CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[fightingirish]

Hello folks, the artwork depicting the Boeing F-47 NGAD by @CiTrus90 is credited in the latest issue of Combat Aircraft, July 2025, on page 60.

 

[CiTrus90]

Hello folks, the artwork depicting the Boeing F-47 NGAD by @CiTrus90 is credited in the latest issue of Combat Aircraft, July 2025, on page 60.

On one hand, I'm flattered that my work has been featured in an aviation magazine such as Combat Aircraft.
On the other hand, I would have appreciated it more had they asked for my permission to do so.
Had the author of the article contacted me to inquire about it, I would have gladly provided him/her with higher resolution pictures or even new renders.

 

[fightingirish]

On one hand, I'm flattered that my work has been featured in an aviation magazine such as Combat Aircraft.
On the other hand, I would have appreciated it more had they asked for my permission to do so.
Had the author of the article contacted me to inquire about it, I would have gladly provided him/her with higher resolution pictures or even new renders.

Based on the two picture captions "CiTrus90@ SPF" in the article, it seems the author Mina Adel might have visited our forum quite frequently.

 

[ar020]

 

[CiTrus90]

Based on the two picture captions "CiTrus90@ SPF" in the article, it seems author must have visited our forum quite frequently.

I think that might not be the case.

I believe the author just took the pictures and credits from a post made on Twitter by AirPower 2.0 (MIL_STD) and run with it, since that's pretty much the same wording used for the credits.



While I'm pretty much ok-ish with people reposting my work online without permission, as long as credit is given to both me AND the forum and even if I'd still prefer to be asked for permission (since I believe that would be the polite thing to do), I'm less inclined to appreciate it when this is done by a journal or magazine. I would expect professionals to have higher standards and a more rigorous approach to handling material that is not theirs to begin with.
Alas, as seen on another recent thread here on the forum, this doesn't seem to be the case any longer.
I would have most probably not denied them the use of my pictures. In that sense, I don't think I'm particularly unapproachable, I haven't bitten anybody yet...
I have, at most, politely declined when people have asked me if they could buy my models and that's because I'm a firm believer in the fact that I should be free to decide who to work with.
If I don't share the work ethics of someone, I'd rather not compromise my beliefs and values for their money.

 

[targetpractice]

I believe asking for permission is the legally required thing to do. Doubly so if it is being reproduced in a paid publication.

You would be within your rights to ask for it to be removed, imho (but ianal, etc).

Is there anything in the forum ToS about lifting content from the site?

 

[VTOLicious]

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...

I also think it is rather unlikely but not impossible in general.
A highly efficient tailless layout in combination with a VCE may satisfy speed/range requirements. The question is rather what's the internal weapons load requirement. An airframe about 1-2m longer than F-35 with a smart IWB design may satisfy those requirements as well.

Btw, I'm not aware that speed and range was announced for the F-47.

 

[ar020]

On one hand, I'm flattered that my work has been featured in an aviation magazine such as Combat Aircraft.
On the other hand, I would have appreciated it more had they asked for my permission to do so.
Had the author of the article contacted me to inquire about it, I would have gladly provided him/her with higher resolution pictures or even new renders.

Happened to me numerous times. Unfortunalty there is not much you can do about it.
I never got any credit.

 

[tiv]

"Mom get the camera! People are posting my stuff on Twitter!"

Still working on the assumption that the Two-o-thunder patch might be relevant:
View attachment 764790
View attachment 764791
View attachment 764792

Without knowing the specific FOV of the camera used for taking the shots of the renderings that have been released so far, it will be quite difficult to get an accurate match.

Seen from above, everything is planform aligned along 4 angles, but without knowing more I'm not sure I can do much else.
It is indeed speculative.
It's mostly a mix of the silhouette seen in the patch, hints from the pictures released and inspiration taken from Boeing's Concept 2405 and 2409.

Looks like a swept wing Tacit Blue.

 

[CiTrus90]

I believe asking for permission is the legally required thing to do. Doubly so if it is being reproduced in a paid publication.

I believe so too, but well...here we are.

You would be within your rights to ask for it to be removed, imho (but ianal, etc).

I'm not fundamentally against my work being made available, so I wouldn't go as far as asking them to remove my pictures. It's just that...it's not a nice thing to do.

I'm fully aware that specialty magazines are going pretty much extinct and that journalists and authors are straight up not having a good time at the moment, just as well as being fully aware that making aircraft renders will only ever be a hobby for me and not become my daily job, but still, respect goes a long way.

 

[targetpractice]

respect goes a long way.

100% this

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

On one hand, I'm flattered that my work has been featured in an aviation magazine such as Combat Aircraft.
On the other hand, I would have appreciated it more had they asked for my permission to do so.
Had the author of the article contacted me to inquire about it, I would have gladly provided him/her with higher resolution pictures or even new renders.

Unfortunately, that means you're doing things right. I'm tired of fighting against people who use my work without authorization. As we say in Argentina, fighting against that "is like throwing stones in the sun." Congratulations on your work. I really love it, and I hope the F47 is like that.

 

[paralay]

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.

For forum projects, it is sufficient to maintain the area of the engine compressor along the entire air intake duct. It is unnecessary to delve into calculations at this stage.

I measured the Su-35S air intake according to the most accurate drawings available. You're probably right, the inlet area is 7 percent smaller than the compressor area.

 

[dark sidius]

In fact I think more there is no canards on the real F-47

 

[dark sidius]

they draw the canards to hide the inlets on a big zoom we see they add canards on the original rendering. Cabards are more grainy and not symmetrical.

 

[ar020]

In fact I think more there is no canards on the real F-47

i think the general consensus is that it does have canards as seen in the OG render. What made you change your mind?

 

[Training_Dummy]

What if DS is right and the leading edge extension mafia continues their domination?

 

[Jackonicko]

Hello folks, the artwork depicting the Boeing F-47 NGAD by @CiTrus90 is credited in the latest issue of Combat Aircraft, July 2025, on page 60.

Who was the author of the article?

 

[Reddington777]

they draw the canards to hide the inlets on a big zoom we see they add canards on the original rendering. Cabards are more grainy and not symmetrical.
View attachment 772597

Bro don't get my hopes up. In the other image, the canards look sharp enough. Only in this picture do the canards look like someone dragged a photoshop smudge brush across the LERX and pulled out a canard.

 

[fightingirish]

Who was the author of the article?

Mina Adel

 

[Sferrin]

I believe asking for permission is the legally required thing to do. Doubly so if it is being reproduced in a paid publication.

You would be within your rights to ask for it to be removed, imho (but ianal, etc).

Is there anything in the forum ToS about lifting content from the site?

Mine



Boeing



Mine



DCS





Don't get me wrong. I think it's pretty cool what a DCS fan did. But Boeing. . .that's just lazy. At least paint it a different color.

 

[Halcyon66]

Once something is posted to the net, be it images or other info it is fair game to be used in any way it seems these days.

Regards,

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Once something is posted to the net, be it images or other info it is fair game to be used in any way it seems these days.

Regards,

Hello,

That's not really the case. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 protects original works published digitally.
I've had dozens of my videos removed from YouTube because the channel owners didn't have my permission to use my work.
The problem is that many "content creators" rely on the "fair use" law, which allows the use of copyrighted works as long as the work is used for purposes such as criticism, commentary, journalistic reporting, teaching, research, or academic development. Or if the work is modified in such a way that the addition is considered to add value to the work. Sometimes, that addition may be a simple voiceover in a YouTube video. It doesn't matter if the video says nothing but nonsense in that voiceover. But those "content creators" rely on that to protect "their work."

 

[Sferrin]

Hello,

That's not really the case. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 protects original works published digitally.
I've had dozens of videos removed from YouTube.
The problem is that many "content creators" rely on the "fair use" law, which allows the use of copyrighted works as long as the work is used for purposes such as criticism, commentary, journalistic reporting, teaching, research, or academic development. Or if the work is modified in such a way that the addition is considered to add value to the work. Sometimes, that addition may be a simple voiceover in a YouTube video. It doesn't matter if the video says nothing but nonsense in that voiceover. But those "content creators" rely on that to protect "their work."

Those "react" videos are the worst. I post an airplane video that has 30 seconds of some obscure instrumental and it gets copyright flagged. Then some talking head ooohhs and ahhhs over the "first time hearing Aerosmith's Dream On" (yeah right) and get PAID for it.

 

[targetpractice]

For a while I felt like the press renders were nonsense, but I thought I would give it a go anyway. Turns out that they might not be that impossible and, oh no, son of f- 32.

Guess I'm joining the chin intake club.

 

[Reddington777]

Mine

View attachment 772619

Boeing

View attachment 772620

Mine

View attachment 772621

DCS

View attachment 772623

View attachment 772624

Don't get me wrong. I think it's pretty cool what a DCS fan did. But Boeing. . .that's just lazy. At least paint it a different color.

On behalf of DCS players and modders, thanks for this concept. If it wasn't because I was working on a separate AIM-260 mod after the one in these pictures broke, I probably wouldn't have found this forum. I don't publish or distribute my work for anything though so unfortunately I have no where to give you credit still.

I was prowling the AIM-260 thread and there were people showing the AGM88ER as a possible form factor so I made another version that had the form factor of SiAW and AGM-88ER. I'll have to go back and update it now that we know what it looks like...

 

[Halcyon66]

That's not really the case. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 protects original works published digitally

AI has "hovered up everything" on the web for training the LLM's (large language models) and with zero recourse or publishes even knowing it has occurred.

If you don't want it copied don't put it on the net.

Regards,

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hello,
I share my vision of what the F47 could become.
Length: 21 meters
Wingspan: 15.30 meters
In this case, this model has gull-wing-style tails, like the Bird of Prey. The "neck" of the skull on the Voodoo II patch always caught my attention. Based on the images shown, the wings are too far forward on the fuselage to resemble and have the sweep of the Bird of Prey's wings. So one of the things I assumed was that perhaps this characteristic is present in the tails.
Tomorrow I'll upload images of a version with "platypus tails."
Sorry for the large number of images. But these models take so long to put together that when I make them, I like to render a lot of images.
If you want to see the high-resolution images, you can do so here:
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/5W2e2W

 

[Halcyon66]

Impressive.

Regards,

 

[Nx4eu]

Hello,
I share my vision of what the F47 could become.

I can't shake it out of my head, it looks like a gingerbread man or something.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Now that I've spent some time on Boeing's late 90's/early 2000's paper from NTRS, I am more convinced now than ever that the 988-119 IS the final down select for the F-47. The canopy curves and canard configurations, heck, really the whole front profile highly resembles the -119 or F-47. Back and forth really. What i will say is that the differences in the two may be due to advances in technology/design principles. I don't think it will have the same split exhaust as the 119, but a fluidic TVC. The chines and potentially matching dihedral of the main wing may speak to design maturity. Everyone I think this is the closest we are going to get for now, this right here.

 

[VTOLicious]

Now that I've spent some time on Boeing's late 90's/early 2000's paper from NTRS, I am more convinced now than ever that the 988-119 IS the final down select for the F-47. The canopy curves and canard configurations, heck, really the whole front profile highly resembles the -119 or F-47. Back and forth really. What i will say is that the differences in the two may be due to advances in technology/design principles. I don't think it will have the same split exhaust as the 119, but a fluidic TVC. The chines and potentially matching dihedral of the main wing may speak to design maturity. Everyone I think this is the closest we are going to get for now, this right here.

This model was my first thought when I saw the canards and nose shape on the official F-47 renderings.

However, 988-119 has one flaw: The canards are positioned forward of the air intake and would have a negative impact on the air ingested by the engines. This led me to speculate that the F-47 canards might be a novel design with the pivot axis running along the nose edge...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ion-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793/post-772742

 

[dark sidius]

i think the general consensus is that it does have canards as seen in the OG render. What made you change your mind?

Look the drawing carefuly it seem they add the canards at a time after the creation on the rendering the edge of the canard and the fuselage does not match.

 

[dark sidius]

Hello,
I share my vision of what the F47 could become.
Length: 21 meters
Wingspan: 15.30 meters
In this case, this model has gull-wing-style tails, like the Bird of Prey. The "neck" of the skull on the Voodoo II patch always caught my attention. Based on the images shown, the wings are too far forward on the fuselage to resemble and have the sweep of the Bird of Prey's wings. So one of the things I assumed was that perhaps this characteristic is present in the tails.
Tomorrow I'll upload images of a version with "platypus tails."
Sorry for the large number of images. But these models take so long to put together that when I make them, I like to render a lot of images.
If you want to see the high-resolution images, you can do so here:
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/5W2e2WView attachment 772640View attachment 772641View attachment 772642View attachment 772643View attachment 772644View attachment 772645View attachment 772646View attachment 772647View attachment 772648View attachment 772649View attachment 772650View attachment 772651View attachment 772652View attachment 772653View attachment 772654View attachment 772655View attachment 772656View attachment 772657View attachment 772658View attachment 772659View attachment 772660View attachment 772661View attachment 772662View attachment 772663View attachment 772664View attachment 772666View attachment 772668View attachment 772669View attachment 772670

What a beautiful plane, I m convinced that the VOODOO 2 patch is the F-47 shape.

 

[dark sidius]

i think the general consensus is that it does have canards as seen in the OG render. What made you change your mind?

It ask me questions

 

[VTOLicious]

Hello,
I share my vision of what the F47 could become.
Length: 21 meters
Wingspan: 15.30 meters
In this case, this model has gull-wing-style tails, like the Bird of Prey. The "neck" of the skull on the Voodoo II patch always caught my attention. Based on the images shown, the wings are too far forward on the fuselage to resemble and have the sweep of the Bird of Prey's wings. So one of the things I assumed was that perhaps this characteristic is present in the tails.
Tomorrow I'll upload images of a version with "platypus tails."
Sorry for the large number of images. But these models take so long to put together that when I make them, I like to render a lot of images.
If you want to see the high-resolution images, you can do so here:
https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/5W2e2W

Great job!
I especially like the design of the air intakes and the seamless transition from the fuselage to the canard. Definitely one of the most challenging areas to design.

 

[red admiral]

However, 988-119 has one flaw: The canards are positioned forward of the air intake and would have a negative impact on the air ingested by the engines.

It really depends on the details of the control scheme, e.g. if they are largely being used for nose down pitch authority at higher AoA then maybe there's little impact. It's not like a traditional close coupled canard for increased lift.

I more look at the 988 configurations and wonder about the limited engine obscuration - increasing this would add a lot of cross sectional area or length. Worth remembering that these were just broadly representative concepts to add different control schemes to.

 

[sublight_]

You're a superstar Rodrigo.

 

[FlyGuy369]

This model was my first thought when I saw the canards and nose shape on the official F-47 renderings.

However, 988-119 has one flaw: The canards are positioned forward of the air intake and would have a negative impact on the air ingested by the engines. This led me to speculate that the F-47 canards might be a novel design with the pivot axis running along the nose edge...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ion-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793/post-772742

As far as that goes, Im sure they have had time to create their novel solution for it if it were an issue

 

[EmoBirb]

For a while I felt like the press renders were nonsense, but I thought I would give it a go anyway. Turns out that they might not be that impossible and, oh no, son of f- 32.

Guess I'm joining the chin intake club.

View attachment 772635

I genuinely believe this looks actually very good.

But it would be uniquely suited for a single engine design, no? Given that two engine using the same intake can lead to some problems and that aircraft that used this layout like the X-32, Su-75, J-10C, F-8 or A-7 were all single engine designs.