CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

I suspect F-47 will be no longer or wider than F-22. One very hard and simple reason is that USAF have too few forward survivable shelters as is; it simply cannot afford to build larger shelters to support even a slightly longer or wider spanned airframe.

Going further, since it’s clear NGAD has been downsized over the last seven years in terms of other key systems of NGAD finding offboard homes on other platforms, and it’s been also reported that the demonstrators were significantly less heavy than F-22A - perhaps by design or to meet criteria - suggest to me NGAD won’t be a notably heavy fighter, at least dry. I don’t know enough to comment about the speculated DEW capability of the Boeing proposal to say much (including power cooling space and weight), but I’m old enough to be skeptical it makes the cut.

Love all of the designs though, big or small.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
That was just speculation which has never been seen on any jet yet. Just a diagram of some chain-pulley system was shown, not precisely clear at all, never described properly AFAIK.
In actual pics it had swing-out launchers:

View attachment 767747

View attachment 767748
Click to expand...
That drawing does not give space for 6 AMRAAMs, which was the requirement as soon as the clipped-fin AIM120 was available.

In fact, it doesn't even give space for 4 AMRAAMs, which was the full-sized fin requirement.

So I'm doubting that the trapeze was the intended setup for the production version.
 
Metz YF-33 book have drawings for an early palette concept; Le Fana Cummings article have later launcher concept drawing with four amraams stack. Swing V rods on pav-2 weapons bay you see on photos were intended for support of bay doors.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That drawing does not give space for 6 AMRAAMs, which was the requirement as soon as the clipped-fin AIM120 was available.

In fact, it doesn't even give space for 4 AMRAAMs, which was the full-sized fin requirement.

So I'm doubting that the trapeze was the intended setup for the production version.
Click to expand...
There have been multiple diagrams but YF-23 never demonstrated AAM launch.
So incomplete diagrams & concepts do not help unless someone can fiill the remaining portion.
 
Do you feel that the comments on the F-47 being a benefit for the joint force could mean that the navy is mulling over having the F-47 as a shore based asset like the P-8 is but to serve as a long range interceptor? I mean, it would spell larger numbers for the platform to fill the gap of just the airforce having them
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Do you feel that the comments on the F-47 being a benefit for the joint force could mean that the navy is mulling over having the F-47 as a shore based asset like the P-8 is but to serve as a long range interceptor? I mean, it would spell larger numbers for the platform to fill the gap of just the airforce having them
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure that's just the USAF using the required buzzwords.
 
Flyguy its an idea thats worth considering for the USN/Marines depending on what capabilities the F-47 ultimately brings but as mentioned I think its all about F-47 being the lynchpin of the air dominance requires for the Navy and Army to conduct their side of joint operations.

The risk of budget cuts, smaller buys or outright cancelation seems persistent for ambitious programs. USAF desperately wants this aircraft, in numbers, and are probably willing to sit down and discuss NGADs benefit to the Coast Guard and USBP if someone with a voice in the program wanted to.
 
Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47. 01.jpg 02.jpg 03.jpg 04.jpg 05.jpg
06-jpg.768408
07.jpg 08.jpg 09.jpg 10.jpg 11.jpg 12.jpg 13.jpg 14.jpg 15.jpg 16.jpg 17.jpg 18.jpg 19.jpg 20.jpg VISTAS-1.jpg VISTAS-2.jpg VISTAS-3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 06.jpg
    06.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,266
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47.View attachment 768403View attachment 768404View attachment 768405View attachment 768406View attachment 768407
06-jpg.768408
View attachment 768410View attachment 768411View attachment 768412View attachment 768413View attachment 768414View attachment 768415View attachment 768416View attachment 768417View attachment 768418View attachment 768419View attachment 768420View attachment 768421View attachment 768422View attachment 768423View attachment 768424View attachment 768425View attachment 768426
Click to expand...

Congratulations on another ALIEN looking aircraft. All your fans would be swept away.
From 1st few pics i thought that rear contol surface is for pitch, which would rotate either like regular elevator-stab or like platipus tail. But this angled hinge is most unusual thing i've seen so far.
YF-23 like V-tail when moved in 1 direction, produces both yaw & roll at same time, not good every time. So this angled hinge can also produce multi-axis air deflection at same time. IDK if any X/Y jet tested this.

BTW if you can make habit of giving dimensions, then it would be much easier to compare to existing jets. Otherwise we've to keep guessing by visually equalising features like cockpit, landing gear, etc.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Congratulations on another ALIEN looking aircraft. All your fans would be swept away.
From 1st few pics i thought that rear contol surface is for pitch, which would rotate either like regular elevator-stab or like platipus tail. But this angled hinge is most unusual thing i've seen so far.
YF-23 like V-tail when moved in 1 direction, produces both yaw & roll at same time, not good every time. So this angled hinge can also produce multi-axis air deflection at same time. IDK if any X/Y jet tested this.

BTW if you can make habit of giving dimensions, then it would be much easier to compare to existing jets. Otherwise we've to keep guessing by visually equalising features like cockpit, landing gear, etc.
Click to expand...
Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:

2406.jpg
If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:

2406 copia.jpg
Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!
 
Last edited:
Your renders are great as always. Maybe its just me but I just dont know if i can get behind how parallel the nose is.

In the official renders, LERX/nose section really doesnt look like its parallel or close to being parallel. It looks like the entire depiction is instead a near orthographic view of a tapered shovel nose. As mentioned before by Citrus, the degree of that taper strongly depends on the assumed focal length of the camera.

Given that its a strongly doctored image not counting the bits that look straight up painted on, I also think its not super advisable to rely on perspective matching. Given the lack of long parallel edges in the renderings and the extreme camera angles of both renders, it makes perspective matching even less reliable. Even if you were to play around with the focal length, its at least advisable to either have measurements (which there are none and nothing to guess off of in a reliable way) or a guestimate of planform shape and size and then try to find a focal length that makes sense.

I worked on a 3d model of the Ford carrier for two years now and it took me nearly 3 months to actually perspective match my model to a photo in such a way that came fairly close to the listed dimensions / measured dimensions using satellite images - and even then its still not perfectly aligned.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Disrupting the exhaust was the idea to give it a thrust vector effect, love the work! The red line is the hinge.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info FlyGuy369!!!
I'll have to do some renderings again :(:(.
I always wondered how you'd pivot those tails.
I was going to do some fluid tests in SolidWorks, but you saved me the trouble :D:D.
On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47:
F-47-artist-rendition_(cropped).jpg

On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47.
I've marked in red box 1 what appears to me to be a curved air intake and some sort of cone-shaped DSI. Perhaps something similar to the variable DSI in Boeing's patent.
On the other hand, while it's very likely to me that it has a flat tail, in red box 2, it looks like some sort of tail root. That tail has an exact 45-degree angle, which is a rather unlikely coincidence.
Perhaps this aircraft has a folding tail, as an engineer who worked at Lockheed and Boeing once told me.
I love all this kind of speculation and analyzing the limited material available from both companies and the USAF.
Best regards, and thanks again FlyGuy369!
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:

View attachment 768483
If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:

View attachment 768484
Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!
Click to expand...
The tails would be "hinged" on the red line. Similar to the flight control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing. Overall, though, nice work.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello.
This model is 21 meters long and has a 14.5-meter wingspan.
Regarding the tail rotation, I based my observations on NASA and McDonnell Douglas studies from the 1990s:

View attachment 768483
If you look at this image, I made the tails rotate on their axis along the green line. But I don't know if they'll rotate on their axis along the red line. The problem if they do so relative to the red line is that rotating upward would disrupt the engine exhaust outlet. That's why I always assumed they should rotate on their axis along the green line:

View attachment 768484
Because of all this, when I saw the Vodoo II patch, I assumed that plane would have flat tails like the ones studied.
I think Boeing took advantage of everything McDonnell Douglas studied in the 1990s: dihedral wings, unconventional flat tails, diamond-shaped canards from the X36.
I'm almost convinced the F47 will have tails of this style.
What's more, running Photoshop tests on the front-view render, you can see that the wings of the F47 shown in that render never dip (as they do on the Bird of Prey), but instead maintain the 15-degree dihedral angle throughout their entire length and end in a point (similar to the Vodoo II's patch).
When I make models, I like to research as much information as possible.
This model I published isn't based on the F47, but on what I thought before the F47 was published (I only added the canards).
That's why I think the dihedral wings may be so the flat tails can find a clean airflow. That, and combined with what I saw in the render, I also believe the F47 will have movable wingtips.
Maybe I'm crazy and wrong.
Greetings and thanks for your comment!
Click to expand...

Bro,
> Drawings are supposed to be NOTIONAL. Actual blueprint would be top secret.
> There are numerous drawings by every maker nation on the planet, some which never got tested by X/Y or even small-scale jet like X-36, some only got wind tunnel or CFD test, some didn't even leave the drawing board.
> The F-47 posters could also be notional or that of TD (tech demonstrator). Just like there were differences b/w YF-22 Vs F-22, X-35 Vs F-35, similarly production F-47 could be slightly different.
> Bird of Prey was just an X jet. Although some aspects about it have ben disclosed but only Boeing knows fully what was good & bad about it.
> Bcoz the posters are manipulated, the Dihedral wing could be an illusion IMO, bcoz it adds to stability like in airliners, means less agility. A professional can tell better.
> F-22 has superb agility by just adding TVC to traditional tandem bi-plane design. Your design is tandem tri-plane, so canards & TVC will be sufficient. Moving wing-tips not required. Moreover seeing from side, the rotating wingtip is very close to landing gear, just ahead of which would be centers of gravity & lift. So the torque (tangential force x radius) would be less.
> V or A shaped control surfaces anywhere, tail or wingtip would create simultaneous multi-axis air deflection. The aircrafts & UAVs with such V/A shapes can afford to have side-effects or just wanted a different looking design.
> As you pointed the exhaust deflection with platipus tail, that's fine till 100% mil-power as long as the tail is thermal coated, but not good for afterburner, would need a very robust vectoring nozzle with transpiration cooling like in F-22. YF-23 exhaust only shields the plume from below. I've always imagined a F-22 like nozzle with a horizontal splitter plate to reduce IRS.
> If we don't give a splitter in IWB then for middle missile(s) both IWB doors would need to open.
> Last but not least, where are DEW turrets?
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Thanks for the info FlyGuy369!!!
I'll have to do some renderings again :(:(.
I always wondered how you'd pivot those tails.
I was going to do some fluid tests in SolidWorks, but you saved me the trouble :D:D.
On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47:
View attachment 768509

On the other hand, I'm sharing a saturated image of the F47.
I've marked in red box 1 what appears to me to be a curved air intake and some sort of cone-shaped DSI. Perhaps something similar to the variable DSI in Boeing's patent.
On the other hand, while it's very likely to me that it has a flat tail, in red box 2, it looks like some sort of tail root. That tail has an exact 45-degree angle, which is a rather unlikely coincidence.
Perhaps this aircraft has a folding tail, as an engineer who worked at Lockheed and Boeing once told me.
I love all this kind of speculation and analyzing the limited material available from both companies and the USAF.
Best regards, and thanks again FlyGuy369!
Click to expand...
You might want to use the official image rather than 3rd party:
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Mar/21/2003674021/-1/-1/0/250321-F-AF000-1341.JPGYou will see things a bit more clearly. ;)

That said the dark shadow below was pretty much telling about the inlets but I have my own thoughts about that.
This only enforces my idea. I'll clearify it on weekend when I get to draw it out.

But honestly, if the AF wants it to look different now from the Chinese they will be hard pressed. Considering everything there's no simpler & cheaper alternative than a delta like the failed McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II
unless dogfighting and is still really required (rather than just drone controller/missile coordinator). That would mean some complex and expensive design again.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47.View attachment 768403View attachment 768404View attachment 768405View attachment 768406View attachment 768407
06-jpg.768408
View attachment 768410View attachment 768411View attachment 768412View attachment 768413View attachment 768414View attachment 768415View attachment 768416View attachment 768417View attachment 768418View attachment 768419View attachment 768420View attachment 768421View attachment 768422View attachment 768423View attachment 768424View attachment 768425View attachment 768426
Click to expand...
Awesome design
 
Here’s my interpretation of the F-47, I am wondering of anyone would like to create a 3d model from it, if not that’s fine. (Yes it looks very similar to citrus’s concept however we just reached similar conclusions) If you’re willing to take on my offer I will provide extensive details on what I believe we may see.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5360.png
    IMG_5360.png
    152.6 KB · Views: 139
My turn.
Based on the AF renderings and my camera solution using the F22 as base (somewhat) etc.


The camera was panned down but not above the chine's plane at 2.2° +1° ground or model tilt; center 1 m above ground & 10.8 from the F22's nose inward; view box ~24.2 m from center 2 x 0.8669 m in size.
Margin of error is 1°. It might have been forced on my part but seeing how things line up.

F47-AF_rendered_interpretation20250503.png That said the plane has numerous problems: canards &wings & angle; wheels; radar; weapons bay... The rendered plane is a failure.

It's almost as I've envisioned but except for size it fails on all preferred requirements. It's lighter and has at most 8% more fuel (22310 lbs).
It needs at least about 10-20% more wing area.
Preferable 3 meters longer and 1m wider body, all for the weapons bay, and maybe some for better fiting the intake ducts. That would give space for side bays for the AIM9s. As is it can't have those.
It needs longer hind legs so it won't scratch the runway on take-off and landing.
Key to the thinner body are the engines and top intakes. They need to have the generator/starter integrated like those planned for the UK's Tempest. It's purely coincidence (?) the side intake cover 33%. It had the idea 20% might do but died't expect this.
Maybe my forced on design and specs are good? :D

If someone can come up with a larger, better "looking", maneuvring wings that would solve all the problems with the canards.
 
VTOLicious said:
Intake area is apparently too small. Also IWB capacity seems to be unrealistic for the given cross section...
View attachment 768720
Click to expand...

Well, the belly is little more wider, so it can fit 4 staggered AAMs. But there should be a middle separator wall.

@Rodrigo Avella , what AAM are you depicting in your models? Is it notional AIM-260 JATM or future version AIM-120E AMRAAM or something?
 
 
re intakes. Like others I am reminded of Rafale and other a/c that use the fuselage as a functional component that defines/augments the aero of the intake. Perhaps that explains that the renders are from an angle looking down to hide some interesting things with the intake.
 
Last edited:
yeah, the F14 combined area rule and lifting body so I'll keep to those design rules.

But now that we got a good look at China's J-36 & J-50 I'm pretty certain everyone is scrambling to adjust their design decisions.
And frankly, seeing how they had talked about the next generation even before the revelation with completely different design objective.
I bet the next iteration one(s) have already been worked one for awhile, hence, the somewhat lackluster "official" announcement.
They probaly consider J-36 & J-50 expandable stealth backbone masses that are needed right now. Like us they work toward preparing for war Xi had set for 27 a decade+ ago.

I'll keep some of the above interpretation and my take on the intake combo. The main problem I see is how to arrange a large wing/maximizing fuel within Mach 2.35 size constraints & keep the canopy as close to the rotation center as possible to lower g-force & maximizing IWB volume while keeping a low profile. Honestly, I want a 7 m long weapons bay but this seems counter to a air dominance fighter.
 
Seragina said:
yeah, the F14 combined area rule and lifting body so I'll keep to those design rules.

But now that we got a good look at China's J-36 & J-50 I'm pretty certain everyone is scrambling to adjust their design decisions.
And frankly, seeing how they had talked about the next generation even before the revelation with completely different design objective.
I bet the next iteration one(s) have already been worked one for awhile, hence, the somewhat lackluster "official" announcement.
They probaly consider J-36 & J-50 expandable stealth backbone masses that are needed right now. Like us they work toward preparing for war Xi had set for 27 a decade+ ago.

I'll keep some of the above interpretation and my take on the intake combo. The main problem I see is how to arrange a large wing/maximizing fuel within Mach 2.35 size constraints & keep the canopy as close to the rotation center as possible to lower g-force & maximizing IWB volume while keeping a low profile. Honestly, I want a 7 m long weapons bay but this seems counter to a air dominance fighter.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but how does having the canopy (cockpit) close to the rotation point reduce G load? This doesn't seem to fit the laws of physics and if you know something we don't please share. My understanding is that the only way to effectively manage G forces for a pilot is to lie prone or a heavy recline. For example, this MB NG ejection seat.
 

Attachments

  • ngad-1b-body.jpeg
    ngad-1b-body.jpeg
    64.6 KB · Views: 82
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing some images of a model I was working on before the F47 was introduced.
This model is based on the Voodoo II patch, which, as I mentioned, I was working on. After the F47 was introduced, I added canards.
I still find it very hard to believe that a USAF aircraft would have canards. Also, based on what I've seen so far, it would be the only sixth-generation fighter to have them. Because neither the Chinese nor the Europeans incorporate them into their designs.
One of the things I noticed in the second image of the F47 (where it's flying through clouds) is that the canards look like they were added with some image editing program.
So I thought that perhaps the canards are a "little trick" to hide what they really don't want us to see: the air intakes. I did a test run with Photoshop, saturating the first image of the F47 (the one with the flag), and I could see that the air intakes may be curved rather than straight. It also shows a small cone, reminding me of Boeing's patent for an intake with a variable speed control (DSI), which would make sense for an aircraft that could supposedly fly at Mach 3.
But perhaps Boeing will surprise us, and the F47 will be the only aircraft with canards for now.
Another thing that caught my attention was that I didn't quite understand why the tails of the red aircraft in the Vodoo II patch had such a different angle than the wings (something that isn't good for stealth).
But seeing that the presented aircraft has a 15-degree dihedral angle, I was surprised that when I looked at the aircraft I modeled from a front view (also with a 15-degree dihedral angle), the angle of the wings is practically the same as the angle of the tails from that view. That is, the wings and tails have completely different angles when viewed from the top, but due to the dihedral of the wings, they match in a front view.
Well, that's all. I hope you like the images.
I'm working on a model based 100% on the presented images of the F47.View attachment 768403View attachment 768404View attachment 768405View attachment 768406View attachment 768407
06-jpg.768408
View attachment 768410View attachment 768411View attachment 768412View attachment 768413View attachment 768414View attachment 768415View attachment 768416View attachment 768417View attachment 768418View attachment 768419View attachment 768420View attachment 768421View attachment 768422View attachment 768423View attachment 768424View attachment 768425View attachment 768426
Click to expand...
Very impressive Rodrigo, i like it:)
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Off topic, but how does having the canopy (cockpit) close to the rotation point reduce G load? This doesn't seem to fit the laws of physics and if you know something we don't please share. My understanding is that the only way to effectively manage G forces for a pilot is to lie prone or a heavy recline. For example, this MB NG ejection seat.
Click to expand...
Nothing secret. Just simple math / geometry:
F22-centrifugal.png
As you can see the difference is minor for normal aerodynamic turning radius but the difference would be greater for vector thrust,
It may only result in a second or so of difference in time for when blackout happens but that could mean the difference between life or death in warfare.
 
Seragina said:
Nothing secret. Just simple math / geometry:
View attachment 768894
As you can see the difference is minor for normal aerodynamic turning radius but the difference would be greater for vector thrust,
It may only result in a second or so of difference in time for when blackout happens but that could mean the difference between life or death in warfare.
Click to expand...
But Newton's laws are at play here, the centripetal force about a rotating radius still exerts G forces regardless of location about and aircraft
 
Not sure what the control result would be with this input?

Screenshot 2025-05-05 171139.jpg

I feel one would cancel out the other??

Also, considerable drag forces and radar return.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
That is ~56 degree, with a center line pivot point not sure about that?

Screenshot 2025-05-06 115831.jpg

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Hello
I'm sharing some new images of this model.
It has wings without the droopy tips (as I believe can be seen in the model presented by the Air Force), and a 9-degree dihedral.
And a new axis of rotation for the tail hinges.
I downloaded the two high-quality images of the F-47. I analyzed them in Photoshop, and (for me) I have no doubt that it is the red aircraft that appears in the Voodoo II patch, with the addition of canards.
Perhaps what they showed us in this presentation is the Voodoo II, with some modifications. So we'll have to wait to see what the F-47 looks like.
Considering recent USAF programs, there weren't any significant changes between the test and production aircraft: YF-22 > F-22, X35 > F-35. There wouldn't even have been many differences between the YF-23 and the F-23.
Although there were design changes, the production versions were basically very similar to their prototypes in terms of design.
Perhaps the same thing happened between the Voodoo II and the F-47, hence the need for extensive image manipulation to hide sensitive parts of the design.
01.jpg 02.jpg 03.jpg 04.jpg 05.jpg 06.jpg 07.jpg 08.jpg 09.jpg 10.jpg 11.jpg 12.jpg 13.jpg 14.jpg 15.jpg 16.jpg 17.jpg 18.jpg 19.jpg 20.jpg VISTA-1.jpg VISTA-2.jpg VISTA-3.jpg
 
dark sidius said:
Is it the shape of the wings and the canards in the patch ?
View attachment 768683
Click to expand...
My thoughts as well.
F-47 has gullwings and canards.

All that work done trying to use the red TARGET silhouette as a reference is just some wasted non-optimally used time (even if enjoyable from a purely speculative point of view) IMHO.

BTW I love your work Rodrigo, I just don't think you're using a pertinent reference. ;)
Or maybe you're right and Boeing tricked me as well. :p
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom