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
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
Love the way the driver is leaning forward to see over the statue of St
Christopher on the dashboard. Cheers, Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
I saw this aircraft fly a demonstration at the Miramar airshow in 77. Damn,
that's a long time ago. Rob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
"CWO4 Dave Mann" wrote in message
... Love the way the driver is leaning forward to see over the statue of St Christopher on the dashboard. It's a statue of Magnetic Mary, surely? Saint Christopher was taken off flight ops as a result of the Second Lateran Council. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
GREAT SHOT
wrote in message ... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
And, I worked on the flight test program, and I keep remembering how long
ago it was too. To bad I missed the picture. Incidently, it was never YF-17A, it was just YF-17. The A would have been applied to the production airplane. Ron "Scubabix" wrote in message ... I saw this aircraft fly a demonstration at the Miramar airshow in 77. Damn, that's a long time ago. Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
"john smith" schreef in bericht ... Ron Monroe wrote: And, I worked on the flight test program, and I keep remembering how long ago it was too. To bad I missed the picture. Incidently, it was never YF-17A, it was just YF-17. The A would have been applied to the production airplane. Ron, what was the reason/logic for giving the contract to MDD? I thought the Northrup project won the flyoff? Briefly: The YF-17 lost to the YF-16 in the fly-off for the LWF contract (Light Weight Fighter) for the USAF. The US Navy was interested though, mainly because they don't like single engined aircraft and because the YF-17 was not exactly a pile of junk. McDonnell came in because they had tons of experience in designing naval aircraft, which Northrop did not have. In navalised form it became the F-18, later the F/A-18. Immediately obvious (externally) is the completely redesigned undercarriage (compare YF-17 and F-18). Regards, Herman |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
Like was said, the YF-16 won the competition. There were several reasons for
this, not all technical. and some people are sensitive to comments, so... The F-16 had better acceleration. The USAF claimed it was because the YF-17 was draggy, however, in later conferences, Northrop explained that the YJ-101 was down on thrust in the areas where the acceleration was measured. The YF-16 was better in turning. Part of this is due to thrust, and part of it was due to The horizontals on the YF-17 not being stiff enough. They tended to twist to decrease the airloads, rather than push the aircraft in the right direction. so, the YF-16 was deemed, more maneuverable. The speedbrake was not effective. Different actuators and brake sizes were tried, but, there was no big difference. It wasn't very good on the F-18s, either, and they got rid of them on the E and Fs. I don't know if it had any influence on the competition, but it was a problem. The usual reason was given that, the YF-16 was closer to a production standard than theYF-17. Maybe, I don't know, I wasn't privy to the final propsal, however, the YF-17 through it's sister, the P530 Cobra, was in development for several years before the LWF program. Northrop thought the LWF program was a way to prove the concept was good, so that they could sell it to the European governments that had already bought F-5s. The government sold the LWF program as a technology demonstrator, not meant for production. So, there was supposed to be an unlimited period of development where features could be explored, and maybe applied to a new design, so, nothing had to be production oriented. Still, Northrop designed the airplane to production standards with a typical structural safety factor of 1.5. This required Northrop to build into the No. 2 aircraft, strain gages that would measure the structural loads. Tests would have to be flown to make sure no limits would be exceeded, before the flight envelope could be opened up. GD avoided that problem by designing the structure to be stronger than would be needed so that no structural tests would be needed. It would therefore be a stronger and heavier structure than a production design would be. And flight testing could be more aggressive. 6 months after the YF-16 had flown, and before the YF-17 had flown, there was an edict, that it was now a competition, the winner getting a production contract at the beginning of the next year. So the YF-16 had a full year to fly, whereas the YF-17 had 6 months. And the winner would now have a better chance of winning the European consortium plan to buy a new fighter, the same one that Northrop was pushing for, before the LWF began. Who knows how the extra 6 months could have helped Northrop with perfecting their design? The YF-17 was larger, and therefore more expensive than the YF-16, however, I think it also was a little more flexible, from an operational standpoint. But, costs were a large factor in the decision. There was another reason why the F-16 was chosen, however, it isn't talked about very often. If you look back at the Aviation Weeks from the 1974/75 time period, you will see this mentioned. The YJ-101 was a new engine which would have to be developed further, for production. Although the testing was unique, in that it was both, a new engine, and a new airplane, it was extremely successful. There were only 6 engines for the two aircraft, and neither engine or airplane were lost during the program. from what I remember, there were no flameoutrs or engine stalls. It became apparent that, the USAF wanted to find a way to save the F-100 engine that was currently being used in the F-15. The engine was having severe problems and the cost-overruns were threatening it's cancelation. The word came down that by increasing the number of units sold, they could decrease the unit costs, and make the cost overruns bearable. the easiest way to increase production, was to use int in another vehicle. Like the F-16. There was a version of the YF-17 that was designed with the F-100 engine, I think it was called the P-610. it also had the lower ventral inlet, but, this one wrapped around the lower fuselage. I'm not sure if the USAF influenced Northrop into building the YF-17(P-600) twin, or whether it was the cheif designer, Walt Fellers, who hated single engine jets. But, the Y-17 may have been a "strawman" to pit against the YF-16. The YF-17 may not have had a chance to win, anyways. But, that would be hard to prove either way. Incidently, Northrop had a navalized YF-17 in the works before McDonnell ever entered the picture, the P-630, featuring the stronger landing gear and structure required for carrier operations. However, the Navy didn't want to play with people that didn't have design experience with carrier aircraft. Northrop selected McDonnell to partner with, and GD selected LTV to partner with. Early on. the Navy was given instructions that their new fighter would be a derivative of the LWF, which some people thought meant that it would have to be a variation of the F-16, but later, it changed to be that some common systems were to be used. The Navy decided that the YF-17 concept had more to offer than the YF-16 concept. I don't think there were any major common systems used. Certainly, not the radar or engines. But, it was different enough from the YF-17, that they chose to redesignate it. I also think that they probably just didn't want to face the fact that they were getting a derivative of a USAF design. Now, there is talk that the USAF may actually buy an F-18 variant, the EA-18G Growler. That would be a little ironic. Ron "john smith" wrote in message ... Ron Monroe wrote: And, I worked on the flight test program, and I keep remembering how long ago it was too. To bad I missed the picture. Incidently, it was never YF-17A, it was just YF-17. The A would have been applied to the production airplane. Ron, what was the reason/logic for giving the contract to MDD? I thought the Northrup project won the flyoff? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
"Ron Monroe" schreef in bericht ... Like was said, the YF-16 won the competition. There were several reasons for this, not all technical. and some people are sensitive to comments, so... SNIP to save space Now, there is talk that the USAF may actually buy an F-18 variant, the EA-18G Growler. That would be a little ironic. Ron It's been done before. F- Phantom, A-7 Corsair II and in Great Britain the Buccaneer. As they are fond of saying in Britain: "Fly Navy" Regards, Herman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
YF-17A.jpg
"Herman" wrote in message b.home.nl... "Ron Monroe" schreef in bericht ... Like was said, the YF-16 won the competition. There were several reasons for this, not all technical. and some people are sensitive to comments, so... SNIP to save space Now, there is talk that the USAF may actually buy an F-18 variant, the EA-18G Growler. That would be a little ironic. Ron It's been done before. F- Phantom, A-7 Corsair II and in Great Britain the Buccaneer. As they are fond of saying in Britain: "Fly Navy" Regards, Herman You can add the A-1 Skyraider to that list. Wayne http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|