Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.
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.
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.
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:
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).
Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
Because from what we know, they had to unveil what it might look like without revealing one too many secrets too early. Perhaps in due time, a more finalized conception will be out before the actual reveal of the F-47.
Because from what we know, they had to unveil what it might look like without revealing one too many secrets too early. Perhaps in due time, a more finalized conception will be out before the actual reveal of the F-47.
I’m kind of old fashioned in the “looks good, flys good” way. And the image and the conceptual drawings look…uninspiring.
A straight line flying, stealth, missile carrier.
Considering the limits of human pilots may have been reached with the F-16, perhaps (and I’m gagging saying this) perhaps the machines should take the lead now.
I’m kind of old fashioned in the “looks good, flys good” way. And the image and the conceptual drawings look…uninspiring.
A straight line flying, stealth, missile carrier.
Considering the limits of human pilots may have been reached with the F-16, perhaps (and I’m gagging saying this) perhaps the machines should take the lead now.
The way I see it, maneuverability will not be a focus of the F-47. There will still be some degree of it, but in order that the F-47 would have the necessary space to handle both the upcoming long-range missiles and the advanced avionics and sensor systems that would enable it to interact and communicate with the CCA properly, some form of maneuverability would have to be sacrificed. Not to mention, it would also help in maintaining its stealth profile as moving a lot in fast speeds increase the chance of detection, especially by IR systems.
As such, the design of the F-47 looks to be one that would be less of a "fighter" and more of a "quarterback", and perhaps the maneuverability role will be left to the accompaning CCA drones, especially since they would be at the forefront of the fight.
Considering the limits of human pilots may have been reached with the F-16, perhaps (and I’m gagging saying this) perhaps the machines should take the lead now.
While I agree with this, the technology where machinery and AI can take full control is still way too far. I believed that it was sooner back then, 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.
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..
What's the purpose of the green stripes and the lighter color outlining the major shapes? If they're only decorative, this model would be better off without them.
@skyblue,
The green stripes are formation lights, so fighter jets can use those to see where they are in relation to eachother. The lighter color outlining is RAM coating. Not all stealth planes have them.
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.
What's the purpose of the green stripes and the lighter color outlining the major shapes? If they're only decorative, this model would be better off without them.
I see. Well, there goes the theory that it's one of the possible F-47 concepts, which I personally don't mind, because it clearly doesn't look the same as the official concept art that was unveiled, given that it lacked canards.
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.
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
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
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
