Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.131.117; envelope-from=micallahan@worldnet.att.net
Message-ID: <002801c4e6e3$e4e516c0$26a34a0c@unknown>
From: "Michael D. Callahan" <micallahan@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-574583@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: F/A-37 -Hollywood!
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:33:07 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lynn,
    I saw a lot of the YF-23 in this movie set. The ruddervators, the
windshield, the leading edge devices, lots of believable stuff on this one.
Too bad they didn't go for both the F-22 and 23.
    The YF-23 was not so much pricey as it was a totally different logic
than the F-22. The F-22 was more maneuverable in close in dogfighting
situations and that is the primary reason it was selected instead.
    The YF-23 was designed to never have to bother with dogfighting. It is a
truly stealth airplane (as opposed to the semi-stealth F-22) designed to be
able to whack enemy fighters in the same way the F-117 or B-2 makes bombs
seem to magically appear out of nowhere. The YF-23 is rumored to be faster
than the F-22 as well. The enemy fighter pilot would have just suddenly
found himself in a ball of fire with no "bogies" on his radar, on his
infra-red or in sight. He would never have known the F-23 was there. At
least that's how it works on paper...
    Of course that was what they thought when the first F-4s were delivered
to Vietnam without an internally mounted gun. They figured there would be no
reason to dogfight with the advanced missiles of the day. I guess they did
learn something. How can you get positive ident on something without looking
at it? So much for stealth. Now we have a dogfight on our hands, and I'd far
prefer to have the F-22s 2D thrust vectoring and higher maneuverability over
the now-useless stealthiness (and lack of an internal gun) of the F-23 in
that situation.
    The F-36 can hover, but not the Air Force version. Only the Marine
version will have V/STOL capability. In exchange for the weight and internal
space taken by the forward lift fan, the Navy is swapping a heavier airframe
(to withstand carrier landings) and more fuel. The Air force is going for
lots more fuel and retaining a very light airframe.
    Yeah, I love Dayton. I usually get up there every couple of years on
museum business. The scale of the place is just unfathomable.
    I actually think the F-22 up there is a test aiframe like the B-2 they
put on display a year ago.  Mike C.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Lehanover@aol.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:58 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: F/A-37 -Hollywood!


> In a message dated 12/20/2004 1:01:19 PM Central Standard Time,
> micallahan@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << Yeah, I was very suspect of the droop nose and the big windshield
>  myself. Not only that, why in the world would this "pilot" have her name
on
>  the side of a prototype and why doesn't it have the usual twelve foot
tall
>  letters of the model number (YF/A-37)? Forward swept elevons? I don't
think
>  so. The clincher was the bottom pic with the guys in the foreground
manning
>  a big movie camera.  Mike C.
>
>
>   >>
>
> Not so fast there boys. That is an Air Force camera team. It won't be an
"F"
> anything until after acceptance testing is completed. It will be a YF
> something until then.
>
>
>
> The canopy is the new Buckey strand reinforced Pyrex glass structure. The
> nose raises up to streamline at cruise (mach 3.8 without AB) it droops for
> landing like the Concord. The forward swept horizontals and the lack of
verticals is
> part of the shock wave management system. The rudder works split strakes
at
> the wing tips to replicate rudder feel. There are rudder pedals so you can
> overpower the computers for air shows and such. Normally the feet are in
stirrups
> in the front of the seat pack.
> The whole nose is the escape pod. Developed and tested to 40,000 feet by
> Rutan's Scaled Composites people. The escape pod is flyable and has a
range of 50
> statute miles. Powered by powdered nitril rubber and nitrous. It has auto
> pilot and will auto track to the nearest friendly area before deploying
the chute.
>
> A picture of this thing got out, so they made up the movie story to cover
it.
> Now DOD has to front the movie to throw off the bad guys. It's been flying
> between Tonopa and Groom Lake every night for a year.
>
> There is a guy on that mountain every night with a 16" reflector telescope
> who says a C-5 leaves there at dusk and this thing lands blacked out
around
> midnight. His guess is that they either take it close by to launch it, or
they can
> launch it right out the back door of the C-5. Pretty cool stuff.
>
> The one on the carrier was the third airframe. The first was the
structures
> test frame so it got bent and vibrated through two lifetimes. It will be
> repaired and shipped to the AF Museum In Dayton next year. Although it can
launch
> from a carrier it is not what the Navy wanted. So the Naval version will
have
> more wing area and a slightly lower cruise speed, and carry more ordnance.
Air
> frame three is all Air Force
>
> The first flight test airframe is back at Lockheed Burbank for repairs
after
> a fueling fire in October. This will be the follow on to the F-36, the one
> that can hover. The F-36 replaces the F-22 that just formed its first
squadron.
> Some folks say this one can not only hover, but can leave unimproved
locations
> with full fuel and ordnance load,
> by using dropable assist rocket motors in tubes along side the lift fans.
> Same fans as the F-36.
>
> During this carrier event they were just firing those rockets one at a
time
> and filming the effect on the airframe from the epoxy based nonskid
surface
> that is used on all carriers. Also they placed various support equipment
nearby
> to see what effect that would suffer.
>
> How do I know this?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't. I just made it up.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you felt real proud there for a minute,
>
> Keep right on feeling proud.
>
> This kind of stuff is in the works right now. The looser in the flyoff
that
> the F-22 won is now at the Air Force Museum and it has the rudders laid
down
> almost flat just like the movie plane. The YF-23 I believe. It is just
> beautiful. Long and snake like. And it flew real well. Just a bit too
pricey.
>
> The F-36 really does hover, and is the replacement for the F-22.
>
> There is an F-22 at the Museum also. The one that crashed I suspect. Worth
> the trip to Dayton. One of the top three airplane museums on earth.
>
>
> This and much more, is coming soon to an air show near you. God bless
America.
>
>
> Lynn E. Hanover
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>