Can a moderator please rename this thread into “for the 1000th time YF-23 details in comparison to PAK-FA!” ???

Comparing some of the design features of a 5th gen stealth aircraft with the Pak Fa is entirely valid.

You just don’t like the idea that all the hype that the critics have leveled on the Pak Fa about the air intakes is being cleanly nullified.

YF-23 was rated better for ALL AROUND stealth. this doesn’t mean just the front, it means all over.

it was rated better than the YF-22 not F-22.

YF-23 has a Y-duct. to see the engine blades, you have to stand at an angle, not head on

see angle, left of the fueselage
[img]http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/yf-23/yf-23_
[img]http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/4/3/5/6/1/4/t6386070-146-…

it also curves upward
[img]http://yf-23.net/Pics/Plans/YF-23%20drawing%20side%20internal%201523]

pak-fa is similar in that you can only see the blades from a certain angle, but not directly in front.

YF-23 was rated better for ALL AROUND stealth. this doesn’t mean just the front, it means all over.

I never said just the front. But the front is included in ALL AROUND stealth. If the invisible engine feature on the F 22 Raptor meant anything or if it meant as much as the Pak Fa critics are claiming, then the YF 23 would not have beat it in all around stealth.

it was rated better than the YF-22 not F-22.

That’s a moot point. There was no production YF 23. So a comparison does not exist. But part of the reason why the F 23 boys were mad about losing the contract is because they knew their product had better stealth. The YF 23 had better stealth than the YF 22.

YF-23 has a Y-duct. to see the engine blades, you have to stand at an angle, not head on

Not really. Some of the pics are head on. But its not like the famous pics of the Pak Fa are perfectly straight shots. One of the shots they like to show is the blueprints. Look at the circles on these blueprints

it also curves upward

The Pak Fa’s curve upward too.

Point: Su-47 photo above the mention of S-ducts. Check (I agree)
Counterpoint: It is a bit off the beaten path to incorporate two elements in an experimental design. They wanted to study S-duct RCS performance and FSW at the same time on the same frame?

Point: Use of radar blockers in not new. Check (I agree)
Counterpoint: Don’t have any. I am waiting to see them on the T-50

Point: Forgetting about engine face reflection, is not a fault that just happens.
Counterpoint: I….can’t tell, don’t know. On one hand we have all criticised the many -apparent- shortcomings of the F-35. This too came out of a very experienced and successful design house, yet… on the other hand we want to put faith in the fact that …it is not a fault that just happens.

Nonetheless, I drop it now, because you were kind enough to offer me some answers for the first time all these years.. so I am happy.

how does the YF 23 get better stealth than the Raptor with more engine showing than the Pak Fa ?

I don’t want to play devil’s advocate, and your answer (thank you btw) clears up where you are coming from; but you are also making one assumption.
That just because something was investigated and moved on from, something better (or equally good) must have been found. It is not like Sukhoi has not designed planes with faults before. The second assumption is that the Su-47 was built to investigate low RCS. Maybe it was built to investigate forward swept wings, so the s-ducts in Su-47 point may not be valid after all.

If full S ducts is such a big deal to stealth then how did the YF 23 beat the Raptor in stealth with more engine face showing than the Pak Fa ?

Is it just me that the Eurofighter Typhoon is built for speed with little effort/energy?! I haven’t watched jet videos in a while but one thing I noticed is the older types like the F-15, Tornados, etc. seems to use a lot of power and effort while the Typhoon used less effort. I noticed that right away particularly with Mach Loop clips…

When it first came out, it was a step above the rest in agility, power and athleticism. But then it quickly fell back when thrust vectoring and 4.5 gen and stealth started coming out.

It is stuck between 2 eras. It could earn back some of its earlier prestige if they thrust vectored it.

Another fantasy??? … Why do You think there was ever a competition between the J-20 and the T-50? There was not even one between the T-50 and the MiG 1.44 since both were related to very different programs.
You are really living in phantasy-land … Get at least The Facts corect.

The J 20 is built on the Mig 1.44 platform. The Mig 1.44 platform is to the Pak Fa what the YF 23 Black widow is to the Raptor.

The YF lost to the Raptor
The 1.44 lost to the Pak Fa

Douglas Barrie, an aerospace expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that the J20’s airframe resembled that of an abandoned Russian prototype, the MiG 1.42.

For the most part, China’s combat aircraft programme has lagged behind its competitors in the west and Russia.

China’s fourth-generation combat jet, the J-10, appeared in 2006 – but experts say it compares with western aircraft that went into production two decades ago. Beijing has also struggled to develop the Shenyang J-15 carrier-borne jet, reverse-engineered from the Russian-made Sukhoi 33.

ast summer, Russia threatened to cut off supplies of jet engines for China’s JF-17, saying it had been cloned from its Sukhoi 27/30 and MiG 29 aircraft – and was being sold for $10 million less than the original.

Illya Kramnik, a Russian expert, said that “despite the strides made by China’s aircraft designers in the last 20 years, China has only slightly narrowed the technological gap dividing it from the global leaders.

stats and news say something else. they are more legit sources than you, sorry.

Came from Wiki and CIA world fact book

there is no competition between them. pak-fa is a demonstrator. j-20 is entered service. one is more developed than the other.

The J 20 is not in service.

The Pak Fa won. The Mig 1.44 lost.