scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) (08/07/90)
From: boulder!snoopy!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) Photographs of the YF-23 have just been published in this month's issue of the US Naval Institute's 'Proceedings.' The aircraft has a V tail, with the tail surfaces canted outward at an angle of about 30 degrees above the horizontal. The aircraft has a wing that looks to be a truncated delta (with just the extreme tips cut off.) There are two air intakes (one for each engine) below the fuselage/wing (the wing and the wide, flat rear fuselage are extremely well blended) set fairly far aft. The two jet exhausts are set on the upper surface of the wing/fuselage. Unlike the Lockheed/General Dynamics/Boeing YF-22, the McDonnel Douglas/Northrop YF-23 has no visible chines. The aircraft is a single-seater, with a bubble canopy set rather far foreward from the wing's leading edge. The aircraft's finish is very smooth, with no visible projections for underwing ordnance (presumably, in order to maintain stealthy characteristics, there will be an internal missile bay -- there appears to be space for such a weapons be behind and below the cockpit) and no 20mm Vulcan cannon port (at least not on the left side of the aircraft.) The aircraft shown was painted in air-superiority blue, and is expected to replace both the USAF's F-15 and the USN's F-14. --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (08/10/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Aug7.041158.7805@cbnews.att.com>, boulder!snoopy!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) writes: > Photographs of the YF-23 have just been published in this month's issue >of the US Naval Institute's 'Proceedings.' [cut description; wish we had multimedia so he could have scanned the pic in and shown it to everyone ;-)] > The aircraft shown was painted in air-superiority blue, and is expected to >replace both the USAF's F-15 and the USN's F-14. IF it wins the flyoff, IF Congress doesn't can it outright or puts it into cost/benefit competition with a F-16XX, F-15XX (AF) or F-14D/Advanced F-14. I have real doubts about the Navy version, given how well the Navy accepted the F-4 and F-111 ;-) > Doug
freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay R. Freeman) (08/14/90)
From: argosy!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay R. Freeman) In article ... (Doug Mohney) writes: >I have real doubts about the Navy version, given how well the Navy accepted >the F-4 [...] I think Doug has it backwards: The F-4 was developed for the Navy, it was the Air Force that had to accept a fighter originally developed for the "other" service. -- Jay Freeman <canonical disclaimer -- I speak only for myself>
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >I have real doubts about the Navy version, given how well the Navy accepted >the F-4 and F-111 ;-) The F-4 was a Navy aircraft, so they accepted it just fine. :-) It was the USAF that didn't particularly want the F-4. They couldn't find a good excuse for rejecting it, though, since it was already in service with known performance, and met all their requirements. The naval F-111 was a different story, since it was a paper aircraft when the Navy was forced to accept it, and the Navy has carrier-compatibility requirements on which they are the sole experts. The USAF could not rebut Navy arguments that carrier compatibility required changes, and the lack of flying F-111s made it hard to convincingly refute pessimistic estimates of F-111 performance. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry