Building the Hobby Boss 1/48th Scale YF-23 Stealth Fighter Prototype
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- This is a relatively short video covering the construction, painting, detailing and application of aftermarket decals on the 1/48th scale Hobby Boss YF-23 - (Kit #81722 and Caracal Decal set CD 48048).
----------------------------------------
Custom YF-23 Decal Set: www.caracalmode...
Photo credits: The U.S. Department of Defense and the USAF
Music Credits:
Intro: “Space Choir” -Trilly 82
“Ambient Wave Harmonics 3” - deleted user 2731495 (Has been replaced due to retroactive copyright claim after this piece was originally (CC0) -- now shoe horned dubbed with "Rains Of Meghalaya" and "Elegy".
“Ambient Peaceful Synthesizer A” - InspectorJ
ERROR(s) for this video: Typo in quote of Test Pilot Paul Metz --"afterbruner" instead of afterburner.
Amazing job. I always liked the YF-23 more than the YF-22. It just had a more futuristic look that I found appealing.
Hi jtjr26, so glad you like it! 😃
I love the YF-23 blackwidow tbh the YF-23 looks more advanced than the actual F-22
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
I admire very much your attention to all the little details when your building the kits. When i were a lad i was an avid model builder mainly Airfix kits always loved making them from armoured vehicles to aircraft and ships. Unfortunately i never had the artistic bent one needs to decorate the kits, only basic paint jobs. That's why nowadays i get so much pleasure from watching you complete a kit. Thanks for Posting all your Videos.
Thanks again, William! I sure appreciate your input and comments :-)
Great to see the effects of black primer and white marbling. Every time again very useful vids!
Thanks Bastian!
If they had built it instead, today we'd be admiring the YF-22 you just made!
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.)
I don’t know if it’s because I’ve been playing Ace Combat 7 and my phone is always listening to what’s happening or what, but this popped up in my UA-cam feed and you’ve got a new subscriber.
I remember when the fly off was happening my high school friends and I were watched with eagerness to see which would be picked. We debated the pros and cons of each design as only teenagers could. Since I was in GA the Raptor was heavily favored, but looking back this one is just so aesthetically pleasing.
I’m looking forward to going through your video catalog.
Thanks Peter, I hope you enjoy some of the other presentations!
I love this plane and have been fortunate enough to see both prototypes. One is at the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, the other at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance CA. I believe it is the most gorgeous plane ever made along with the SR-71 and Me262.
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.
I like the way scrapping the paint on the cockpit panels.
Hi Chris, thanks. It's one of those experiments/accidental discoveries that worked out.
Some argue that this aircraft actually won the competition with the YF-22. One of my fav prototypes. Great vid.
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.
Master Model Builder looks real.
Hi Guadalupe Andadre , thanks very much! 🙂
I really like your videos. Gives me a lot of inspiration! They're also very pedagogical and I've learnt a lot of useful techniques from you. Keep it up!
Thanks Xingjian Su! I must admit, you're the first person I have read use "pedagogical" in any context in many, many years! :-)
Thanks for the vid, its been a long time comin'. I have 2 of this kit wanting to do both aircraft, but like other kits of this jet, the decals are in complete! Just now ordered a set from caracalmodels! Thanks again!
Thanks John! I hope your projects turn out to be great successes!
I just got this kit, I am really suprised for 1/48th scale kit this looks huge. As big as my 1/48 flanker but for some reason it looks even bigger than what it actually is! :D Amazing build as always!
Thanks Arda, and have fun with your build! 😊
Why am I not surprised? Stunning work as usual!!!
Thanks Jordan W!
Enjoyed the build. Always enjoy the facts you add during construction. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks again WADIII Andrew!
The better plane didn't win. YF -23 was always my favorite. Built the Collect Aire kit about 16 years ago.(resin, and company out of business). If the top and bottom fuselage pieces had fit, it would have been a better kit. Bubbles and resin blotches in many places also(leading /trailing edges positionable) Looked forward to this kit since it is so much less labor intensive, but the detail on this kit is actually lacking compared to the Collect Air kit, other than the gear bays.
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.
I love the sinister look of this fighting machine. It’s my favorite.
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.
No wonder people were asking for it, it's one beautiful aircraft :) I have one on the shelf as well, it's a 1:72 Italeri, since it is my scale. Built many years ago, when the actual ATF competition was still on.
BTW, the main gear is very prone to breaking, because of its unusual configuration. I fixed mine by replacing whole section of it with one made from steel wire and shaped with putty.
Thanks ammarmar! I've found that this kit's landing gear is fairly sturdy, so I'm not too worried about it collapsing.
Awesome airplame, great work.
Hi alex3261, thanks a lot! 😀
Great video I made my son watch it to get some pointers. Great Job!
Thanks, I hope it helps! 😃
Beautiful job on the most beautiful fighter since the Spitfire.
Thanks Jim 🙂
Stellar build! My first time seeing a build of this unconventional subject.
Thanks Ryan, it certainly was an unusual project for me!
Wonderful model , yes , What If ????? so futuristic Wales UK.
You mentioned the seam lines not being great, well that is actually true on the actual aircraft, I have been to see grey ghost and I noticed a few spots where the seams were hand fitted and not very well at that. So realistically that would be correct.
Yes, finally! So happy that you built this rather unknown subject max, thanks
Thanks Master Villain! If it wasn't for the viewers, I may have not even considered this kit on my own.
I've never really been into modeling before, even though as a youngster I did try a few, however you are bringing out the kid and adult out in me as I was hardly ever allowed because of money issues to get the cool toys other kids were being able to have...I'm watching with a big strong vodka and OJ in my hand and flying around my new Millennium Falcon complete with sound effects and laser cannon sounds...lol
One of your comets about how fast it went is the same as the TSR2 it out paced a English Electric Lightning, The TSR 2 had reheat only on one engine the lightning had both on. Again a plane that should have gone into service.
That is one of my all time favourite aircraft for sure. I built Dragons 1/72 kit a while back and I Will definately build it again. As usual, a very informative video and a beautiful build.
Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@@MaxAfterburner I take it you have seen the documentary about the build process?
I enjoy your videos. I remember when this aircraft was up against the F-22 for contracts . I wanted the YF-23 to win just because I liked the look. I wonder if it would have been as good as the F-22 turned out to be. Ha...now I'm going to search for "RC YF-23" Thanks.
Thanks Scott! There are indeed some large scale RC YF-23s out there.
I just got this kit, glad to see it on your channel!
Hi Mega Jayquaza, I hope parts of the video gave you ideas with what direction you want to take your YF-23!
Thanks for posting your build of this kit and the music. I will be trying to find this kit.
Hi Sal, Good luck with your model endeavors!
I like this aircraft but had read somewhere that the kit was a pig so never bought one when I saw them on shelves some years ago. This has changed my mind (although the kit reflects its age) and I'll have to hunt one down so thanks.
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.
That is excellent work, really fascinating to watch.
Thanks IDM112, I'm glad you were entertained! ;-)
Great work with the paint job!
Thanks Mitch!
Relaxing to watch and super-informative as always. Thanks.
Thank you dak2005vn, glad to hear you're enjoying the shows!
This is my favourite fighter!!
My father was on the design team that built that aircraft.
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.
I wish you could elaborate on this "marbling technique." I've noticed other modelers using it and I'm not quite sure what it's purpose is. Even with the black primer coat, I noticed you left a somewhat mottled finish. I assume there's a reason for this. Excellent build video, BTW.
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.
The YF-23 black widow was very futuristic even though it lost the competition to the YF-22 raptor.
But if the YF-23 had won we would’ve Ben amazed if we saw it at a air show doing it’s demonstration. But when the f-22 raptor was at the Dayton air show
I was amazed how it did it’s flying maneuvers and, it’s performance.
Have you ever seen the f-22 raptor at an air show doing it’s flying performance ?
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!
Nice finish!
May I fly the plane out of the museum hangar, now?
(Drat! They took the engines out at the end of the competition! They're probably in the museum archives or wherever it is Pratt&Whitney and General Electric retire their prototype engines if not the junkyard next to all the airframes and other engines that didn't quite make it...)
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.
Hello Watching your videos. I really like your technique. Very beautiful models turn out.
Спасибо! Рад, что тебе понравилось.
Great build,my friend!
And thanks to you, bpezzano1!
nice work!
Thanks U20101954!
Nice looking build mate.
Thanks James C!
How much time does a 1:48 modern fighter like this normally take, from start to finish?
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.
I bought this model after watching. I wanna ask you what is the lacquer in 17:52 for? I wanna make sure whether I should buy it. Thanks
Hi Aidesbn Lee, the gloss coat adds a layer of protection to your paintwork when adding weathering and detail washes to your model. Don't over coat, however.
@@MaxAfterburner I see. Thank you Max, that helps me a lot! I've learnt a lot from your videos.
hi tom, thanks for another clear concise build. luv your work. question, what filler did you use on yf-23, and what did you use to swab away excess filler ? looking forward to another of your builds..
Right now your house hold fleet 9f aircraft rivels that of some small country's! It would be awesome to see a B52/X15 comb next.
Hi Aaron, with Neil Armstrong?
@@MaxAfterburner sure just make sure he does not bounce off the atmosphere again lol
Your paintjob is very good... but what about someone who can't use an airbrush? Maybe you'd consider doing another build using only spraycans and bottle paints?
Hi Cassandra Foxx, I think any attempt at using those would end in disaster for me 😇
@@MaxAfterburner Heh. Yeah, I can imagine. My problem is the index finger of my right hand was amputated in 2018. I can't use an airbrush because I no longer have the fine control, since I'm using my middle finger now. Even my writing is crapped out. So I have to use spraycans, because they don't quite need such fine control. Hence my request.
Really would like to know how you get your tamiya acrylic's to be so durable. I paint mine nicely and if so much as a spec of water touches it 2 - 3 days later i'm having to repaint entire thing again. If I spray laquer clear over it I got ton's of little spots as well yours comes out pristine what is the secret. Also if I paint first then use tamiya glue like yours it strips the paint right off any area it touches.
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.
I feel like this should be displayed flying because that's something that it'll never do again
Hi Nuka Gaming, it's a shame. I hate to see aircraft grounded or retired. 😔
I love your videos. Thank you sir!
Thanks TheRealHawkeye!
Love this plane, any plans for a forward swept wing aircraft like the X29 or Su47?.
Do you thin the tamiya flat clear? I just picked up a bottle and have yet to use it. Also excellent build as always!
Thanks Cole! I find that the Flat Clear is especially thick coming out of the airbrush. I thin it down to a 50/50 ratio.
Looking good! I'm curious to know why you don't prime first?
Hi Harry, I consider the black shading coat as a dual purpose layer. Thus, it serves as my primer paint layer as well.
I got a 1:144 yf-23 and is very exited
That's great Max the rocket guy 😃. A great way to start the New Year, enjoy! 😇
Yes
I am planning to buy some ak NATO’s black for this
Got this kit in my stash too
Hay mate would possibly build a f86 Sabre after the Bismarck
Hi Riley, I can put it on my list! I'm currently on hold as UA-cam incorrectly flagged my Bismarck video I tried to upload yesterday. A music copyright claim was placed on it even though it is not a version of the music, artist or actual content at all in the video!
Max_Afterburner looking Ford two it when u up load it☺️🇦🇺
Hello Max, congratulation per your works...I use it as a reference for my models.....I question: can you please tell me, the FX-86 do you mix it with Tamiya thinner? at ratio of 1:1???? or other......finally in general, do you spray with your airbrush at how many psi...
thank you so much for taking your time to reply to me.
Regards, Claudio.
Hi Claudio, I do mix the XF-86 with Tamiya thinner to get a 1:1 ratio (making it 50/50). I don't have a gauge on my compressor, but I tell everyone that my guess is around 20-22 psi.
Thank you@@MaxAfterburner for share.......
Can you please do a video for people who want to start doing scale modeling. Could you do it using things like brushes
Hi Tyler, I use brushes only minimally and rely heavily on my airbrush to do the brunt of my modeling work. There are many beginner videos out there you might search for. I don't think I could add much more than they already cover in their presentations.
Hey Max_afterburner,
I love your content, very informative and educational, something I feel we are losing with these models. One question though, I am in the middle of building the yf-23, but don’t want to use the provided decals, I can’t find anywhere that has the the Caracal 48048, wondering if you know someone w/ extra copies. Thanks for the vids!
Hi J Klaassen, I looked around to see if anyone has them still available, but I had no luck. I only had the one set. I guess modelers will have to beg Caracal to do another production run. 🤔
great job man, videos always very interesting even under the historical profile, sorry for my english ..
Thanks x x!
I have built this kit. The cockpit and undercarriage wells fit really well, but the wing roots were an absolute bitch. Also I agree, the decals were rubbish. I sold the finished kit on ebay.
Great video. I would love to see you build the Kitty Hawk Su-35.
Thanks for the suggestion MrZero! I need to try out a Kitty Hawk model and see how good they make their kits.
Max_Afterburner I own a Kitty Hawk kit and from what I can see and hear they are quite good but there are occasional fit issues and detail can sometimes be less than other manufacturers. Looking forward to your ship build!
Just subbed, nice channel looking and doing my first plane soon
Thanks MrBMBuilder, I wish you fun and great success on your project!
Q: Why did Northrop's YF-23 lose to the Lockheed's YF-22 in the ATF program for the 5th generation fighter?
A: Northrop entered a 6th generation fighter into the contest.
Loved it, daring build .. I bet your finger hurts from pressing on the airbrush trigger for so long!.
Archeologists will dig him up thousands of years from now and know he was a scale model builder by the wear marks from the build up muscles from working that airbrush.
Thanks, and you're so correct Vortex! I had to stop the camera a couple of times just so I could give my hand and trigger finger some much needed relief!
pls do the f-117 or b-2 next
Hi Adam, I'll be holding another model build "election" a few projects down the road. Maybe one or both of these could win.
Now pls do X02 strike wyvern and ADFX-Morgan or ADF FALKEB
Ace Combat has a lot of cool aircraft designs. I like the X-02 the most
@@TacticalBaguette same I like the X-02 and the YF-23 a lot in that game
If political considerations stayed out of flight testing and commissioning of aircraft,we'd have this amazing plane instead of the F-22! This bird out performed the 22 in most areas.
The fact that McDonnell Douglas was still building F-15s screwed this plane! thanks congressional buttheads!
Enough ranting... I like your technique of over painting and then scrapping to expose raised features. I do this myself,and have done so for 35 years or more. It works in a lot of different areas. I use it for dash board controls on cars and trucks,etc. I also paint parts still on the sprues,it just makes things easier. Good work.
Hi Tom, thanks for watching 😀
ＰＥＲＦＥＣＴ！！ＣＯＯＬ！！
Thank you!
How about u build a P-51 mustang.Please!
Hi Aidan, a very popular model subject and air show favorite for sure! One day...
Ok thanks
Wikipedia contains errors? The hell you say.
Disappointed that the kit doesn't have weapons bays. Good for tho
Thanks Richard! For those who like to scratch build, a weapons bay and doors could be achieved with some extra work.
cool vid
Thanks David, I'm glad you liked it!
I wonder if you've played Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown :)
I was more of an FPS player with COD and Black Ops back in the day. I have since retired from video games.
@@MaxAfterburner That's a shame! You'd LOVE Ace Combat 7! At least watch a couple videos :P
I would pay to sit next to you and learn how to paint.
🙂
Fuselage is inaccurate.
SU 57 👏👏👏👍
Looks like an f-22
It was a competitor to the F-22 in the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition, however the YF-22 was chosen instead.
too bad china has it now
yf-22 won tho
I would love to see you do a B-52 or maybe a B-1 lancer
Yes, i*d really love to see a B-52 build!
Man I’ve never clicked so fast...and I’ve never smiled so fast. Great vid.
Why thank you so much, Riley!
I was in the Air Guard when the YF-22 and YF-23 were having their fly off. I still remember having this strong connection with the YF-23. I was sure it would be the winner, it seemed so much more futuristic. Few people understand why the YF-23 sacrificed something as cool as thrust vectoring for a big improvement in infrared stealth, but for real-world uses I'm not sure we're better off with the F-22. In a nutshell, the F-23 was about stealth and the F-22 was about maneuverability (they can both fly at speeds that negate their max turning ability.) The F-22 looks great at an air show, I'm just not convinced it's going to be able to do a tail stand in combat.
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 UA-cam 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.....
It’s hard to believe that both the YF-23 and YF-22 (now F-22) began their lives as concepts IN THE 80’s! Great build once again. Can’t wait for the Bismarck!
Thanks gcm747! The Bismarck should be interesting!
*_My all time favorite aircraft, it’s a shame that the Widow was a 6th gen Fighter that was brought to a 5th competition!_*
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.
At 16:58... I realized something lol ... I would like to hear jet sounds while you are building... Just saying lol...
Nice build to man... always enjoy watching your videos...
Thanks Towmaters! Not much out there on authentic YF-23 jet sounds :-(
For the next project, i would suggest the Hasegawa 1/48 F-16F Bloc 60 because there are not many videos or reviews around
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.
Super nice build, that YF23 is a great looking aircraft, thanks for sharing!...Bill
Thanks Bill!
HI Max , this is such a beautiful plane ,and a massive one in 1:48 . the looks of it grow on you ...........aaaah well . Wales Uk
U can get the full view of the f23a on some sites. That's the one I'll get. Been building this for 30yrs. now
This is the COOLEST looking jet age actual aircraft. #1😘
your painting technique works really well for this big aircraft.
If only there were a 72nd scale version of this! Then there would be one for me!
Exoskeleton toy where created by some Japanese designers a long time ago, looks like they ahead of time
That bird is special.
Great model! Perhaps a mirrored stand so you can see the bottom details?
Actually, the thrust ratings for the YF119 and YF120 were NOT the same.
The YF119 put out slightly less thrust -- 32,000lbs in afterburner.
The YF120 DID produce the preferred 35,000lbs thrust in afterburner.
This got reported on in Aviation Week and some of the early ATF books, two of which I own.
P&W scaled up the YF119 after the competition. It's believed the production F119 engines may be more powerful than 35,000lbs thrust. I've heard 37,000-38,000lbs thrust which is believable. The 28,000lb thrust GEF110 first-generation engines (used in the Block 30 F-16Cs and the F-14B/D Tomcats) produce up to 30,400 lbs thrust in-flight. They called this thrust increase phenomenon "Ram Recovery" in the old TF30 engines the F-14 used.
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.
the next time we see this jet in service will be with Japan. They want to build it.
An amazing sight to see in the skies when that occurs!