F-23A Black Widow II

[+Dels 594]

View File

F-23A Black Widow II

---

This is the F-23A Black Widow II as if it had won the ATF competition.

 

This is Version 2.0 which now has a fully working 3d virtual cockpit and two extra internal hard points giving a total of 6 AMRAAMs internally.

 

Read the F-23A readme.txt

---

• Submitter
  Dels
• Submitted
  11/01/2006
• Category
  Fictional Aircraft, Experimental and UAV's

 

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

This is an outstanding model! Stop reading this and fly it now!!!!!

 

mdelmast = Total bloodychamp!!

 

WOOT!!

[+NeverEnough 78]

Outstanding model! Just drop in the Mirage Factory's beautiful F-15A cockpit, and it's as close to perfect as you could ever want. Thanks for your incredible work.

[Sky Captain 0]

Finally! I was waiting for someone to do one of these!

[Dasas 0]

Sweet now I cant wait for the F-22 now this is so awesome

[+NeverEnough 78]

While looking through the data.ini and comparing performance values to the Mirage Factory F-15A, I noticed the F-23A CruiseSpeed=339.53 and ClimbSpeed=205.78. Are these values reversed, or this supposed to model super cruise?

[jagl04 0]

The plane works well also in WOE.

 

Thanks

[Dasas 0]

I wonder when the F-22 will be done.

[John 0]

File Name: F-23A Black Widow II

File Submitter: <a href='http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showuser=2240'>mdelmast</a>

File Submitted: 1 Nov 2006

File Updated: 1 Nov 2006

File Category: <a href='http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?automodule=downloads&showcat=73'>Modern Era Aircraft</a>

 

This is the F-23A Black Widow II as if it had won the ATF competition.

 

There is no cockpit, so it uses the in game F-4E cockpit by Thirdwire. Hopefully I'll ba able to do one in the future.

 

Read the F-23A readme.txt

 

<a href='http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=3403'>Click here to download this file</a>

 

 

Hate to say this but....

Nice to see it modeled but there are some real BIG errors in it. I worked at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft during the development period of the ATF prototypes in R&D on the ATF engine program so I really paid close attention to the ATF flyoff when it happened.

The engines selected was Pratt & Whitney F-119-PWA-100 NOT the GE-120. GE was nearly three months late getting their prototype dual cycle engine working. In fact the GE prototype powered flight item was supposed to be the first to fly but due to GE's problems the PWA prortotype powered item flew first. The GE engine delivered more thrust BUT was far more thirsty and had a much larger thermal footprint. The PWA protype only needed a slight fan Dia. increase to make up the thrust difference. The GE needed far more work to be a viable production engine and had a higher cost. Winner of ATF engine contract PWA!

The F-23A HAS/HAD internal weapons bays like the Delta Dart and F-117A as does the F-22A neither aircraft was ever meant to have wing racks and exteranel rails as these destroy any stealth radar features they have.

Sorry for being a nit picker but remember this program was my living at the time.

 

John former Dept 7035 Fabrication specialites PWA Rocky Hill, Ct. Facility 1987-1992

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I was of the understanding that both ATF and JSF designs had wing hadpoints incorporated into their designs to allow for ferry tanks? That's why defence analyst's here in Oz are pissy about the JSF (as well as for many other reasons) as it will need external hardpoints in order to approach the F-111's service profile which kinda defeats the purpose of buying a multirole strike platform to replace a dedicated long range strike platform. The plan was to operate F-22s and JSFs in either clean (no externals, lower radar return) or conventional profiles depending on the environmental situation wasn't it? Or is that still being debated?

 

 

Oh, this if the current profile of the F-22 with externals:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22.htm

 

 

Ps. ^^ Working on prototype fighter programs... sweet work if you can get it!

Edited November 4, 2006 by SayWhat?!

[John 0]

I was of the understanding that both ATF and JSF designs had wing hadpoints incorporated into their designs to allow for ferry tanks? That's why defence analyst's here in Oz are pissy about the JSF (as well as for many other reasons) as it will need external hardpoints in order to approach the F-111's service profile which kinda defeats the purpose of buying a multirole strike platform to replace a dedicated long range strike platform. The plan was to operate F-22s and JSFs in either clean (no externals, lower radar return) or conventional profiles depending on the environmental situation wasn't it? Or is that still being debated?

Oh, this if the current profile of the F-22 with externals:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22.htm

Ps. ^^ Working on prototype fighter programs... sweet work if you can get it!

 

When I was involved with the program the prototype did not have hardpoints as at that time there was no plans for a multi role varient. The F-22 was orignaly designed a pure fighter. I would imagine at some point a conformal tank being designed for it as the F-15's have to replace the very observable externals.

IMHO the JSF is a flash back to the origanl TFX program one airframe for all services which lead to the 'Vark. Sure it meets the need for a Harrier replacement, but is to short legged to replace either the 'Vark or Falcon. I really feel as far as the USAF goes by buying both airframes Raptor and Lightening 2 it is wasted funds. I'd rather see it all spent on F-22 varient develoment aimed towards a direct F-15E replacement long range strike heavy payload and fairly low observables.

To my mind the USAF JSF varient should be killed off along with Ospery a very troubled program over 16 years in creating and it still isn't ready? Talk about waste.

[Guest IndioBlack]

This is fantastic. I always thought the YF-23 looked like a more dangerously mean piece of work than that poncy YF-22, so I was a bit disappointed when it lost the contest.

 

Couple of questions:

 

1. What's that new pop-up view you get when you use GBUs ? Is it just cosmetic (well, not "just" - it looks fantastic), or do you use it in a certain way to hit the target ?

 

2. I notice that NeverEnough has "dropped-in" the F-15 cockpit. Is it as simple as that, or do you have to go through a few hoops to make it happen? Personally I'd like to drop-in the F-18 cockpit that comes with the F-19, but how simple is that to do ? Naturally, it would be fantastic, if someone made the real thing.

 

Thank you very much.

[+NeverEnough 78]

Adding a new cockpit is pretty straightforward. Drop, for example, the F-15A cockpit folder into the F-23A aircraft folder, the F-15A cockpit.ini, and the F-15A avionics.ini. Before dropping in the new cockpit folder, rename the original cockpit folder to something different, say org cockpit. Then edit your F-23A.ini to point to the new cockpit and avionics ini's, like so:

 

[AircraftData]

AircraftFullName=F-23A Black Widow II

AircraftDataFile=F-23A_DATA.ini

CockpitDataFile=F-15A_cockpit.ini

HangarScreen=F-23A_Hangar.bmp

LoadingScreen=F-23A_Loading.bmp

LoadoutImage=F-23A_Loadout.bmp

LoadoutFile=F-23A_LOADOUT.INI

AvionicsDLL=Avionics70.dll

AvionicsDataFilename=F-15A_avionics.ini

 

That's it! If you want to use the Mirage Factory F-18A cockpit, you would use the F-18A cockpit folder, cockpit.ini and avionics.ini instead. I think I added a higher resolution seat model (Mirage Factory!), which is done in the data.ini "pilot" section. You could rename the new cockpit.ini and avionics.ini to F-23Acockpit.ini and F-23Aavionics.ini, AFTER first renaming the original files to org F-23Acockpit.ini and org F-23Aavionics.ini. I keep the original source file names so I can remember what I changed and where it came from.

[John 0]

This is fantastic. I always thought the YF-23 looked like a more dangerously mean piece of work than that poncy YF-22, so I was a bit disappointed when it lost the contest.

 

Thank you very much.

 

The final design chosen( the F-22A) was based on several facotrs most of which are classified. However two of them that are not were the Raptor incorporated Thrust Vectoring which due to the design of the 23 was impossible to incorporate. The advantage of VIFF was proven during the Falklands War by Harriers. Another thing that counted against the 23 was during even modest gee turns there was a huge wingtip vortex contrail on the innerwing tip which the Raptor does not have this contrail defeats the visable aspect of the Stealth design. I mean seriously if you see a contrail appearing out of nowhere wouldn't that give you a heads up something was heading your way?

[Guest IndioBlack]

Adding a new cockpit is pretty straightforward. Drop, for example, the F-15A cockpit folder into the F-23A aircraft folder, the F-15A cockpit.ini, and the F-15A avionics.ini. Before dropping in the new cockpit folder, rename the original cockpit folder to something different, say org cockpit. Then edit your F-23A.ini to point to the new cockpit and avionics ini's, like so:

 

[AircraftData]

AircraftFullName=F-23A Black Widow II

AircraftDataFile=F-23A_DATA.ini

CockpitDataFile=F-15A_cockpit.ini

HangarScreen=F-23A_Hangar.bmp

LoadingScreen=F-23A_Loading.bmp

LoadoutImage=F-23A_Loadout.bmp

LoadoutFile=F-23A_LOADOUT.INI

AvionicsDLL=Avionics70.dll

AvionicsDataFilename=F-15A_avionics.ini

 

That's it! If you want to use the Mirage Factory F-18A cockpit, you would use the F-18A cockpit folder, cockpit.ini and avionics.ini instead. I think I added a higher resolution seat model (Mirage Factory!), which is done in the data.ini "pilot" section. You could rename the new cockpit.ini and avionics.ini to F-23Acockpit.ini and F-23Aavionics.ini, AFTER first renaming the original files to org F-23Acockpit.ini and org F-23Aavionics.ini. I keep the original source file names so I can remember what I changed and where it came from.

 

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this guide.

I do like the F-15 cockpit, but I feel that the F-18A, being much more modern, is a little closer to where the F-23 would have been. It's certainly closer to the F-22. Anyway, I'll go do this now.

 

Hey John, you're absolutely right about the decision to go with the F-22. Another reason given was that the YF-22 had demonstrated more requirements in actual flight than the YF-23 team had got around to; including a fairly advanced model for the cockpit displays.

All I'm saying is that aesthetically, I love the mean reptilian look of the YF-23. Even though I know that this has no bearing whatsoever on its abilities as a combat aircraft.

 

Regarding the thrust-vectoring, however: Surely the F-22 does not have the same capabilities as the Harrier to hover, and land straight down ?

The use of moving engine nozzles seems to be solely for tightening turns, and maybe short take-off. The Harrier's nozzles are balance across the aircraft, whereas the F-22's are only at the back. Surely it would need a nozzle further forward to give balance in hovering and other such manouevres? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

The Harrier's nozzles are balance across the aircraft, whereas the F-22's are only at the back. Surely it would need a nozzle further forward to give balance in hovering and other such manouevres? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

STOVL not withstanding, thrust verctoring for CTOL aircraft is primarily useful in areas such as post stall recovery and improved agility although there is speculation on whether or not it allows a stealthy aircraft to keep it's low observable characteristics as flaps, airbrakes etc change the physical characteristic of the vehicle. Some aircaft have slightly larger radar returns because of this and some thrust vectoring development is investigating to see what effects navigational vectoring (navigating without the use of flaps, rudders, etc) will have on reducing radar signature. The critics suggest this is a waste of time as radar absorbing materials (RAM) can dampen these changes and that the days of the knife fight are numbered thanks to advanced BVR missiles.

 

But this last argument is a croc!

Edited November 25, 2006 by SayWhat?!

[Guest IndioBlack]

the days of the knife fight are numbered thanks to advanced BVR missiles.

 

But this last argument is a croc!

 

Isn't that the one they used in Vietnam, for why Phantoms didn't carry guns ?

 

Then they changed the rules of engagement.

[Dasas 0]

I having trouble with it does the F-23A have sounds like when you go full afterburner cause when fly it there's no engine sound.

[+Jug 99]

STOVL not withstanding, thrust verctoring for CTOL aircraft is primarily useful in areas such as post stall recovery and improved agility although there is speculation on whether or not it allows a stealthy aircraft to keep it's low observable characteristics as flaps, airbrakes etc change the physical characteristic of the vehicle. Some aircaft have slightly larger radar returns because of this and some thrust vectoring development is investigating to see what effects navigational vectoring (navigating without the use of flaps, rudders, etc) will have on reducing radar signature. The critics suggest this is a waste of time as radar absorbing materials (RAM) can dampen these changes and that the days of the knife fight are numbered thanks to advanced BVR missiles.

 

But this last argument is a croc!

Fighter without a gun. Bad idea. BVR missiles just flat do not work 100% of the time and as a sole alternative, leaves the good guy holding his Johnson as the bad guy does a drive-by.

Rules of Engagement - has it occured to anyone that RoE are impositions that the US places on itself and we are the only military on the planet that adheres to this silly policy. Win the war then write the rules. The winner is the only one so entitled.

[Guest IndioBlack]

Fighter without a gun. Bad idea. BVR missiles just flat do not work 100% of the time and as a sole alternative, leaves the good guy holding his Johnson as the bad guy does a drive-by.

Rules of Engagement - has it occured to anyone that RoE are impositions that the US places on itself and we are the only military on the planet that adheres to this silly policy. Win the war then write the rules. The winner is the only one so entitled.

 

 

Agree with you completely on the RoE. We British are just the same.

[fighterace12492 0]

I have this for WOI and am having a problem. the canopy stays open in flight. that is very annoying. I was wondering how to close it

[Wrench 9,460]

remove the 'automatic speed' references for the canopy. that way, it'll stay closed all the time

known problem with that type of controler in WoI

 

wrench

kevin stein

[fighterace12492 0]

remove the 'automatic speed' references for the canopy. that way, it'll stay closed all the time

known problem with that type of controler in WoI

 

wrench

kevin stein

 

 

how do I remove it? I can't remember.

[Wrench 9,460]

comment it out, thusly:

 

//[Canopy]

//SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE

//DeploymentMethod=AUTOMATIC_SPEED

//Setting[1].Angle=45.0

//Setting[1].DeployValue=10.0

//Setting[1].RetractValue=10.0

//MaxDeflection=45.0

//MinDeflection=0.0

//ControlRate=1.0

//ModelNodeName=Canopy_Frame

//AnimationID=8

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[fighterace12492 0]

I ment Where. Sorry I don't mean to be difficult, I'm just new to modding

Edited August 26, 2008 by fighterace12492