es but it depends about how it sits on the plane, a Meteor on the Typhoon conformal mounting probably impact less than a vanilla sidewinder on a wingtip (and is covered by plane’s shadow in most cases).
Same with payload sitting in the central tunnel of a Flanker or Fullback, although having a conventional arrangment, they can be seen only from the bottom

To a degree, but does not account for creeping waves (even if the return is far weaker). Bottom line: discontinuities are going to increase RCS. When designers are concerned about size and shape of access panels and countersunk rivets in LO aircraft: obviously a pylon, IR seeker head, or EFT will have a significant impact even from the head on aspect.

The combat capabilities of the F-22 are higher by 18%, these are determined by the choice in his favor

Thanks for the random chart of vague factors generated by you Paralay,

Really clears up everything.

Yes and No, the outer shape is critical for scatter and backscatter of RF energy. LO combat aircraft have to fly, flight, communicate, etc. When even the reflection off a pilots helmet, fan blade, or afterburner rings can dramatically increase RCS, obviously the concept of “shaping” refers to more than the planform edge alignment and avoidance of corner reflecters.

As an aside, I grew up near one of the USAF RCS test ranges, I saw the F-22 EMD, RAH-66, early JSF models (actually JAST, the JSF RCS mockups I saw pole testing during grad school), other test models that I could not identify, mounted on poles for testing. Even from several hundred yards away, it was easy to distinguish a RCS mockup from, say, a functional F-16 which I frequently saw mounted on the RCS pole during the early 90’s.

Because it didn’t. The YF-23 (for the 100th time) was a flying prototype. Neither the YF-22 or -23 were LO, they had pilots (autocorrect from pitots though they had pilots too, ha), exposed vents, no RAS incorporated in structure, no RAM. Do you need to read Northrop engineers state this because I can pull up the quote?

The only thing rumored is of the RCS test mules, was that the YF-23 RCS model had a lower RCS. Those models were devoid of engines, antennas, everything but the outline shape and structure. So if you want to say that the YF-23 had better shaping, fine. In reality, the production F-23 would have had significant changes to the inlets, exhaust, cockpit, access panels, in order to meet RCS requirements. The same was true of the evolution from the YF-22 to the F-22 EMD.[ATTACH=CONFIG]256718[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]256719[/ATTACH]

They look the same to you? That is why definitive statements about the relative RCS between the YF-23 and the F-22 are dumb. The YF-22 had significant changes to the F-22, the YF-23 would have too.

A few corrections to the corrections. Actually, the F-23 would have had less volume in the engine nacelles and likely better area ruling for it – while already cancelled by then and never installed, the YF-23s were build with an outer mold line designed to accommodate thrust reversers.

Less volume in the nacelles and flatter nacelles, but wider in the rear due to reconfiguration of nozzle/exhaust trough[ATTACH=CONFIG]256678[/ATTACH]
The forward fuselage was also considerably wider. The extensive area rule of the YF-23 was relaxed in the EMD for functionality: weapons bays, radar, rear aspect RCS and thermal requirements. (pic-courtesy of YF-23.net). The RCS model incorporated some of the changes that the EMD would have demonstrated.

while at the same time conducting heat so poorly that the underlying structure is sufficiently insulated) while the nozzle tiles on the YF-23 were transpiration cooled (air ejected through numerous tiny perforations).

Again yes and no, they were cooled by transpiration, but the tiles themselves were Titanium Lamilloy, and you are right they are not ablative (well, actually kind of were, just not on purpose). And Northrup sued Allison over their performance (edit- Allison sued Northrup over the specifications).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1121429.html

Addition: Interesting powerpoint from society of flight test engineers (with some specifics on the flight test program)
http://www.sftentx.com/files/78588500.pdf

YF-22 no.1 (YF120)= max mach >2
YF-22 no.2 (YF-119)= max mach 1.81

PAV-1= max mach 1.8
PAV-2= max mach 1.72

However, last slide showed the max supercruise of PAV-2 to be superior to YF-22. (If you look at slide it would appear that max supercruise was probably the max speed listed for PAV-2, Mach 1.72)

Bingo, Ijozic

The YF-23 had cockpit instrumentation from the F-15E, the YF-22 had representative cockpit of planned EMD. Even the landing gear was parts bin. The YF-23 had several proposals for the weapons bay including a trapeze system, the YF-22 had a working system installed (The F-23 would have had a redesigned weapons bay as well as a small bay forward for ir missiles according to the leaked schematics).

One of the biggest risks was the exhaust system, the F-22 had a TVC non-axis symmetric nozzle, the flight characteristics of which were already known. The SERN nozzle of the YF-23 was a bigger development risk as well as the heat ablative tiles (which any space shuttle affectionado could tell you were a pain).

Between the two, the USAF deemed that the YF-22 was closer to production ready while Northrup had significant changes to the EMD model planned. It could be considered ironic considering all the changes that eventually showed up on the F-22’s evolution, but it was clear to the USAF which manufacturer had a more mature design (from inlets to exhaust, cockpit avionics, weapons system, etc.).