| Author |
Message
|
| Undecided |
 Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: Was the F-23 better then the F-22? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Toronto
|
What do you think? I've always wondered...the F-22 was picked mostly on economic considerations...and plus the F-23 was damn sexy.
_________________
"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."
-Benjamin Disraeli |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| wallaby |
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 1375
Location: Australia
|
Personally i think the F-22 is a better choice.
the F-23 does go a bit faster and higher, but can't carry as much payload/Weapons. so really if it did carry the extra weight it would be about the same as the F-22. the only advancement i think they made was some manuverability adjustments to increse the rate of accent.
and besides the F-22 only costs about...$256.9 million per plane and the government wants about 279 of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (In)Sanity |
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 2145
Location: Phoenix AZ
|
Hmm, I'm not familiar with the F23. How were the avioniccs on it, what kind of turns could it make. I assume it was also a trust vectored plane?
I like the F22 in any case. It's really nice all the way around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Undecided |
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Toronto
|
Actually no the F-23 did not have thrust vectoring, but it was supposedly more maneuvrable then the F-22. Just look at this darling:
http://www.aerofiles.com/north-f23.jpg
_________________
"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."
-Benjamin Disraeli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (In)Sanity |
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 2145
Location: Phoenix AZ
|
| I wonder if it can do greater then a 9 G turn like the F16. You got to love the F16. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wallaby |
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 1375
Location: Australia
|
personally i like the F/A-18 as and attack fighter. it's been pretty good and reliable since 1978.
as for the F-23... it is rumored that the F-22 was chosen because of better subsonic manuverability and thrust vectoring, but also because the weapons release mechanism on the F-23 is aparently flawed.
As for the G force... the F-16 isn't much slower than the F-23 so i'd say that it could, but i don't think pulling more than 9-G's is really healthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| latehorn |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 76
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anandsatya |
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Posts: 67
Location: India
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cs-comm |
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| (In)Sanity wrote: |
| I wonder if it can do greater then a 9 G turn like the F16. You got to love the F16. |
I wouldn't want a plane to do greater then 9 g's since that would kill the pilot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
| cs-comm wrote: |
| I wouldn't want a plane to do greater then 9 g's since that would kill the pilot. |
Not strictly true:
Time (min)......+Gx......-Gx......+Gz......-Gz
.01 (<1 sec)......35......28......18......8
.03 (2 sec)..…...28......22......14......7
.1.......…..………..20......17......11......5
.3..........…..…….15......12......9......4.5
1.....……….........11......9........7......3.3
3...........…….…….9.......8.......6......2.5
10...........…….…..6......5......4.5......2
30..........…..…..4.5......4......3.5......1.8
From: Webb, Paul M. D. "Bioastronautics Data Book,", NASA SP-3006, 1964
via http://yarchive.net/space/science/g_tolerance.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wallaby |
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 1375
Location: Australia
|
| i can't tell you just how much all those figures mean to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
Naw. go on, tell me. I wont tell anyone else.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wallaby |
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 1375
Location: Australia
|
| people say that and then some how everyone mysteriously finds out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Swaroop |
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 31
Location: currently India
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| roger g |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
|
Actually, both aircraft have better turning capability than the F-16. The slowest speed (corner velocity) at which you can pull max G's is at least as important as the max G's. The wing loading is a significant factor in determining this.
As far as which is better? It's a toss up. The F-23 is slightly faster and stealthier but the F-22 is cheaper. This is significant because if there is anything that is better than a good airplane, it is 2 good airplanes.
As far as the avionics is concerned, you can always update the electronics but you are stuck with the airframe (unless you get an entirely new aircraft). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
