Building the Hobby Boss 1/48th Scale YF-23 Stealth Fighter Prototype 

Thanks Chris! :-)

Not really. The YF-23 flew up to 60,000', went up to Mach 2.2, and flew farther than the YF-22. The (Y)F-22 only goes up to 50,000', goes Mach 1.8, and doesn't fly as far, before it needs refueling. However the (Y)F-22 does not look as weird looking, and had better marketing. So the USAF brass at the time chose the YF-22.

@@bugstomper4670 What is the use of climbing to 60,000 feet for a hunter, while beyond 52,000 feet your blood begins to boil. Flying at high altitude in a space suit (like on the U2) is one thing, doing combat with this type of suit is just not believable. For the rest the F23 is a much better plane, LM is credible only in the field of corruption. The Su 57 and the SCAF take many aspects of the design of the f23 (except its typical wings), (something however bringing in low speed flight a consequent advantage by offering a very low stall speed without the need for a vortex generator (like the ducks or prominent apices (like F18), which increase the radar surface.)

Hi jtjr26, so glad you like it! 😃

Thanks gcm747! The Bismarck should be interesting!

i mean with all the grounded 22s I'm not sure we made the right choice.

F22 is a lemon Just a good reason to get your tax money to the fat cats that pull your presidents strings

@@commissarlugh1040 Chances are the YF-23 would be in the same situation, it was a lot more expensive and had problems too. We probably would end up with less YF-23s than we did with F-22s. Truth be told I like the YF-23 but I think we went with the right decision. The YF-23 was faster and stealthier that's about all it had on the YF-22. The YF-22 was still extremely stealthy, just barely less stealthy could turn quicker and are the same payload as a YF-23. And I might also add, the design of the F-22s thrust vectors help extremely with infrared stealth as well. And the YF-22 was cheaper and still far exceeded the Air Force requirements.

@@danielkirkland3366 The F-22 is no longer in production, hasn't been since 2012 try again.

Daniel Kirkland Lol. Another RU-vid engineer. Apparently everything is a lemon....until it’s not. Literally every fucking plane is called a lemon because it’s not someone’s favorite. Even though they sell women’s suites or flip burgers for a living, and you want to tell the people who actually fly these things and praise it, it’s a lemon.....

Thanks Bastian!

Thanks again, William! I sure appreciate your input and comments :-)

Yes, i*d really love to see a B-52 build!

Thanks Larry, glad you enjoyed it all 😃

Why thank you so much, Riley!

Thanks Peter, I hope you enjoy some of the other presentations!

Thanks Bill!

Thanks ChancerNW, glad to hear most viewers are enjoying this episode!

That's because it is

@@sebastianchavez8483 How can you tell if something is more advanced by looking at it's airframe ? The Raptor won the contract from the USAF for a reason.

It won because it was a more conventional shape in turn making it cheaper to produce. In a 1v1 where there are no cost limitations the yf 23 would win because of the technology alone. It was basically to advanced for it's time which is why a variation of it is being built right now as a 7th gen fighter.

If you look at my profile picture you might realize that I know what I'm talking about.

@@MrMulkerrins Lockheed won politically, if i'm not mistaken, YF-23 was more stealthy than the YF-22. And the Black Widow might have cost overrun if it went into full scale development since its cockpit and gear were used from the F-15E and F/A-18, USAF might be ask the manufacturer to made some clean sheet for the cockpit and the gear to suit their operational uses

Thanks John! I hope your projects turn out to be great successes!

Thanks Xingjian Su! I must admit, you're the first person I have read use "pedagogical" in any context in many, many years! :-)

To have seen both YF-23s is no small feat these days considering the distance they are apart from each other 😃

@@MaxAfterburner Yes, I took two roadtrips in either direction from home in Colorado, and one reason of many for going on each trip was to see these planes.

Thanks Jordan W!

Thanks again WADIII Andrew!

I've read that the super-maneuverability and the prospect of a naval modification of the f-22 were the deciding factors. Then again, world governments have a history of supporting lockheed martin despite their failings (f-104 comes to mind)

@@wooptydo6241 I guess the P-38, F-117, C-130, U-2, SR-71 ETC were failures too?

Austin Davis did I say that they’re aircraft a all failures? No, I said that governments often go with the Lockheed built vehicles despite issues and short comings in the prototypes. The p-80, for example, had one of their prototypes crash and kill its pilot while preforming a demonstration. While this would mean the end of the line for more modern prototypes usaf still ordered them for full production and found that they were obsolete as a fighter by the time the Korean War began. How about the f-22? Despite being slower and less stealthy than the yf 23 the yf-22 was chosen as the winner of the advanced tactical fighter competition. How about the f-16? In the light weight fighter technology evaluation program Northrop and Lockheed build competing designs. The Lockheed yf-16 and the Northrop yf-17. Despite the yf-17 being faster, more manoeuvrable and built as a fighter and not a multirole like the program requested; the yf-16 won anyway. Luckily the yf-17 was picked up by the navy and turned into a replacement for the a-7 Corsair and the f-4 phantom and was designated as f/a-18. I would recommend reading about how the f-104 seemed to end up in so many airforces to further prove my point.

@@wooptydo6241 despite being slower and less stealthy (Barely less stealthy) the F-22 was more maneuverable and less expensive while still far exceeding the Air Forces requirements. Seems like the logical choice to me. The F-16 was not a Lockheed designed aircraft it was designed by General Dynamics which was originally designed as a lightweight fighter which outmaneuvered the YF-17 no problem. The only advantage the Yf-17 had against the YF-16 was the 2 engines vs 1. It wasnt until later when Lockheed bought General Dynamics and the F-16 that it became a multi role aircraft. The F-16 still out maneuvers the F/A-18 as well in high speed turna but if the F/A-18 gets it to drain energy then the Hornet is more maneuverable. Might I also add the F/A-18 itself is a multi role aircraft. Literally in the designation Fighter/Attack-18. I think I misunderstood your original comment and thought you were saying all Lockheed craft were trash. Yes I'll know about the F-104and yes I'm aware of the P-80s crash. Anyways sorry if my original comment came as aggressive no intentions of that. Cheers!

Austin Davis I was un-aware of the cost differences in the ATF prototypes, thanks for the information. As for the yf-17 and the f/a-18; the yf-17 was built as a fighter as that was the request of the program but after losing it was taken in to the revived naval fighter attack experimental (VFAX) program. Since it was estimated to be too expensive to replace all of the navy’s attack fighters with f-14s. Thus, the yf-17 was enlarged and turned into 3 modifications: a fighter, an attacker and a two seated trainer but by the completion of the program the fighter and attacker variants were combined into the f/a-18a. So the cobra/hornet wasn’t designed to be a multi-role but became one through its near decade long developments.

Hi Chris, thanks. It's one of those experiments/accidental discoveries that worked out.

Thanks Arda, and have fun with your build! 😊

Thanks Carlos, I'm glad they may be of use to your model building!

Glad to hear that, thanks so much, Pranay! 😃

Thanks Dark Knight 13, hope you're having a great day 🙂

@@MaxAfterburner Yes,thank you,currently building hobbyboss's 1/48 A-10c and it's going together perfectly,so yes all in all a good day!

Thanks Ryan, it certainly was an unusual project for me!

Hi Guadalupe Andadre , thanks very much! 🙂

Thanks Kin3tic 🙂

@@MaxAfterburner thank you for the video! Love watching these.

🙂

Thanks ammarmar! I've found that this kit's landing gear is fairly sturdy, so I'm not too worried about it collapsing.

Hi Jim, great to hear, thank you! 😃

Thanks Jim 🙂

Hi alex3261, thanks a lot! 😀

Thanks again mpoyart 🙂

Thanks Master Villain! If it wasn't for the viewers, I may have not even considered this kit on my own.

Thanks, I hope it helps! 😃

Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

@@MaxAfterburner I take it you have seen the documentary about the build process?

Hi Inola Fox, when you do, I hope it brings you great joy and entertainment!

Thanks Mitch!

Hi Straton, many are still disappointed that it lost out to the YF-22 from years ago. The YF-23 truly looks as if it came from another world.

Thanks IDM112, I'm glad you were entertained! ;-)

Hi Sky Kid, my base was the first to receive the F-16E/F Block 60s when the UAE purchased the aircraft and based their initial training at the 162nd FW in Arizona.

This was the better looking plane. I have heard it was because the F22 had a operational weapons system and this did not.

I believe I read this too. The YF-22 was already doing weapons tests and the YF-23 wasn't there yet.

@@MaxAfterburner The YF-22 won because it was cheaper and due to backroom deals. All the test pilots who flew both said the YF-23 was the better plane.

@@llynellyn There also was the question of reproducibility being that the YF-22 was much more conventional and the AF tends to go with evolutionary vs revolutionary technology when possible. The YF-23 DID outfly the YF-22...but not enough to warrant the risks of production and both met all performance requirements. Same thing happened with the engines....I was at P&W at the time (and worked on both sets of test engines) so we were getting reports from the tests. Seeing the pictures we all thought the YF-23 looked better as it's a really nice package. The GE engines did outperform ours in some areas but again both met all of the requirements. The GE guys were reportedly thinking they had it in the bag being that they matched or exceed us in all areas...except the couple that made the AF choose P&W...those being technology and serviceability. The AF wasn't sure about the 'adaptive cycle' and were more comfortable with the long proven designs we used, and the kicker was our engines were MUCH easier to work on. We REALLY sweated the details making it easier to maintain and I believe this was the deciding factor in the end. Easier to service means better availability and lower costs per flight hour.

@@llynellyn pretty sure it was the fact that Northrop at the time was in big trouble in Congress for doing messed up stuff, and was seen as a lot less trustyworthy than Lockheed, and not because of any back room deals.

Thanks LIKWID!

Hi Sal, Good luck with your model endeavors!

Thanks Max!

Thank you dak2005vn, glad to hear you're enjoying the shows!

Hi Mega Jayquaza, I hope parts of the video gave you ideas with what direction you want to take your YF-23!

Hi Ray, thanks, I appreciate that!

Hi yory teperman, thanks, I'm glad you found the channel and I hope it provides some useful information and maybe some tips that will lend to great successes in your builds! 😇

Thanks Scott! There are indeed some large scale RC YF-23s out there.

Hi Craig, thanks for the tip! 😎

Hi terrybrown8539, I hope you can find one soon and enjoy the build! The custom Caracal YF-23 decals I used on this model became sold out for some time, but they have recently re-issued that particular sheet due to high demand.

@@MaxAfterburner Have easily found and bought one locally on line. Looks quite nice in the box and hopefully nice on the shelf alongside the Revell SR71 when that gets built.

Hi ZeroX Zero, I'm pretty sure I've had that micro solution set residue too. I think I used a cotton swab moistened with water or one of the micro solutions and gently cleaned up the stains.

Thanks gnashings, I'm thrilled you enjoyed the video!

Amazing! 👍

Thanks Jeff, you're very kind!

Thanks, always great to hear from you and of your kind support!

Sad day when usaf told the winner.

Agreed, especially since this was such a better performer.

@@christinabishop2533 What i was told, was that if Lockheed didn't get the contract they would have gone bankrupt. So, for that reason it was given to them. The Government didn't want Lockheed to go under.

And thanks to you, bpezzano1!

Firefox! 😉

That difference in thrust between the YF119 and YF120 engines is the main reason why the YF120-powered prototypes of BOTH the YF-22 and YF-23 flew faster than the YF119 powered prototypes during the ATF dem/val sorties. 6,000 lbs extra thrust is nothing to sneeze at! The difference was 0.15 Mach for the two YF-22 protypes. The YF119 PAV-2 flew Mach 1.43 supercruise, the YF120 PAV-1 flew Mach 1.58... It's widely believed the YF-23 prototype with the YF120 engines reached at least Mach 1.8 in supercruise but its supercruise speed was classified at the time.

Thanks Red 13!

Thanks Christopher! Imagine if they could have had both the YF-22 and the YF-23 go into production.

Thanks Riley! I have a feeling the Bismarck is going to take some work for sure!

I hope you get better and back to building that Foxbat. 🙂

Спасибо! Рад, что тебе понравилось.

Wait, how was the 23 even close to 6th gen?

TheReal Lifehacks r/whoosh

I saw you in f1 comment section

Firstly, a “distributed fuselage” design in YF23 was not novel in 1980’s, as both Russian SU-27 and MiG 29 families of aircraft separated cabin pod and engine pods that are held together by a wing ‘cartilage’… Having said that, a traditional fuselage of F22 harks back much further - to the very beginnings of aviation, so, indeed, it could be argued that the overall 4th gen shape of YF23 was more novel than YF22 design… Also, it is important to remember that YF-22 and F-22 are two VERY different aircraft! - For starters, all of the proportions in the F22 has changed during the design development phase - the fuselage length and shape, position and shape of cabin & its faring, wings location and their overall shape in both plan and section, tails location, their canting geometry and their overall shape, as well as position of engines within the plane. Thinking of it, I actually do not know what was kept unchanged from YF22! In the end, F-22 ended up absorbing “lessons learned” from the entire ATF program, i.e. some little ideas from YF23 percolated down to an F22 as well. So, while a comparison between an YF23 & an YF22 is apt, it is not really possible to compare an under-cooked ‘concept-plane’ YF23 to a fully developed serial-production F22.

Thanks U20101954!

Hi Tactic Planner, not that I know of... 🤔

On life sized objects such as aircraft, paint can fade unevenly and also light and shadows affect the contrasts we see in different areas of larger scale items. The black primer coat combined with the white highlights and the thinner and thicker areas randomly created in regards to the color coat helps achieve this type of realism on a scale model.

Thanks :-)

Politics says: Hold my beer.

Nice build to man... always enjoy watching your videos...

Thanks Towmaters! Not much out there on authentic YF-23 jet sounds :-(

Thanks James C!

Hi Eric, if you get a chance to watch again please check the video out at ~ 17:50.

@@MaxAfterburner Ah... Thank you... I admit I jumped a bit to see the finished model. My bad! ;) I remember when they had the ATF competition. My friends and I always prefered the look of the YF-23 over the YF-22 because it was so unusual and advanced looking. We were quite disappointed when it lost. I've wanted a 1/48 scale kit of this plane for a long time and I'm going to get this kit! Your build is stunning, as usual!!

For me, roughly 80 hours, but it can vary depending on the number of parts and complexity. The YF-23 only took about half the time ~40-50 hours.

Thanks TheRealHawkeye!

It's always seems a shame to see planes in museums and in junkyards. They should always be punching holes in the sky :-)

@@MaxAfterburner Realistically, not every plane can be kept going. The big thing is $$$. Fuel costs money and you have to have maintainers trained in how to repair and upkeep planes. And then there's the not-so-small issue of frame hours. They had to decommission some operational flying museum planes in the UK because they came HARD against their maximum flying hours and it wasn't safe to keep them in the air or practical to try and rebuild them. Another flying museum was decommissioned when it failed inspections. A lot of their classic planes are limited to taxiing-only. Where the problem for Fourth Generation American fighters comes is this -- 1) two of these planes are so complicated as it is, they had problems maintaining them in service AND they had to procure two smaller, less-complicated planes to augment them! I'm talking about the F-14 AND the F-15. The F-15's been lucky so far BUT if a large portion of the remaining Golden Eagles fail inspections, the USAF will be under more pressure to retire those planes sooner. If you want my honest opinion, they SHOULD have been decommissioned by now because they're up against their flight hours (average HAS to be well over 8000 flight hours EACH) and the USAF has not been responsible and sent these planes through rebuilds and strengthening like it's planning for 300 F-16s. The remaining F-15Cs are being worn to the bone and 2 of them have already broken apart in flight under conditions that should been well within their flight envelopes. As I understand it, the USAF F-15s and F-16s operate now under tighter speed and G-limits than they did pre-2000 to extend frame life and keep the planes within the "safe" wear limit. The red lines for training as I understand are well under 9-G and Mach 2 it if can be helped. The Russians and everybody else are doing the same for THEIR old fighter fleets, too. There will never be "civilian" flying examples of the F-14 or F-15 operated by organizations like the Collings Foundation. The US Government won't allow it and it's technically impractical for any number of reasons. Sometimes, the biggest danger with technology is having people retire from active duty. There is a brain drain as people with skill sets get older and nobody gets trained to replace them! The US Navy recently took the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk out of emergency reserve because they HAVEN'T trained any engineers in how to maintain the kind of boilers used in the powerplant of that carrier for at least 12-15 years! It was impractical to ever reactivate that ship. There was a serious danger of blowing up that ship with rookie engineers, and, the equipment onboard, even if it IS in excellent condition, is STILL over 50 years old and has reasonably 10-12 years life at best left on it. Is it better to reactivate an old ship OR spend that money on a new ship? 2) The other limiting factor for Fourth Generation and later planes as "flying museums" are the computers, especially planes like the F-16 and Mirage 2000 which are dependent on computer stabilization because of the instability designed into their airframes. The F-16 is dependent on the computer to maintain stability at subsonic speed. 5% instability doesn't sound like a lot (and the plane gets more stable at supersonic speed) BUT if the plane's computer fails, it could tumble out of control and break itself apart. They had failures of the flight control system during the earlier part of its career but those were gyroscopic that had nothing to do with computer code or the FCS directly. You'd think with 4500+ planes built they MIGHT budge on the F-16 but then again they might not! There are AT LEAST two different FCS systems for the F-16 in service. Block 30 (second-gen F-16C) and earlier used analog computer, Block 40 and later are digital systems. More planes were built with the analog FCS. These primary FCS are NOT compatible because of the different computers although I'm sure they kept many of the back-ups and emergency systems the sames. Some pilots, btw, preferred the analog system and a couple of the guys who flew virtually ever major production block of the F-16 preferred the Block 30/first F110 F-16C with the analog FCS. Those computers have to be maintained, the software code has to be saved SOMEWHERE. I would imagine it IS embedded/protected in a system somewhere. The question becomes the security of an FCS system in the F-16 in civilian use. You literally can't fly the plane without the system, and what happens when the computer parts or FCS software itself becomes unavailable or the FCS becomes corrupted? They've literally grounded and delayed new fighters FOR YEARS because of issues with developing those planes' FCS and being uncomfortable with the prospects of bad computer code. They can get away with bad computer code on Windows OS on the ground but not a Mach 2 fighter jet in the air! Sweden lost AT LEAST 2 Saab Jas-39 Gripens because of bad computer code in the digital FCS for that fighter and EuroFighter 2000 wasn't able to fly to the limit of its flight envelope FOR YEARS because of FCS concerns, too.

Hi Nuka Gaming, it's a shame. I hate to see aircraft grounded or retired. 😔

Hi, the A-6 is now Number #2 on the runway. It will be the project coming up after the Bismarck. I'm considering doing a larger diorama carrier deck with the Intruder. Flat paints do tend to leave a rough surface and that's why a gloss coat is partially used to smooth the surface over for the decals. I haven't noticed any difference in texture when comparing different airbrushes though.

Hi Kacy, I've had the opportunity to view the F-22 Raptor perform demo routines a handful of times at air shows and military only performances. It's actually one of my favorite fighter jets now. As you yourself witnessed, its capabilities are an amazing thing to see!

Hi ZeroX Zero, concerning your protective cover coat-- are you using an airbrush? I had problems in the past of that spotting you mention, but I found that if I dilute the dull coat with some thinner that this blemishing will go away. Not sure if this is what is happening to you. Of course there are instances when you have to apply glue after painting and any product will strip the paint. There only seems to be a couple of ways around that-- you can apply the glue to the side of a seam that is hidden once the part is installed taking advantage of the capillary action of the adhesive, otherwise we can only be as careful as possible and still might end up having to do paint touch-ups :-(

@@MaxAfterburner i do use an airbrush for painting. When done i use testors lacquer from a rattle can. I am going to try my dull coat with an airbursh on next one. My paint still isnt durable enough to scrub on with a q tip.

The YF-23 kits seem to be out of production. You may have to search for it.

Hi Vincent, you can certainly use a hand brush. I personally think the results come out better with an airbrush, though.

Hi Leandro, thanks! I don't have a pressure gauge on my compressor, but I believe I'm shooting around 20-22 psi.