CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

Scott Kenny said:
Apparently the 3-stream engines can get about a 38% lower fuel burn than F119 or F135, so it wouldn't take a 105,000lb airframe to get that to have the range that's been kicked around.

And for what it's worth, FAXX seems to be settling out to be ~800nmi combat radius, which is basically what the A-6 could do with 4-5x 2000lb bombs hanging.
Click to expand...

Fuel fraction matters more than gross weight. An airframe that was longer than F-22 and dumped extraneous features - side bays, gun, thrust vectoring - could probably get to 0.40 rather than the 0.30 of F-22. With an adaptive engine that should buy you well in excess of a thousand miles.
 
From the rack data it looks like it's sufficent for ejection, though, for bombs they (Boeing) listed it as weak.
Anyhow, quick and dirty trials tells combining two at an angle of 15-25° is possible, but still takes up a lot of space and the staggering distance is too much, too. Welp, combining into a single shiveling rack won't do.

Sferrin said:
Would it be applicable? And it's not like the UK denied all help on the F-22 (BAE). Why make the exception here?
Click to expand...
Politcal descision is above my pay grade.
The UK wasn't involved afaik, it was mainly the German DLR part of ESA and french Dassault.
As for details that's too long ago last time I've read it. And I wasn't that attentive as I was looking for something else. The paper was from 97 or so I think. Composite was the term used which also includes ceramic.
 
Josh_TN said:
That is my assumption as well. The same agent that handles CCAs can be installed in the manned aircraft and engaged when the pilot/WSO is heavily tasked with organizational decisions.
Click to expand...
That's definitely true for the NAVY's F/A-XX.
I doubt it for the USAF, though, because more powerful command aircraft will be available. And from what I understand about the shared network the control could be from afar and from the top. The pilot only takes direct command about the immediate net area and target assignment. Since the CCA will only carry anti-air missiles there's little to no micro management needed imho.

Josh_TN said:
Fuel fraction matters more than gross weight. An airframe that was longer than F-22 and dumped extraneous features - side bays, gun, thrust vectoring - could probably get to 0.40 rather than the 0.30 of F-22. With an adaptive engine that should buy you well in excess of a thousand miles.
Click to expand...

See here:

I'll post a more detailed update soon.
 
I have a hard time picturing F-47 having internal storage for anything more than ~6 AIM-120/260 sized AAMs in a single bay. I think even side bays are unnecessary now - there’s no need for IR weapons to lock on before launch when they can lock on after launch.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fuel fraction matters more than gross weight. An airframe that was longer than F-22 and dumped extraneous features - side bays, gun, thrust vectoring - could probably get to 0.40 rather than the 0.30 of F-22. With an adaptive engine that should buy you well in excess of a thousand miles.
Click to expand...
More efficient engines also helps. For the monster sized planes, I was assuming on the order of 36,000lbs of fuel.

The 80klb design has a fuel fraction of about .35 when armed heavy, but would have a fuel fraction of .38 or more with a purely air-to-air load (0.4 if you're only hauling 2000lbs of AAMs around)
 
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:

01.jpg
I still have a few things left to finish. So I think I'll share more images next week.
While many assume the images presented are mere marketing concepts, I believe they truly correspond to the F47.
Obviously, Donald Trump is familiar with the aircraft's design, and since this is the first time a president has announced the award of a multi-billion-dollar program, I don't think he (and the type of person he is) would do so based on sketches made by a Boeing marketing intern.
As was the case with the B2 and then the B21, the designs shown to us by the USAF correspond to the actual designs, with the "sensitive parts" hidden. On both the B2 and the B21, what was hidden were the exhaust outlets.
In the case of the F47, the "censored" part is its rear end. That's why I believe that's the "revolutionary" aspect of the concept presented by Boeing.
Although it may seem unbelievable, and as we saw with the Chinese designs, a tailless sixth-generation aircraft seems the norm, not something revolutionary.
That's why I believe (and I could obviously be very wrong) that the F47 could have either "platypus" tails or folding tails.
And that's why there's so much effort to hide that sensitive area of the plane.
I hope you like it!
And criticize me all you want!!! I'm used to it from my Instagram profile. 90% of it is criticism, haha.
Best regards!
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:
Click to expand...
:eek:
Did you get special clearance from POTUS to travel to AREA-51, escorted by cammo-dudes & take this limited angle photograph?:cool: Althought the shadow blows some cover.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Kenny said:
More efficient engines also helps. For the monster sized planes, I was assuming on the order of 36,000lbs of fuel.

The 80klb design has a fuel fraction of about .35 when armed heavy, but would have a fuel fraction of .38 or more with a purely air-to-air load (0.4 if you're only hauling 2000lbs of AAMs around)
Click to expand...

J-20 and Su-27 manage to achieve much longer ranges (1000+ mi combat radius) without being >100,000 lb gross weight, because they have a higher fuel fraction than western fighters. I think an F-47 designed specifically for range could also reach to nearly 1000 miles even sans adaptive engine.
 
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
Definitely back-ache, shoulder-ache, neck strain, etc. o_O:D
Click to expand...
And still not service connected!



Josh_TN said:
J-20 and Su-27 manage to achieve much longer ranges (1000+ mi) without being >100,000 lb gross weight, because they have a higher fuel fraction than western fighters. I think an F-47 designed specifically for range could also reach to nearly 1000 miles even sans adaptive engine.
Click to expand...
Except that we're not talking about a one-way range of 1000nmi, but a combat radius of over 1000nmi. A one-way range of somewhere between 2500 and 3000nmi.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And still not service connected!




Except that we're not talking about a one-way range of 1000nmi, but a combat radius of over 1000nmi. A one-way range of somewhere between 2500 and 3000nmi.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misspoke, I believe Su-27 family and J-20 have *combat radius*. Post corrected.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:
Click to expand...
Beautiful work Rodrigo, I think the same of you , this time you are very near the final design, you are right when USAF show us a rendering of the B-21 it was the real design , it is surely the same case for the F-47 and there is the Voodoo2 patch for sure it is not for nothing....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:

View attachment 771540
I still have a few things left to finish. So I think I'll share more images next week.
While many assume the images presented are mere marketing concepts, I believe they truly correspond to the F47.
Obviously, Donald Trump is familiar with the aircraft's design, and since this is the first time a president has announced the award of a multi-billion-dollar program, I don't think he (and the type of person he is) would do so based on sketches made by a Boeing marketing intern.
As was the case with the B2 and then the B21, the designs shown to us by the USAF correspond to the actual designs, with the "sensitive parts" hidden. On both the B2 and the B21, what was hidden were the exhaust outlets.
In the case of the F47, the "censored" part is its rear end. That's why I believe that's the "revolutionary" aspect of the concept presented by Boeing.
Although it may seem unbelievable, and as we saw with the Chinese designs, a tailless sixth-generation aircraft seems the norm, not something revolutionary.
That's why I believe (and I could obviously be very wrong) that the F47 could have either "platypus" tails or folding tails.
And that's why there's so much effort to hide that sensitive area of the plane.
I hope you like it!
And criticize me all you want!!! I'm used to it from my Instagram profile. 90% of it is criticism, haha.
Best regards!
Click to expand...
Looking forward to it:)
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:

View attachment 771540
I still have a few things left to finish. So I think I'll share more images next week.
I hope you like it!
And criticize me all you want!!! I'm used to it from my Instagram profile. 90% of it is criticism, haha.
Best regards!
Click to expand...

I'm very curious about the other angles you'll present in the future, but this looks very solid
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I'm sharing a first image of what I assume the F47 will look like:

View attachment 771540
I still have a few things left to finish. So I think I'll share more images next week.
While many assume the images presented are mere marketing concepts, I believe they truly correspond to the F47.
Obviously, Donald Trump is familiar with the aircraft's design, and since this is the first time a president has announced the award of a multi-billion-dollar program, I don't think he (and the type of person he is) would do so based on sketches made by a Boeing marketing intern.
As was the case with the B2 and then the B21, the designs shown to us by the USAF correspond to the actual designs, with the "sensitive parts" hidden. On both the B2 and the B21, what was hidden were the exhaust outlets.
In the case of the F47, the "censored" part is its rear end. That's why I believe that's the "revolutionary" aspect of the concept presented by Boeing.
Although it may seem unbelievable, and as we saw with the Chinese designs, a tailless sixth-generation aircraft seems the norm, not something revolutionary.
That's why I believe (and I could obviously be very wrong) that the F47 could have either "platypus" tails or folding tails.
And that's why there's so much effort to hide that sensitive area of the plane.
I hope you like it!
And criticize me all you want!!! I'm used to it from my Instagram profile. 90% of it is criticism, haha.
Best regards!
Click to expand...
Great artwork Rodrigo, you always come through! What would this look like if the wing had an NATF-23 shape, I don't know if that would be possible?
 
So I ran the numbers on my current design. It's simplified but reasonably accurate, no fancy aerodynamics involved:

F47-My1-calc_concise.png

I'm heavily relying on Thrust-to-Weight ratio for this evaluation. It tells me 30k lb internal fuel is the upper limit where it's still an air dominance fighter. The ideal amount happens to be exactly 27k lb as I've specified before.
When including the freed volume of the intake ducts (due to now using to the intake on the back) makes it too heavy. That said it's still better than most fighters and slightly lower than the F22 (by 0.0x points). I'm just picky here. But since wingload is far lower it should still be more maneuverable than the F22.

So for fun I would like to tackle a mininum design version and see how that works out.
 
Going back to this image, I speculated that the black blobs concealed the absence of vertical stabilisers (and the presence of dorsal inlets, which I now consider very unlikely). Now like the dog that didn't bark, the absence of something can be as significant as its presence. These blobs could conceal the presence or absence of widely-spaced humps over the engines. If there are spaced humps, then there is likely to be a large central bay (with the possibility of a rotary launcher) and smaller side bays, a la YF-23 and B-21 (and J-36). If there are no humps, that would indicate that the engines close together, with shallow belly and side bays, like the F-22 (and J-50). The geometry of the bays would determine the range of weapons that can be carried and hence the missions that the plane can perform and therefore also its likely performance. In either case, those in charge of media releases ensured that they were going to leave as much uncertainty as they could.
 

Attachments

  • F47 copy.jpg
    F47 copy.jpg
    1,016.1 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
Seragina said:
So I ran the numbers on my current design. It's simplified but reasonably accurate, no fancy aerodynamics involved:

View attachment 771769

I'm heavily relying on Thrust-to-Weight ratio for this evaluation. It tells me 30k lb internal fuel is the upper limit where it's still an air dominance fighter. The ideal amount happens to be exactly 27k lb as I've specified before.
When including the freed volume of the intake ducts (due to now using to the intake on the back) makes it too heavy. That said it's still better than most fighters and slightly lower than the F22 (by 0.0x points). I'm just picky here. But since wingload is far lower it should still be more maneuverable than the F22.

So for fun I would like to tackle a mininum design version and see how that works out.
Click to expand...
Could be like a Flanker. Supposedly a Flanker with a full load of fuel takes a bigger hit than say an F-15 with a full load of fuel simply because of the difference in capacity.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Going back to this image, I speculated that the black blobs concealed the absence of vertical stabilisers (and the presence of dorsal inlets, which I now consider very unlikely). Now like the dog that didn't bark, the absence of something can be as significant as its presence. These blobs could conceal the presence or absence of widely-spaced humps over the engines. If there are spaced humps, then there is likely to be a large central bay (with the possibility of a rotary launcher) and smaller side bays, a la YF-23 and B-21 (and J-36). If there are no humps, that would indicate that the engines close together, with shallow belly and side bays, like the F-22 (and J-50). The geometry of the bays would determine the range of weapons that can be carried and hence the missions that the plane can perform and therefore also its likely performance. In either case, those in charge of media releases that they were going to leave as much uncertainty as they could.
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis. It's exactly what I thought.
Those two spots are either hiding something or making it seem like they're hiding something that doesn't really exist.
According to the second image, from what little can be seen, there doesn't seem to be enough longitudinal space for two very large engine humps. Because in this image, you should already be able to see where the "smoke" begins:
air-force-f-47-in-flight-high-res 2.jpg
So it's very likely that the engines are quite close together.
Apparently, Boeing has a habit of reviving old projects. The X-32 was reportedly a black project that evolved.
Even the X-32 could be considered a mini-version of Boeing's ATF proposal.
Even I see a certain resemblance between the F47 and that Boeing ATF proposal.
In all the maneuverability and stealth studies by McDonnell Douglas and NASA, the engines were very close together. Many of those models even have a common exhaust for both engines with a central splitter.
So, it's quite possible that this is also the case with the F47.
Even given how shallow the lower part of the nose is in the image you posted, I was even thinking of a center-style air intake, like the X32 or its ATF version.
Regards
 
Considering stealth and IWB my bet is still a larger back ridge and doral intakes. If you look back at Boeing's video of the demonstrator the inlets are further back than where the smoke starts so there's still room for uncertainty. Imho, being too far behind is bad for incoming air inflow at higher AoA, hence, my original pet idea of splitted air intake & ducts.
In any case I also believe it's a design moving closer toward a flying wing with a (seemingly) "shallower" belly. The question here is do dihedral wings improve stability or control & agility of a flying wing more. Otherwise they make no sense for a fighter.
Considering the possible volumes, fuel needed and packing efficiency imho it's a hard no for rotary launchers. Something like the F-108's rotary baydoor/launcher might be better but also unlikely:
North American XF-108_04.jpg

Centerline/nose intake wastes too much internal volume. which is why everyone abandoned it. Boeing's X32 was trying for better IR signature & cooling and likely thought it about combining VTOL ducts.
A common exhaust is a possibility but we are dealing with much higher air flow here than in the past.
I'm not so certain older designs are preferable this time around.

The Flanker was better despite being heavier fuel loaded is due to its superior aerodynamic. We now have vector thrust which gets rid of the shortcoming in aerodynamic but also bleeds more kinetic energy. Hence, thrust-to-weight ratio is more important to get back lost kinetics. Remember ATF requirement was asking for a ratio of 1.4. The F22 only got it to ~1.25 for both A2A and A2G.
 
Hello
I have a question.
As I've written several times in this forum, I think the red plane in the Voodoo II patch is the Voodoo II. And I'm even more convinced after seeing the renderings of the F47, which is the red plane in the patch with the addition of canards in front of the air intakes.
Here you can see the mirrored plane in the patch.

Vodoo-II.jpg
And my question is this: could those two large tails be the two engine exhaust outlets?
In the image I'm sharing, they would be the two black triangles.

Vodoo-II TOP.jpg
I know that in the event of an engine failure, the plane would become practically uncontrollable. Unless the electronics somehow compensated for that failure by activating the various control surfaces.
But this is an idea I always had when I saw that model in the patch. And when it was mentioned that Boeing had presented a revolutionary model.
It would also explain the need to hide the rear of the aircraft shown.
Having the engines in that orientation would facilitate yaw. Even using only differential thrust from one of the engines.
I'll leave it as a question. Because I was thinking of making a model with that configuration to see what it looks like.
Regards!
 
Last edited:
Nice find Rodrigo Avella, the design is certainly weird and one that is not like the others that are doing the rounds.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
I know that in the event of an engine failure, the plane would become practically uncontrollable. Unless the electronics somehow compensated for that failure by activating the various control surfaces.
Click to expand...
Rodrigo Avella said:
Having the engines in that orientation would facilitate yaw. Even using only differential thrust from one of the engines.
I'll leave it as a question. Because I was thinking of making a model with that configuration to see what it looks like.
Regards!
Click to expand...
Anything is possible. The question is: are the trade offs and or counter/corrections needed worth it or worse?
The real world example is with the israeli F15 that lost one wing.
wing.jpg
you need large wing (& tail) surfaces to gain control. Basically, having wing control effect being larger than whatever was lost or vs. dominating engine thrust.
This particular design lacks large wings and the exhaust area adding to visual frontal cross section area, meaning unnecessary diversion of air flow.
IF the engines have to be spread out I would prefer something like this:
F47-My2-0cropped.png

But this would mean a size growth like this:
VF-4_Yamato-14.jpg
with moveable suicidal "wing tip" like the polish PZL-230:

pzl-230-skorpion.jpg
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I have a question.
As I've written several times in this forum, I think the red plane in the Voodoo II patch is the Voodoo II. And I'm even more convinced after seeing the renderings of the F47, which is the red plane in the patch with the addition of canards in front of the air intakes.
Here you can see the mirrored plane in the patch.

View attachment 771852
And my question is this: could those two large tails be the two engine exhaust outlets?
In the image I'm sharing, they would be the two black triangles.

View attachment 771853
I know that in the event of an engine failure, the plane would become practically uncontrollable. Unless the electronics somehow compensated for that failure by activating the various control surfaces.
But this is an idea I always had when I saw that model in the patch. And when it was mentioned that Boeing had presented a revolutionary model.
It would also explain the need to hide the rear of the aircraft shown.
Having the engines in that orientation would facilitate yaw. Even using only differential thrust from one of the engines.
I'll leave it as a question. Because I was thinking of making a model with that configuration to see what it looks like.
Regards!
Click to expand...
Try this design it could be the revolutionary rear design
 
Rhinocrates said:
Going back to this image, I speculated that the black blobs concealed the absence of vertical stabilisers (and the presence of dorsal inlets, which I now consider very unlikely). Now like the dog that didn't bark, the absence of something can be as significant as its presence. These blobs could conceal the presence or absence of widely-spaced humps over the engines. If there are spaced humps, then there is likely to be a large central bay (with the possibility of a rotary launcher) and smaller side bays, a la YF-23 and B-21 (and J-36). If there are no humps, that would indicate that the engines close together, with shallow belly and side bays, like the F-22 (and J-50). The geometry of the bays would determine the range of weapons that can be carried and hence the missions that the plane can perform and therefore also its likely performance. In either case, those in charge of media releases ensured that they were going to leave as much uncertainty as they could.
Click to expand...
F47 copy.jpg
There is the possibilty that the source of light for the shadow is the front gear light , in this case the two bulbous shadows could be in fact the rear of the plane not the bottom , and in this case it match with the Rodrigo Voodoo-2 rear design idea.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello
I have a question.
As I've written several times in this forum, I think the red plane in the Voodoo II patch is the Voodoo II. And I'm even more convinced after seeing the renderings of the F47, which is the red plane in the patch with the addition of canards in front of the air intakes.
Here you can see the mirrored plane in the patch.

View attachment 771852
And my question is this: could those two large tails be the two engine exhaust outlets?
In the image I'm sharing, they would be the two black triangles.

View attachment 771853
I know that in the event of an engine failure, the plane would become practically uncontrollable. Unless the electronics somehow compensated for that failure by activating the various control surfaces.
But this is an idea I always had when I saw that model in the patch. And when it was mentioned that Boeing had presented a revolutionary model.
It would also explain the need to hide the rear of the aircraft shown.
Having the engines in that orientation would facilitate yaw. Even using only differential thrust from one of the engines.
I'll leave it as a question. Because I was thinking of making a model with that configuration to see what it looks like.
Regards!
Click to expand...
It could explain why add canards on the front of the F-47.
 
It looks like a similar planform to whatever this is. I dont know for sure if this is real but it was reported on a few days after the first chinese 6th gens had flown so if this image is real then its another aircraft the chinese are testing. Its probably unsurprising at this point that engineers on both sides are "arriving" at similar conclusions again given how similar the chinese 6th gen planforms are to the concept art for NGAD from before. I guess this could very much be a viable planform
 

Attachments

  • 1000003390.jpg
    1000003390.jpg
    4.5 KB · Views: 116
Last edited:
Low IQ Techie said:
While others are making exceptional shiny futuristic 3D models, i've to satisfy myself with 2D drawings. :D
So here is V3a & 3b of F-22 based prototype with Lambda wing getting popular & nose triangular & double delta.

View attachment 771336
Click to expand...

I should have posted this before F-47 announcement when advertisements about the preliminary NGAD design speculations of delta, cropped diamond wings were floating. So Versions 4, 5 related to that.
And then V6c like SR-72, Darkstar ;):cool:

1748789908009.png
1748789924616.png
1748790006561.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom