CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

Attachments

  • Image - MAGMA - a small scale unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).jpg
    Image - MAGMA - a small scale unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).jpg
    294.7 KB · Views: 242
  • RS92572_MAGMA-Infogaphic-30-April-FINAL-scr.jpg
    RS92572_MAGMA-Infogaphic-30-April-FINAL-scr.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 159
Laminar flow has been around for the past ~80-90 years so this shouldn't even be a question.

I think bleed air likely will be use for steering the vector thrust flow.

As for the wing control surfaces I doubt it because it's complicated meaning requires a lot of maintenance for such a small frame.
But I do think bleed air could be tied into the fuel cooling heat-sink scheme because this will improve climb performance significantly. So it might be dual used here.

Boeing seems to have used a variable chamber system on the X-32. This is the most likely feature it will have just more advanced due to better material etc.:
US4899284-drawings-page-2.png
 
VTOLicious said:
;)

View attachment 784013
Click to expand...

Here's my latest iteration, Model 421...

NGDA_Airframe_421_001.png

The wingspan is reduced from 16,5 to 14 m, and the shape of the spine behind the cockpit is optimized as well. These changes are intended to improve fineness ratio and area rule. As a consequence, total body volume is reduced from 70 to 67 m³.
 

Attachments

  • NGAD_M421_104.PNG
    NGAD_M421_104.PNG
    705 KB · Views: 188
  • NGAD_M421_102.PNG
    NGAD_M421_102.PNG
    756.5 KB · Views: 179
  • NGAD_M421_103.PNG
    NGAD_M421_103.PNG
    790.8 KB · Views: 185
  • NGAD_M421_101.PNG
    NGAD_M421_101.PNG
    670.8 KB · Views: 186
VTOLicious said:
Here's my latest iteration, Model 421...

View attachment 784014

The wingspan is reduced from 16,5 to 14 m, and the shape of the spine behind the cockpit is optimized as well. These changes are intended to improve fineness ratio and area rule. As a consequence, total body volume is reduced from 70 to 67 m³.
Click to expand...
Pretty cool, i like it:)
 
VTOLicious said:
Here's my latest iteration, Model 421...

View attachment 784014

The wingspan is reduced from 16,5 to 14 m, and the shape of the spine behind the cockpit is optimized as well. These changes are intended to improve fineness ratio and area rule. As a consequence, total body volume is reduced from 70 to 67 m³.
Click to expand...
I absolutely love your take on the nose area. You even managed to make the canards look aesthetically appealing. My favorite take so far.
 
VTOLicious said:
Here's my latest iteration, Model 421...

View attachment 784014

The wingspan is reduced from 16,5 to 14 m, and the shape of the spine behind the cockpit is optimized as well. These changes are intended to improve fineness ratio and area rule. As a consequence, total body volume is reduced from 70 to 67 m³.
Click to expand...
How's the area rule?
 
Reddington777 said:
I absolutely love your take on the nose area. You even managed to make the canards look aesthetically appealing. My favorite take so far.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I just made another modification - Nose section reshaped and lengthened by 0,5 m - I think it looks even better now ;)

NGDA_Airframe_421vs422_001.png
 

Attachments

  • NGAD_M422_101.PNG
    NGAD_M422_101.PNG
    710.5 KB · Views: 177
  • NGAD_M422_102.PNG
    NGAD_M422_102.PNG
    697.3 KB · Views: 187
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
I would expect it to be at least 25% bigger dimensions than all current 5gen jets.
Click to expand...
Most on the main thread believe that this plane is more likely to be F-22 sized and at best, YF-23 sized. 25% more volume? maybe. 25% in dimensions? probably not. The F111 was only about 15% longer than an F22 so if you were asking for all dimensions then thats seems way too big.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Bigger internal volume, yes. Not hugely bigger like the F-111.
Click to expand...
If size is increased by 25% in all 3 dimensions the volume increases to 1.25 cubed = 1.953125 i.e. almost doubled. So I think 25% unlikely.

10% dimension increase would be a 33% increase in volume.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
If size is increased by 25% in all 3 dimensions the volume increases to 1.25 cubed = 1.953125 i.e. almost doubled. So I think 25% unlikely.

10% dimension increase would be a 33% increase in volume.
Click to expand...
Right, I meant like a 25% bigger internal volume. So maybe 7.5% bigger in each direction.
 

Attachments

  • 20250912_044937.jpg
    20250912_044937.jpg
    638.9 KB · Views: 96
  • 20250912_044939.jpg
    20250912_044939.jpg
    282.5 KB · Views: 85
  • 20250912_045012.jpg
    20250912_045012.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 73
  • 20250912_044950.jpg
    20250912_044950.jpg
    162 KB · Views: 110
I would be cautious about using a frontal capture area to estimate air flow. Certainly there is some correlation but the local flow lines are likely not perpendicular to the cross-sectional projection, such as when a shock bump is involved like with the EMD F-23 design. Other factors such as the throat area for the designed Mach number can also be a factor.

That being said, if the thrust class of the A102 and A103 are similar to the F119, then I'd expect the inlet capture areas to be roughly similar.
 
F-15SA figures as a reference for weight and fuel fraction considerations...

Maximum gross weight: 36741 kg (100%)
Operating Weight (basic weight plus crew w/o CFT): 13103 kg (35,66%)
Operating Weight (basic weight plus crew with CFT): 18144 kg (49,38%)

Internal fuel less conformal tanks: 6146 kg (16,73%)
Internal fuel plus conformal tanks: 10523 kg (28,64%)
 

Attachments

  • Flight Manual_F-15SA_Dimensions_004a.png
    Flight Manual_F-15SA_Dimensions_004a.png
    534.3 KB · Views: 106
  • Flight Manual_F-15SA_Fuel_002.png
    Flight Manual_F-15SA_Fuel_002.png
    397.8 KB · Views: 117
Reddington777 said:
Most on the main thread believe that this plane is more likely to be F-22 sized and at best, YF-23 sized. 25% more volume? maybe. 25% in dimensions? probably not. The F111 was only about 15% longer than an F22 so if you were asking for all dimensions then thats seems way too big.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Bigger internal volume, yes. Not hugely bigger like the F-111.
Click to expand...
overscan (PaulMM) said:
If size is increased by 25% in all 3 dimensions the volume increases to 1.25 cubed = 1.953125 i.e. almost doubled. So I think 25% unlikely.

10% dimension increase would be a 33% increase in volume.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was a typo.
15%, not 25%, so 1.15^3=1.52x volume/weight. Same TWR like F-22 means 1.52x156 KN = 237 KN wet.

But dimension Vs volume can be visually confusing, unless 3D S/w has function to tell.

1st Trump said that F-47 is most advanced, capable, lethal & nothing comes closer to in speed, maneuverability, payload, etc.
Then he said he wants to do F-22 super upgrade, then 2 engine F-35, a F-55.
Damn! i wonder how many jets are part of NGAD system.

So if F-22 with 8 AAMs doesn't come close to F-47 then... Hmm!:rolleyes: This compels us to think that apart from 8x AAMs, 2x AGMs can aso be carried. So extra AAM/AGM + DEW will increase volume/weight.
With LOAL AAMs & DEW, a 6gen jet doesn't need TVC super agility, but for good control authority.
Another thing to think is that will NGAD carry PL-17 like VLR-AAM?

At the least, if we imagine the ducts, IWBs, SWBs, 49" inlet dia. 3-3.5 tons VCE, fuel tanks of 12-14 tons capacity, together, then this is basically inflating F-22 dimensions by 15% or volume/weight by 52% & then comparing with our desired design.

For now, if we compare F-22 with this model 422 (19.5m long, 14m wide) then from top & side it does look say 20% bigger fuselage, but front looks almost same, cutting height & extending sides.

1757852973849.jpeg

1757853068651.jpeg

1757853034636.jpeg
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Sorry, it was a typo.
15%, not 25%, so 1.15^3=1.52x volume/weight. Same TWR like F-22 means 1.52x156 KN = 237 KN wet.

But dimension Vs volume can be visually confusing, unless 3D S/w has function to tell.

1st Trump said that F-47 is most advanced, capable, lethal & nothing comes closer to in speed, maneuverability, payload, etc.
Then he said he wants to do F-22 super upgrade, then 2 engine F-35, a F-55.
Damn! i wonder how many jets are part of NGAD system.

So if F-22 with 8 AAMs doesn't come close to F-47 then... Hmm!:rolleyes: This compels us to think that apart from 8x AAMs, 2x AGMs can aso be carried. So extra AAM/AGM + DEW will increase volume/weight.
With LOAL AAMs & DEW, a 6gen jet doesn't need TVC super agility, but for good control authority.
Another thing to think is that will NGAD carry PL-17 like VLR-AAM?

At the least, if we imagine the ducts, IWBs, SWBs, 49" inlet dia. 3-3.5 tons VCE, fuel tanks of 12-14 tons capacity, together, then this is basically inflating F-22 dimensions by 15% or volume/weight by 52% & then comparing with our desired design.

For now, if we compare F-22 with this model 422 (19.5m long, 14m wide) then from top & side it does look say 20% bigger fuselage, but front looks almost same, cutting height & extending sides.

View attachment 784730

View attachment 784732

View attachment 784731
Click to expand...

Forgot to put underside view comparison.

1757864231087.jpeg

Bcoz GE & P&W are capable of making powerful engines, hence so far I've imagined NGAD's IWBs like following -
- 2 SWBs dedicated for CCMs.
- 2 side IWBs dedicated for 2+2 MR/LR-AAMs.
- 2 tandem central IWBs for 2+2 max JDAM/LGB/AGM/CrM/AShM/ARM or modular fuel tank.
- A bigger AGM/CrM/AShM would take full central IWB space.

So some combo options -
- 4 JDAM/LGB/AGM/ARM max + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 2 JDAM/LGB/AGM/ARM + (4+2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 4+4+2+2 MR/LR-AAMs + 4 CCMs.
- 2+2 VLR-AAMs + (2+2 MR/LR AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 2 VLR-AAMs + (4+2+2 MR/LR AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 2 VLR-AAMs + 2 JDAM/LGB/AGM + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 1+1 bigger AGM/CrM/AShM + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 1 bigger AGM/CrM/AShM + 2 JDAM/LGB/AGM/ARM + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 1 bigger AGM/CrM/AShM + 2 VLR-AAMs + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- 1 bigger AGM/CrM/AShM + (4+2+2 MR/LR AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- Fuel tank + (4+2+2 MR/LR AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- Fuel tank + 2 VLR-AAMs + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- Fuel tank + 2 JDAM/LGB/AGM + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).
- Fuel tank + 1 bigger AGM/CrM/AShM + (2+2 MR/LR-AAMs) + (2+2 CCMs).

These combos look more like fighter-bomber. Then i would say that Trump said right - nothing comes even close in payload.

And we've not discussed space needed by DEW system yet.
 

Attachments

  • NGDA_400_IWB_038.png
    NGDA_400_IWB_038.png
    853 KB · Views: 148
  • NGDA_Airframe_424_002.PNG
    NGDA_Airframe_424_002.PNG
    136.7 KB · Views: 160
NovaGA said:
I don’t think those DSIs will work? The wave needs a flat surface to bounce from, you have a corner
Click to expand...
You could be right... However, as far as I understand, a circular arc approximation works, e.g. F-35's polygon inlet.
I'm keen to see higher resolution pics of the J-50(?) inlets, which have a similar triangular shaped capture area. But it most likely uses other methods for boundary layer management.
 

Attachments

  • SAC J-XDS - 20250423 - Captain小潇 by OPPOFind - best.JPG
    SAC J-XDS - 20250423 - Captain小潇 by OPPOFind - best.JPG
    76.8 KB · Views: 152
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
I didn't get it. Can you show max rotated position of canards in your model?
Click to expand...
You can cut out the planform from a sheet of cardboard, and fold the canards up and down along the hinge described... And hopefully you'll see what I mean ;)
 
VTOLicious said:
You can cut out the planform from a sheet of cardboard, and fold the canards up and down along the hinge described... And hopefully you'll see what I mean ;)
Click to expand...

So is it going to be all moving, or aero-elastic, or like that of Viggen jet?

For example, below we see max deflections of all control surfaces -

1757916992271.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom