NATF: planned Navy versions of the F-22 and F-23

[SOC]

Apparently you haven't seen the tailfins.

So fix that problem for me! ;D

 

[sferrin]

does it come in blue on shiny paper? ;D

 

[flateric]

Scott, we have our wallets and credits cards ready to see the tailfins

 

[SOC]

Dunno if you want somebody with a bit more experience, but I'd try this out. It'd be a good way for me to get into figuring out a lot of GIMP, which so far I haven't really been all that motivated to do for lack of need at this point. Sometime in the future I plan on using it to illustrate the Falcon thing I've been researching for way too long.

 

[TinWing]

Dunno if you want somebody with a bit more experience, but I'd try this out. It'd be a good way for me to get into figuring out a lot of GIMP, which so far I haven't really been all that motivated to do for lack of need at this point. Sometime in the future I plan on using it to illustrate the Falcon thing I've been researching for way too long.

GIMP is actually quite a nice open sourced alternative to Photoshop and the latest versions aren't especially buggy. The interface is a bit intimidating and I'm not sure you can call it fast loading. Paint.net is a somewhat more simplistic and approachable Photoshop alternative - lightweight, quick to load, no problems cutting and pasting images from the clipboard, etc.

It's really not all that hard to turn a fuzzy, wuzzy blueprint into a more attractive drawing, just time and patience. The important thing is to start with a really big scale to begin with. For instance, if my starting point was the tantalizing forward fuselage preview, I'd scale it up from 771 x 628 Pixels to 5000 x 4073 Pixels (for instance). I'd add a transparent layer and then literally trace over the original blueprint. When finished I'd save that transparent layer as a simple 1-bit black and white .gif, which isn't what Orionblamblam is looking for as an end product, but merely a beginning.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Dunno if you want somebody with a bit more experience, but I'd try this out. It'd be a good way for me to get into figuring out a lot of GIMP, which so far I haven't really been all that motivated to do for lack of need at this point. Sometime in the future I plan on using it to illustrate the Falcon thing I've been researching for way too long.

GIMP is actually quite a nice open sourced alternative to Photoshop and the latest versions aren't especially buggy. The interface is a bit intimidating and I'm not sure you can call it fast loading. Paint.net is a somewhat more simplistic and approachable Photoshop alternative - lightweight, quick to load, no problems cutting and pasting images from the clipboard, etc.

GIMP works pretty well on Linux, but it was a bit flaky on Windows in my experience. Paint.net is good - I use it at work for general image handling.

 

[SOC]

GIMP is actually quite a nice open sourced alternative to Photoshop and the latest versions aren't especially buggy. The interface is a bit intimidating and I'm not sure you can call it fast loading. Paint.net is a somewhat more simplistic and approachable Photoshop alternative - lightweight, quick to load, no problems cutting and pasting images from the clipboard, etc.

It's really not all that hard to turn a fuzzy, wuzzy blueprint into a more attractive drawing, just time and patience. The important thing is to start with a really big scale to begin with. For instance, if my starting point was the tantalizing forward fuselage preview, I'd scale it up from 771 x 628 Pixels to 5000 x 4073 Pixels (for instance). I'd add a transparent layer and then literally trace over the original blueprint. When finished I'd save that transparent layer as a simple 1-bit black and white .gif, which isn't what Orionblamblam is looking for as an end product, but merely a beginning.

Ah, so you mean something like this. Bear in mind that I just worked this out in about 10 minutes and it's not quite as polished as it'd be if I wasn't fooling around. This is pretty damn clever, actually.

 

[TinWing]

GIMP is actually quite a nice open sourced alternative to Photoshop and the latest versions aren't especially buggy. The interface is a bit intimidating and I'm not sure you can call it fast loading. Paint.net is a somewhat more simplistic and approachable Photoshop alternative - lightweight, quick to load, no problems cutting and pasting images from the clipboard, etc.

It's really not all that hard to turn a fuzzy, wuzzy blueprint into a more attractive drawing, just time and patience. The important thing is to start with a really big scale to begin with. For instance, if my starting point was the tantalizing forward fuselage preview, I'd scale it up from 771 x 628 Pixels to 5000 x 4073 Pixels (for instance). I'd add a transparent layer and then literally trace over the original blueprint. When finished I'd save that transparent layer as a simple 1-bit black and white .gif, which isn't what Orionblamblam is looking for as an end product, but merely a beginning.

Ah, so you mean something like this. Bear in mind that I just worked this out in about 10 minutes and it's not quite as polished as it'd be if I wasn't fooling around. This is pretty damn clever, actually.

I'm not sure that the word "clever" applies but it is effective. One thing I would suggest is scaling up even more. When I suggested 5000 pixels wide, I was being conservative. For a full drawing, you might want to start with a width of 10,000 to 15,000 pixels.

 

[Sundog]

I've done some profile work. I could give it a shot if you need someone to work on this. Just let me know.

 

[aim9xray]

not getting how this jet was supposed to be butt ugly.

Apparently you haven't seen the tailfins. To my eye, it's a beut from the nose to *not* *quite* the trailing edges of the tailfins. Something aesthetically unfortunate happened back there.

Think: batplane

 

[SOC]

I'm not sure that the word "clever" applies but it is effective. One thing I would suggest is scaling up even more. When I suggested 5000 pixels wide, I was being conservative. For a full drawing, you might want to start with a width of 10,000 to 15,000 pixels.

Yeah I only scaled up to 3,000 pixels, just to mess with it. I can see how scaling up even more wouldd be beneficial, it'd help get all of the detail and the curved surfaces like the canopy more accurate. This is pretty fun.

 

[Sundog]

That tail looks to me like they crossed the YF-22 with the YF-23. It does end up looking like the Batplane, as was noted upthread. Thanks for the pic. If you want a profile, I would need something a little larger, though, as it's hard make out details at this level. I have to say, though, I don't think it's as ugly as I was lead to believe.

The two seater should prove interesting as well.

Just a ref for making profiles, if you have the software. I make the panel lines in Adobe Illustrator, a vector graphic program, so the scale isn't that important if you can see what you're working on. The reason I bring that up is because vector graphics are completely scalable. Then I set it at the resolution I want for Photoshop. I don't know if that helps anyone, I just thought I would bring that up.

 

[SOC]

Yeah it's not quite ugly, but ddefinitely weird. The tail section looks like they cut it off because they ran out of space, and then just serrated it for rear-aspect RCS. I wonder if it had control issues, as it appears to have TVC? It definitely does look like a very nearly clean sheet of paper design. Lockheed's NATF wasn't simply an F-22 with a tailhook either, but it had a lot more to do with the F-22 than this appears to have with the F-23. Regardless, very cool to finally see the design out in the open.

 

[Stargazer]

My apologies if I'm a bit slow on this one, but is this supposed to portray the planned production F-23?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

NATF - Naval ATF - the Northrop proposal.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nose up with those canards and bat-tails flapping as it comes into trap a wire, it would have been beautiful...

 

[Matej]

...you might want to start with a width of 10,000 to 15,000 pixels.

I would argue with this. Are there really enough details that can benefit from such a large size? I did my PAK FA drawing cca 3500x3500 pixels (remember that it is drawing made from real plane, it means all the details are visible on the photos) and I didn't have any problems to use it for any purpose.

 

[lantinian]

Yeah it's not quite ugly, but definitely weird. ...... It definitely does look like a very nearly clean sheet of paper design. Lockheed's NATF wasn't simply an F-22 with a tailhook either, but it had a lot more to do with the F-22 than this appears to have with the F-23.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. No wander the NATF was a factor in the final decision ATF decision. Had they Had they proceeded with the program, it would have been the TFX all over again.

I can't even believe my eyes how different this plane is
I bet Woody would love it. Me not so sure.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Canard - odd - only similarly positioned canard I can recall is the F-19

Tail - very odd. Looks like someone took a chainsaw to the end of the plane so it fits the Navy length requirement.

 

[sferrin]

I've finished cleaning the scan. Here it is, in slightly reduced resolution.

Additional: a second, larger drawing with more details, including 2-seater, has just come in.

That doesn't really even look like an F-23 anymore. ???

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, I'm not sure Lockheed's NATF looked much like the F-22 either. They were supposed to use the same subsystems (avionics, engines etc), not have any great commonality in airframe.

 

[Sundog]

it's hard make out details at this level.

Well, I should *hope* so...

I was referring to making profile art. You said you needed people to make profile art and then posted a drawing too small to make profile art from. So you're hoping people can't make profile art for you for free from a drawing too small to make profile art from? OK.

 

[fightingirish]

Wow, the F-23 NAFT....
This is the thread of the month.
Scott, thanks for posting the "appetizer". I hope to see or buy soon a larger version.
Can you tell us how you get these drawings, or is your source confidential?

To all other folks,
I presume, Scott has already or will soon send a larger version via PM/ E-Mail to serious members, so they can start making profiles.
Yeah, well. The Dude abides....

 

[TinWing]

Just a ref for making profiles, if you have the software. I make the panel lines in Adobe Illustrator, a vector graphic program, so the scale isn't that important if you can see what you're working on. The reason I bring that up is because vector graphics are completely scalable. Then I set it at the resolution I want for Photoshop. I don't know if that helps anyone, I just thought I would bring that up.

The open source equivalent to Adobe Illustrator is Inkscape, which incidentally, is a lot quicker to open than the last version of Illustrator that I played with some years ago. I'm no expert when it comes to vector graphics.

 

[Sundog]

PM/ E-Mail to serious members.

So you're implying I'm not serious. Interesting.

[quote author=TinWing]The open source equivalent to Adobe Illustrator is Inkscape, which incidentally, is a lot quicker to open than the last version of Illustrator that I played with some years ago. I'm no expert when it comes to vector graphics.[/quote]

Vector graphics are great for also creating all of the markings, national, squadron, etc. Once again, due to the scalability. In fact, at one time I tried to make an entire profile in AI just to see what I could do with it. I never quite finished it and I've been trying to find the source file, but this is as far as I made it doing it entirely in AI, which is somewhat masochistic.

 

[Sundog]

You said you needed people to make profile art and then posted a drawing too small to make profile art from. So you're hoping people can't make profile art for you for free from a drawing too small to make profile art from? OK.

Got it in one.

Well then I would like to make a request of the profiler. To make one of the images a scaled side view of the YF-23, F-23A, NATF, and if you have good enough info, the FB-23, together, sort of like I did in the image above. That would be cool.

 

[Sundog]

So, does that mean I should just work on the F-23A? Also, what res do you like them in? I mean hell, I do this for my own edification anyway. BTW, I already have great images/drawings of the F-23A from the thread here.

 

[Sundog]

Yeah, I'll tackle that, I would love to make a comparison of the three designs in profile.

 

[lantinian]

Guys, the kind of discussion you have been having seams like a open PM conversation with hidden images. So, please either show the stuff or use PM.

 

[GTX]

Damn interesting - will this be a forthcoming Aerospace Projects Review? Can't wait!

Regards,

Greg

 

[Sundog]

Damn interesting - will this be a forthcoming Aerospace Projects Review? Can't wait!

Regards,

Greg

To answer your question, Yes, according to Scott, which is why he posted here I'm assuming and not the open forums.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, that was his intention. There is more to reveal regarding intended production configurations of the F-23 too.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, that was his intention. There is more to reveal regarding intended production configurations of the F-23 too.

Right now, I'm just concentrating on the YF-23A and F-23A profiles for the article.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Scott posted this on his blog.

 

[lantinian]

Thanks Overscan...

I definitely don't like the feeling I get when I look at this design :-\ It has none of the things that make the YF-23 look unique and alien.

It's actually reminds me of Hornet 2000, more than the YF-23

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Intakes are like the production F-23 (serrated cowl, centrebody) and the canards are a bit like a forward v tail due to their angle. Engines are no longer in nacelles above but centrally mounted. Its more interesting looking from other angles.

 

[Sundog]

I have only the smaller drawing Scott put up and the forward snippet, but are you sure the intake's centerbody is like the F-23A's? I just ask, because it looked to me to be a bit more like that of the F-111's, in terms of the centerbody location, based on what I was able to discern, but you've probably seen more than I have. I have to say, either way, I think it's a very cool looking design. Not as cool as the F-23A IMHO, but cool none the less. it also looks like the wing is so thin they had to add a bump to fit the wing fold mechanism.

In terms of planform, it reminds me of the naval variant design study of the X-36.

Edited: Going back and looking for that naval X-36, which can be found in this thread

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3547.0/highlight,x-36.html

I ran across this thread on the JSF/JAST designs and you can really see the design lineage from the NATF design to the McDD JSF design study wind tunnel model Overscan posted pictures of here

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2392.45.html

 

[flateric]

from 2007
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg14363.html#msg14363
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2150.msg24126.html#msg24126

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here's a quick lash up of the Northrop NATF in the one pixel equals two feet scale of ShipBucket. The NATF is placed on a CVN-68 deck with a couple of other aircraft to show the scale and spotting issues. It is so long it would need a folding nose to fit in the elevators. The Hornet looks pretty demure beside one...

Picture removed pending update.

 

[lantinian]

The comparison is really telling however i do believe you have gotten the sizes wrong. It cannot be that big. AG Can you please post a size comparison of the NATF-23 and the F-23A or the YF-23?