disconnectedradical wrote:I didn't "eyeball exam", I just said that the FCAS or Tempest being 20 years newer can very well exceed the kinematics of F-22, considering how the newer Typhoon and Rafale beats F-15 (especially Typhoon).
But you're basing it off your eyeball and historical trends. what if we never had the 22 and instead went with the a Super F-15. Something with PW-F100-232 motors, TVC and APG-63(v3), would it still be kinematically inferior by this margin?
I don't have enough info on the Agile Falcon to comment on it, but it was supposed to be a low cost alternative to the ATF
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article21.htmlBut kinematicaly it may hold its own against the Typhoon as the current F-16 is still competitive against it at certain altitudes
disconnectedradical wrote:You seem to very quickly accept any positive claims about F-22, but when there's anything said that can exceed it you get very defensive. Sorry, this bias is hard to have a reasonable discussion with.
Actually I don't doubt Northrop guys when they say how good their plane is, I believe it. However whenever they say their plane is better than the YF-22, thats a different story.
I tried to look for a counter from Lockheed and their claims on why theirs was better and to my surprise there was very little, actually I couldn't find anything substantial. Just a side comment that they wanted to focus more on maneuverability.
It seems that they conformed to the fact that they actually don't know because as Metz said, nobody outside of the decision panel had access to the side by side comparisons.
disconnectedradical wrote: consolation was that the eventual decision was apparently not made on the basis of the aircraft but rather on the perception of management of an F-23A development and production program."
Thats why the decision was made but that doesn't automatically translate to the YF-23 being better. Its possible that the YF-22 was better in some or most aspects and Lockheed was also better suited to manage the program, it was a win win.
disconnectedradical wrote:And since you've clearly not studied aerodynamics or an engineer, I don't care if you don't "see" how an airplane can or can't do something.
You know, you don't need to be this up-tight, I'm here to learn and discuss with you, not to win an argument, When I'm wrong, hey I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to say it. If I'm getting in your nerves, I apologize, you don't need to reply.
disconnectedradical wrote:Regarding trim drag, the main factor is position of CG relative to aerodynamic center, and F-23 EMD drawing shows CG aft limit of 42% of MAC, which means very low trim drag.
The way I understand trim drag is that its the drag caused by control surface deflection. Now the YF-23 with it's massive tail relies on that for almost everything, people have made the argument that because its very large, it doesn't need to move much.
However, I would think that the amount of Trim drag would still be the same, you'll need to produce the same amount of trim to achieve the same results (correct me if I'm wrong)
disconnectedradical wrote:optimized for wave drag F-23 really is. Maybe F-22 can match that, but it also lost 7,000 lbs of fuel, so what is actually a good trade?
Well we don't know that for sure, from what has been made public, the YF-23 has marginal advantages in super-cruise speed while the YF-22 was tested to a higher absolute speed, Does the YF-23 have a placard limit at Mach 2+, I don't know.
Is it tactically usable, I think yes, the F-15's procedure to intercept Mig-31s is to punch out everything and leave just 4 Sparrows and accelerate to their absolute top speeds