Advancedboy's Designs Topic

Thank you for liking my sketches! I have a couple of passenger aircraft sketches with blended engines into leading edge, but they are raw and I must still work on them. For flattering air from aircraft surfaces we have 3 options- diverters, drilled holes with suction and a bump( I don`t know what is it called)but air curves around it becoming more stable when getting into inlet. Before that I must rework Minus jet on the previous page. It lacks ease of fluidity and coloring is blunt.
P.S. - Here is one unfinished design. I am still working on the inlet as well. The whole design is still raw. I am still considering if it should have a wheel scheme as on B-52. As it has vert. stabilizers below wings maybe I should add small chassis at bottom of each stabilizer.
As to inlets here is one of my older designs that I updated for stabilizing air flow. I also used canopy from it for the last design.
 

Attachments

  • Lockmart.jpg
    Lockmart.jpg
    563.5 KB · Views: 1,302
  • ntc.jpg
    ntc.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 1,206
  • inlet.jpg
    inlet.jpg
    493.7 KB · Views: 1,148
Great sketches,the lockheed martin and northrop fighters,look realy good.


Best regards

Pedro
 
Thank you Pedrospe for your support. Here is the further development of the sketch I posted a week ago. XJet by Lockheed-Martin. And Cargonaut rearview.
 

Attachments

  • crg.jpg
    crg.jpg
    427.7 KB · Views: 924
  • XJT.jpg
    XJT.jpg
    297.6 KB · Views: 777
Future Medium Cargo for Boeing. Initial doodle. Possible engine integration into wings.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-xc.JPG
    Boeing-xc.JPG
    147.6 KB · Views: 109
Next generation trainer jet T-X `Novis`, with AIM9x and external fuel tanks. Non stealth version.
 

Attachments

  • Jetxxx.jpg
    Jetxxx.jpg
    131.5 KB · Views: 96
NGAD. This is unfinished initial sketch for NGAD. I decided to unite vertical and horizontal stabilizers into one system.This stabilizer will rotate around axis of engine structure. I thought about this previously but was not sure how to ensure rigidity of rather large wing area that would be moving. So I went for attachment to engine bay. It would have large enough radius to support stabilizers. Those stabilizers would be rotating on bearings around engine assembly ( circular) so there would be enough strength for large G loads. This would also allow experiments on manoeuverability. It would be possible to rotate them even at negative angles below main wing surface. At level flights the stabilizers would be at flat angle with main wings. At plus angles they could move upwards at any angle, as far as they would meet each other( or close to it.). The current NGAD is awesome, the only thing I feel like the tail section is missing those stabilizers. Some aircraft look cool without them, for example, X-36, but some not so much. But that is only my personal opinion, not more.
 

Attachments

  • NGAD-x.JPG
    NGAD-x.JPG
    114 KB · Views: 108
A fast sketch of a future jet fighter. And RAH Navajo updated.
 

Attachments

  • F-Wolframe.JPG
    F-Wolframe.JPG
    162.8 KB · Views: 106
  • sikorsky.jpg
    sikorsky.jpg
    159.6 KB · Views: 105
What is the NGAD? It doesn't seem stealth, the engine placement makes it rather unmaneuverable, the mass moment of inertia is huge, and rather heavy....
 
The engine is actually deeper within wells, because of heat dissipation to lower heat signature. So the center of mass won`t be that much rearwards. If you look at f-18 , its engines also seem protruded rearwards and it is not even stealth. So, I will disagree. Anyway, it is a raw sketch and I am exercising ideas so changes might apply as well.
Here is a sketch of a jet hydroplane. I will add other views to detail the design.
 

Attachments

  • fff.jpg
    fff.jpg
    707.7 KB · Views: 81
The hydroplane could probably look something like this. It is still a raw sketch of ideas, but it is slowly taking shape:) Also, an updated older sketch of YF-38. I am still not happy with it, but anyway.
 

Attachments

  • 100_6053.JPG
    100_6053.JPG
    220.7 KB · Views: 99
  • yf38.jpg
    yf38.jpg
    351.7 KB · Views: 100
I meant the engines should be placed closer together, for instance as a F-22, and not a Su-27.
 
Clever the way you have integrated engines with wings on those transports.

However, on the jet hydroplane, I would crank the wings in the other direction because bolting the wings' center section directly to the fuselage would shorten load-paths and reduce interference drag. Then crank the outer wings upwards outboard of the engine nacelles. High outer wing panels will whack fewer docks, trucks, fork-lifts, etc.

The greatest challenge is making it maneuverable enough to reverse onto docks so that it can unload straight out the back end. Thrust-reversers pointing up, over top of the wings?

Either way, you still need to keep engine inlets well above the waves to minimize water-ingestion. Floats will help reduce spray directly into engine intakes.

Sorry dude, I was not trying to tell you how to draw your pretty pictures. ..... Instead, I was looking at your sketches from a truck-driver's perspective and trying to figure out the easiest way to unload cargo.
 
Thanks Riggerbob, I will consider your suggestions once I return to update that sketch.
Anyways, here is a TR-3X classified medium range bomber flying over your heads:)
 

Attachments

  • USAP-DNI.jpg
    USAP-DNI.jpg
    247.8 KB · Views: 1,300
ADVANCEDBOY said:
Future Medium Cargo for Boeing. Initial doodle. Possible engine integration into wings.
Interesting, but I wouldn't want to have to work on that wing structure, and it'd be expensive to engineer and manufacture. Burying the engines in the wings is uncommon for a reason, though, having to do with airflow (see DeHavilland Comet), and drag.

Rather impressive artwork, though.
 
Further development of my sketch at Reply #249. N-GAD. Rear stabilizer vectoring. Upper position and medium low position. The lowest position will have a flat alignment with the main wing.
 

Attachments

  • N-GAD.jpg
    N-GAD.jpg
    313.6 KB · Views: 1,068
NGAD. Top view. The rotating vertical stabilizers at their lowest position and alignment with the wing. As they are rotating on a hub around engine exhaust assembly ( this idea was developed as it offered enough power shoulder to support a movable stabilizer) they could be rotating at negative angles as well. That is, below alignment line with the wing.
 

Attachments

  • NGAD-view.JPG
    NGAD-view.JPG
    180 KB · Views: 907
Thank You for your support. Here I added a sketch for a future Ford Pickup Truck .
 

Attachments

  • Ford Concept.jpg
    Ford Concept.jpg
    468.5 KB · Views: 683
A sketch of a Bell 599 rescue helicopter and FATSO UAV slightly updated.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    184.3 KB · Views: 87
  • FATSO.jpg
    FATSO.jpg
    149.5 KB · Views: 115
I decided to rework Bell FCX-001. Initially I wanted to modify it just slightly, but in the end I redesigned all of it just leaving the main rotor intact. I t turned out a bit classic, not futuristic or conceptual enough but at least it retains some Bell family design features.
 

Attachments

  • Bell-concept.jpg
    Bell-concept.jpg
    212.4 KB · Views: 77
A hydroplane. Initial raw sketch. Top view. An iso view might come if you are interested.
 

Attachments

  • hydroplane.jpg
    hydroplane.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 67
What aircraft would you like to be sketched? I can do a new design for an existing or theoretical program or rework my older designs. The hydroplane was my older sketch reworked.
 
ADVANCEDBOY said:
What aircraft would you like to be sketched? I can do a new design for an existing or theoretical program or rework my older designs. The hydroplane was my older sketch reworked.

Some possible ideas:

(1) A blended wing body bomber with stealth characteristics.
(2) A supersonic propeller-driven aircraft.
(3) What you think a replacement for the A-10 Thunderbolt II would look like.
(4) A single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space plane similar to the Skylon concept.
(5) An aircraft that can also dive under the water like a submarine.
(6) Your thoughts on what a modern, advanced descendant of the Triebflügel VTOL aircraft would look like.
(7) A hypothetical anti-gravity aircraft resulting from research done during Project Greenglow.
(8) An aircraft designed specifically to beat the time-to-height record.
(9) An aircraft that can operate in the atmosphere of another planet like Venus or Jupiter (probably nuclear or solar-powered).
(10) An aircraft that can go as fast as possible while still staying in the atmosphere.
 
@kryptid.
1. Blended Wing ( bomber) Stealth. Sounds very tempting. I will consider sketching it. Would you like a passenger type , similar to Boeing x-48 scale model, or a military platform?
2. A supersonic propeller driven aircraft is a problem as most aircraft would require jet engine to achieve such speeds. I think effectiveness of prop engines end at Mach 0 .9. I could design an aircraft with a shrouded propfan. My gut feeling tells me it is the only way to have a propeller and supersonic in one sentence. Turboprop won`t cut it. Actually, I am not a big fan of propellers. ( pun intended.)
3. Actually I sketched a Thunderbolt replacement a year ago but quit the design as I was not happy with it. I could try improving on it and post it.
4. SSTO plane. Sounds tempting, but limitations apply to the design as it is a very high speed platform.
5. Submersible aircraft? Could you give me a reason for such an aircraft to exist?
6. Triebflugel is bonkers ( in a good, bizarre way). I think Blue Origin might fill that gap.
7. Antigravity aircraft wouldn`t be an exterior design issue , rather a mechanical issue. As I don`t know the principles of how the antigravity operates, it is hard to surmise its shape. All I can speculate is that such a craft would still be a subject to air drag. My personal intuition tells me that antigravity alone is nothing, you need propulsion as well. Antigravity sounds like compensating an existing force, while propulsion is an internal source of energy within a craft. Personally I think an air balloon with laughing gas is an antigravity aircraft as it compensates gravity with lighter than air gas in it. Yet they don`t fly zig zags or hyperspeeds as claimed by Bob Lazar or his sidekick John Lear( John is not well in his basement lately, recently installed A/C though). I wonder when Ben Rich said we are light years ahead and we could take ETs home did he mean money laundering schemes under project classification or he meant real aircraft:) Would antigravity work similarly to Fouche's claim of rotating Mercury plasma? I have my doubts about Fouche. When I talked to him about how would the superfast TR-3B deal with air friction( drag) at high speeds he started talking about electronic plasma field similar to one invented by Russian scientists( unnamed). I think plasma field is not enough to compensate claimed speeds within air theater. So do we need a circular space within an aircraft to place the rotating plasma tank or is anti-gravity a different animal after all- I don`t know. I feel that we can not create antigravity device, but we could one day build a gravity disrupting device, a device that actually doesn`t directly deal with gravity but intensifies an existing force that is co-existing with gravity and disrupts/intensifies its force. The secret of gravity probably lies within mass, rotation and electric force.
8. Do you mean the fastest altitude gaining aircraft or something different?
9. For an aircraft to operate in atmosphere of Jupiter I would go nuclear as it is is energy efficient and in case of crash there is not any damage to any beings. Designwise it has a lot of interpretation.
10. Record braking atmospheric aircraft. Again, such an aircraft would have limited design options as it is subject to extreme air drag and would adopt the design of currently existing hyperspeed design platforms. I could try to design a pulse detonation wave engined craft:) which one would you like to be sketched first?
 
I wasn't intending for you to draw all of them. I was only providing some suggestions that might help spark your imagination.

ADVANCEDBOY said:
1. Blended Wing ( bomber) Stealth. Sounds very tempting. I will consider sketching it. Would you like a passenger type , similar to Boeing x-48 scale model, or a military platform?

Something shaped (generally) like the X-48, but sized-up and modified to be a bomber. Some serrated edges and edge alignment for stealth.

2. A supersonic propeller driven aircraft is a problem as most aircraft would require jet engine to achieve such speeds. I think effectiveness of prop engines end at Mach 0 .9. I could design an aircraft with a shrouded propfan. My gut feeling tells me it is the only way to have a propeller and supersonic in one sentence. Turboprop won`t cut it. Actually, I am not a big fan of propellers. ( pun intended.)

Experiments with the XF-88B demonstrated that propellers, if designed properly, can produce positive thrust above the sound barrier. If I remember correctly, the propeller was 71% efficient at speeds slightly above Mach 1. Modern design techniques would probably make it easier, such as utilizing area rule.

3. Actually I sketched a Thunderbolt replacement a year ago but quit the design as I was not happy with it. I could try improving on it and post it.

Sounds good.

4. SSTO plane. Sounds tempting, but limitations apply to the design as it is a very high speed platform.

Yeah, which is why Skylon has to be so big with most of its volume taken up by propellant.

5. Submersible aircraft? Could you give me a reason for such an aircraft to exist?

It's admittedly a bit dubious, but such an effort has been seriously considered before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_submarine

6. Triebflugel is bonkers ( in a good, bizarre way). I think Blue Origin might fill that gap.

The wingtip ramjets might conceivably be replaced with something that can tolerate lower speeds such as small turbojets or turbofans, or you could even make the rotor powered by an engine in the fuselage in addition to a counter-rotor to offset torque.

7. Antigravity aircraft wouldn`t be an exterior design issue , rather a mechanical issue. As I don`t know the principles of how the antigravity operates, it is hard to surmise its shape. All I can speculate is that such a craft would still be a subject to air drag. My personal intuition tells me that antigravity alone is nothing, you need propulsion as well. Antigravity sounds like compensating an existing force, while propulsion is an internal source of energy within a craft. Personally I think an air balloon with laughing gas is an antigravity aircraft as it compensates gravity with lighter than air gas in it. Yet they don`t fly zig zags or hyperspeeds as claimed by Bob Lazar or his sidekick John Lear( John is not well in his basement lately, recently installed A/C though). I wonder when Ben Rich said we are light years ahead and we could take ETs home did he mean money laundering schemes under project classification or he meant real aircraft:) Would antigravity work similarly to Fouche's claim of rotating Mercury plasma? I have my doubts about Fouche. When I talked to him about how would the superfast TR-3B deal with air friction( drag) at high speeds he started talking about electronic plasma field similar to one invented by Russian scientists( unnamed). I think plasma field is not enough to compensate claimed speeds within air theater. So do we need a circular space within an aircraft to place the rotating plasma tank or is anti-gravity a different animal after all- I don`t know. I feel that we can not create antigravity device, but we could one day build a gravity disrupting device, a device that actually doesn`t directly deal with gravity but intensifies an existing force that is co-existing with gravity and disrupts/intensifies its force. The secret of gravity probably lies within mass, rotation and electric force.

It's true that we don't know how actual anti-gravity would work, but it would be interesting considering what direction aircraft design could go if we were freed up from a need for wings, rotors or balloons.

8. Do you mean the fastest altitude gaining aircraft or something different?

Yes. Something like the McDonnell Douglas Streak Eagle or Sukhoi P-42. Except without the need to be agile or carry weapons.

9. For an aircraft to operate in atmosphere of Jupiter I would go nuclear as it is is energy efficient and in case of crash there is not any damage to any beings. Designwise it has a lot of interpretation.

That would make sense. Alternatively, a relatively normal jet or propeller engine would work on Jupiter, but in reverse: the atmosphere of Jupiter is the fuel (hydrogen) and you carry tanks of oxidizer (like liquid oxygen or dinitrogen tetroxide) on board your plane. Unless it was lighter-than-air (a difficult prospect in a hydrogen atmosphere), it would need somewhere to land eventually since chemical engines use up fuel/oxidizer quickly. Nuclear is probably the best.

10. Record braking atmospheric aircraft. Again, such an aircraft would have limited design options as it is subject to extreme air drag and would adopt the design of currently existing hyperspeed design platforms. I could try to design a pulse detonation wave engined craft:)

Most likely, yes. I recently wondered just how high an air-breathing aircraft could fly. It would have to be very fast in order for dynamic pressure to make up for the low density in the high atmosphere. My basic guess is that the upper altitude and speed for any such aircraft are limited by high temperatures.

which one would you like to be sketched first?

It doesn't matter to me. Whichever one suits your mood the most or, perhaps, whichever you think would challenge your skills as a designer or artist the most.
 
For the first design I decided to go for a blended wing design. It is a double fuselage , blended wing refueling aircraft. It is inspired by Manta Ray fish and mimmicks some of its elements. On top view I spent more time developing the shape, the ink sketches were done first that is why some elements differ. I could either work detailed ISO view or rework the design completely if it is not satisfactory. Anyway for one view the design should be finalised so that different rotation views would not change elements later. Refueling hose would look similar to Manta Ray`s tail. Paint scheme could adopt the spotty pigmentation as seen on Mantas.
 

Attachments

  • Manta Ray.JPG
    Manta Ray.JPG
    601.3 KB · Views: 916
Nice one. A multiple fuselage design could be good for extra fuel storage in a tanker, although both fuselages would have to be emptied at the same rate in order to prevent a shift in the center of gravity. It probably wouldn't be too hard to implement, though. A single, large fuselage could probably accomplish the same thing for less drag (less surface area), but the double fuselage design would have the benefit of additional span-loading and taking up less hangar space because it's shorter.
 
Further development of Manta Ray. Close to finalizing the top view design. ISO , sideview and front view will follow based on the finalized design.
 

Attachments

  • MRay.jpg
    MRay.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 747
Hi there, I `ve been away for some time, so decided to post some sketches. I was asked if I could rework the current Toyota Avalon. So here is the original by Toyota and my reworked version. Some aircraft sketches will come as well.
 

Attachments

  • Avalon.jpg
    Avalon.jpg
    519.9 KB · Views: 581
  • Avalon Advncdb..jpg
    Avalon Advncdb..jpg
    191.8 KB · Views: 508
Glad someone is willing to get away from those terrible spindle grilles!
 
Cessna Archipelago. A small, 12 ton carrier plane for delivering cargo to Pacific islands and elsewhere.
 

Attachments

  • Cessna.jpg
    Cessna.jpg
    585.5 KB · Views: 450
Revisited unmanned version of Lockheed-Martin XJet from post 240.
 

Attachments

  • version3 (1).jpg
    version3 (1).jpg
    198.1 KB · Views: 116

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom