Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

Low IQ Techie said:
Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.:D
The wing & tail-stab positions are interchanged & rudders removed.
It is a quick, simple,notional edit, many small flaws can be observed by people into 3D CAD.
Making its front, side, bottom views w/o 3D S/w by just imagining is very tedious at this time, what i used to do on graph sheets in school-days in 1990s watching F-117, B-2, developing F-22 on Discovery channel. The good old days :)
Anyways, i wonder if LM built such a jet for competition or research.

View attachment 766194
Click to expand...
This is the kind of "kitbash" I love to play with, to generate design ideas ^^
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-10-28 at 1.36.13 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-10-28 at 1.36.13 PM.png
    968.8 KB · Views: 126
  • Screen Shot 2021-10-28 at 1.36.13 PM copy.png
    Screen Shot 2021-10-28 at 1.36.13 PM copy.png
    968.7 KB · Views: 106
  • Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - side.jpg
    Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - side.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 117
Hanse said:
Has that been identified as anything specific?
Click to expand...
It remains unidentified. Its simplified form - no visible inlets/exhaust or canopy other than a bulge - makes me think that it's a scale display model, along the lines of the GCAP model that appeared at Farnborough.
 
bob225 said:
Fabulous work, just watch out for the men or ladies in black knocking on your door very soon asking where you got your info!!
Click to expand...
I believe I'm quite safe, after all the only parts that I'm confident about are the ones that I've highlighted in green below:
Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - top1.jpg
Dimensions, angles and everything not immediately visible from the pictures released so far (i.e. from the start of the wing onward towards the exhausts) are purely speculative, albeit based on concepts and studies done by Boeing.

More than a NGAD speculative configuration, mine is a NAD speculative configuration (Not Another Delta or Not Another Dorito).

EmoBirb said:
Otherwise we'll soon see it on TWZ or Sandboxx as exclusive looks at the F-47 of the AF :D
Click to expand...
No risks here either.
My pictures/concept are not good enough to be stolen analyzed by any of their experts.

Rhinocrates said:
Hmmm...

Hmm...
Click to expand...
I'm more inclined to believe it was this, given the context as well...

Hanse said:
It looks pretty sweet but I think NGAD is going to be larger.
Click to expand...
My guess would be something in the ballpark between 21 and 23 meters, but only time will tell.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.:D
The wing & tail-stab positions are interchanged & rudders removed.
It is a quick, simple,notional edit, many small flaws can be observed by people into 3D CAD.
Making its front, side, bottom views w/o 3D S/w by just imagining is very tedious at this time, what i used to do on graph sheets in school-days in 1990s watching F-117, B-2, developing F-22 on Discovery channel. The good old days :)
Anyways, i wonder if LM built such a jet for competition or research.

View attachment 766194
Click to expand...
That's not going to fly right, the main wings are too far aft. Center of lift is 1/3 of the way down the chord line while subsonic, 1/2 chord while supersonic. I'm putting the rough center of lift on the main wings to be at the point of the skin line of the exhaust nozzles on your sketch. So if it's using F-22 wings, the engines would need to extend well aft of them for rough balance.

I'm suspecting that the LockMart proposal looked a lot like the FB-22 or X-44. Giant delta wing on a plane that basically has a second F-22 weapons bay added aft of the first one.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's not going to fly right, the main wings are too far aft. Center of lift is 1/3 of the way down the chord line while subsonic, 1/2 chord while supersonic. I'm putting the rough center of lift on the main wings to be at the point of the skin line of the exhaust nozzles on your sketch. So if it's using F-22 wings, the engines would need to extend well aft of them for rough balance.

I'm suspecting that the LockMart proposal looked a lot like the FB-22 or X-44. Giant delta wing on a plane that basically has a second F-22 weapons bay added aft of the first one.
Click to expand...

Well, as i said this is just quick notional edit for a TD (Tech. Demonstrator), an eyecandy, adding to the guessing fun, before the prototype gets revealed in a ceremony & we start getting documentaries on NGAD. ;)
I did this after noticing the X-36, Bird of Prey, J-20, other delta-canards like Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen, Vigen, Draken, etc.
AFAIK, most of the individually thought 3D CAD models are similar. No artist has presented calculations of C.o.G., C.o.L. etc. Very few even mention the dimensions.

IDK if the C.o.L. shifts back with speed.
1 thing i know is for unstable jet the C.o.G. is little behind the C.o.L. & vice-versa for stable jet:
1744360493890.png

I read that modern fighter jets need to be designed unstable for agility & controlled by avionics computers.
So let's assume that C.o.L. will be litlle ahead of C.o.G.

IDK formula for C.o.L. but for a simple scalene triangle C.o.G. is on Centroid which is 2/3rd of length from forward tip & 1/3rd of height/width outward from base:
1744362038148.png

But finding C.o.G. of aircraft is complex bcoz the mid-fuselage has hollow ducts but not the aft fuselage with engines. The equipments & fuel tanks are smeared all over the airframe.

To make things little easy, the C.o.G. should be ahead of main/rear landing gear or the plane will tip over backwards.

So in the modified design, exchanging the wings & tail-stab positions, shifts the airframe Co.G. backward a lot.
> hence i didn't move the engine as it'll complicate things for me, shifting the C.o.G. back more.
> pushing the canard (tail-stab) little forward shifts the C.oG. & C.o.L. little forward to balance wing.
> removing rudder lightens rear fuselage & shifts the C.o.G. forward.
> adding chines to nose will move the C.o.G. little forward. It may also add to lift.
> if the MLG is also pushed back then it shifts C.oG. little back but also the fulcrum back, it should prevent the plane from tipping over back. I did this in the side & bottom views but didn't share them bcoz it is incomplete, imagining the forward fuselage area is complex. Intake area has to be maintained which affects nose shape. The following is the incomplete diagram with MLG shifted back:
1744367382644.png

Perhaps the canards should be shifted more forward & wing lengthened, leading edge sweep angle increased.
That's all my low IQ brain can think of. LOL! ;) :D
I'll try a V2 of these diagrams.
But to translate this into a flyable jet's diagram will need a S/w which can input the density of structure, weight of components & will tell us the computed output of C.o.G. at least. IDK if 3D CAD S/w like Blender, Fusuion360, etc can do it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's not going to fly right, the main wings are too far aft. Center of lift is 1/3 of the way down the chord line while subsonic, 1/2 chord while supersonic. I'm putting the rough center of lift on the main wings to be at the point of the skin line of the exhaust nozzles on your sketch. So if it's using F-22 wings, the engines would need to extend well aft of them for rough balance.

I'm suspecting that the LockMart proposal looked a lot like the FB-22 or X-44. Giant delta wing on a plane that basically has a second F-22 weapons bay added aft of the first one.
Click to expand...
The wing may not be as far off as you may think. The center of lift (subsonic) on the wing is 25% MAC. The forebody and canard are extremely destabilizing, probably 20 to 25%. That would place the neutral point near the leading edge or just off. Given negative stability (subsonic) is desired, that would place the CG between 0 and 10% MAC. The big question is whether the engines need to move aft ( probably so). I wouldn't be surprised at the end of the day, the canard and wing would need to move forward in unison.

By the way, the Lockheed submittal used a hybrid cranked arrow.
 
Last edited:
I too have made my own interpretation of it.
I went for a more thick model ( Boeing and design ...) based on the McD 2409 High Stealth High Agility-Design with intakes on the sides.
The internal volume is large, needed to carry a lot of fuel and weapons internally.
It also helps a bit with stealth..

Some really nice work in this thread, well done :cool:

More views of it here
3dview_001-jpg.766652
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
but even if AI technology and other such technologies are advancing at a very fast pace, there still needs to be a pilot in the cockpit to monitor and make the important decisions to deal with them. Whether the cockpit would be in the plane or from a base far away, human input would still be very much needed when it comes to making the important decisions that the AI in both the F-47 and the CCA will then carry out.
Click to expand...
It’s clear that modern aircraft have maxed out human physical performance and modern combat has likely maxed out human mental performance as well.

Aegis had an automatic mode since way back.

View: https://youtu.be/bo34Zwbte6c?si=Zq4q03lpm1SFEOec


The aircraft is likely as I said a straight line flying, missile shooter. So from a purely old time wow factor, this looks like a stiff.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
It’s clear that modern aircraft have maxed out human physical performance and modern combat has likely maxed out human mental performance as well.

Aegis had an automatic mode since way back.

View: https://youtu.be/bo34Zwbte6c?si=Zq4q03lpm1SFEOec


The aircraft is likely as I said a straight line flying, missile shooter. So from a purely old time wow factor, this looks like a stiff.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, but what I am just saying is that certain decisions still have to be left to human decision. Currently, AI technologies are still not capable of making important decisions that may make or break the entire incident or worse, start whole wars out of. And even if they do, what is the guarantee that they would act in the same way humans would when it comes to the significant and potentially moral decisions that are made, or what sacrifices would have to be made once the button is pushed?

If the AI decides to strike even if there are still some things that are foggy about the target or what if it's not fully clear what kind of target they are dealing with, and then it fires preemptively on them, then the consequences can and may vary. Either the target is an enemy and it's a job well done, or turns out, the target is friendly or worse, civilian and a whole debacle may happen soon afterwards, with the AI's human operators possibly facing resignation due to it. I know that human error is very much still an issue, given that there was a shootdown of an F/A-18 by missiles from an Arleigh Burke destroyer some time ago (The one in the video you sent), but would it also be guaranteed that AI will do absolutely zero of that?

What I'm basically saying is that the most important decisions in modern warfare still has to be left to humans to decide, lest the AI assumes a decision has been reached and potentially plunges whole countries to war in the process. We can say, have AI do like 90-95% of the automated decisions and everything else that would stress a human mind, but the final decision and action, has to be left to a human, one who can judge whether it is right or wrong to push the button, or reflect on whatever consequences may occur if he does so.
 
Last edited:
djfawcett said:
Is the original drawing on-site. The only ones I found were pretty much the same.
Click to expand...
I'll check the AWST article to confirm.

Bear in mind it wasn't intended to represent the F-47, but rather a possible config for what we understand publicly of the requirements.
 
Ronny said:
You are very talented, but honestly, I hope the real F-47 look different, this shape is as ugly as X-32, probably worse :(
Why Chinese 6 gen look so elegant
Click to expand...
Form follows function. I based this purely on the limited amount of information we have currently.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Well, as i said this is just quick notional edit for a TD (Tech. Demonstrator), an eyecandy, adding to the guessing fun, before the prototype gets revealed in a ceremony & we start getting documentaries on NGAD. ;)
I did this after noticing the X-36, Bird of Prey, J-20, other delta-canards like Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen, Vigen, Draken, etc.
AFAIK, most of the individually thought 3D CAD models are similar. No artist has presented calculations of C.o.G., C.o.L. etc. Very few even mention the dimensions.

IDK if the C.o.L. shifts back with speed.
1 thing i know is for unstable jet the C.o.G. is little behind the C.o.L. & vice-versa for stable jet:
View attachment 766375

I read that modern fighter jets need to be designed unstable for agility & controlled by avionics computers.
So let's assume that C.o.L. will be litlle ahead of C.o.G.

IDK formula for C.o.L. but for a simple scalene triangle C.o.G. is on Centroid which is 2/3rd of length from forward tip & 1/3rd of height/width outward from base:
View attachment 766377

But finding C.o.G. of aircraft is complex bcoz the mid-fuselage has hollow ducts but not the aft fuselage with engines. The equipments & fuel tanks are smeared all over the airframe.

To make things little easy, the C.o.G. should be ahead of main/rear landing gear or the plane will tip over backwards.

So in the modified design, exchanging the wings & tail-stab positions, shifts the airframe Co.G. backward a lot.
> hence i didn't move the engine as it'll complicate things for me, shifting the C.o.G. back more.
> pushing the canard (tail-stab) little forward shifts the C.oG. & C.o.L. little forward to balance wing.
> removing rudder lightens rear fuselage & shifts the C.o.G. forward.
> adding chines to nose will move the C.o.G. little forward. It may also add to lift.
> if the MLG is also pushed back then it shifts C.oG. little back but also the fulcrum back, it should prevent the plane from tipping over back. I did this in the side & bottom views but didn't share them bcoz it is incomplete, imagining the forward fuselage area is complex. Intake area has to be maintained which affects nose shape. The following is the incomplete diagram with MLG shifted back:
View attachment 766390

Perhaps the canards should be shifted more forward & wing lengthened, leading edge sweep angle increased.
That's all my low IQ brain can think of. LOL! ;) :D
I'll try a V2 of these diagrams.
But to translate this into a flyable jet's diagram will need a S/w which can input the density of structure, weight of components & will tell us the computed output of C.o.G. at least. IDK if 3D CAD S/w like Blender, Fusuion360, etc can do it.
Click to expand...

So here is the V2 with wing lengthened, leading edge angle increased.
The canard had to be shortened, maintaining planform design. With TVC nozzles, big canards may not be required.
I made the nose narrower, triangular to lessen drag & RCS.
Comparison with V1 is also shown.
The day i'll get a light weight, old, stable version of some 3D CAD S/w for my old laptop, i'll start translating these into 3D.
Feedbacks are welcome, i'm making a V3 also.

1744703650475.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom