derex3592 Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 That YF-23 kit is ....well....BOSS! Totally want it. Quote
505thAirborne Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 That YF-23 kit is ....well....BOSS! Totally want it. +1 in all ways!! Quote
Shadow Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Wasn't the Black Widow II in a darker paint scheme? This one looks like the Gray Ghost. Quote
505thAirborne Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Here's a picture of the two Prototypes. Quote
LOW_ALT Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Here's a picture of the two Prototypes. Wasn't the Gray Ghost almost white though? Quote
505thAirborne Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Could be various lighting in pictures perhaps. I will say one thing, what a frakking shame that plane is just wasting away outdoors, should be properly displayed in a museum. All that time, money & effort it deserves better than that. Quote
miles316 Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 I believe one of the YF-23 is in a museum and another has had some restoration by Northrup/Grumman. Quote
hutch Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 One YF-23 is inside the NMotUSAF in Dayton, Ohio. Nice bird to see in person Quote
David Hingtgen Posted January 4, 2014 Author Posted January 4, 2014 The grey YF-23 is the exact same colors (and similar pattern) as your standard Ghost Grey 1980's F-15. FS36320 blotches over a FS36375 base. The Northrop-McDonnell YF-23 used F-15 cockpit, F-15 nose gear, F-18 main gear, and most of the basic internals (hydraulics, pneumatics) etc were fairly standard F-15/F-18 parts. It was basically a McDonnell plane in a Northrop shell. And also painted in the standard F-15/F-18 colors at the time. Quote
505thAirborne Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) One YF-23 is inside the NMotUSAF in Dayton, Ohio. Nice bird to see in person If I'm ever out that way I'll have to stop and visit. Edited January 5, 2014 by 505thAirborne Quote
David Hingtgen Posted January 6, 2014 Author Posted January 6, 2014 They have their YF-23 parked right under/in front of the XB-70. That's just an insane amount of awesomeness there. That spot alone is equal to most entire museum's worth of aviation coolness. I think the intake lips of that -23 kit are pretty off. The lower lip should be well aft of the upper edge. The outer edge should be well aft of the inner edge. And the whole lip should be more angular/crisp, not nearly as rounded/blended as they have it. It really should look like someone "hacked" it into shape, rather than "carving" it into shape, if that makes any sense. It's like they did a "subtle" version of the -23's intakes, minimising all the changes/differences from a "straight, basic, aligned" intake. Everything should be "more"----more angles, more changes, more slope. Quote
Fatalist Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Just saw this off Gizmodo. For all you Typhoon lovers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjvgC1cKQGA#t=50 Quote
Gerli Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 It seems that Argentina is going for the Kfir Block 60 http://www.clarin.com/politica/Gobierno-negocia-comprar-combate-Israel_0_1071492873.html UK made some some complains, but Israel was always willing to do business with Argentina. Quote
Shadow Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) lol at the stock Top Gun footage. Always loved the Kfir. While I'm not certain if it could be done, I wonder why IAI never tried putting a P&W F100 into the Kfir. Would make a big jump in the power to weight ratio over what the J79 provides. Edited January 26, 2014 by Shadow Quote
Knight26 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 lol at the stock Top Gun footage. Always loved the Kfir. While I'm not certain if it could be done, I wonder why IAI never tried putting a P&W F100 into the Kfir. Would make a big jump in the power to weight ratio over what the J79 provides. Primary reason, it won't fit. The F-100 is a shorter, wider engine, while the J79 is thin and quite long. There was testing early in the F-16 program where they put J79 into an F-16 as a just in case type measure. Quote
areaseven Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware and Has to Be Destroyed Quote
Shadow Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 ^So....scrap the F-35 program and build more F-22s, including an FB-22? Quote
Chronocidal Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Nah, go back and build more F-23s. Quote
Shadow Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Nah, go back and build more F-23s. Then you won't get as good of an air show demo with all the unnecessary thrust vectoring awesomeness. You'll have the Russians chirping about how their planes can fly backwards. In all seriousness, I'd love to see the F-23 revived as an interdiction fighter/bomber (Strike Eagle replacement). Probably the only realistic role it could fill now if ever brought back which will never happen. Edited February 11, 2014 by Shadow Quote
505thAirborne Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Nah, go back and build more F-23s. This! Quote
Falcon Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Just curious, but what do people here think of the Pak-50 compared to the F-22? Personally, I do like the look of the Pak-50 better (apart from the engines) but it does compromise the stealth characteristics a bit. Which of the two is the better fighter? Quote
Shadow Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Depends if we're talking actual capability or aesthetic looks. In combat, I'd take the F-22 hands down, especially with the upgraded blocks getting AESA as well as the AIM-120D and Block II and III AIM-9X. Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Question, why does the F-22 and J-20/T-50 prototypes need those little bulges on the underside of the wing for the control surface actuators but the YF-23 has such clean wings? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 Because Northrop was going for stealth above most all other considerations. Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Because Northrop was going for stealth above most all other considerations. So does that mean : 1. The F22/T50/J20 have thinner wings? OR 2. The YF-23 in sacrificing those huge actuators, have lower deflection rates on the control surfaces? I mean, The teen series dont have those bumps either, so do they (the the teen series) have thicker wings or is there something inherent in the stealth shaped wing which neccesitates having those bulges? Is it possible to get rid of the bulges on the F-22 if one were to settle for slower deflection rates on the control surfaces? Thanks for any answers in advance. I am quite curious on this subject for some time. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 Honestly I really can't explain the large actuators----AFAIK the F-22 has a relatively thick wing, for fuel capacity. (and so many 1980+ designs are supercritical anyways) Deflection rate is rarely an issue----even airliners can move their massive ailerons in the blink of an eye when they want to, with totally internal actuators. Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Honestly I really can't explain the large actuators----AFAIK the F-22 has a relatively thick wing, for fuel capacity. (and so many 1980+ designs are supercritical anyways) Deflection rate is rarely an issue----even airliners can move their massive ailerons in the blink of an eye when they want to, with totally internal actuators. HWHAT!! You can't explain an aviation topic!?!?!? THE END IS NIGH! Quote
raptormesh Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Redundancies perhaps? More control lines and actuators. Quote
Falcon Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html Found this on the net... looks credible. Does give a few insights about the Pak-50 that I didn't know before. Quote
Vifam7 Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html Found this on the net... looks credible. Does give a few insights about the Pak-50 that I didn't know before. Carlo Kopp has a tendency to overhype up the capabilities of Sukhoi fighters. He is not exactly the most credible source (to put it mildly). Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Carlo Kopp has a tendency to overhype up the capabilities of Sukhoi fighters. He is not exactly the most credible source (to put it mildly). Yeah, I saw who wrote the article, the first mention of F-35 and knew sort of where the article is going. Then he goes on to hype theoretical future capabilities for the PAK-FA to futher stack the deck against the JSF. Quote
Falcon Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 That article is like 6 years old. Are there any articles that are newer? If you can find some that'd be good. If not, why are you complaining if that's all we have? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.