GGTharos Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) You have to be careful about a lot more than that. For instance, the F-22 is 10000lbs heavier empty than the YF-22. It is likely that the same thing might have happened to the 23, and their TWR's would have remained similar; but the loaded weight for the 23 was lower to begin with - by some 10000lbs. The 23 was only 4000lbs lighter empty than the F-22 ... so I don't see how it could have possibly had 'more fuel'. The engines meant to power the 23 were considered pretty high risk, IIRC. High-risk stuff that became acceptable-risk stuff during F-22 development (And proposed for the 23) was incorporated into the 22. You don't need the best aerodynamics in the world for your plane, you need the ones that fit most of your mission profiles, and the 22 was good enough while at the same time being ready enough ( ... development timeline history aside. It wasn't history THEN). You have to be careful about which side is saying what. Off-hand the YF-23 had a TWR of 1.36:1 vs 1.09:1 for the YF-22, even with 1500lbs more fuel. It also had a wing-loading of 54lb/ft^2 vs about 78lb/ft^2 for the YF-22. In all likely the YF-23 would have out-flew the YF-22 even without TV. Edited January 4, 2013 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
aaron886 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 There is a lot more to selecting the right aircraft than a brochure. Internet experts are only that.
Cali Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 There is a lot more to selecting the right aircraft than a brochure. Internet experts are only that. Exactly, lots of things come into play. i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
Recommended Posts