Talk:Northrop YF-23/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

YF-23 bomber

reference: http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum2/HTML/006523-2.html (scroll to the bottom) forum thread contains the Flight International article, though the flightinternational.com link appears to be dead ✈ James C. 02:56, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

"more maneuverable"

"...it is often claimed that the YF-23 was...more maneuverable...than its competitor..."

is that actually a frequent claim? i have never heard it. what would be the reasoning behind that claim? the YF-23's lack of thrust vectoring alone makes it seem quite dubious to me that it would be more agile than the YF-22 (particularly in the post-stall regime), however i am not an aerodynamicist. ✈ James C. 03:08, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

It's probbaly that it lack thrust vectoring. It's very maneuverable (Flight Simulator :P). Irfanfaiz 13:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The YF-22 was only more manouverable at low speeds. And the difference in manouverability at low speeds wasn't great, the YF-23's unusual shape combined with fly-by-wire made it nearly as manouverable as the Raptor. YF-23 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Try this site: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html It claims that the YF-22 was more maneuverable

I could not possibly have a clue, but I do have the impression that if the YF-23 had thrust vectoring would propably be notably more maneuverable than the Raptor. The fact that those planes were "antagonists" for development could support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.23.158 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ace Combat

Added to the 'popular culture' section that it was featured in "Ace Combat Zero", since it was.

Sorry, but the Wikiproject:Aircraft decided that only simulations can be mentioned in popular culture. Or movies like Top Gun for the F-14 page. LWF 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's really not much for this aircraft that really falls under "simulation". --Mmx1 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ace Combat Zero" has been added again, along with several other games. I am restoring the list as it was the date Mmx1 removed that game. - BillCJ 06:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you really claim that "U.N. Squadron," a side-scrolling shooter, is more of a "simulation" than any of the Ace Combat games? Even more "modern games like "Airforce Delta" and "Lethal Skies" are no more "simulation" than Ace Combat. If anything, the games of the Ace Combat series are far more refined and popular than these more obscure games. For instance, IGN, which while not perfect, has a pretty good rating system, rates Airforce Delta Strike a 6.4, Lethal Skies 7.7, and then Ace Combat 04, 5, and Zero a 9.1, 9.3, and 8.8 respectively. By those rights, I believe that the Ace Combat series deserves being mentioned far more than these other games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.187.13 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

A funny

From the lighter side of aviation - the comment about reports that the YF-23 was faster and stealthier reminded me of a humourous letter in Air Forces Monthly back in the day, in which the author, with tongue-in-cheek, castigated the magazine for saying the YF-23 "appeared stealther". He pointed out that a synonym for that would be "the YF-23 was obviously less obvious"... - Aerobird 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Less light, but from a highly reliable source came to me the story of how the two prototypes were incomplete the week before Members of Congress were scheduled to come view the completed product. One had both wings, the other had none. So the MD higher-ups directed that the wing be ripped off of one and hastily grafted onto the other. The planes were then parked nose-to-nose in the display hangar and the Members of Congress were permitted to view the "finished product" only from the entrance. I cannot help but wonder if the overall delay in production caused by damaging both aircraft was a factor in the loss of the contract to Northrop. Sofa King (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, cute story. Both the YF-23 and -22 must have been delayed. The YF-23 was rolled-out a month and flew a month before the YF-22 in 1990. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand tags

The article had an expand tag on it a couple weeks ago. I replaced that with expand-section tags in the Design and Evaluation sections. I think the Design & development section could use some expanding. -Fnlayson 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Northrop YF-23, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

YF-23 Black Widow II→ Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 — Name in line with WP:AIR/PC naming conventions for US military aircraft with no official name - Company, designation. "Black WIdow II" was never an official USAF or even Northrop name. Alternate shorter name is Northrop YF-23. —BillCJ 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Survey - Support votes

• Support move. Either name is OK with me. I prefer the shorter "Northrop YF-23" if Northop did if fact lead the team. -Fnlayson 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per my nomination. - BillCJ 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Both names are availabe to use, so we don't need an admin to make the move. Northrop was definitely the lead partner for the YF-23, as Lockheed was for the YF-22. Lockheed's other partners were Boeing, and General Dynamics. Lockheed bought GD's Ft. Worth Division in 1993, leaving Boeing as the only other partner. I'm not sure what the share on the YF-23 was, just that McDD was more than just a subcontractor. I'm OK with either name, but would also prefer the shorter one. If there's a clear preference for Northrop YF-23, then we can use that, but if there's no clear choice, we should probably default to the longer name. - BillCJ

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

discovery channel show about f22 vs f23

I remember that discovery channel showed a 2 hr episode about yf22 vs yf23.I dont know te link,can you help me. manchurian candidate 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could you be thinking about the Joint Strike Fighter Nova program? -Fnlayson 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

nope i watched that also.The programs name is Advance Tactical fighter program. Searced all over the net and couldn't find it. manchurian candidate 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see a DVD for it on Discovery Channel's online store. I'll look some more later. -Fnlayson 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

The Pace F-22 book I have states the black YF-23 was nicknamed Black Widow II and the gray YF-23 was nicknamed Gray Ghost. "Black Widow" seems to be used with the YF-23 due the black one being shown in Aviation Week in my opinion. -Fnlayson 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read numerous sources from the early 90s, and none of them ever mentioned "Black Widow II" as a nickname for the type. "Gray Ghost" was almost always mentioned, however. The black and gray models each having a name makes sense tho, especially as you have a source detailing it. Either way, neither name was an official USAF name, nor do they appear to be company-supported names as with the YF-22A Lightning II, which was endorsed and promoted by Lockheed. - BillCJ 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Widow II is the unofficial name given to the plane by Northrop. It is used by them on Northrop Grumman's website under heritage. It refers to both aircraft. I'm not sure about the origin of Gray Ghost, which seemingly only refers to the second plane. Exorcet 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see it from several photos, the name is painted in the interior of the nosegear door. PAV-1 (dark gray plane, located at Dayton) is "Gray Ghost"; PAV-2 (light gray, formerly located in Hawthorne) bears the name "Spider". 213.140.6.105 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood

I came to this page to research this plane because of its numerous appearances in recent Hollywood movies, particularly the most recent Die Hard. I was curious about whether it really had any VTOL capability, as portrayed in that movie. This page doesn't really say anything about it, but I believe the YF-23 has flown more times for Hollywood than for the Air Force. It's probably worthwhile for someone to research this and make a paragraph about it. 129.219.247.50 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The YF-23 wasn't shown in the movie Die Hard 4 and it has no V/STOL capability either. The plane shown in that movie was the F-35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.22 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And The F-35 wasn't a real aircraft either, it was all done in CG. -- Henriok (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed inconsistency

This article says that the F-23 was faster than the F-22, but the stats on the F-22 page state that its max speed is 1,600 mph, while the F-23's max speed is listed as 1,400 mph. This needs to be addressed.

The YF-23's max speed is classified, the only numbers available are 1.4 Mach for full military power and 1.8 Mach for full power. Obviously, the jet could go past Mach 1.8, but the Air Force isn't talking...Alot of people associated with the program have hinted that the YF-23 was faster than the YF-22. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.6.213 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

That's mach 1.4 before igniting afterburners. One of the primary requirements for the competition whas that entries had to be able to exceed mach 1 without afterburners. Max speed WITH afterburners is classified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.247.50 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)