first paragraph that the plane never went into production. The article seems to be written from the point of view that everyone who might read it already knows this important fact. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lead should be clear with the "Two YF-23 prototypes were built" part and that the YF-22 was selected instead for production. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Since it competed with the YF-22 and the YF-22 was the winner of the competition, that makes it clear that the YF-23 was not produced. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought "the YF-22 was announced the winner in 1991 and entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor" was really disambiguous. 01:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move at Black Widow.

For any editors concerned, there is a proposed moved at the disambiguation page Black Widow. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Widow#Proposed_move Weebro55 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Max speed figure

I noticed that the max speed is given as Mach 2.2 altitude. But that is roughly 1,500 mph at altitude, while 1,650 mph is at sea level. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, unless you guys can find a source, I'm changing it to 1,450 mph, which reflects Mach 2.2 at altitude. 108.228.145.163 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northrop_YF-23/Archive_2&oldid=1192494030"