|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Northrop |
| |
| Base model: | F-17 | ||
| Designation: | YF-17 | ||
| Nickname: | Cobra | ||
| Designation System: | U.S. Tri-Service | ||
| Designation Period: | 1962-Present | ||
| Basic role: | Fighter | ||
| Status: | Prototype | ||
| First Flew: | 1974/06/09 |
Specifications
| Length: | 56' | 17.0 m | |
| Height: | 15' 4" | 4.6 m | |
| Wingspan: | 37' 6" | 11.4 m | |
| Gross Weight: | 44,000 lb | 19,954 kg | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 2 | ||
| Powerplant: | General Electric 404-GE400 | ||
Performance
Known serial numbers
Examples of this type may be found at
| Museum | City | State |
| Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum | New York | New York |
| USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park | Mobile | Alabama |
YF-17 on display
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum | USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park |
Recent comments by our visitors
| maj.general Hal Vincent USMC Ret. san juan capistrano, CA | Liked the YF-17 but later the F18 had so many dials and knobs, and menu positions that after my test flight I told all the executives, pilots, engineers etc at the debrief they were nuts with 2 scopes, 10 menu positions, button and strobes etc etc and how did they expect anyone to be able to do cv, bomb, rocket,dog fight with all the garbage. BOY WAS I WRONG! The young pinball generation could do it just fine. I had flown the F14,15,16, 17, and 18 but liked the flying with the YF17 best of all. 08/10/2010 @ 14:13 [ref: 28725] |
| Robert Enterprise, AL | To Richard Cesario
The F-16 did not originally have the same engine as the B-1. It had the F-100 which is the same as the F-15. The B-1 has F-101 engines. However the F-16 did later change to the F-101's. The rest of your point about the engine is correct as they were already in the inventory. I have also heard that the F-101 engines are more expensive, but perform much better. The F-18 has F-404 engines, but I can't recall the F-17's. 09/27/2007 @ 10:13 [ref: 18027] |
| wmof volunteer Hawthorne, CA | YF-17 S/N 201569 is stationed at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, CA. Please visit http://www.wmof.com for more info. 06/04/2004 @ 15:27 [ref: 7549] |
| Richard Cesario Prescott, AZ | The question is somewhat hard to answer. I was at the
test site when the two aircraft (F16 vs F17) were going through thier demonstration flights. You need to understand first that the F16 has only one engine. This is the same engine used by the B1 bomber and others. It's in the A.F. inventory. NATO countries were favoring the twin F17 due to it's redundency and especially flying over water. The German A.F. had lost many pilots with the F106. On the morning of the competion fly off both planes were wheeled out to the apron. BUT! the F16 was striped of it's paint and some electronics plus the jump seat. This ment it was much lighter (600lbs). The F17 had prototype GE-100 engines but they were sound. Durring the vertical flight the F16 was faster on rate/altitude plus it burnt less fuel on the 3000 mi overland flight. The politics dictated the NATO would sell F16 acft. to our NATO countries and this would give a shot in the arm to TEXAS economy. The U.S. Navy and Marine brass liked what they say in the F17, but it required modification for use on a carrier. So, Mcdonnell Douglas was licensed to build a Navy version of the F17. They also had a certified Navy Inspection Source. This ment stretching the fuseladge by 9ft installing longer struts for carrier landings and then incorporatin a host of electronics. That ment the original F17 prototype acft. valued at 6.5 mil per copy was now going to be 21 mil per copy. The current F18 is valued at about 36 mil. 09/04/2002 @ 00:41 [ref: 5613] |
| Melvin Roden Watertown, TN | I often wonder what would have happend had the Airforce choose the YF-17 over the F-16 fighting falcon?
Would the F/A 18 Hornet ever come to pass? Or the F-16? How much did Northrop help in developing the F/A-18? I have given my e-mail address if anyone can answer any of these questions, also are there any framable pictuers or posters avialable of the YF-17? Thank you for taking time to read this. Melvin Roden 05/02/2002 @ 08:36 [ref: 4845] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
