Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

kijimi said:
It costs them nothing to add two black blobs to confuse forum nerds and the Chinese
Click to expand...
The Chinese probably already know very well how the actual thing is at least going to look like. Intelligence gathering and espionage a very real.
 
EmoBirb said:
The Chinese probably already know very well how the actual thing is at least going to look like. Intelligence gathering and espionage a very real.
Click to expand...

That is the old joke, right? That both the Soviets and the Americans know everything, it is just their publics who are in the dark.

I think the actual reality is that it is possible to have pretty water-tight programs and institutions. There will be lots of ways information leaks indirectly, but it is probably within the realm of possibility to keep an airframe quite secret.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Man, one of the mods has no sense of humor.

I commented that I'd seen an April Fool's post of the F-47 looking like the Firefox from the movie.

Deleted for "spamming" when I'd explicitly said "today" on April first.
Click to expand...

TBH I've always loathed this "holiday" anyway. I got over this by age 12. I'm edgy and cool, you see.
 
Avimimus said:
I think the actual reality is that it is possible to have pretty water-tight programs and institutions. There will be lots of ways information leaks indirectly, but it is probably within the realm of possibility to keep an airframe quite secret.
Click to expand...

This program isn’t one of those water tight ones. An hour or so before the NGAD announcement there was a USAF-affiliated person in the Starbucks on M street showing off a PowerPoint on it (F-47) on his laptop to anyone who would give him attention.

Or at least that’s the story I heard.
 
quellish said:
This program isn’t one of those water tight ones. An hour or so before the NGAD announcement there was a USAF-affiliated person in the Starbucks on M street showing off a PowerPoint on it (F-47) on his laptop to anyone who would give him attention.

Or at least that’s the story I heard.
Click to expand...
Poor guy had been working on it for eight years and just needed to let it all out lol
 
quellish said:
This program isn’t one of those water tight ones. An hour or so before the NGAD announcement there was a USAF-affiliated person in the Starbucks on M street showing off a PowerPoint on it (F-47) on his laptop to anyone who would give him attention.

Or at least that’s the story I heard.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprised me.

My favorite XO was working at the Pentagon, was at some function when he got picked up by a very smart lady with Slavic features. She was smart and nice and interested in where he worked, so he reported her to the spooks. "Oh, yeah, we know her. Go ahead and date her, she's an industrial spy and stays well clear of military stuff."

A couple months later, he was at a meeting in Norfolk when one of the meeting staff turned the TV on in the room.
"YN2 what the hell?"
"Whatever you were talking about in here is not as important as the events RIGHT NOW."
And my favorite XO got to see the plane hit HIS OFFICE at the Pentagon.
 
I personally find two of the MDD planforms to be pretty convincing - namely the one just posted above and the medium maneuverability one.

Also in addition to the vertical tails, I think concepts where the chines leading up to the nose are completely or almost completely parallel arent correct. Its not accounting for the perspective distortion enough or at all. It looks to me like they should taper toward the nose like depicted in the MDD diagram. I've used perspective matching software a lot for an aircraft carrier project and at angles that are shown in the two publically released inages, a difference of a pixel or two can already cause a lot of distortion.

Ofcourse I could be wrong and the plane actually looks that crazy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
My favorite XO was working at the Pentagon, was at some function when he got picked up by a very smart lady with Slavic features. She was smart and nice and interested in where he worked, so he reported her to the spooks. "Oh, yeah, we know her. Go ahead and date her, she's an industrial spy and stays well clear of military stuff."
Click to expand...
I suppose the advantage for the spooks is that if they know who she's dating, she can be fed the things they want her to know.

A former manager of mine went on a motorcycle tour of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The security folks were quite happy for him to go, but asked if they could take a look at his holiday pictures when he got back. And if there happened to be some shipyards in the background, well, such was life...
 
Avimimus said:
I think the actual reality is that it is possible to have pretty water-tight programs and institutions. There will be lots of ways information leaks indirectly, but it is probably within the realm of possibility to keep an airframe quite secret.
Click to expand...

That's certainly in the realm of possibility, no doubt. However I wouldn't be surprised if they knew how it generally looks, although probably not aware of its actual capabilities, specs etc.

As for how it looks, my bet is on an enlarged X-36 or something akin to that one graphic that could be seen in the background of some Boeing PR, which also is essentially an evolution of the X-36 layout. All in all, I don't think it will deviate too drastically from what we've been teased with over the years, be it through research papers or advertisements.

Just as how I'm fairly confident that Lockheeds proposal was most likely a large triangular F-22 style aircraft, which is in line with rumors of LMs design being more an evolution, rather than a revolutionary one like Boeings. Similar to how the J-36 looks to be an evolution on the J-20s foundation. Both (LM NGAD and J-36) being further optimized for range and signature reduction.

The Boeing ad thingy I meant:
 

Attachments

  • a-possible-hint-at-boeings-ngad-proposal-posted-on-their-v0-6x93acyzm0dc1.jpeg
    a-possible-hint-at-boeings-ngad-proposal-posted-on-their-v0-6x93acyzm0dc1.jpeg
    21.5 KB · Views: 195
EmoBirb said:
enlarged X-36 or something akin to that one graphic that could be seen in the background of some Boeing PR, which also is essentially an evolution of the X-36 layout.
Click to expand...
This plan form has elements of both the medium and high maneuverability MDD diagram and it has the giant chisel nose on the render. I definitely like this possibility. The canards shape also matches what I envisioned when I saw the two released photos. They're the right triangle kind instead of the equilateral kind on the X-36.
 
In my opinion it will look very similar to this old FA-XX render.
The front section we are shown in the sneak peaks is very similar, with the same shovel nose, same cockpit integration and the same continuous chine to the wing leading edge.
The only thing that seems different is a slightly more forwards canard position, with a gap between the canard and wing leading edge
Other Boeing graphics have chines that end before the engine nacelles/intakes and canards mounted on the nacelles instead, that I think is a different configuration from the final design.

1000019830.jpg
 
I direct your attention to the middle critter in the Black-and-White photo on the left....if memory serves, all of these configurations were well-tested in windtunnel environments, computational analyses, etc.

What is old becomes new once again....

The human mind cannot be superceded by AI....to me, not ever. But the human mind(s) in question have to be well-motivated, however, to keep ahead of ensh*tt*fication.....
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (12537).jpg
    Screenshot (12537).jpg
    172.1 KB · Views: 152
Sears Haacker said:
En mi opinión, se verá muy similar a este antiguo render FA-XX.
La sección frontal que se muestra en los adelantos es muy similar, con la misma nariz en forma de pala, la misma integración de la cabina y el mismo chine continuo hasta el borde de ataque del ala.
Lo único que parece diferente es una posición del canard ligeramente más adelantada, con un espacio entre el canard y el borde de ataque del ala.
Otros gráficos de Boeing tienen quillas que terminan antes de las góndolas/entradas de los motores y canards montados en las góndolas, lo que creo que es una configuración diferente del diseño final.

View attachment 765689
Click to expand...

Sears Haacker said:
In my opinion it will look very similar to this old FA-XX render.
The front section we are shown in the sneak peaks is very similar, with the same shovel nose, same cockpit integration and the same continuous chine to the wing leading edge.
The only thing that seems different is a slightly more forwards canard position, with a gap between the canard and wing leading edge
Other Boeing graphics have chines that end before the engine nacelles/intakes and canards mounted on the nacelles instead, that I think is a different configuration from the final design.

View attachment 765689
Click to expand...
Hello. This is a design of mine that I made in 2017 and then updated in 2020:
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter - Upgrade

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
I sincerely doubt the F47 will resemble my model of the F/A-XX.
I'm working on a model of what I think it will look like.
Maybe I'm wrong...
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello. This is a design of mine that I made in 2017 and then updated in 2020:
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter - Upgrade

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
I sincerely doubt the F47 will resemble my model of the F/A-XX.
I'm working on a model of what I think it will look like.
Maybe I'm wrong...
Click to expand...

Good Morning.
The entire world is fan of your work. You've made so many permutations & combinations that 1 of them with slight adjustments will definitely be the NGAD, F/A-XX.:D
The F-47 poster model looks similar to your F/A-XX concept, with modification of dihedral wing:

1743919144927.jpeg
 
Low IQ Techie said:
He has some other modified shapes also. His work looks really futurustic.
But in all shapes the intake area looks very small.

View attachment 765839
Click to expand...
1 and 2 look the closest to what we've seen from Boeing (across various demonstrators and renders). Wouldn't be surprised if it ends up comparable to either of those.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
He has some other modified shapes also. His work looks really futurustic.
But in all shapes the intake area looks very small.

View attachment 765839
Click to expand...

Yes, small intakes and relatively "flat" designs.
That's probably what happens when you design an airplane from the outside for illustrative purpose, rather than starting from the inside, with volumes for weapons bay(s), air ducts, avionics l, fuel and so on in mind.
 
I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - 1a.jpg
Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - 2a.jpg
Speculative F-47 - V7.00 - 3a.jpg
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).
 
CiTrus90 said:
I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
View attachment 765877
View attachment 765878
View attachment 765879
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).
Click to expand...
Excellent work! I love it! Congratulations!
 
CiTrus90 said:
I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
View attachment 765877
View attachment 765878
View attachment 765879
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).
Click to expand...
Beautiful and may be near of the real shape.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
It looks good, but in my low IQ understanding, a high AoA agile jet cannot have intake on top, which would create aerodynamc shadow above fuselage, low pressure in front of intake & cause compressor stall.
So you can make the intake below.
Click to expand...
Im very well aware of the stalling effect on high angles of attack but im just playing around with different concepte and having fun doing it. Im not an aviation expert by any means but i keep learning as i go along. Who knows i might try and do a third concept design for this one. For now im done with the F47 untill some more pictures pop up.
 
flateric said:
Number of Boeing, Lockheed and NG NGAD/F/A-XX official concepts have top inlets.
But in the case of F-47 it's not the case.
Click to expand...
Those could be study & test articles on paper, wind tunnel models, X/Y series jets, etc.
And most of the advertisement animations, posters, infographics have been proven wrong already by partially revealed F-47. LM exited unexpectedly.
But AFAIK, in accordance with physics, maths of nature, no agile PRODUCTION jet with top intake(s) have been made so far. A jet which would do only basic maneuvers or a supersonic one, can have top intakes.
 
Manuducati said:
Yes, small intakes and relatively "flat" designs.
That's probably what happens when you design an airplane from the outside for illustrative purpose, rather than starting from the inside, with volumes for weapons bay(s), air ducts, avionics l, fuel and so on in mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if he startes getting inside the jet then he can produce much more realistic ones.;)

For common people like us it can actually be a big headache:eek:o_O to imagine & estimate a new jet in 2D/3D, unless we know how to use 3D CAD S/w.

Let's take F-22 as foundation reference.
If we wan't a better 2-engine jet as per 6gen features of more capacity of weapons, fuel, new components, then it'll be bigger. So if the size/volume/weight is more & if same or more dry/wet ATWR (Airframe Thrust to Weight Ratio) needs to be maintained, then more airframe weight -> more thrust -> more air -> more area of intake, duct & inlet.
For idea, F-22's F119 Vs F-35's F-135 engines: 100cm Vs 109cm inlet dia., 116/128 KN Vs 156/191 KN dry/wet thrust. 9% more inlet dia., almost 19% more area, 10.3% more dry thrust, 22.4% more wet thrust.

There is no fixed formula b/w area of intake/duct/inlet & thrust, let's assume 1:1 ratio in increase for easy understanding. So if we fit F-22 with a bigger & 33% better engine of 156*1.33= 207.5 KN, the challenges are -
- increase air flow by 33%, means increase area of intake, duct & inlet by 33%. Inlet diameter increases by square-root(1.33) times or 15.32%.
- increase payload & range, means lengthen the jet.
- restrict airframe volume to 133%.
- restrict airframe height to that of F-22 if possible.

If the airframe expands only in width & height then it is easy to estimate.
If the airframe expands in all 3 XYZ axis in same ratio then also it is easy to estimate.
But if all 3 axis have different ratios then we have to be careful not to eceed new volume/weight.

Option 1 - stretch the airframe length only by 33%, which will need tandem IWB for extra AAMs.
Option 2 - stretch the airframe width only by 33%, which can adjust 4 more AAMs easily.
Option 3 - stretch both airframe width & length by ratio such that X*Y=1.33, like 1.1*1.2 or 10% X 20%.

Exploring option-1 1st, the fuselage width remains same, area of intake, duct & engine increased, again there are 3 sub-options:
1A - expand area in width & height by 15.32%, engine can be pushed down, but intake slightly portrudes down & out, duct above IWB is manageable.
1B - expand area in height only by 33%, engine can be pushed down, but intake portrudes down more & duct above IWB produces bump.
1C - expand area in width only by 33%, engine is pushed down, intake portrudes out sideways but manageable, duct above IWB is manageable.

I don't have 3D CAD S/w, so I put the above options 3 sub-options in approximate cross section diagrams of F-22:

1744050365257.png

So we see that increased size/volume of 1 or some components or system affects other parts & entire airframe.
The engine power, size, weight is dictating design of stealth jet if same ATWR has to be maintained.
 
Something about the renders seems to be very off. I find it hard to believe that this aircraft has canards so close to the front of it. Especially if it will be going anywhere near mach 2. Oh well. For me, it's time to throw in the towel until we get better material on this guy :)
 
totoro said:
I agree, f22 or yf23 wing sweep is very likely. You gotta do some assumptions which are logical. Also, observe f22, f35 from the side. Nose chine line from the nose tip to the intakes goes upwards. Curiously, on yf23 the upward line is minimal.

Also, every aircraft will have the wing surface point slightly downward, due to angle of attack needs.
If you look at side view of f22 you will see that, relative to the ground, not only is nose chine line going slightly upward but the wing surface points slightly downwards, when looked from leading to trailing edge.
Click to expand...

totoro said:
Here's an image of what I was talking about. Also to be considered.View attachment 765176
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the green line showing nose drop is due to providing the pilot with good down angle view through the HUD, especially during landing & low speed flight. If the nose tip was pulled up to wing line then the cockpit would have to be pulled up further too.

I wouldn't call the forward fuselage edges as "chines" exactly bcoz as per the cross section the body is like diamond shape strectched vertically, the side walls slant angle is quite high, favorable for pitch agility & high AoA.

F-22's wing leading edges are slightly anhedral from root to tip & the trailing edges are partially anhedral. AFAIK, anhedral wing decreases stability, means increases agility. Then next question arises that why not drop them further, only LM knows the answer. ;)
 
CiTrus90 said:
I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
View attachment 765877
View attachment 765878
View attachment 765879
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).
Click to expand...
I dig it, but are your inlets big enough? The Adaptive engines need more air than the F119 or F135.
 
CiTrus90 said:
I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
View attachment 765877
View attachment 765878
View attachment 765879
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).
Click to expand...

That side profile is a thing of beauty. Reminds me of the B-21 when viewed from the side. That distinct beak/duckbill.
 
4decaa said:
Something about the renders seems to be very off. I find it hard to believe that this aircraft has canards so close to the front of it. Especially if it will be going anywhere near mach 2. Oh well. For me, it's time to throw in the towel until we get better material on this guy :)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure @CiTrus90 's render has the canard tips inside the shock cone at Mach 2...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom