Skidmarks_Diecast
Active Member
Dragon's 1/72 kit....
PAV-1
PAV-2
PAV-1
PAV-2
YF-23 PAV-1 and -2
- Thread starter Skidmarks_Diecast
- Start date
OhioAstromech
Well-Known Member
It's now getting restored to be put on display at the U.S.A.F. Museum in Fairborn Ohio.
Great job on the model by the way.
Scot
Great job on the model by the way.
Scot
Dragon's 1/72 kit....
PAV-1
PAV-2
falcondesigns
Well-Known Member
Great job,I prefer this one to what we got.alex
It's an elegant design but I can see why the F-22 won the competition.
The F-22 prototype put on a better show than its rival and demonstrated superior maneuverability. Really, the Northrop flight test program for the YF-23 was pathetic. This in spite of a last-minute design change for the YF-22. I scratch my head in wondering WHAT Northrop was thinking with the flight tests. They didn't push their airframes nearly as hard as Lockheed did theirs. Little politics were involved in the ATF decision despite the naysayers. 'Nuff said.
The YF-23 story may not be over. Besides the one prototype airframe being restored for static display in Dayton, the other prototype has been involved in structural test programs and there's talk of modifying it to an attack aircraft configuration for a new USAF program. Of course, with all the current budgetary messes engulfing the US and the entire world, it's very likely that the last manned aircraft approved for a long time IS going to be the F-35 Lightning II.
There has been pipedream talk about a new manned (or unmannned?) bomber project -- it surfaced publicly in the most recent issues of Popular Mechanics or Popular Science -- but it's very likely that won't even get past a subscale flight test phase if any hardware is built at all. Again, there's just no money leftover for a plane that will probably cost in excess of at least $200 million per plane over its lifetime (that includes spare parts not limited to just engine changes and tires) and see a very limited production of probably no more than between 35-100 planes IF production goes that far.
Remember, there were supposed to be 120-some B-2 bombers produced and ultimately only 22(?) frames including non-flying structural test articles got built. The B-2 is by far the biggest lemon in the long-running history of lemons bought by the Pentagon. It's horribly expensive to maintain and has an availability rate 1/3 of the B-1's (63%) and 1/4 of the 60-year-old B-52 design (80+%)! Yep, it's a classic hangar queen no doubt!!
I live in Columbus and have been thinking of going back to Wright-Patt just for a day to see the new exhibits in the USAF Museum -- it's still easily the best military aircraft museum in the country! Heck, I think it's better than the National Air and Space Museum in many ways!
The F-22 prototype put on a better show than its rival and demonstrated superior maneuverability. Really, the Northrop flight test program for the YF-23 was pathetic. This in spite of a last-minute design change for the YF-22. I scratch my head in wondering WHAT Northrop was thinking with the flight tests. They didn't push their airframes nearly as hard as Lockheed did theirs. Little politics were involved in the ATF decision despite the naysayers. 'Nuff said.
The YF-23 story may not be over. Besides the one prototype airframe being restored for static display in Dayton, the other prototype has been involved in structural test programs and there's talk of modifying it to an attack aircraft configuration for a new USAF program. Of course, with all the current budgetary messes engulfing the US and the entire world, it's very likely that the last manned aircraft approved for a long time IS going to be the F-35 Lightning II.
There has been pipedream talk about a new manned (or unmannned?) bomber project -- it surfaced publicly in the most recent issues of Popular Mechanics or Popular Science -- but it's very likely that won't even get past a subscale flight test phase if any hardware is built at all. Again, there's just no money leftover for a plane that will probably cost in excess of at least $200 million per plane over its lifetime (that includes spare parts not limited to just engine changes and tires) and see a very limited production of probably no more than between 35-100 planes IF production goes that far.
Remember, there were supposed to be 120-some B-2 bombers produced and ultimately only 22(?) frames including non-flying structural test articles got built. The B-2 is by far the biggest lemon in the long-running history of lemons bought by the Pentagon. It's horribly expensive to maintain and has an availability rate 1/3 of the B-1's (63%) and 1/4 of the 60-year-old B-52 design (80+%)! Yep, it's a classic hangar queen no doubt!!
I live in Columbus and have been thinking of going back to Wright-Patt just for a day to see the new exhibits in the USAF Museum -- it's still easily the best military aircraft museum in the country! Heck, I think it's better than the National Air and Space Museum in many ways!
OhioAstromech
Well-Known Member
My friend Jim and I head out there all the time.
The Museum has changed quite a bit in the past several years and keeps getting better.
They also recently started restoration on the Memphis Belle.
The best airframe ever designed came out of a motel room in Fairborn, Ohio made out of balsa wood purchased at a local hobbyshop.
My Dad flew on the B-52 for 12 years during the 60's and 70's as a B-52 Tail Gunner.
Hopefully they will keep them flying.
Scot
The Museum has changed quite a bit in the past several years and keeps getting better.
They also recently started restoration on the Memphis Belle.
The best airframe ever designed came out of a motel room in Fairborn, Ohio made out of balsa wood purchased at a local hobbyshop.
My Dad flew on the B-52 for 12 years during the 60's and 70's as a B-52 Tail Gunner.
Hopefully they will keep them flying.
Scot
Oh,
The B-52s will be kept flying for at least another 20-30 years.
The Air Force can't afford to replace them and they're more reliable than their "replacements!" The B-2 doesn't have anywhere near the readiness rate of the B-52 and even the B-1 has a harder time getting out of the hangar than the B-52.
Let's see which planes the B-52 outlasted --
the XB-70 which NEVER went into production; the B-58, which was in service for barely 10 years and was good for only setting speed records; the SR-71, which was one time considered for development into a bomber (basically could carry one nuke -- wow, what a bombload!); the F-14, a great fighter but ultimately done in by a combination of politics, poor program management, complexity, and maintenance issues; and the list goes on.
The only other planes still around that have served almost as long as the B-52 are a few cargo planes (C-5, C-130), aerial refuelers (KC-135), and one fighter, the F-4. The US may not use F-4s for anything other than target practice (drones) now, but other countries still use that plane for frontline service and it'll be in service somewhere probably past the 60th Anniversary of the prototype flight! The B-52 will easily pass the 70th Anniversary of its prototype in service.
There's a chance your Dad's grandkids might actually fly one of those for all you know. There were a few instances of guys following their dads into the Air Force and flying the same kind of planes 20 years later! That usually happened with B-52s and F-4s.
The other plane that's destined to outlive a lot of others is going to be the A-10, the plane the Air Force wanted to retire before Gulf War I. There have been studies and even a prototype built by Dick Rutan to replace it but the design is just so right for lower-intensity regional conflicts that even the dunder-heads that want to buy hypersonic aircraft (which are impractical and can't do anything but reconnaissance, set speed records, and fly in a straight line!) saw the light and kept the plane around. The original idea was to sell the planes off to a Third World country or even scrap the majority of them!
The B-52s will be kept flying for at least another 20-30 years.
The Air Force can't afford to replace them and they're more reliable than their "replacements!" The B-2 doesn't have anywhere near the readiness rate of the B-52 and even the B-1 has a harder time getting out of the hangar than the B-52.
Let's see which planes the B-52 outlasted --
the XB-70 which NEVER went into production; the B-58, which was in service for barely 10 years and was good for only setting speed records; the SR-71, which was one time considered for development into a bomber (basically could carry one nuke -- wow, what a bombload!); the F-14, a great fighter but ultimately done in by a combination of politics, poor program management, complexity, and maintenance issues; and the list goes on.
The only other planes still around that have served almost as long as the B-52 are a few cargo planes (C-5, C-130), aerial refuelers (KC-135), and one fighter, the F-4. The US may not use F-4s for anything other than target practice (drones) now, but other countries still use that plane for frontline service and it'll be in service somewhere probably past the 60th Anniversary of the prototype flight! The B-52 will easily pass the 70th Anniversary of its prototype in service.
There's a chance your Dad's grandkids might actually fly one of those for all you know. There were a few instances of guys following their dads into the Air Force and flying the same kind of planes 20 years later! That usually happened with B-52s and F-4s.
The other plane that's destined to outlive a lot of others is going to be the A-10, the plane the Air Force wanted to retire before Gulf War I. There have been studies and even a prototype built by Dick Rutan to replace it but the design is just so right for lower-intensity regional conflicts that even the dunder-heads that want to buy hypersonic aircraft (which are impractical and can't do anything but reconnaissance, set speed records, and fly in a straight line!) saw the light and kept the plane around. The original idea was to sell the planes off to a Third World country or even scrap the majority of them!
Similar threads
