CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[dark sidius]

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:

View attachment 773199
I apologize if any Boeing or Lockheed engineers are reading this and laughing out loud...
Best regards!

Is this possible this is the F-47 on the picture ?

 

[targetpractice]

It looks like shark or swordfish.

Sure, but would it actually work as a supersonic inlet that is stealthy, and has no splitter or bump?

 

[F119Doctor]

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.

Your understanding is incorrect.

At Mil/AB, the engine will processing the maximum amount of corrected airflow. This airflow is corrected by pressure and temperature of the air entering the engine. As altitude goes up, the ambient pressure goes down. At the same Mn and temperature, if the ambient pressure drops by half, the density and actual airflow also drops by half (while the corrected airflow remains the same), and gross thrust will drop by half. You do not make the intake bigger at altitude to capture more air to feed the engine the same quantity of air as at sea level.

The graphic showing various shock waves is also incorrect. Flow remains supersonic after passing thru an oblique shock waves or waves, only going subsonic going thru a normal shock wave. The F-14 inlet diagram is correct, showing multiple oblique shock waves followed by a terminal normal shock at the lower lip, the a diverging subsonic diffuser.

You might be interested to read thru the following thread that covers part of this subject:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ruise-performance-and-2nd-stage-engine.38521/

 

[Seragina]

Interested to know what you think of this intake design? There are a bunch of Boeing F32 precursors that feature something similar

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19960001960
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-multi-role-fighter-mrf-studies.528/

It's a very interesting and innovative design but other than the strakes won't be found in a fighters. At least not with current radar technology.
No matter how well the porous design is made to not interfer with the radar, the fine dust and metallic vulcanic ash that collects over time will. AESA radar elements are required to be very sensitve unlike old dish designs.
As for being an intake, for subsonic sure.
For supersonic the shockwave from the body and boundary layer likelv will starve the engine. This is the same problem with hypersonic intakes for missiles despite being open they can only inhale enough within a certain speed range.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Ofcourse i can be inaccurate, i'm IT engineer, that too an average one, not aero-engineer.
But you seem to have misunderstood me & repeated some of my points in different way.
Alli could do is watch documentaries since 1990s, check articles on internet, take screenshots, diagrams, etc.

The F-22 caret inlet itself has no moving parts.

Obviosuly as can be seen visually.

The boundary layer splitter air passes thru a fuel cooler before exiting behind the cockpit,

Known from documentaries & diagrams.

while the boundary layer bleed hole air exits from a fixed grid on the top of the inlet.

I said that

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.

I said that.

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”).

I said that those are intake over-pressure relief doors.

Your understanding is incorrect.

At Mil/AB, the engine will processing the maximum amount of corrected airflow.

I said "for 100% mil power or afterburner, there will be fixed MAX volume/mass of air entering & exiting engine."

This airflow is corrected by pressure and temperature of the air entering the engine.

Yeah, already discussing that the airflow is corrected by converging & diverging portions.

As altitude goes up, the ambient pressure goes down.

Natural fact. Air density reduces means pressure reduces.

At the same Mn and temperature, if the ambient pressure drops by half, the density and actual airflow also drops by half (while the corrected airflow remains the same), and gross thrust will drop by half. You do not make the intake bigger at altitude to capture more air to feed the engine the same quantity of air as at sea level.

Ok, so what to do for using 100% mil power & afterburner at high altitude? It needs some minimum amount of air.
Most fighter jets have ceiling around 55-60,000 ft.
The SR-71's high speed & high altitude go hand in hand. It flew Mach 3 at 85,000 ft.
So to use 100% mil power & afterburner, shockwave compression or some other method to accumulate minimum required air has to be used.

The graphic showing various shock waves is also incorrect. Flow remains supersonic after passing thru an oblique shock waves or waves, only going subsonic going thru a normal shock wave.

That was just a google search, i picked an easy looking one. Otherwise there are numerous complex diagrams scrolling down the search results.
The flow does not become subsonic in every case, but velocity decreases after crossing oblique shockwave.
I found this site to calculate M2 for given M1.
(http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/oblique/index.html)



So for 20 degree wedge angle & M1 = 2 gave M2 = 1.2

Attached link for table also shows that velocity reduces.

You might be interested to read thru the following thread that covers part of this subject:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ruise-performance-and-2nd-stage-engine.38521/

Yes I'm aware of that old thread, it appears in google searches also. I found some very good diagrams in there.
But as an enthusiast it'll take me many days to read 10 pages.
So i'm hoping if someone can give quick answers to my querries.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Let me make things easy for everyone.
I just wanna understand how a stealth jet with fixed intake with no extra slit/vent/door, visible ramp (in contrast with earlier gen jets), can get sufficient air for MIL/AB even at high altitude?

F-15, MiG-25 reach Mach 2.5 by using nodding intake, ramps to control the shockwave angle to compress the air, means accumulate sufficient air.



How does F-22 do it?
1 thing i can think of is that shockwave generates on inner, upper, forward corner & its boundary will touch outer, lower, backward corner of intake.




This is just 1 part.
The other part is the air mass flow/second (AMF)
= Inlet Area X length of imaginary air flow cylinder X air density.

In F-15 case, the engine could be F110-GE-129, F-100-PW-220 or 229.
Air mass flows :
F-100-PW-229A : 125 Kg/s or 275 lb/s
F-100-PW-229 : 112 Kg/s or 248 lb/s
F-100-PW-220 : 103 Kg/s or 228 lb/s

F110-GE-129 : 122.4 Kg/s or 270 lb/s

For F-22's F119 engine AMF is said to be 138.6 Kg/s

Inlet diameter of F119 = 40"/100cm.
Area =3.14 X 50 X 50 = 7850 cm2 = 0.785 m2
If subsonic entry speed = Mach 0.7 = 240 m/s
Air density = AMF/volume
= 138.6/(0.785 X 240) = 0.735 Kg/m3 (which is atmospheric air density around 16,400 ft.)

Q#1) This AMF or Air Mass of 100-140 Kg/s is at 100% mil power?

Q#2) At high altitude to use MIL/AB, the same AMF is needed as at sea level?

Q#3) How does fixed intake like in F-22 get the AMF apart from shockwave control by intake geometry?

Q#4) What is value of airspeed before inlet? Mach 0.5? 0.7? 0.8?

Q#5) Can someone show share calculation to relate the above AMF values, air density, value of subsonic speed before inlet & thrust produced by these engines?

Basic equation:
Force or Thrust = Mass X Acceleration = Mass X (V.exhaust - V.intake)




In case of Turbofan, the equation gets slightly longer due to BPR (By Pass Ratio)




So AMF = M.o = M.f + M.c
but at what throttle power? The F119 engine processes 138.6 Kg air per second, but at what throttle %?
Or consider the reverse querry in following diagram :

 

[BonPlan2]

working off the artist renderings, we can get a general idea of the visible platform and shapes. I'm not exactly sure how swept the tailing edge of the canards are. Or of any anlges used here (I assumed 42deg a la f22). In reality, it may be stretched WAY further to accomodate a higher mach number. Hopefully, this can help some better understand what they're seeing in the pictures.
View attachment 764250
View attachment 764251

If true it's funny.
We (the europeans) heard for yearSSS that canards are wrong for stealth....

 

[Seragina]

The other part is the air mass flow/second (AMF)
= Inlet Area X length of imaginary air flow cylinder X air density.

In F-15 case, the engine could be F110-GE-129, F-100-PW-220 or 229.
Air mass flows :
F-100-PW-229A : 125 Kg/s or 275 lb/s
F-100-PW-229 : 112 Kg/s or 248 lb/s
F-100-PW-220 : 103 Kg/s or 228 lb/s

F110-GE-129 : 122.4 Kg/s or 270 lb/s

For F-22's F119 engine AMF is said to be 138.6 Kg/s

Inlet diameter of F119 = 40"/100cm.
Area =3.14 X 50 X 50 = 7850 cm2 = 0.785 m2
If subsonic entry speed = Mach 0.7 = 240 m/s
Air density = AMF/volume
= 138.6/(0.785 X 240) = 0.735 Kg/m3 (which is atmospheric air density around 16,400 ft.)

Q#1) This AMF or Air Mass of 100-140 Kg/s is at 100% mil power?

Q#2) At high altitude to use MIL/AB, the same AMF is needed as at sea level?

Q#3) How does fixed intake like in F-22 get the AMF apart from shockwave control by intake geometry?

Q#4) What is value of airspeed before inlet? Mach 0.5? 0.7? 0.8?

Q#5) Can someone show share calculation to relate the above AMF values, air density, value of subsonic speed before inlet & thrust produced by these engines?

Nice summary.
Sorry, I've to keep it short due to limited time rn. It's a complicated matter I dunno yet how to make the matter easy to diguest. I'll try to work out some graphics...

But there's one important thing I should note for now and come back in due time for the rest.
Aviators (and engineers) alike use percentage numbers for engine power because it's convenient for processing in the mind and to work with.
But the reality is that's just a shorthand rule of thumb and actually refers to a thrust that's dynamic not a fixed value scale.
The devil is: It's relative.

I may miss something/detail or be inaccurate here:

Q#1: It's both MIL and AB. The difference being the fuel amount dumped into it and the related heat energy, pressure and expanding gas.

Q#2: No. But as I said before the aircraft "automatically" flies faster due to air density decrease/drag decrease. And that compensatesto a certain point.

Q#3: Geometry, is there something else? I dunno.

Q#4: depends. Blade stall speed is also being accounted for. This is specific to engine.

Q#5: Short answer: thermodynamics.

 

[red admiral]

Ok, so what to do for using 100% mil power & afterburner at high altitude? It needs some minimum amount of air.
Most fighter jets have ceiling around 55-60,000 ft.

It's quite easy actually - the amount of air (mass flow rate) going into the intake is independent of the area of the intake and varies across different flight conditions.

The key difference is for supersonic flight where the air in the intake (for a normal gas turbine) has a max speed of Mach = 1. Which gives a limit on mass flow rate. You can still have higher or lower mass flow entering the intake though - this manifests as the likes of additional drag e.g. the extra air "spills" back out of the intake

Plenty more information below or in text books

https://exrocketman.blogspot.com/2020/11/fundamentals-of-inlets.html?m=1

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Nice summary.
Sorry, I've to keep it short due to limited time rn. It's a complicated matter I dunno yet how to make the matter easy to diguest. I'll try to work out some graphics...

But there's one important thing I should note for now and come back in due time for the rest.
Aviators (and engineers) alike use percentage numbers for engine power because it's convenient for processing in the mind and to work with.
But the reality is that's just a shorthand rule of thumb and actually refers to a thrust that's dynamic not a fixed value scale.
The devil is: It's relative.

Yes that's true. Common people use metric to guess a new engine's parameters, like engine TWR which IMO is not appropriate bcoz engine's weight can increase or decrease due to new mechanical, electronic components, new materials, but thesedon't countin formula of thrust.

General formula of efficiency is Output/Input.

The propulsive efficiency formulas are complex.



Hence i've decided to use wet thrust to inlet area ratio, 1 is actual O/p, other is actual I/p parameter directly influencing the O/p thrust.
So for F119 engine it is = 156 KN / 7850cm2 = 19.87 N/cm2.

The other ratio could be wet thrust to max air mass flow ratio. But 1st we should know the max AMF value.
Using wet thrust bcoz that's the max capablity of engine.
For F119 engine it would be = 156 KN / 138.6 Kg/s = 1.125 KN/Kg, or 156,000/(9.8 x 138.6) = 114.85 Kgf/Kg

Both ratios can be combined.
Dividing it further by area gives 156000/(138.6 x 7850) = 0.143 N/Kg/cm2, or 156000/(9.8 x 138.6 x 7850) = 0.01463 Kgf/Kg/cm2 or 14.63 Gmf/Kg/cm2.

I may miss something/detail or be inaccurate here:

Q#1: It's both MIL and AB. The difference being the fuel amount dumped into it and the related heat energy, pressure and expanding gas.

Yes AB is just pumping more fuel directly after turbine stages. Hence i didn't mention AB.
But the question still remains that - is the AMF value for MIL power or some subsonic cruise level power?
When F-22 supercruises at Mach 1.8 with MIL power, then is it processing AMF=138.6Kg/s?

Q#2: No. But as I said before the aircraft "automatically" flies faster due to air density decrease/drag decrease. And that compensatesto a certain point.

Forget the aircraft speed. The question means the AMF value for a particular throttle position applies to all altitudes?
So 138.6 Kg/s for X5 throttle at both 5,000 & 50,000 ft?

Q#3: Geometry, is there something else? I dunno.

Yes, but in Su-57 there are additional aux-intake mesh on intake cowl belly, not in F-22, YF-23, J-20.

Q#4: depends. Blade stall speed is also being accounted for. This is specific to engine.

But do we have any example of a combat engine quoting the subsonic inlet entry speed at a particular aircraft speed &/or throttle value?

Q#5: Short answer: thermodynamics.

Superficially we know it is Brayton Cycle, but it is like tip of iceberg.
But for common people's understanding some basic calculation has to be shown like i did.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

It's quite easy actually - the amount of air (mass flow rate) going into the intake is independent of the area of the intake and varies across different flight conditions.

Ofcourse, a particular FIXED area intake & engine inlet would take different amount of air at different altitude/density, aircraft speed & engine throttle/RPM values.
Mass flow/s = Area X velocity/s X density(altitude)
Area fixed means 2 other parameters still variable.
From idle RPM to max RPM at MIL power, the AMF will be increasing.
But how to decide the FIXED intake area w/o any aux-intakes w.r.t. engine inlet area for different speeds & altitude/densities?
If F119 engine inlet area is 7850cm2 then what is F-22's intake area & how did they finalize on it?

The key difference is for supersonic flight where the air in the intake (for a normal gas turbine) has a max speed of Mach = 1. Which gives a limit on mass flow rate. You can still have higher or lower mass flow entering the intake though - this manifests as the likes of additional drag e.g. the extra air "spills" back out of the intake

I don't think it'll be Mach 1 where shock wave would start forming. So a buffer of at least say Mach 0.1 would be kept. That's why i asked- what's the practical safe upper limit of subsonic air (at MIL power)?
Then only we can connect mass, area, volume, speed, throttle, thrust, the ultimate goal of understanding a good engine & aircraft.

Plenty more information below or in text books
https://exrocketman.blogspot.com/2020/11/fundamentals-of-inlets.html?m=1

Thanks for sharing, diagrams really good. The theory will take weeks to read.
For now i just wanna connect the public parameters quoted about the jets & their engines - AMF, throttle value, thrust value.
- AMF at MIL power.
- subsonic limit before inlet at MIL power.
- air density before inlet at MIL power.
- ratio of intake area to inlet area (obviously as per MIL power) at any altitude. The aircraft speed at MIL power will vary due to drag at different altitudes.

Otherwise how will F-47 discussion proceed technically beyond random CADs?

 

[dark sidius]

This model ask questions what it could be F-47 ?

 

[red admiral]

But how to decide the FIXED intake area w/o any aux-intakes w.r.t. engine inlet area for different speeds & altitude/densities?
If F119 engine inlet area is 7850cm2 then what is F-22's intake area & how did they finalize on it?

It's a design decision based on what is thought to best meet the specific requirements given the data available (it's difficult to predict intake behaviour). e.g. minimising spill drag and pressure recovery at particular requirement points in the flight envelope.

There isn't a single number right answer.

There's a lot of complexity in this topic. I would get some textbooks or do a short postgraduate course if you want to understand it further.

 

[Hydroman]

This model ask questions what it could be F-47 ?
View attachment 773549

F-22 forward fuselage and F-23 wing, tails/aft fuselage, could be an early MRF concept, may be intended as single engine?

 

[F119Doctor]

The rated air mass flow (AMF) of an engine will be at Mil Power at sea level (14.7 psi) standard day (59F) conditions behind a zero loss inlet bellmouth - engine inlet conditions (station 2) will be Pt2 = 14.7 psi, Tt2=59F.

When the engine is running at or below it's flat rated inlet temperature, it will be flowing "corrected AMF" at Mil and AB power. The actual AMF is corrected by ratio of actual Pt2 / 14.7.

Let's have a theoretical engine with a rated AMF of 100 pps. At sea level, zero Mn with a bellmouth inlet, actual AMF will be 100 pps. If you moved the test cell up to 20K ft, the inlet conditions would be 6.75 psi / -12F. Actual airflow would 100pps x 6.75 / 14.7 = 45.9pps. Gross thrust would 45.9% of rated thrust.

If you put that engine into a aircraft and accelerated to 0.9Mn at 20K ft, the inlet conditions increase to 11.42 psi Pt2, 60F Tt2. Actual airflow would be 100 pps x 11.42 / 14.7 = 77.7 pps

Go back down to sea level at M0.9, and the inlet conditions are 24.86 Pt2, 143F Tt2. If the engine was able to run up to it full rated airflow at that inlet temperature, the actual airflow would 100 pps x 24.86 / 14.7 = 169 pps.

The inlet does not adjust to get the engine its rated airflow. If it has moving parts, they are there to make the inlet work to provide the highest ram pressure at the lowest temperature and distortion at the engine face. At very low speeds, the aircraft inlet can be a flow restriction to the engine because the inlet throat is smaller than the engine diameter. Because of this, you sometimes see things like blow-in doors (early B747 engines) or moveable lower lips (Eurofighter) to increase the actual airflow and thrust at very low speeds. At supersonic speeds, the movable ramps, spikes, and bleeds are there to position the shocks for the best ram compression while maintaining stable flow thru the inlet.

Back to the flat rating statement - most engines are controlled to a flat rated inlet temperature. They usually don't include the flat rated temperature in the engine specifications unless that temperature is significantly higher than standard day 59F. Compressor rotor speed is corrected by temperature: Corrected RPM = Indicated RPM / Square Root (Absolute Tt2 / 519R). Constant Corrected RPM = Constant Airflow. Below the flat rated inlet temperature, the engine will run at a constant Corrected RPM and corrected airflow. As the inlet temperature drops, the indicated RPM and turbine temperatures also get lower while the airflow and thrust remain relatively constant. Conversely, indicated RPM and turbine temperatures increase with increasing inlet temperatures. Above the flat rated inlet temperature, the engine runs into a rotor speed and / or turbine temperature limits and will run at the limit. Actual RPM stays constant, but the corrected RPM and airflow decrease along with thrust. In the SR-71, running at its inlet temperature limit of 800F (1260R) with the engine at 100% indicated RPM is only at 64% corrected RPM, which is only a little above Idle in terms of thrust and airflow.

 

[dark sidius]

In fact we still don't know what is the real shape of the F-47.....

 

[Low IQ Techie]

It's a design decision based on what is thought to best meet the specific requirements given the data available (it's difficult to predict intake behaviour). e.g. minimising spill drag and pressure recovery at particular requirement points in the flight envelope.

There isn't a single number right answer.

There's a lot of complexity in this topic. I would get some textbooks or do a short postgraduate course if you want to understand it further.

Getting too deep is not required.
If people just wanna make 2D drawing & 3D CAD then i guess they can consider intake area = engine inlet area.

But intermediate level enthusiast who don't like hardcore physics, chemistry, maths, would still like to get as close as possible.
Presentation skill to audience matters a lot everywhere. That's why we find beautiful & easy to understand animations & documentaries online.
Otherwise there are many other slides from Glenn Research center & other websites showing exact big formulas which would be big turn-off for most of us, which can literally give headache.

 

[EmoBirb]

In fact we still don't know what is the real shape of the F-47.....

Kinda the point of the thread, we're still able to argue and theorize about possible configurations and cite relevant information that might give a clue. I think it's a very productive discussion all things considered.

Although I share your frustration, I'd like to see the real thing sooner rather than later too. But I fear it will take 1-2 years until we see the actual configuration in an unobscured digital rendering or something like that.

Edit/Side note: I also just love to see talented artists going wild with what we got so far and going from there. So many funky configurations came from just 2 obscured renders and I find this great tbh.

 

[dark sidius]

Kinda the point of the thread, we're still able to argue and theorize about possible configurations and cite relevant information that might give a clue. I think it's a very productive discussion all things considered.

Although I share your frustration, I'd like to see the real thing sooner rather than later too. But I fear it will take 1-2 years until we see the actual configuration in an unobscured digital rendering or something like that.

Edit/Side note: I also just love to see talented artists going wild with what we got so far and going from there. So many funky configurations came from just 2 obscured renders and I find this great tbh.

Sure because it could have a lot of configuration, for what we know , next stealth level, 1000 + Nautic miles, mach 2+, with the USAF rendering we can see few of the configuration of the F-47.

 

[targetpractice]

More noodling trying to match the press renders, in particular why there appears to be a chunk between the front wheel and body photoshopped out.

No idea how dsi would work in this configuration, if at all. Perhaps I should claim some as-yet unannounced air flow magic?

Excuse the viewport grabs / insight into my poor modeling skills. Definitely beginning to reach the edge of what was an eyeballed sketch

 

[EmoBirb]

No idea how dsi would work in this configuration, if at all. Perhaps I should claim some as-yet unannounced air flow magic?

You'd probably need a more pronounced bulge, similar to what Sukhoi looks towards with the LTS (cropped image from a photo of the anniversary book given to employees, found on Paralays Forum)


So something roughly akin to this (the best I could do within a couple minutes on Hypic on my phone, sorry):

 

[FlyGuy369]

Like this id imagine? Sorry for the crudeness.

 

[targetpractice]

Thank you, both

 

[Seragina]

Here's a minor option for the carnard placement: on the side of the intake on the back.


Originally, I started thinking of placing it behind the cockpit and in front of the intake. And take advantage of its elevation to direct air toward the intake on high AOA. But the closeness was reducing its chord lenght too much, basically the area would be too small. The minimum size had to be ~5-10% of the wing area. I managed to meet all the requirements within the space on the same plane as the wing but while doing so I forgot about this placement possibility.

Despite to the limited elevation spacing it should be able to rotate up to +-40°. Practically that's probably unlikely to be fully used due to stealth requirement as well as interferrence with the wing. It's interesting afaik this seems not ever been explored before on any experimental nor production arcraft. A revolution?!

 

[Seragina]

While looking up on the F119 I've found a chinese research paper discussing it.
Sadly, I had only access to the first 3 pages... I kind of am black listed, shown the door and all chinese accounts revoked.
Anyhow, it seems what I got was partially censored. (Millions of electrons lost their lives to bring us this information.)


The most interesting are the plots for the specific fuel consumption (SFC).
Makes we want to do some more projected performance analysis for the F47.

 

[FlyGuy369]

The Boeing snap deems it feasible.

 

[flateric]

While looking up on the F119 I've found a chinese research paper discussing it.
Sadly, I had only access to the first 3 pages...

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/527396234

 

[Sferrin]

assuming signed NDAs

 

[Sferrin]

If true it's funny.
We (the europeans) heard for yearSSS that canards are wrong for stealth....

Because it's true.

 

[Seragina]

View attachment 774175

View attachment 774173

Well,
mine has L/D: 5+10+12 design
the other has L/D: 6.2+8.2+11.4 design
So mine has greater range with L/D 2.4 worth of more full sized motors, or 1.1 if accounting for forebody has L/D 1.7 and 3 worth.
That's up to ~70 km worth of range.
Mine has a MUTANT forebody design with an explosive warhead. So it doesn't really need fins/wings to steer and when separated as a vehicle it would become tail steered. It doesn't have to hit to expose the target to the full brunt of the blast.
The other is a hit-to-kill vehicle with "Attitude Control Motors" or whatever each manufacturer calls it.

Edit:
Also if we want to be picky there's also the diameter difference between 10" and 7".

 

[Seragina]

I've found a Chinese presentation for engines where they clearly attributed a TWR for the
Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) program as 1:20!
That's a big game changing amount that would have big consequences for the F47's size.
Let's assume we want to increase TWR for the aircraft to 2.0 instead of the F22's ~1.25 that means we can get it up to +60% more MTOW.


It would be bomber size!

 

[Sferrin]

Well,
mine has L/D: 5+10+12 design
the other has L/D: 6.2+8.2+11.4 design
So mine has greater range with L/D 2.4 worth of more full sized motors, or 1.1 if accounting for forebody has L/D 1.7 and 3 worth.
That's up to ~70 km worth of range.
Mine has a MUTANT forebody design with an explosive warhead. So it doesn't really need fins/wings to steer and when separated as a vehicle it would become tail steered. It doesn't have to hit to expose the target to the full brunt of the blast.
The other is a hit-to-kill vehicle with "Attitude Control Motors" or whatever each manufacturer calls it.

Edit:
Also if we want to be picky there's also the diameter difference between 10" and 7".

I was messing around.

 

[Sferrin]

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?

The F-101 VooDoo was a McDonnell Douglas aircraft (now Boeing, maker of the F-47).

 

[Seragina]

So according to teaching material an aircraft with similar performance as the F22 has an analysis diagram like this:

My designs represented by the red line would obviously shift things left and down... which fits higher speeds (turns).
Welp, I don't have all the specs set yet so this is as far as I get for now.

 

[The Grandeur of man]

Since I’m limited with my options regarding 3d models, I have decided I must use a sandbox game with a freely sculptable material so besiege is the go. The craft you see here is built entirely in the base game and based off in its entirety some basic outlines I posted earlier and generally inspired by much of the work in this thread, please give feedback if possible.

 

[targetpractice]

Since I’m limited with my options regarding 3d models, I have decided I must use a sandbox game with a freely sculptable material so besiege is the go. The craft you see here is built entirely in the base game and based off in its entirety some basic outlines I posted earlier and generally inspired by much of the work in this thread, please give feedback if possible.

I really like this. Regardless of tool it describes the layout really well.

For me the exhaust and trailing edge details feel too fussy, but that is an aesthetic rather than technical feeling.

 

[The Grandeur of man]

I really like this. Regardless of tool it describes the layout really well.

For me the exhaust and trailing edge details feel too fussy, but that is an aesthetic rather than technical feeling.

the exhaust is inspired by the F-118g's seamless diamond slit design and somewhat sharp edges extending part way along the aircraft. the other serrations exist only to fill space besides the engines and to ensure consistency, maybe they could house something who knows

 

[dark sidius]

Since I’m limited with my options regarding 3d models, I have decided I must use a sandbox game with a freely sculptable material so besiege is the go. The craft you see here is built entirely in the base game and based off in its entirety some basic outlines I posted earlier and generally inspired by much of the work in this thread, please give feedback if possible.

good job

 

[Seragina]

Since I’m limited with my options regarding 3d models, I have decided I must use a sandbox game with a freely sculptable material so besiege is the go. The craft you see here is built entirely in the base game and based off in its entirety some basic outlines I posted earlier and generally inspired by much of the work in this thread, please give feedback if possible.

Well, done for using sculpturing.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Since I’m limited with my options regarding 3d models, I have decided I must use a sandbox game with a freely sculptable material so besiege is the go. The craft you see here is built entirely in the base game and based off in its entirety some basic outlines I posted earlier and generally inspired by much of the work in this thread, please give feedback if possible.

Aha, timberpunk!

 

[Training_Dummy]

F-47 Groot