![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've heard stories about the RCS. It depends on what aspect you are using.
The F-22 certainly has more surfaces that counter a lower signature from certain aspects. I have also heard where the YF-23 was lower. Several of the engineers were even mad that they concentrated too much on a low RCS when the USAF seemed to dismiss it's importance when the selection was made. Then again, the production F-23A had different inlets to adress the lower RCS . Internal stores? I doubt it. The YF-23 had two huge bays. The claim I heard was that the F-22 was a little bit more maneuverable, due to it's extra surfaces. I wish I kept a copy of the report that came back from the USAF, after the selection was made, giving their reasons for their choice. The YF-23 was also much faster than the YF-22 in mil power, and able to accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner or going into a dive. This indicates it had less transonic drag, and would use less fuel over it's lifetime. Supercruise was a driving point of the RFP. And Northrop was just coming out of a period where they were not living up to their promises on past projects. Even Druyan (SP?) was giving Northrop a hard time, which didn't help politically. But, if the aircraft are close, they make the selection based on the aircraft they want, and then use the parameters they want, to justify their decision. We saw this decision making again with the CSAR competition. But, that was 14 years ago, and the YF-22 is finally going into service. I hope it always works well, and everyone will be happy with it, because it's really about the pilots. "Leroy Jackson" wrote in message ... The reason the F-22 won is based on the RCS part, they both were in the 5% range on all factors except for one. but the truth is that the 22 was 6 feet smaller than the 23 and had more room for internal stores, it makes a big diffrence in operations. "Ron Monroe" wrote in message ink.net... What's ironic is the the YF-23 looks more like a Lockheed product than the YF-22 does. Ron "Bob Harrington" wrote in message ... "E.D." wrote in . net: I know I'm going get a lotta flack for this but I think the 23 was the best aircraft and that the 22 was a congress pay off to someone. The YF-23 sure wins the 'wicked looks' competion. The F-22 looks a tad waddle-ish from some angles... Bob ^,,^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|