CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

EmoBirb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was also one of the strikes against the Boeing ATF (lost to Northrop and Lockheed).

sb5uxq0yogf31.jpg
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
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
Click to expand...

I have a question: Is the main landing gear too far back, too far from the center of gravity? Taking the F-22 and F-35 as examples, they are basically located below the center of the main wing?
 

Attachments

  • PixPin_2025-06-07_23-21-17.png
    PixPin_2025-06-07_23-21-17.png
    144.5 KB · Views: 102
  • F-22-open-weapons-bay-large-706x471.jpg
    F-22-open-weapons-bay-large-706x471.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 85
  • F-35.jpg
    F-35.jpg
    141.5 KB · Views: 55
Nx4eu said:
I added a splitter to the intake
Click to expand...

Is the intake directly behind the canards?

I love your design! I feel like my own design's evolution is basically three steps behind you. The main difference being that my guess is going to be a massive plane.
 
Last edited:
targetpractice said:
Is the intake directly behind the canards?

I love your design! I feel like my own design's evolution is basically three steps behind you. The main difference being I'm guessing it is going to be a massive plane.
Click to expand...
Thank you, the intake is located roughly in the same place as the one shown in the Boeing ATF submission, so behind-ish the cockpit. But yes behind the canards. This side angle is really ugly..
1749364063239.png
And yeah it's a quite large aircraft, my model measures in at 21m long and a wingspan of 15.6m

Originally I wanted the aircraft to be around 19m-20m, around the F-22. But later in the process i had to elongate the nose to make it look right.

Your intake design is a lot more reminiscent of the X-32.
 
Last edited:
paralay said:
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.
Click to expand...

This example is better suited for the type of aircraft this thread is about ;)

F-23A_002_engine duct.png
 
Nice work guys!
Yeah, the net is bad about taking someone's work without giving credits. But imho it was worse in the past albeit today things are worse due to wider spreading via the likes of youtube and social media.
That said I find crowd competition worse as you could end up giving up your ownership for some prize reward. Any reward is worse than royalty rights.
 
Back on topic.
So for the lighter design version I simply went back to the first interpretation of the render but updated.
It worked out surprisingly better than expected. The insight here is that mass increase is nearly proportional except I was able to beat it so that depends on design choices from case to case.

F47_pet-idea+BoP_interpretation-20250608-cropped.png
I changed the original wing I wasn't happy about by combining a few desireable options. For some reason it came out with the same wing area as my original wing but looks almost exactly like the X36. :D Despite different angles and size constraints...
Since the plane has to be kept small this time there was no space left for the elevators (horizontal tail) so the canards have to replace them functionally. The canards were a pain to fit but it worked out. Still, I don't like their proximity and aerodynamic interferrence with the wing.

F47-My2-calc_concise-v1-A2A-1.png
Performance is now much better. Due to almost the same low wing loading it could fly almost as high as my large design, definitely better than the F22. That should make it harder to be engaged by most other fighters and harder for missiles to get to it, too.

The last remaining problem is the IWB now being shorter than my ideal. This means it's troblesome for future missile designs.
NGAD-new-missiles-options-cropped.png
Only a complete redesign of the LREW would allow a version with a feasible booster. The future 1000 km range VLRAAM can only be carried outside. Welp, at that range detection won't matter but you can't have many without risking being engaged.
 
Seragina said:
NGAD-new-missiles-options-cropped.png
Click to expand...

Magnifying glass didn't help. I'll need a microscope.
 
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...
VTOLicious said:
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
Click to expand...
paralay said:
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.
Click to expand...

In F-22 the caret intake area looks more than engine inlet area. It seems to have convergent-divergent/diffuser duct. from outside it doesn't seem to have any moving part in the duct like ramp, etc to narrow the duct with higher speed.

I tried to go down the rabbit hole.
Intake design of supersonic jet is indeed a headache, eye-ache, neck-ache, shoulder-ache.
In ramp based intakes for example there are multiple config for different speed & altitude -
- Afterburner at takeoff, low altitude & low speeds at variable altitudes.
- Afterburner at supersonic speed at variable altitudes.
- Subsonic speed at variable altitudes.
- Supersonic speed at variable altitudes.
o_O:rolleyes:

There are multiple air flow doors/flaps.
The concept of shock wave compression by nomal & oblique shocks.
:eek:

1749409994689.png

To complicate things further, there is supersonic diffuser & then subsonic difuser, at particular angles.:oops:

1749410544164.png
 
Low IQ Techie said:
In F-22 the caret intake area looks more than engine inlet area. It seems to have convergent-divergent/diffuser duct. from outside it doesn't seem to have any moving part in the duct like ramp, etc to narrow the duct with higher speed.
Click to expand...

It has tons of perforated surfaces on the inside that "cover" the openings for lots of mechnical doors:

IMG_2981_crop.JPG

F22-annotated.png
The F47 likely will have some more.
 
Seragina said:
It has tons of perforated surfaces on the inside that "cover" the openings for lots of mechnical doors:

View attachment 773132

View attachment 773133
The F47 likely will have some more.
Click to expand...

Such perforations are there on many jets with non-DSI splitters like F-18 SH, EF-2000, J-10A/B, etc
as well as some DSI intakes of Chinese jets also like JF-17.
So i'm guessing that its purpose is to separate boundary layer air & spill extra intake air out.
J-20 has hexagonal side mesh-grill.
But AFAIK, J-10C, J-35 & F-35 don't have the perforations.

1749455249257.png


I'm aware of F-22's doors since 15-20 years now.
The spine door near engine inlet are intake over-pressure relief doors.
The ones above the intake are boundary layer air spill doors, which were removed in later models by just a mesh grill.
1749454773672.jpeg
1749454788509.png
1749454845459.jpeg

I made this following collage many years back, may be a decade back:

1749455014668.jpeg


But what we're talking here is not about the boundary layer air but the mainstream air, how at different altitudes & speed it is shaped, slowed down & how this affects geometry of intakes.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
But AFAIK, J-10C, J-35 & F-35 don't have the perforations.

But what we're talking here is not about the boundary layer air but the mainstream air, how at different altitudes & speed it is shaped, slowed down & how this affects geometry of intakes.
Click to expand...
The F-35 does have a spill grate port on the centerline on the belly. I'm guessing due to being compact and generating more heat excess air is funneled through the heat exchaner and their exhaust.

I'm not quite sure where your problem here is but it's likely due to missing some realization (and why the F22 has those perforations and not the F35):

modern_intake_duct.png

As you can see the F22's duct is still rather "old style", hence it needed those spill ports.
The "new" DSI bumb design simply removed the complicating front part of the duct. You only have to deal with the diffusor part. It's basically alreadv a done deal from here on.
The rest of the trick is in the "slit" between the intake lips and the fuselarge. You see that as overarching teethy intake edges.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Such perforations are there on many jets with non-DSI splitters like F-18 SH, EF-2000, J-10A/B, etc
as well as some DSI intakes of Chinese jets also like JF-17.
So i'm guessing that its purpose is to separate boundary layer air & spill extra intake air out.
J-20 has hexagonal side mesh-grill.
But AFAIK, J-10C, J-35 & F-35 don't have the perforations.

View attachment 773162


I'm aware of F-22's doors since 15-20 years now.
The spine door near engine inlet are intake over-pressure relief doors.
The ones above the intake are boundary layer air spill doors, which were removed in later models by just a mesh grill.
View attachment 773157
View attachment 773158
View attachment 773159

I made this following collage many years back, may be a decade back:

View attachment 773161


But what we're talking here is not about the boundary layer air but the mainstream air, how at different altitudes & speed it is shaped, slowed down & how this affects geometry of intakes.
Click to expand...
The F-22 caret inlet itself has no moving parts. The boundary layer splitter air passes thru a fuel cooler before exiting behind the cockpit, while the boundary layer bleed hole air exits from a fixed grid on the top of the inlet. The little movable doors on top of the inlet were present on the EMD and early PRTV airframes and were intended to be opened at high AOA to increase the boundary bleed rate (and provide an nose down pitching moment), but were found to be unnecessary and were deleted from the production configuration.

The serrated gills on the top of the airframe are to bypass some inlet air, enabling the inlet air flow to be controlled independently from the engine airflow at certain flight conditions. This is especially needed when trying to slow down from supercruise, where pulling back the throttle to reduce engine thrust will reduce engine airflow, pushing the inlet shocks forward resulting in inlet flow instability (I.e. inlet “buzz”).
 
flateric said:
I still wonder if there's a consensus that F-47 got it's nickname because of lambda wing planform and voodoo doll represents an enemy aircraft?
Click to expand...
Hello
For me, the name Voodoo comes from its dihedral wings. I suppose these things often happen as conversations between friends. I imagine engineers and designers looking at the design head-on and saying, "It looks like a V." And from then on, the name came naturally.
And regarding the red plane on the patch, I wonder the same thing, haha. Although I based all my F47 designs on that patch, sometimes I wonder if what we see there isn't the Lockheed design. It would make sense, because what you want to do by poking a Voodoo doll is to be able to manipulate it at will and make it do whatever you want.
And now that I think about it, it would also make sense if it were the Boeing plane: let's make this plane do what we want it to do.
It could also be a plane that looks like a gingerbread man, as they tell me on my Instagram profile.
The only weird thing is that it's red. Just like the Bird of Prey is red on its patch.
On the other hand, I wonder: what did Boeing do to get the USAF to classify its design as "revolutionary"? Because if it made an aircraft with lambda-shaped wings and split ailerons or movable wingtips, it didn't do anything very different from the Chinese J-50.
And if they also had to add canards to better control it, we could say that the J-50 is "more revolutionary."
Perhaps it was simply more revolutionary than the Lockheed, which I don't know why, but I suspect it would have tails: I imagine it as a cross between an F-22 and a YF-23.
Let's say something like this:

Screenshot_20250518_135326_YouTube 2.jpg
I apologize if any Boeing or Lockheed engineers are reading this and laughing out loud...
Best regards!
 
Last edited:
Ithink you are right with your design, a delta shape planform is not revolutionary I continue to think the VOODOO 2 patch shape is the F-47... voodoo-patch-pic.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dark sidius said:
Ithink you are right with your design, a delta shape planform is not revolutionary I continue to think the VOODOO 2 patch shape is the F-47...View attachment 773212
Click to expand...


What exactly would or would not be revolutionary with the wing design? A delta gives you a lot of advantages for this desired mission: high, fast, lots of gas and excellent RCS alignment management. That planform looks like a RCS alignment nightmare beyond the aerodynamic concerns.
 
BDF said:
What exactly would or would not be revolutionary with the wing design? A delta gives you a lot of advantages for this desired mission: high, fast, lots of gas and excellent RCS alignment management. That planform looks like a RCS alignment nightmare beyond the aerodynamic concerns.
Click to expand...
The patch mean something, not a hasard the sahpe and th two-0 Thunder surely mean mach 2.0
 
I wouldn't put too much stock into the "revolutionary" statement. More than likely it's advertisment for congress for securing funding. Or that's how democracy works but nowaday I'm not so sure anymore.

If anything it gotta be the modular design of the NGAD / F/A-XX that's "revolutionary". Whatever that means exactly.

Although, certainly not the first AC that is modular. Modular hulls have been used rather regularly like extended version of various civilian types; various flying cars and light aircrafts. I suppose the latest more militaristic one would be the Aeralis modular jet.

FlyGuy369 said:
Supercruise at Mach 2?
Click to expand...
Certainly, but whether that's part of standard mission is another question. Emegrency deploment? Maybe. Combat? If necessary, sure. Otherwise you want to keep your plane hidden and in top condition, and yeah not wasting fuel if you can help it. Being ~500-1000 NM from the next tanker is kinda something to keep in mind.

Talking about performance it reminds me of past record airplanes.
It's kind of amusing. Despite how people were so scared in the 50's of spies and all going so far that nobody knew what their colleague sitting next to them was doing. Yet, both sides openly competed for every aircraft records possible until the Streak Eagle. We aren't as paranoid these days yet stopped the tradition. A total reversal.
 
Seragina said:
The F-35 does have a spill grate port on the centerline on the belly. I'm guessing due to being compact and generating more heat excess air is funneled through the heat exchaner and their exhaust.

I'm not quite sure where your problem here is but it's likely due to missing some realization (and why the F22 has those perforations and not the F35):

View attachment 773197

As you can see the F22's duct is still rather "old style", hence it needed those spill ports.
The "new" DSI bumb design simply removed the complicating front part of the duct. You only have to deal with the diffusor part. It's basically alreadv a done deal from here on.
The rest of the trick is in the "slit" between the intake lips and the fuselarge. You see that as overarching teethy intake edges.
Click to expand...

Basically the point is the area of intake vs area of engine inlet.
At engine inlet, the air has upper speed limit of subsonic at particular density.
This means for 100% mil power or afterburner, there will be fixed max volume/mass of air entering & exiting engine.
The 100% mil power or afterburner can be used at zero speed on ground to ceiling altitude.
But at higher altitude the density is less, so bigger intake area is required to accumulate the max volume/mass required at inlet.
So basically the air mass at intake = air mass at inlet.
or (more volume X lesser density) at intake = (lesser volume X more density) at inlet.
or (more area X lesser density) at intake = (lesser area X more density) at inlet.

On other things like geometry of intakes w.r.t. speed, I'll put in points what i can comprehend -

> From nose tip, wherever the angle of fuselage adge will change, a shockwave will be generated.

1749493368627.png

> Diffuser is a diverging section to slow down air to subsonic by normal shock, so required only in supersonic speed.

> All good jet fighters are expected to have supersonic capability, with afterburner if not supercruise.

> F-35 was not designed for long time high speed supercruiser like F-22 at Mach 1.8

> DSI & non-DSI work differently.
Both have diverging diffuser to slow down air flow to subsonic,
but the front half converging part is variable cross section area in non-DSI, bcoz air density is different at different altitudes & volume & mass (density X volume) of air hitting the intake would be different at different altitudes + speeds.

> The non-DSI ramps converge only in supesonic flight to produce a diverging diffuser. The converging part compresses the air & reduces air speed by oblique shocks, then the diffuser further reduces the air speed by normal shock.
1749493613903.png

> At zero speed for take-off, the exhaust air speed with afterburner can be supersonic, but intake air is still subsonic. So the ramps don't need to converge to produce a diffuser.

1749494384189.png
1749495819404.png

> The non-DSI intakes are angled like in F-14/15, Mig-25, Su-27/3X as per max speed at which the shock wave produced at leading upper edge of intake would have its boundary around the lower intake edge.

> But the DSI bump is fixed like a permanent ramp even during subsonic speed.

> DSI bump disposes boundary layer differently by pushing some air of towards intake corners & some of it is compressed by bump to reduce turbulence & then merge with mainstream air.
1749499318664.png

> Some supersonic intakes like in SR-71, MiG-21, etc are conical & in Mirage are semi-conical for same reason of shock wave.

> This is similar to toll tax booths on multi-lane express highway. The cars run faster on highway with more distance between them, bumper to bumper in same lane & sideways distance. Bcoz many cars would slow down rapidly at toll tax plaza reducing bumper to bumper distance, so many gates/lanes are needed to pass them at slow speed.
 
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
Basically the point is the area of intake vs area of engine inlet.
At engine inlet, the air has upper speed limit of subsonic at particular density.
This means for 100% mil power or afterburner, there will be fixed max volume/mass of air entering & exiting engine.
The 100% mil power or afterburner can be used at zero speed on ground to ceiling altitude.
But at higher altitude the density is less, so bigger intake area is required to accumulate the max volume/mass required at inlet.
So basically the air mass at intake = air mass at inlet.
or (more volume X lesser density) at intake = (lesser volume X more density) at inlet.
or (more area X lesser density) at intake = (lesser area X more density) at inlet.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Except, with increasing altitude and thinner air the aircraft speeds up. Airspeed increase isn't increasing as fast as air density drops (see drag equation) but until M0.9 it's close to be almost linear. So mass flow loss isn't so dramatic. The overarching intake lip might serve to funnel more air here to compensate. (other solution see below) Unless you do a constant speed climb the engine won't be troubled. On the other hand supersonic climb works well and is the reason aircraft can reach much higher altitude temporarily until the engine flames out.

Old intakes with ramp may have the option to increase area for better and constant air mass flow than those with DSI.
At higher altitude and thinner air the engine needs to burn more, compresses more etc. until close to stall speed. At some point power can't do more, air speed can't generate enough lift and the plane drops.

Low IQ Techie said:
On other things like geometry of intakes w.r.t. speed, I'll put in points what i can comprehend -

> The non-DSI intakes are angled like in F-14/15, Mig-25, Su-27/3X as per max speed at which the shock wave produced at leading upper edge of intake would have its boundary around the lower intake edge.

> But the DSI bump is fixed like a permanent ramp even during subsonic speed.
Click to expand...
Your understanding seems complete.

At subsonic speed no shock can form so non-variable DSI can't deflect the air stream, and the dynamic pressure forces it back "in line", hence, air gets in as if there's no obstacle.

Obviously, a non-variable DSI has a fixed max speed regime by design. That said there are solutions up to hypersonic speeds (M7) by chinese reasearch papers where air can't get out of the way fast enough and molecular dissociation start to occure at higher speeds.
Boeing has multiple patents with extending intake lip and "winglets" (on sides) like those on the Concord intakes. Those would be able to funnel more air compensating for the losses at higher altitude. We'll likely see these on the F47 / F/A-XX.

Imho variable DSI = old style ramp solution would also work the same. In the end it's the finer engineering design details that will decide which solution is lighter, less demanding / complicated / cheaper. Boeing has patents for both.
Intake design decision this time will be interesting, might even be among the most "significant" change.

Edit:
some nice graphics from https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...turbofan-engine-with-altitude-and-mach-number
 
Last edited:
Seragina said:
Correct.
Except, with increasing altitude and thinner air the aircraft speeds up. Airspeed increase isn't increasing as fast as air density drops (see drag equation) but until M0.9 it's close to be almost linear. So mass flow loss isn't so dramatic. The overarching intake lip might serve to funnel more air here to compensate. (other solution see below) Unless you do a constant speed climb the engine won't be troubled. On the other hand supersonic climb works well and is the reason aircraft can reach much higher altitude temporarily until the engine flames out.

Old intakes with ramp may have the option to increase area for better and constant air mass flow than those with DSI.
At higher altitude and thinner air the engine needs to burn more, compresses more etc. until close to stall speed. At some point power can't do more, air speed can't generate enough lift and the plane drops.


Your understanding seems complete.

At subsonic speed no shock can form so non-variable DSI can't deflect the air stream, and the dynamic pressure forces it back "in line", hence, air gets in as if there's no obstacle.

Obviously, a non-variable DSI has a fixed max speed regime by design. That said there are solutions up to hypersonic speeds (M7) by chinese reasearch papers where air can't get out of the way fast enough and molecular dissociation start to occure at higher speeds.
Boeing has multiple patents with extending intake lip and "winglets" (on sides) like those on the Concord intakes. Those would be able to funnel more air compensating for the losses at higher altitude. We'll likely see these on the F47 / F/A-XX.

Imho variable DSI = old style ramp solution would also work the same. In the end it's the finer engineering design details that will decide which solution is lighter, less demanding / complicated / cheaper. Boeing has patents for both.
Intake design decision this time will be interesting, might even be among the most "significant" change.

Edit:
some nice graphics from https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...turbofan-engine-with-altitude-and-mach-number
Click to expand...


Yes at higher altitude, speed will have to be increased to compensate for lower density affecting lift & thrust.

But a good fighter has to be designed comprehensively for many conditions incl. constant speed climb.

As per public data, with afterburners,
F-15 can go upto Mach 2.5,
MiG-25 upto Mach 2.8,
EF-200 & certain variants of Su-27/3X upto Mach 2.4

Although 'S' in DSI stands for Supersonic but bcoz F-35 wasn't designed to be high speed; there is no data about J-20, J-35, J-50 obviously; Some data on F-16 DSI, JF-17 & J-10 there but they're 1engine jets limited to Mach 2;
So we don't know if DSI will work well at high supersonic Mach 2-3.
Hence i noticed people talking about variable DSI bump similar to ramps.

Until the F-47 INTAKES are revealed to public in official photo at least, we won't know if FIXED BUMP DSI is good for high supersonic speeds. May be VARIABLE BUMP is good.

A curved surface has higher RCS compared to angled flat surface. The F-35, J-20, J-35 side cowl try to hide the bump at certain angles but overall i think non-DSI still more stealthy, ofcourse the RAS, RAM, EW will also play their role.

I think almost all jets till 4gen have extra slits/doors/vents near intake cowl on side or belly to take extra air in.
But the F-22 might be doing reverse, to maintain RCS, by taking extra air as per 50-60,000 ft altitude lower density even at ground level & lower altitudes... & spilling the extra air through its top mesh vents, perforations & spine doors which would close at higher altitude.

The F-22 intake also has a narrow throat at curve to create diffuser. It is evident in this rare photo & also from cross section diagrams. There seem to be more perforations at throat which the technician is trying to clean in the photo, these could be to spill extra air as well, could be used for cooling.

1749553349980.png

CAUTION- The artist made some minute dimension errors, some i adjusted. Overall the diagram may or may not be accurate.

1749554053902.png


I took the liberty to clean the diagram by removing diagonal lines used for shading, increased engine inlet diameter as per airframe width.

1749553897285.png

So if F-47 as quoted to be very stealthy, high speed & range capable, "nothing even comes closer", means higher supercruise & max speed than F-22, then to maintain RCS, like F-22 it would need fixed geometry intakes w/o moving parts like extending lips, visible ramps, etc.

The XA series engines are said to have 46" inlet diameter same as F135, compared to 40" F119. So i would expect F47 intake area to be bigger.
 
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
But the F-22 might be doing reverse, to maintain RCS, by taking extra air as per 50-60,000 ft altitude lower density even at ground level & lower altitudes... & spilling the extra air through its top mesh vents, perforations & spine doors which would close at higher altitude.


So if F-47 as quoted to be very stealthy, high speed & range capable, "nothing even comes closer", means higher supercruise & max speed than F-22, then to maintain RCS, like F-22 it would need fixed geometry intakes w/o moving parts like extending lips, visible ramps, etc.

The XA series engines are said to have 46" inlet diameter same as F135, compared to 40" F119. So i would expect F47 intake area to be bigger.
Click to expand...
I agree, having larger intake area is a cheap way for being prepared especially for eventaully more powerful engines. I'm leaning toward 55k lb class range follow on engine. I wouldn't be surprised if the F47's NGAP actually is 49k lb.

I'm not so certain about fixed geometry intakes but that's why I'm for them being on the back, hence, hide any possible RCS downsides.
It just makes more sense to me to move closer to blended wing body like designs. Well, the F22 / F23 arguably already have blended wing bodies. So this is more like making them a bit more flat, long and moving toward triangular planform.
Welp, we'll see.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom