Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[Low IQ Techie]

Granted, though the YF23 had a vertical stack for missiles. That I think was even demonstrated.

That was just speculation which has never been seen on any jet yet. Just a diagram of some chain-pulley system was shown, not precisely clear at all, never described properly AFAIK.
In actual pics it had swing-out launchers:

 

[Training_Dummy]

I suspect F-47 will be no longer or wider than F-22. One very hard and simple reason is that USAF have too few forward survivable shelters as is; it simply cannot afford to build larger shelters to support even a slightly longer or wider spanned airframe.

Going further, since it’s clear NGAD has been downsized over the last seven years in terms of other key systems of NGAD finding offboard homes on other platforms, and it’s been also reported that the demonstrators were significantly less heavy than F-22A - perhaps by design or to meet criteria - suggest to me NGAD won’t be a notably heavy fighter, at least dry. I don’t know enough to comment about the speculated DEW capability of the Boeing proposal to say much (including power cooling space and weight), but I’m old enough to be skeptical it makes the cut.

Love all of the designs though, big or small.

 

[SMGC]

I would not trust anything we have seen...
From the horse's mouth: "Why would you assume that’s the actual design?".

NGAD Images Doctored to Hide Most, If Not All, True Design Features

 

[Scott Kenny]

That was just speculation which has never been seen on any jet yet. Just a diagram of some chain-pulley system was shown, not precisely clear at all, never described properly AFAIK.
In actual pics it had swing-out launchers:

View attachment 767747

View attachment 767748

That drawing does not give space for 6 AMRAAMs, which was the requirement as soon as the clipped-fin AIM120 was available.

In fact, it doesn't even give space for 4 AMRAAMs, which was the full-sized fin requirement.

So I'm doubting that the trapeze was the intended setup for the production version.

 

[flateric]

Metz YF-33 book have drawings for an early palette concept; Le Fana Cummings article have later launcher concept drawing with four amraams stack. Swing V rods on pav-2 weapons bay you see on photos were intended for support of bay doors.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

That drawing does not give space for 6 AMRAAMs, which was the requirement as soon as the clipped-fin AIM120 was available.

In fact, it doesn't even give space for 4 AMRAAMs, which was the full-sized fin requirement.

So I'm doubting that the trapeze was the intended setup for the production version.

There have been multiple diagrams but YF-23 never demonstrated AAM launch.
So incomplete diagrams & concepts do not help unless someone can fiill the remaining portion.

 

[dark sidius]

Is it possible to be the F-47 ?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Do you feel that the comments on the F-47 being a benefit for the joint force could mean that the navy is mulling over having the F-47 as a shore based asset like the P-8 is but to serve as a long range interceptor? I mean, it would spell larger numbers for the platform to fill the gap of just the airforce having them

 

[Scott Kenny]

Do you feel that the comments on the F-47 being a benefit for the joint force could mean that the navy is mulling over having the F-47 as a shore based asset like the P-8 is but to serve as a long range interceptor? I mean, it would spell larger numbers for the platform to fill the gap of just the airforce having them

No, I'm pretty sure that's just the USAF using the required buzzwords.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Flyguy its an idea thats worth considering for the USN/Marines depending on what capabilities the F-47 ultimately brings but as mentioned I think its all about F-47 being the lynchpin of the air dominance requires for the Navy and Army to conduct their side of joint operations.

The risk of budget cuts, smaller buys or outright cancelation seems persistent for ambitious programs. USAF desperately wants this aircraft, in numbers, and are probably willing to sit down and discuss NGADs benefit to the Coast Guard and USBP if someone with a voice in the program wanted to.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47.

 

[joshjosh]

Looking forward to all the usual youtubers putting out clickbait with your new renders in the thumbnail:

WOW! Did the Air Force just release renders of the F-47?

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47.View attachment 768403View attachment 768404View attachment 768405View attachment 768406View attachment 768407

View attachment 768410View attachment 768411View attachment 768412View attachment 768413View attachment 768414View attachment 768415View attachment 768416View attachment 768417View attachment 768418View attachment 768419View attachment 768420View attachment 768421View attachment 768422View attachment 768423View attachment 768424View attachment 768425View attachment 768426

Congratulations on another ALIEN looking aircraft. All your fans would be swept away.
From 1st few pics i thought that rear contol surface is for pitch, which would rotate either like regular elevator-stab or like platipus tail. But this angled hinge is most unusual thing i've seen so far.
YF-23 like V-tail when moved in 1 direction, produces both yaw & roll at same time, not good every time. So this angled hinge can also produce multi-axis air deflection at same time. IDK if any X/Y jet tested this.

BTW if you can make habit of giving dimensions, then it would be much easier to compare to existing jets. Otherwise we've to keep guessing by visually equalising features like cockpit, landing gear, etc.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Congratulations on another ALIEN looking aircraft. All your fans would be swept away.
From 1st few pics i thought that rear contol surface is for pitch, which would rotate either like regular elevator-stab or like platipus tail. But this angled hinge is most unusual thing i've seen so far.
YF-23 like V-tail when moved in 1 direction, produces both yaw & roll at same time, not good every time. So this angled hinge can also produce multi-axis air deflection at same time. IDK if any X/Y jet tested this.

BTW if you can make habit of giving dimensions, then it would be much easier to compare to existing jets. Otherwise we've to keep guessing by visually equalising features like cockpit, landing gear, etc.

Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:


If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:


Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!

 

[FlyGuy369]

Disrupting the exhaust was the idea to give it a thrust vector effect, love the work! The red line is the hinge.

 

[Reddington777]

Your renders are great as always. Maybe its just me but I just dont know if i can get behind how parallel the nose is.

In the official renders, LERX/nose section really doesnt look like its parallel or close to being parallel. It looks like the entire depiction is instead a near orthographic view of a tapered shovel nose. As mentioned before by Citrus, the degree of that taper strongly depends on the assumed focal length of the camera.

Given that its a strongly doctored image not counting the bits that look straight up painted on, I also think its not super advisable to rely on perspective matching. Given the lack of long parallel edges in the renderings and the extreme camera angles of both renders, it makes perspective matching even less reliable. Even if you were to play around with the focal length, its at least advisable to either have measurements (which there are none and nothing to guess off of in a reliable way) or a guestimate of planform shape and size and then try to find a focal length that makes sense.

I worked on a 3d model of the Ford carrier for two years now and it took me nearly 3 months to actually perspective match my model to a photo in such a way that came fairly close to the listed dimensions / measured dimensions using satellite images - and even then its still not perfectly aligned.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Disrupting the exhaust was the idea to give it a thrust vector effect, love the work! The red line is the hinge.

Thanks for the info FlyGuy369!!!
I'll have to do some renderings again .
I always wondered how you'd pivot those tails.
I was going to do some fluid tests in SolidWorks, but you saved me the trouble .
On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47:


On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47.
I've marked in red box 1 what appears to me to be a curved air intake and some sort of cone-shaped DSI. Perhaps something similar to the variable DSI in Boeing's patent.
On the other hand, while it's very likely to me that it has a flat tail, in red box 2, it looks like some sort of tail root. That tail has an exact 45-degree angle, which is a rather unlikely coincidence.
Perhaps this aircraft has a folding tail, as an engineer who worked at Lockheed and Boeing once told me.
I love all this kind of speculation and analyzing the limited material available from both companies and the USAF.
Best regards, and thanks again FlyGuy369!

 

[Sundog]

Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:

View attachment 768483
If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:

View attachment 768484
Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!

The tails would be "hinged" on the red line. Similar to the flight control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing. Overall, though, nice work.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:

View attachment 768483
If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:

View attachment 768484
Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!

Bro,
> Drawings are supposed to be NOTIONAL. Actual blueprint would be top secret.
> There are numerous drawings by every maker nation on the planet, some which never got tested by X/Y or even small-scale jet like X-36, some only got wind tunnel or CFD test, some didn't even leave the drawing board.
> The F-47 posters could also be notional or that of TD (tech demonstrator). Just like there were differences b/w YF-22 Vs F-22, X-35 Vs F-35, similarly production F-47 could be slightly different.
> Bird of Prey was just an X jet. Although some aspects about it have ben disclosed but only Boeing knows fully what was good & bad about it.
> Bcoz the posters are manipulated, the Dihedral wing could be an illusion IMO, bcoz it adds to stability like in airliners, means less agility. A professional can tell better.
> F-22 has superb agility by just adding TVC to traditional tandem bi-plane design. Your design is tandem tri-plane, so canards & TVC will be sufficient. Moving wing-tips not required. Moreover seeing from side, the rotating wingtip is very close to landing gear, just ahead of which would be centers of gravity & lift. So the torque (tangential force x radius) would be less.
> V or A shaped control surfaces anywhere, tail or wingtip would create simultaneous multi-axis air deflection. The aircrafts & UAVs with such V/A shapes can afford to have side-effects or just wanted a different looking design.
> As you pointed the exhaust deflection with platipus tail, that's fine till 100% mil-power as long as the tail is thermal coated, but not good for afterburner, would need a very robust vectoring nozzle with transpiration cooling like in F-22. YF-23 exhaust only shields the plume from below. I've always imagined a F-22 like nozzle with a horizontal splitter plate to reduce IRS.
> If we don't give a splitter in IWB then for middle missile(s) both IWB doors would need to open.
> Last but not least, where are DEW turrets?