CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

Reddington777 said:
It looks like a similar planform to whatever this is. I dont know for sure if this is real but it was reported on a few days after the first chinese 6th gens had flown so if this image is real then its another aircraft the chinese are testing. Its probably unsurprising at this point that engineers on both sides are "arriving" at similar conclusions again given how similar the chinese 6th gen planforms are to the concept art for NGAD from before. I guess this could very much be a viable planform
Click to expand...
Are you sure this is Chinese model ?
 
dark sidius said:
Are you sure this is Chinese model ?
Click to expand...
It was reported here as that's the only link I could find from reverse image search. The article quotes @Deino as having commented that its an alternate angle of the J36, then correcting his original comment saying this was a new design.

No idea beyond that.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Don't add too much salt, spice, chilli.:p
Click to expand...
Couldn't help myself.. So her'es my take with tailles aircraft. They will be easy targets and not manoeuvrable enough in a real life scneario. My two cents are they will keep vertical stabs and not sacrifice agility for stealth since material science and use of new types of materials would enable it to work.
F55 Lighting III Thunderbird_5.png F55 Lighting III Thunderbird_17.png F55 Lighting III Thunderbird_18.png
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
'Tis but a scratch!
Click to expand...
Thought I read somewhere, years ago, that they were already working on or had implemented a "damage compensation system". You get a control surface shot up the computer evaluates which surfaces have how much authority left and reconfigures the flight control system.
 
Here's my sketch. Please forgive my limited, low-poly, 3D ability. It looks better if you squint slightly.

My assumptions:
  • A long range sniper / missile truck, with just enough of the right stuff to keep the hairy chested boys at Edwards happy.
  • History suggests it might not be that exotic looking (ie F22 vs F23, B21). Maybe innovations will be in cost, manufacturing and maintenance, rather than unusual aerodynamics.
  • Amongst the many, many concepts shared, Boeing have shown us what it actually looks like.
(TBH, I'm not convinced the canards are more than photoshopped misdirection)

Feedback is much appreciated!

F47.png
 

Attachments

  • F47_orthos.png
    F47_orthos.png
    478.6 KB · Views: 246
targetpractice said:
Here's my sketch. Please forgive my limited, low-poly, 3D ability. It looks better if you squint slightly.

My assumptions:
  • A long range sniper / missile truck, with just enough of the right stuff to keep the hairy chested boys at Edwards happy.
  • History suggests it might not be that exotic looking (ie F22 vs F23, B21). Maybe innovations will be in cost, manufacturing and maintenance, rather than unusual aerodynamics.
  • Amongst the many, many concepts shared, Boeing have shown us what it actually looks like.
(TBH, I'm not convinced the canards are more than photoshopped misdirection)

Feedback is much appreciated!
Click to expand...

Really digging the design. I wonder if some aero geniuses can do some calculations how manouverable a tailles air dominance jet can be compared to the benchmark the F22 Raptor. Im not convinced yet but im not an aero expert by any means.
 
ar020 said:
Really digging the design. I wonder if some aero geniuses can do some calculations how manouverable a tailles air dominance jet can be compared to the benchmark the F22 Raptor. Im not convinced yet but im not an aero expert by any means.
Click to expand...

In this day and age, you probably are maneuvering against missiles, not opponent aircraft. That probably favors sustained turn rates and energy management (forcing BVR missiles to change course, ideally multiple times) rather that absolute agility (being able to turn inside your opponent’s circle). As such acceleration and sustained speed (supercruise) probably are more important than 9G turns, IMO.
 
ar020 said:
Couldn't help myself.. So her'es my take with tailles aircraft. They will be easy targets and not manoeuvrable enough in a real life scneario. My two cents are they will keep vertical stabs and not sacrifice agility for stealth since material science and use of new types of materials would enable it to work.
View attachment 772268
View attachment 772264
Click to expand...
Dihedral wings ?
 
Latest iteration with tandem bays... Each bay may also accommodate up to two AGM-158 JASSM ;)
 

Attachments

  • NGAD_M400_105.PNG
    NGAD_M400_105.PNG
    821.9 KB · Views: 232
  • NGAD_M400_106.PNG
    NGAD_M400_106.PNG
    415.7 KB · Views: 210
  • NGAD_M400_107.PNG
    NGAD_M400_107.PNG
    333.6 KB · Views: 233

Attachments

  • NGAD_M400_101.PNG
    NGAD_M400_101.PNG
    543.8 KB · Views: 252
  • NGAD_M400_102.PNG
    NGAD_M400_102.PNG
    412 KB · Views: 233
  • NGAD_M400_103.PNG
    NGAD_M400_103.PNG
    554.4 KB · Views: 213
  • NGAD_M400_104.PNG
    NGAD_M400_104.PNG
    438.1 KB · Views: 204
  • NGAD_M400_115.PNG
    NGAD_M400_115.PNG
    537.7 KB · Views: 197
  • NGAD_M400_116.PNG
    NGAD_M400_116.PNG
    590 KB · Views: 207
BDF said:
That is fantastic work. IMO this is the best estimate of the vehicle's planform right now.
Click to expand...
Thx!
Actually, I didn't pay much attention to the official CGI and completely ignored the dihedral. My starting point was actually the fuselage cross-section of Boeing Model 988-114, which is very wide and offers plenty of space... And I sprinkled a pinch of X-36 on top ;)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250604-160701_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20250604-160701_Gallery.jpg
    178.7 KB · Views: 211
Last edited:
ar020 said:
Really digging the design. I wonder if some aero geniuses can do some calculations how manouverable a tailles air dominance jet can be compared to the benchmark the F22 Raptor. Im not convinced yet but im not an aero expert by any means.
Click to expand...
Depends how much effort you want to put in, for more tricks you could install bleed air like Harrier/F35 to give higher turn rates, or even small rockets at 90 deg to normal direction. Would be spectacular, at an airshow. Clever use of control surfaces could do things, undercarriage even, but these have stealth impacts. Plus 20 years more research, more supercomputers. But what pilot and training system is going to say, yes after firing all your missiles, stay and fight hand to hand, in your irreplaceable $400M aircraft. In reality these will be network nodes, allowing fast control of drones, satellites, unmanned boats or floating pontoons with SAM's, like Ukraine has used, and its these unmanned units that will be doing the dogfighting.
 
paralay said:
The air intake inlet area is clearly smaller than the area of the engine compressor ;)
Click to expand...
Capture area is almost equal. However, what I suggest in the drawing by "the DSI bump" is a actually a flexible bump that is adjusted in accordance with flight conditions and engine needs. Various patents floating around in this regard.
 
ar020 said:
Awesome work mate.

@dark sidius
I updated the F55 with dihedral wings and removed the vertical stabs. This should be closer to what the render looks like.View attachment 772378
Click to expand...

Don't mind, too much dihedral looks funny.
Fighter needs to be unstable while dihedral adds to stability.
Do we have slightest official confirmation that F-47 would have so much dihedral angle, or is it an illusion from the posters?
 
paralay said:
The air intake inlet area is clearly smaller than the area of the engine compressor ;)
Click to expand...
Is there any fixed ratio b/w area of intakes & engine inlet/fan?
All i know is that air entering inlet cannot be supersonic or the blades will be shattered.
 
VTOLicious said:
Thx!
Actually, I didn't pay much attention to the official CGI and completely ignored the dihedral. My starting point was actually the fuselage cross-section of Boeing Model 988-114, which is very wide and offers plenty of space... And I sprinkled a pinch of X-36 on top ;)
Click to expand...
There is good chance that the dihedral wings could be on the real F-47 , a lot of news spoke about an innovative design. I continue to think of the Rodrigo Avella , VOODOO 2 is the real design.
 
Last edited:
Say what are the chances the F-47 possess a big mouth intake like one of their ATF proposals and the X-32? Seems like Boeing really likes that kind of design. Third times the charm right?
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Don't mind, too much dihedral looks funny.
Fighter needs to be unstable while dihedral adds to stability.
Do we have slightest official confirmation that F-47 would have so much dihedral angle, or is it an illusion from the posters?
Click to expand...
The first render does suggest a very steep angle. Although i might have overdone it a tad.
Nx4eu said:
View attachment 772397View attachment 772398
I just started a model and by god, is it ugly.
Click to expand...
At least she has a great smile
 
General question: with recessed, top-mounted engines, is there a reason they never seem to share a single trough?

Edit: for clarity, I mean an exhaust trough
 
Last edited:
I think that someone here mentioned that two engines don't like sharing a single inlet - if one starts up significantly before the other, it starves it of air. If that's so, it'll probably have some sort of divider but still think that it'll have a high degree of integration with the overall form of the plane. The first iteration of GCAP that we saw had dual inlets but they were pretty close and used the forebody, which of course they shared.

digidesign-gallery_02_bae-systems.jpeg
 
No logic with the dihedral in the wings IMHO.

My money is on Rhinocrates CAD.

Regards,
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Is there any fixed ratio b/w area of intakes & engine inlet/fan?
All i know is that air entering inlet cannot be supersonic or the blades will be shattered.
Click to expand...
The entrance to the air intake must not be smaller than the compressor area. It's probably a little bigger
In order for the speed in front of the engine compressor to be subsonic, and this is a prerequisite, a special inlet shape and a certain channel length are required. The higher the flight speed, the sharper the entry angle and the longer the channel.
 
paralay said:
The entrance to the air intake must not be smaller than the compressor area. It's probably a little bigger
In order for the speed in front of the engine compressor to be subsonic, and this is a prerequisite, a special inlet shape and a certain channel length are required. The higher the flight speed, the sharper the entry angle and the longer the channel.
Click to expand...
I think you confused something or it got lost in translation... The duct is a diffuser, which decreases the velocity of the incoming air. Hence, the area at the front of the duct must be smaller.

This was also discussed here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...eight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/post-506882
 
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
The canopy is really throwing me off. But I think I have a good base going. My wings also have a strong dihedral angle and the fuselage is generally based off of the Boeing ATF submission.
View attachment 772407View attachment 772406
View attachment 772408
View attachment 772409
Click to expand...

Yeah, that canopy :rolleyes:... Could it be that the official F-47 CGI shows a single engine design?

I know, it was confirmed some time ago that NGAD will get differently-sized engines (XA102, XA103) than XA100, XA101, developed for the F-35 (AETP).
However, I was wondering if a single engine NGAD was considered at some point and maybe one of the tech demonstrators was indeed powered by a single XA100 or 101... Those are 46" in fan diameter and 10% more powerful than the F-135 (47-48000 lbs!)
 
VTOLicious said:
Yeah, that canopy :rolleyes:... Could it be that the official F-47 CGI shows a single engine design?

I know, it was confirmed some time ago that NGAD will get differently-sized engines (XA102, XA103) than XA100, XA101, developed for the F-35 (AETP).
However, I was wondering if a single engine NGAD was considered at some point and maybe one of the tech demonstrators was indeed powered by a single XA100 or 101... Those are 46" in fan diameter and 10% more powerful than the F-135 (47-48000 lbs!)
Click to expand...
Impossible to be a single engine, with the speed and range announced for the F-47, the size of the plane would be bigger than a F-22 or similar , there is no one engine able to do that. The bulbous shadows on the wall for me is the projection of the rear, make an experience with a model, put a led light in front of the model and you will see the rear projected on the wall. The planform have big chance to look like Rodrigo drawing.
 

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 178
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom