Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[4decaa]

working off the artist renderings, we can get a general idea of the visible platform and shapes. I'm not exactly sure how swept the tailing edge of the canards are. Or of any anlges used here (I assumed 42deg a la f22). In reality, it may be stretched WAY further to accomodate a higher mach number. Hopefully, this can help some better understand what they're seeing in the pictures.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This topic is for users to post drawings, CGI, paintings etc of their idea of what the F-47 actually looks like.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

working off the artist renderings, we can get a general idea of the visible platform and shapes. I'm not exactly sure how swept the tailing edge of the canards are. Or of any anlges used here (I assumed 42deg a la f22). In reality, it may be stretched WAY further to accomodate a higher mach number. Hopefully, this can help some better understand what they're seeing in the pictures.
View attachment 764250
View attachment 764251

I think this is on the right track, but too "squat" looking. The image is quite foreshortened. I'd say the sweep angles are higher (50-55 degrees?) and the canard more likely to be more diamond shaped. My guess is the intakes might be under the canards.

 

[totoro]

are these 2d drawings or 3d models? it would be super useful to have 3d models to be rotated 360, and then have them positioned exactly the same way as they are in USAF renders, so we see what works and what doesn't?
Of course the rear half of the plane and the bottom of the plane would be pure guesswork, but that's less important now. At least the nose, canard and wing configurations could be explored to see which of those best match USAF renders.

 

[VTOLicious]

Here is my guess on the possible configuration of the F-47

Edit: Updated image...

 

[lancer21]

Here is my guess on the possible configuration of the F-47

That is my guess too as to wing shape, i just can't see a large diamond wing like in Tomcat's CGI or some Boeing renders with that kind of dihedral, just doesn't feel right. Perhaps the wing of the Model 401 is indicative of the probable shape.

 

[lancer21]

For what is worth, i came across this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905271995010535628

View: https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1905271995010535628/photo/1

 

[flateric]

But we call it Northrop DP21-222 Xmas Tree Fighter

 

[4decaa]

I think this is on the right track, but too "squat" looking. The image is quite foreshortened. I'd say the sweep angles are higher (50-55 degrees?) and the canard more likely to be more diamond shaped. My guess is the intakes might be under the canards.

I agree. The intakes are most likely directly under/behind where the intakes are, since the OML ‘jumps’ further left after the canard. I wonder what kind of an intake it is. Perhaps a caret? Because of supercruise? DSI? for stealth?

 

[ar020]

Work in progress. Im open to suggestions. I will update in my usual threads.

 

[pedrospe]

Work in progress. Im open to suggestions. I will update in my usual threads.View attachment 764740View attachment 764743

Woow looks great

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

But we call it Northrop DP21-222 Xmas Tree Fighter

Pretty sure Boeing didn't copy that

 

[Moose]

Work in progress. Im open to suggestions. I will update in my usual threads.View attachment 764740View attachment 764743

Pretty interesting, nice work

 

[CiTrus90]

For what is worth, i came across this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905271995010535628

View: https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1905271995010535628/photo/1

"Mom get the camera! People are posting my stuff on Twitter!"

Still working on the assumption that the Two-o-thunder patch might be relevant:




Without knowing the specific FOV of the camera used for taking the shots of the renderings that have been released so far, it will be quite difficult to get an accurate match.

Seen from above, everything is planform aligned along 4 angles, but without knowing more I'm not sure I can do much else.
It is indeed speculative.
It's mostly a mix of the silhouette seen in the patch, hints from the pictures released and inspiration taken from Boeing's Concept 2405 and 2409.

 

[VTOLicious]

Here is my guess on the possible configuration of the F-47

Similar configuration...
https://www.twz.com/air/reflections-of-the-f-47-looking-back-at-the-x-36

 

[lancer21]

The artist says it's actually his interpretation of F/A-XX, but i just think that kind of wing is more likely for the F-47 too.
Anyway, this looks like a J-50 with american characteristics.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905648739034751454

View: https://x.com/tomcat_fans/status/1905648739034751454

 

[TSARb]

My view.
NAVY NGAD is the FA/XX with a pair of updates.
1) No DSI. DSI isn't the best solution for a Mach 2 capable aircraft. I expect something more classical, like a KF-21.
2) In-flight moving wingtips to provide extra control during landing and for high supersonic stability. And the flat stealthy mode for a cruise flight.

I'm not a 3D artist, so this is a PSed draft:



USAF NGAD is all the same, but without the canards.

 

[4decaa]

The artist says it's actually his interpretation of F/A-XX, but i just think that kind of wing is more likely for the F-47 too.
Anyway, this looks like a J-50 with american characteristics.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905648739034751454

View: https://x.com/tomcat_fans/status/1905648739034751454

unrelated slightly, but the inlets will definitely NOT look like that. I keep seeing different concept designs with inlets and some of them have ridiculously sharp angles. Like this one in the tweet. How the hell would airflow get to the engine at AoA >10 degrees? what on earth?

 

[ar020]

Some updates. I think i will try another concept based of the limited information available. Im still not sure wether my top mounted inlet concept is viable.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mcdd-impact-of-agility-requirements-on-configuration-synthesis-study-1994.45200/#post-746322

With separate cheek intakes under the canards instead of a chin intake and dihedral on wing and canard this would be somewhat similar to how I envision this.

 

[CiTrus90]

Since I'm seeing a lot a beautiful renders, but not that many are keeping into consideration what is visible in the available pictures (besides the efforts of 4decaa), and that quite a number of people are just pointing at the X-36 as what the F-47 will look like, I've tried putting together a few bullet points that (at least to me) are fairly self evident and should not be up to discussion if somebody wants to create a model of the F-47 as faithful to the pictures as possible, albeit with severe limitations and keeping in mind the scarcity of informations currently available.

Canards/vanes placement:


OML shows LERXes (?) that are possibly an indication of where the intakes are positioned on the aircraft:



Forward fuselage and cockpit shape:


Possible wings and canards/vanes dihedral:



Possible presence of vertical tails:


If this is considered useful, I'll probably make another post where I explain the reasoning behind the choices I've made for my 3d model.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 764250
View attachment 764251

I think that is significantly foreshortened, the camera is slightly above the aircraft centerline in the render.

For giggles, what would it look like if you doubled the length of the visible airframe?

 

[flateric]

Getting into cockpit would be ... a challenge

 

[Scott Kenny]

Getting into cockpit would be ... a challenge

Step onto airframe between canards and wing.

 

[Shaman Harris]

How often people got injured falling from the plane?

 

[Shaman Harris]

Some updates. I think i will try another concept based of the limited information available. Im still not sure wether my top mounted inlet concept is viable.View attachment 764838View attachment 764839View attachment 764840

what kind of exhaust...

 

[Rhinocrates]

Possible presence of vertical tails:
View attachment 764917

I was thinking possible absence of vertical tails.

Just shows how the same information can be interpreted differently

 

[Rhinocrates]

OK, some are subsonic and not supersonic, but Boeing has published plenty of concepts with dorsal inlets. It's been an aspiration at least. Very often we've seen the development histories where designers have tried dorsal inlets for their stealth advantages before they finally gave in and accepted the inevitability of having cheek or armpit inlets. However, the B-21 has appeared with dorsal inlets with an incredibly low profile even compared to the B-2's. We've heard that these had caused problems but NG persevered and made them work. Being a 'six of one and a half dozen of the other, a pound both ways' kind of guy, I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing either stuck with dorsal inlets and made them work at high AoA and at supersonic speeds, or they finally decided that cheek inlets were the least worst.

 

[Rhinocrates]

View attachment 764912

It looks like the trailing point of the canopy is significantly higher that its leading point. Again, comparing with renders of earlier concepts and the F-35 A and C versus the B. Not that I think it's a VTOL of course, just that they don't expect the pilot to be craning their neck to look backwards because the plane has cameras doing that for them. I think that it will have a 'humpback' profile.

 

[totoro]

I wonder where the intakes really are, given the canards. All canard plane designs make sure to get the intakes out of the way of the air flow behind the canard.
So, intakes seem unlikely to be positioned to the sides of the plane. Given that canards themselves seem to be pretty forward positioned, enough so that intakes can't start in front of them.

Two logical positions would then be either a centerline twin intake behind canopy, or central positioned ones on the belly. The former is not conducive to high attack angle manuvers.
The latter doesn't allow a long, deep weapon bay but forces two lateral weapon bays around the inlets.
Or, if the plane is long enough, it could have su-75 solution, with central belly intakes that start forward, curve upwards and don't leave a lot of depth for the weapon bay.

 

[lancer21]

The more one looks at it the more it seems that the likely configuration is more or less something like J-50 with or without canards. Sure there might be detail differences like wing dihedral etc. but the overall look might be more or less similar. There are so many ways to skin a cat (areodinamically) as it goes.

 

[VTOLicious]

These canards got me thinking! Since there is no gap visible in these renderings, it could be that Boeing came up with a new and innovative solution. Here are my crazy thoughts...

It could be possible that the axis of rotation isn't perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as usual, but collinear with the outer edge of the nose (blue).
Since the outer edge isn't parallel to the longitudinal axis, an up-and-down movement of the canard (green) would cause a change of its angle of attack.
If so, I think the canard would be connected to the fuselage by a flexible cover. The hinge and actuator would be located inside this flexible cover (yellow). As a result, there would be no gap or seam!



Obviously such a solution wouldn't have the same freedom of movement as a conventional canard, but it would certainly be capable of changing the airflow to the wing. This would be sufficient to trim the aircraft and, in interaction with the other control effectors on the wing, could certainly contribute to pitch and roll control.

 

[CiTrus90]

BTW here's an example of why we should be wary of relaying to much on the pictures released to estimates angles, length, etc..
Besides the fact that the pictures have been censored, both of them have been rendered with an orthographic camera view (i.e. zero perspective of depth, so objects further away don't look smaller).
The results of trying to match what is seen in the picture with a 3d model are...problematic:



Which is why I stated that without knowing the specific FOV of the camera used for taking the renders it will be difficult to match what has been shown so far. We can get hints and rough ideas, but the rest needs to be filled by "guesstimates".

OK, some are subsonic and not supersonic, but Boeing has published plenty of concepts with dorsal inlets.

I personally do not believe the F-47 will have dorsal inlets. It's just not what I'm seeing from the pictures released and which are what I'm basing myself on. From what I see the intakes are on the bottom of the aircraft and to the sides.

And BTW 3 out of 6 of those pictures aren't even Boeing concepts to begin with: "152112..." is the work of our own Pedrospe, if I'm not mistaken and is based on Rodrigo Avella's concepts, the last two named "screenshot..." are 4decaa's 3d model of Lockheed stealth tanker concept.

 

[totoro]

View attachment 764994
View attachment 764995
View attachment 764996
Which is why I stated that without knowing the specific FOV of the camera used for taking the renders it will be difficult to match what has been shown so far. We can get hints and rough ideas, but the rest needs to be filled by "guesstimates".

That is terrific work you are doing, please continue. As that's the only way we can be even remotely sure of the plane's shape. Remember that there are two images of f47 with at least somewhat different perspective (the other just has canards obscured by clouds) so by checking your 3d model variants to match both images, there should be fewer unknowns in the model.

 

[ar020]

On it..

 

[kken]

A quick draft, taking into account that the shadow on the American flag may contain a v tail after.

 

[lancer21]

Looks great, but it's just too many surfaces imo, canards, tails AND downturned wingtips on a 6th generation? How is it going to achieve VLO as claimed with all those extra surfaces? The obviously present canards must be compensating for the lack of something, so either the tails or the downturned wingtips are not present, maybe even both. Just my completely personal opinion.

 

[4decaa]

These canards got me thinking! Since there is no gap visible in these renderings, it could be that Boeing came up with a new and innovative solution. Here are my crazy thoughts...

It could be possible that the axis of rotation isn't perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as usual, but collinear with the outer edge of the nose (blue).
Since the outer edge isn't parallel to the longitudinal axis, an up-and-down movement of the canard (green) would cause a change of its the angle of attack.
If so, I think the canard would be connected to the fuselage by a flexible cover. The hinge and actuator would be located inside this flexible cover (yellow). As a result, there would be no gap or seam!

View attachment 764992

Obviously such a solution wouldn't have the same freedom of movement as a conventional canard, but it would certainly be capable of changing the airflow to the wing. This would be sufficient to trim the aircraft and, in interaction with the other control effectors on the wing, could certainly contribute to pitch and roll control.

something to consider is your red lines. The one furthest back / connecting over the cockpit should probably just be a completely straight line until it reaches the top of the cockpit. during model creation, look at photos of F22,F35 cockpit shaping to understand that while there is a lot of different curves and shapes, there are actually many flat surfaces angled in the same direction for VLO. i would also guess that the red line going over the nose becomes flat at some point. A La F22 or F35 once again.

Also, nice work noticing what you suspect is a “cover”. Good analysis!

 

[Grandindividual87]

I have seen that no one has tried to warp the picture in some way. I have thought since we have a good view of the front, it must be possible to warp it to a top down perspective. I have tried this by drawing a few lines to help me most importantly the lines from the nose to cockpit and wing to wing, forming a 90 degree angle. With this knowledge all I had to do is stretch the picture so that 90 degree angle is present. My result is too wide, I need someone to test my idea and possibly create better version with proper width and such

 

[CiTrus90]

To the guy that made the rendering for the Air Force: I dislike you with a passion, Sir/Madam.

The amounts of shift and tilt applied to the camera are diabolical.
And I'm still not 100% sold on the combination of both with the camera position.