YF-22 talk with Tom Morgenfeld

[basher54321]

One thing of interest to me they tried was the articulating ejection seat he mentions - the pilot presses a button on the stick and the seat reclines the pilot to a reclined position for high G turns.

During the Demonstration/Validation (DemVal) phase of prototype production for the YF-22 aircraft (produced by Lockheed Aeronautical Systems (LASC) with partners Boeing Military Airplanes and General Dynamics Fort Worth), a very unique ejection seat was designed. The YF-22 ACES II seat was modified from a standard A-10/T-46A version to have a particularly unique feature.

In modern combat with the extremely dynamic manuevering ability of new aircraft the pilot must be able to survive and be in control of the aircraft while being exposed to rapid and high changes in G-force. There are two traditional methods of dealing with this problem. One is the use of the combined anti-g-suit and g-straining manuever (which involves a physical tensing of certain muscles while breathing in a certain manner), the other is placing the seat in a reclining posture. Both methods were examined by the project teams, with a new style anti-G-suit being issued for the former, and the modification to the ACES II seat for the latter.

The concept was simple (as so many engineering concepts are), but required much work to develop. The seat was to be installed in a traditional semi-upright posture with a seat back angle of 15 degrees, but to have the ability of changing the seat back angle to 55 degrees either by the pilots choice, or possibly automatically selected by the flight control computer at the onset of rising Gz. Many factors had to be considered during the design phase..

http://www.ejectionsite.com/yf22seat.htm

[usafr]

The new seats would have been called "Lazy Boys" by the air and ground maintenance crew. For sures.

[Scorpion1alpha]

Tom Morgenfeld is certainly one of the most accomplished test pilots ever. Notably:

-Graduated 1st in his class from the Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK.

-Went on to VX-4 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron where he was part of several classified programs.

-Was on an exchange tour with the US Air Force and became the first Naval Aviator to be a qualified USAF Aggressor pilot when assigned with the famous 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron (Red Eagles) flying US acquired MiGs.

-Went on to be a test pilot for Lockheed Martin. Held several positions including CTP of Skunk Works as well as its Director of Flight Operations. Flew several classified aircraft, including the then classified F-117 Nighthawk (callsign: Bandit 101). Even saved the 1st F-117 during an early test flight when he experienced an in-flight emergency after takeoff (nose wheel fell off). Was told to eject, but managed to safely land the aircraft.

-Was the first pilot to fly the 2nd YF-22 prototype (PAV-2), primarily flew that jet during the ATF Competition and eventually became the CTP for the YF-22 Follow-On Test program when the YF-22 airframe was selected as winner of the ATF program.

-Is a Fellow and past president of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots.

This man knows aircrafts, technologies and capabilities.

A notable quote I remember him saying several years back during a similar TED-type Talk at Rancho Palos Verdes regarding aviation history was when Morgenfeld was asked how does our aircrafts stand up against foreign types. Morgenfeld stated:

I don’t know about the newest or latest versions of those things (i.e. very latest Chinese / Russian Flanker / MiG variants) but their Su-27 and follow on (Flankers / Felon) are pretty potent. But what I do know is I don’t believe anything can touch an F-22…for a lot of good reasons.

(Morgenfeld is in the tan colored shirt in the middle back row)

[disconnectedradical]

The YF-22 was a pretty ugly aircraft. I'm glad the F-22 aesthetics is much much improved. I know looks aren't everything but YF-22 just didn't have the aesthetics of the YF-23.

[mixelflick]

The YF-22 was a pretty ugly aircraft. I'm glad the F-22 aesthetics is much much improved. I know looks aren't everything but YF-22 just didn't have the aesthetics of the YF-23.

X2....

The production F-22A looks deadly and sleek from most angles. The YF-22A looked like the creation of a 10 year old kid (front fuselage/cockpit anyway). I also like the clipped wing, reduced vertical stabs (still huge) and several other changes. YF-23A was such a looker, I'll be surprised if NGAD even comes close....

[charlielima223]

The YF-22 was a pretty ugly aircraft. I'm glad the F-22 aesthetics is much much improved. I know looks aren't everything but YF-22 just didn't have the aesthetics of the YF-23.

Compared to the YF-23, the YF-22 was definitely a more conventional looking aircraft. As that classic Twilight Zone episode so simply put it, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

@ mixelflick
Who knows what NGAD will look like . There are a still classified exotic designs the public hasnt seen. Artist concept renderings show an exotic flying wing. Others show a sleeker looking YF-23-isc design. Maybe the NGAD will look more conventional than what most people are thinking

[f119doctor]

Tom Morganfeld is a class act, both then and now. Spent a little bit of time talking with him as the Ship 2 P&W FSR at the time. Always had time to answer my questions, even though I was not part of the flight briefings/debriefing with the flight test engineers.

The YF22 engine rear inboard engine mount consisted of a large U shaped bracket that fit around the back end of the airframe center keel, with coke bottle mounts on each side going into the engine frames. During the post Dem/Val follow-on testing hard landing accident, the impact broke all of the bolts clamping the U bracket to the keel, sliding down the keel with both engines rolled inward by 10-15 degrees. It was a pretty hard impact. Getting the engines out of the airframe was scary challenge, with two 20 ton Pettibone cranes lifting both engines through a 1/2” shackle to get the mount bracket slid back up into position so the engine installation trailers could get under the engines an engage the ground handling mounts.

[mixelflick]

The YF-22 was a pretty ugly aircraft. I'm glad the F-22 aesthetics is much much improved. I know looks aren't everything but YF-22 just didn't have the aesthetics of the YF-23.

Compared to the YF-23, the YF-22 was definitely a more conventional looking aircraft. As that classic Twilight Zone episode so simply put it, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

@ mixelflick
Who knows what NGAD will look like . There are a still classified exotic designs the public hasnt seen. Artist concept renderings show an exotic flying wing. Others show a sleeker looking YF-23-isc design. Maybe the NGAD will look more conventional than what most people are thinking

True. In fact I don't think I've ever been as disappointed as when I first saw the X-35 prototype. Truly defined "conventional looking" IMO. I won't even get into the X-32, as I consider that debacle a crime against aviation lol. But the production F-35 looks a lot better, I think. It'll never look as sleek/deadly as an F-14 or F-22, but it's a big improvement vs. the X-35 IMHO..

From certain angles it really is beautiful, although I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[zero-one]

Finally we have some light on why the YF-119 was selected over the YF-120.
Looks like the Pratt engine can be controlled more precisely and with the only real advantage GE had was more thrust which Pratt would match in their production model engine, I think the DoD made the right choice.

[disconnectedradical]

Finally we have some light on why the YF-119 was selected over the YF-120.
Looks like the Pratt engine can be controlled more precisely and with the only real advantage GE had was more thrust which Pratt would match in their production model engine, I think the DoD made the right choice.

Not quite, the variable cycle design of YF120 allows it to generate better supersonic thrust, although it was also a thirstier engine in some conditions. For pure performance the YF120 was better especially when you get to higher Mach numbers, and current ADVENT/AETP engines like XA100 use lessons from YF120. That said I don’t think one was clearly better than the other and both would have been great engines.

Although, if the F-22 inlets were sized for F120 engines which may be higher mass flow, maybe future F119 upgrades can have fan improvements to increase airflow as well?

[f119doctor]

As has been posted previously, the YF120 was upsized for a 60K ATF, while the flight test YF119 was still sized for the original 50K ATF specification. P&W had already demonstrated their larger fan performance on ground test dem/val engines, so the USAF was confident that the F119 would meet the EMD requirements.

The YF120 was fast, but thirsty. When they demonstrated 1.58 Mn supercruise on the YF-22, the fuel flow quoted in AvWeek was a 1000 lbs /hr higher per engine than what the YF119 had demonstrated at the exact same flight conditions, even though the YF119 was running at minimum AB to hold that speed. I don’t know if the YF120 was able to demonstrate better fuel efficiency in the subsonic higher bypass variable cycle mode than the YF119.

You can be confident that the F-22 inlets are sized exactly to match the production F119 airflow characteristics, especially in the supersonic envelope. Any larger is just most spillage drag. Putting a larger fan on the F119 would be unlikely to improve performance of the F-22.

[zero-one]

Not quite, the variable cycle design of YF120 allows it to generate better supersonic thrust, although it was also a thirstier engine in some conditions. For pure performance the YF120 was better especially when you get to higher Mach numbers, and current ADVENT/AETP engines like XA100 use lessons from YF120. That said I don’t think one was clearly better than the other and both would have been great engines.

Although, if the F-22 inlets were sized for F120 engines which may be higher mass flow, maybe future F119 upgrades can have fan improvements to increase airflow as well?

I was referring to what Tom Morganfeld said that when a photo of the 2 ATF jets were needed, the one on the wing was always the Pratt powered one. This was because the FADEC system of the YF-120 couldn't control it very well, it was very obvious when they were taxiing the aircraft, the YF-120 can be heard spooling up then spooling down and according to Tom, the engine couldn't get idle power quite right.

As what F119 doctor said, the reason why the YF-120 had more power was because at the begining, the requirement for both GE and Pratt was for an engine rated at 30k lbs. later this changed to 35k, GE went ahead and installed their 35k engine on the ATF prototypes while Pratt installed the older 30k rated engine but extensively ground tested a 35k version

[f119doctor]

You are correct that the YF120 did not have a steady idle. On the ground there was a constant up and down hunting of the fan rpm that was very noticeable. We at P&W never knew if this was because the GE control system was incapable of holding a steady idle speed, or if this was intentional to avoid some sort of damaging resonance condition. P&W worked very hard to provide excellent engine handling, using their prior experience on the F100-220/229 DEEC to develop the control laws for the YF119 FADECs. The YF-22 and YF-23 test pilots gave the YF119 excellent Cooper-Harper ratings for accuracy and response.

[disconnectedradical]

Not quite, the variable cycle design of YF120 allows it to generate better supersonic thrust, although it was also a thirstier engine in some conditions. For pure performance the YF120 was better especially when you get to higher Mach numbers, and current ADVENT/AETP engines like XA100 use lessons from YF120. That said I don’t think one was clearly better than the other and both would have been great engines.

Although, if the F-22 inlets were sized for F120 engines which may be higher mass flow, maybe future F119 upgrades can have fan improvements to increase airflow as well?

I was referring to what Tom Morganfeld said that when a photo of the 2 ATF jets were needed, the one on the wing was always the Pratt powered one. This was because the FADEC system of the YF-120 couldn't control it very well, it was very obvious when they were taxiing the aircraft, the YF-120 can be heard spooling up then spooling down and according to Tom, the engine couldn't get idle power quite right.

As what F119 doctor said, the reason why the YF-120 had more power was because at the begining, the requirement for both GE and Pratt was for an engine rated at 30k lbs. later this changed to 35k, GE went ahead and installed their 35k engine on the ATF prototypes while Pratt installed the older 30k rated engine but extensively ground tested a 35k version

Paul Metz also talked about this problem with YF120 not being as responsive in his video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSeApmqE_z4

According to him the problem is that GE tried to program the thrust response to be linear with throttle based on pilot feedback, but it ended up introducing lots of delay in the throttle response. He said that if the YF120 was fully developed into the F120, that problem would go away.

Both P&W and GE increased the fan size because the engine thrust requirement increased from 30k to 35k, but YF120 had the larger fan while the YF119 didn't. Even so, for pure performance the F120 would probably be better because the variable cycle design lets it generate lots of supersonic thrust. However it was also thirstier in some parts of the envelope. Static thrust don't tell everything, see how the F100-PW-100 and -220 have the same static thrust rating, and actually the -220 is a bit lower, but in terms of dynamic thrust the -220 is better across most of the envelope.

So even though choosing the F119 may be the right choice especially since it had a lot more test hours and was less expensive and risky, the fact is the F120 has more performance potential at supersonic speeds even though they have the same static thrust. That said both are great designs.