It does not necessarily mean LM's option costed less. As is speculated in this article, it could well mean Boeings costed more, but provided greater benefits somewhere that made extra cost worth it.
Though it could also mean that LM costed more too.
Let's also not forget that this could include industrial factors as well. Beyond F-15EX, Boeing St. Louis will only have the T-7 as a long-term project after that, whilst LM and NG will have F-35 and B-21 respectively (amongst others).
Let's also not forget that this could include industrial factors as well. Beyond F-15EX, Boeing St. Louis will only have the T-7 as a long-term project after that, whilst LM and NG will have F-35 and B-21 respectively (amongst others).
Industrial factors play a role if a particular company values future business. No one would be more interested in securing future business for St. Louis than Boeing. Certainly not the US Air Force. This gets reflected in what Boeing puts up in terms of investments to win future business including new franchise programs. Which is what they kind of did in making the single largest capital investment into St. Louis and other sites to be competitively positioned on future programs. While we see that most notably in the $2 Billion Boeing committed to investing in St. Louis expansion, and modernization, they likely would also have committed significant company funds in the design and development stage of its technologies it demonstrated under the AII umbrella. No one is going to go out and bat for your business more than you..so Boeing acted as one would expect them to which is really great news given some of the boneheaded moves the company's leaders have made in the recent past.
Oh, thank you so much Rodrigo! I'm honored that such a talented artist likes my work. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no experience with rendering... What program do you use?
Hello
I'm sharing another interpretation of what I suppose the F47 could be...
The model is 21.2 meters long and has a 19.2-meter wingspan. Regarding volume, according to my measurements, it's between 50% and 55% larger than an F22.
...
Hello!
My design is 55% larger than the F22. This is always compared to the F22 model I have as a reference.
On the other hand, I have a pretty well-made F22 model that a friend sent me a few years ago. I use it to compare volumes and dimensions. I have it in 3DS Max, but I can convert it to a format compatible with the program you use. Let me know what format would work for you, and I'll be happy to send you the model.
If you'd like, I can make some renders of your design. I'd love to. I have no doubt it would look fantastic and would be one of the most beautiful and believable sixth-generation fighter designs on the web, haha.
Best regards!!!
I can't 3D-model for the life of me, but I wanted to share my Ideas and contribute in some way, so I decided to sketch it:
I tried to base it as much as possible on the official renders we have, including the little outward "jump" of the OML behind the canards, and the shape of the cockpit.
The parts we don't know a lot about I based mainly on the Mcdonell Douglas / Boeing concept 2409, and the boeing YF-118g Bird of Prey, as I believe those two have the most similarities with the possible planform depicted in the 2 patches.
One aspect I'm still not very satisfied with is the space between the canards and the wings, which I feel like looks a lot shorter in the renders than it does in my sketch. I tried some other configuration but wasn't too satisfied with them.
I would love some feedback and suggestions to improve my concept, so please feel free to criticize any aspects you find to be unrealistic.
Hello
I made a modification to the nose. It now has more height at the bottom. Although it doesn't seem so, because it's quite wide, the nose is actually taller than an F-22.
Because of its height and width, it could accommodate a radar measuring up to 1.15 square meters, compared to the AN/APG-77's 0.65 square meters.
The wide, duck-billed noses appear narrower than they actually are. But they can accommodate a large internal volume.
Regards!
There's only one "common" planform on the two patches - the thunderbird tail part matches the same planform that's on the voodoo patch's collar.
I struggle to see how the gingerbread man planform has anything in common with those two still.
But then again. I also struggle to see how it's possible that the wings stretch far behind the fuselage unless it's purely artistic interpretation, but for the sake of people making guesses here.... would something like this be even aerodynamically viable? It might even explain the canards...(ignore the mesh wierdness this was a 5 minute mockup). The BoP planform doesn't look like it's maneuverable at all on a fighter jet.
Also in the firebird patch, there's a random little triangle sitting on the end of the fuselage too. No idea what that could be or if its even supposed to represent anything.
I'm going to be honest, if we're purely looking at this from a "The released images are of the actual plane" point of view, which is really up for debate, then Reddington and Rodrigo probably get closest.
But from an esthetic point of view VTOLicious has them beat. It might not be closest to the released image, but damn, we can but hope that the actual article looks this nice.
I know the F47 may feature a new aerodynamic design based on canards, but it's never been revealed. The F47 may be an aircraft with a tandem wing structure. It may be an aircraft with a dual main wing structure. The principle is that the vortex generated by the canard passes above the first main wing and then leads to the bottom of the second main wing. The second main wing has an upward angle. It may be a forward-swept V-shaped wing. In order to collect and merge the vortices generated by the canards, the aircraft will be surrounded by low-pressure vortices during flight. It cannot be photographed in real form. It may use plasma stealth with low-pressure airflow. The appearance of the F47 is unprecedented.
I am Taiwanese~This is just my whim~There is no evidence~Please read this article and laugh
There's only one "common" planform on the two patches - the thunderbird tail part matches the same planform that's on the voodoo patch's collar.
I struggle to see how the gingerbread man planform has anything in common with those two still.
But then again. I also struggle to see how it's possible that the wings stretch far behind the fuselage unless it's purely artistic interpretation, but for the sake of people making guesses here.... would something like this be even aerodynamically viable? It might even explain the canards...(ignore the mesh wierdness this was a 5 minute mockup). The BoP planform doesn't look like it's maneuverable at all on a fighter jet.
Also in the firebird patch, there's a random little triangle sitting on the end of the fuselage too. No idea what that could be or if its even supposed to represent anything.
Not wanting to toot my own trombone, but I think if you were to take the front third of my design, and the rear two thirds from Rodrigo's, I think you would have a reasonable guess.
(Assuming the press renders aren't total nonsense, etc)
Something I haven't seen discussed so far is what the black rhomboid shapes that surround the golden polygons in the SMO patch symbolize. While I was thinking about how they might relate to the geometry of the F-47, it occurred to me that they resemble the pattern in a radar cross section diagram. And, sure enough, when I looked at Boeing's ICE report, the diagrams in Appendix C were a close match to the pattern on the patch.
I'm not an expert in these matters, so I'll leave it to the community to decide the relevance of this information, but I thought it nonetheless important to bring it to all of your attention. Perhaps, if the correlation is true, it can help with your modelling, which I've been enjoying for quite some time – it's impressive to see how knowledgeable, dedicated and creative you all are.
Oh, and as a side note, has anyone noticed how, on the Voodoo II patch, the red piping of the witch doctor's coat could be interpreted as the light-beams of a directed energy weapon? Just an errant thought I had.
Something I haven't seen discussed so far is what the black rhomboid shapes that surround the golden polygons in the SMO patch symbolize. While I was thinking about how they might relate to the geometry of the F-47, it occurred to me that they resemble the pattern in a radar cross section diagram. And, sure enough, when I looked at Boeing's ICE report, the diagrams in Appendix C were a close match to the pattern on the patch.
I'm not an expert in these matters, so I'll leave it to the community to decide the relevance of this information, but I thought it nonetheless important to bring it to all of your attention. Perhaps, if the correlation is true, it can help with your modelling, which I've been enjoying for quite some time – it's impressive to see how knowledgeable, dedicated and creative you all are.
Something I haven't seen discussed so far is what the black rhomboid shapes that surround the golden polygons in the SMO patch symbolize. While I was thinking about how they might relate to the geometry of the F-47, it occurred to me that they resemble the pattern in a radar cross section diagram. And, sure enough, when I looked at Boeing's ICE report, the diagrams in Appendix C were a close match to the pattern on the patch.
I'm not an expert in these matters, so I'll leave it to the community to decide the relevance of this information, but I thought it nonetheless important to bring it to all of your attention. Perhaps, if the correlation is true, it can help with your modelling, which I've been enjoying for quite some time – it's impressive to see how knowledgeable, dedicated and creative you all are.
Oh, and as a side note, has anyone noticed how, on the Voodoo II patch, the red piping of the witch doctor's coat could be interpreted as the light-beams of a directed energy weapon? Just an errant thought I had.
Highly interesting find Just another Lurker, I am with Scott Kenny because of the nature of the subject matter. But if it did represent a possible directed energy weapon it would be strange to have a patch to reveal it.
I know the F47 may feature a new aerodynamic design based on canards, but it's never been revealed. The F47 may be an aircraft with a tandem wing structure. It may be an aircraft with a dual main wing structure. The principle is that the vortex generated by the canard passes above the first main wing and then leads to the bottom of the second main wing. The second main wing has an upward angle. It may be a forward-swept V-shaped wing. In order to collect and merge the vortices generated by the canards, the aircraft will be surrounded by low-pressure vortices during flight. It cannot be photographed in real form. It may use plasma stealth with low-pressure airflow. The appearance of the F47 is unprecedented.
I am Taiwanese~This is just my whim~There is no evidence~Please read this article and laugh
It would be nice to be able to use all the tech options avalable but alas the size limitation of a fighter (actual size and wave drag/Mach shock cone), the performance requirement (high AOA) and stealth requirements
pretty much make most of the options unuseable.
Bi-plane/multi-wing designs are no longer in use because at high AoA they become useless due to being in the wake shadow of the lower wing. The upper wing would have to be placed foward and essentially become a canard. Or further back and become elevons.... same thing.
I would love FSW that would also lower sonic boom but for higher Mach numbers they would need to be further back...increasing size etc. Besides the are bad for RCS.
Using bypass air to increase air flow over the wings would be the cheaper, "lighter" solution to these fancy wings.
I find myself revisiting the idea that substantially swept dihedral main wings that have anhedral tips might serve to shield the exhausts and further reduce the RF side profile of F-47… this might be a possible benefit from such a planform, no? Please shoot this down…
I've found new tidbits in one of the many ESAV papers that claims another weight saving of 7.7% TOGW based on aerolastic design. No details were given but I assume it's mostly wings and to a lesser decree fusalage body. This is airframe design specific and beyond my simplistic calculations so I'll skip this. Just making sure all options are at least mentioned.
Anyhow, with the conservative weight savings I went back to the original longer design version and increased wingspan to take advantage of this with better chord lengths. This increases aspect ratio (2.5 or 3.0; not final yet) and reduces wing drag due to them becoming thinner. It's still within "latest" (79's) NATO hangar size (20 m) but won't fit into earlier ones anymore.
As I've said in the beginning I assume a design that's closer to a blended wing (similar to the ICE plane if you will but still more practical/conventional).
This is were my older compact idea comes in: merging the main bays with the side bays while dividing them into 3 big bays side by side.
I've decided to remove the dorsal gun and its 1000 rounds magazin. This frees up space for the dorsal intakes to become more hull hugging.
Currently, the cross section area is about the same of that of the F-22 (but with larger NGAP intake area). But looking at it I realized it would still be able to accomodate conventional intakes with little adjustment but cross section area might be a bit larger than with dorsal intake. I'll leave that option open for now.
Going back to the longer design I decided to reintroduce the tandem bays. It's actually one bay with the separator being adjustable.
The reason this time being one bay could be housing the gun or later the HEL/DEW. It seems to me the current goal is to use the same DEW (pod/container) design to fit into manned aircrafts and drones alike. It seems the DEW form factor expectation is <10ft(3m) in length or 2 m^2; Gen 3 HEL 150 kW 1650 lb; 300 kW might exceed onboard power generation. I know total systems will.
Originally, I had adopted Japanese and German design cues and specifications. The reason my older design didn't fit well with the official USAF renderings.
Now, I'm reintroducing them back in because they fit well into this newer compact configuration (smaller cross section height). Their (old) major difference is the much higher internal & external payload specs for less range but same weight range.
Now Japan has switched for a longer range in GCAP. Germany went for a less capable design with FCAS... (export sales seems to be their industry's main concern rather than national need).
As you can see I went all out with the weapons bays especially the side ones. But this is just me showing you the possibilities.
The payload for ESAV was limited to 5218 lb (w/o racks) to 5430 lb (presumely total payload) (2000 lb more than F22). We don't know if that has changed so I assume this to be the minimum. With the new weight savings 5430 lb aligns with my old (heavy design payload) but fits into the lighter design's new calculations.
There's less than 50 lb TOGW difference from before; likewise MTOW remains the same. The main reason being me refusing to reduce any fuel amount. Some details might change but overall the total should remain unchanged. Details at a later date.
The weapons mix/arrangement is still up in the air but I assume the side bays will eventually be reduced to 2 missiles wide or 1x 1000 lb wide. At worse it's just one missile wide but in this case might become 2 stacked.
The center bays can fit 1x 2000 lb class size (GBU-31; GBU-72) or 2 (4) missiles or 2x 1000 lb or 2x AARGM-ER or 2x 2 (3)x SDB. It's possible to add 2 missiles if there's a single bomb but clearance space is less than standard requirement so I don't think it should.
There you have it the absolute max. possible bay sizes but allocated payload limit will limit their final volume setup.
Working off of some starting "visual parameters" on my model (and obviously a very much not rigorous way), I'm surprised how close I came to your wingspan estimation - 64.3 ft ( 19.6 m). Also, after playing around with:
a full length of no more than 68 ft
a cockpit of around 10 - 11 ft
a length to wingspan ratio of around 1.04
wing sweep between 43 - 45
13.5 ft engine (no nozzles and already reduced from F-119 length) + the paddle like exhaust
The best planform I could come up with that could more or less comfortably fit the intakes, exhaust and weapon bays also happens to be a lambda winged fighter with wide wing roots similar to yours. I ended up with an aspect ratio of 2.74.
I feel like a lot of the designs in this thread are sorta converging on the same planform with what clues we have to work with - both using the renders and using available papers on relevant tech.
Regarding the intakes:
I found though, that working off the assumptions above, I struggled a lot to fit dorsal intakes onto the fighter. I tried anyway because the little triangle on the firebir d patch made me want to try a single large dorsal intake. Given the dorsal surface of the render (and the location of the triangle on the patch) the intake has to be quite a bit further back than the comparable ventral intake design for it to be invisible in the render without leaving any sign of being "painted away".
My unrigorous conclusion is that either the giant paddle exhausts aren't a thing, my engine is too long, 68 ft nose to tail is too short, or someone really did some magic on the render to create a new dorsal surface for it without a single hint of a dorsal intake.
You can make it work like below (shortened and curve the paddle exhausts quite a bit), but it's a really really tight fit. Given how much volume and mass appears to be above the chine line of this plane and how relatively shallow the underbelly appears to be (even after playing around with a lot of different angles, curves and smoothing), I think ventral intakes is the most likely option.
I am curious about the intake design / splitter for a ventral intake. Initially, I explored what a splitter would look like, but I had some other ideas too regarding a variable DSI intake.
Would it be feasible to have the splitter be deep into the intakes and hidden by the DSI? Or using the DSI itself as the splitter and switch between side by side intake and a single large intake?
The best planform I could come up with that could more or less comfortably fit the intakes, exhaust and weapon bays also happens to be a lambda winged fighter with wide wing roots similar to yours. I ended up with an aspect ratio of 2.74.
I feel like a lot of the designs in this thread are sorta converging on the same planform with what clues we have to work with - both using the renders and using available papers on relevant tech.
The constraints, geometric/size limits and physics are the same so there's bound to be little difference in these metric.
LM's ESAV series has (civilian) like wings with ridiculous high aspect ratios which naturally come with high deflections and llikely not preferable for stealth let alone wing hardpoints. That said I think 3.0 is the max tolerable so I do want to hit it but so far I get "uneven" area distribution.
I found though, that working off the assumptions above, I struggled a lot to fit dorsal intakes onto the fighter. I tried anyway because the little triangle on the firebir d patch made me want to try a single large dorsal intake. Given the dorsal surface of the render (and the location of the triangle on the patch) the intake has to be quite a bit further back than the comparable ventral intake design for it to be invisible in the render without leaving any sign of being "painted away".
My unrigorous conclusion is that either the giant paddle exhausts aren't a thing, my engine is too long, 68 ft nose to tail is too short, or someone really did some magic on the render to create a new dorsal surface for it without a single hint of a dorsal intake.
It's not that large paddle aren't good in term of stealth they just are heavy to move requiring larger actuators etc. and perhaps not as agile as the smaller F-22 version.
I am curious about the intake design / splitter for a ventral intake. Initially, I explored what a splitter would look like, but I had some other ideas too regarding a variable DSI intake.
Would it be feasible to have the splitter be deep into the intakes and hidden by the DSI? Or using the DSI itself as the splitter and switch between side by side intake and a single large intake?
The splitter should be placed as far ahead as possible to reduce turbulence. For the same reason it shouldn't be on the DSI (makes dealing with the extra turbulence troublesome to control is my guess).
This is the best example I could find:
The splitter should be placed as far ahead as possible to reduce turbulence. For the same reason it shouldn't be on the DSI (makes dealing with the extra turbulence troublesome to control is my guess).
You can't get around spliting at some point. A perhaps secret technique is to use vortex generators to create leading streams in a specific directions. But this is something you do ahead of the intake. Imho this is a trick to be used by dorsal intakes anyway.
You can't get around spliting at some point. A perhaps secret technique is to use vortex generators to create leading streams in a specific directions. But this is something you do ahead of the intake. Imho this is a trick to be used by dorsal intakes anyway.
The problem with this is at a combination of high alpha and yaw, you would get those vortices flowing into the inlet, which is the last thing you would want. If they are dorsal inlets, I would expect them to be like the Northrop F/A-XX design where they are located just above the strake and set slightly back, so that any vortex generated would pass over the inlet, instead of in the inlet. Having said that, I think the F-47 will have ventral inlets, one for each engine.
The problem with this is at a combination of high alpha and yaw, you would get those vortices flowing into the inlet, which is the last thing you would want. If they are dorsal inlets, I would expect them to be like the Northrop F/A-XX design where they are located just above the strake and set slightly back, so that any vortex generated would pass over the inlet, instead of in the inlet. Having said that, I think the F-47 will have ventral inlets, one for each engine.
But this might have been how B-21 ones work:
(Fom the german institution that seems to do most of the NATO basic projects; from 2015)
It seems to me a lot of less known minor "things" might get used this time around. And I think I might have found the reason dihedrals are being used now. It's niche and it's hard to find more research backings.
Seeing the Shield X-Bat using an airflow control (AFC) system. I think I should revise my expectation/opinion about this technology's maturity. According to last NATO research report dated 2019, it was at technology readiness level (TRL) 5. So I've to assume it has passed TRL6 and it's been given to this new small enterprise in order to get a supply chain going up. And a few years later when all the shiny 6th gens come out there would be plenty of part choices available with a robust and healthy supply chain in operation.
The other conclusion is if AFC turns out to be good it might be able to replace F-22 TVC types, hence, the exhaust design choice could turn toward more stealthy solutions.
Now onto my nerdy but simple detailed calculations.
Mass Fraction empirical rule of thumbs (modified)
I'll skip most of the finer details and waive their precise calculations. It would be too a long list with minuscule fractions. Consider these mostly rule of thumbs with up to 5% uncertainty in those being skipped over.
My old light design had 78590 lb GTOW without externals.
Note: LM's ESAV model variants were mostly lighter with the same payload, with less fuel, extreme fuel efficiency and assuming more efficient (passenger aircraft like) lambda wings.
I've applied my conservative take of 2/3 of the 15-20% savings from last time to the structure which only resulted in a 2% overall change.
I moved the savings to the payload fraction, increasing it from 5% to 7%.
Note: I'm applying rounding rules for ordnance & fuel that are used for design safety calculations and are typical military manual rule of thumbs.
Based on desired payload:
• Payload 7%: 5430 lb (ordance+racks) => rounded up (adds safety) 5500 lb => GTOW 78571 lb -> 0.02% difference
• Fuel 40% => 31436 lb (10% trapped fuel, <90% useable fuel, additives)
=> filled 18202 L => assuming volume 19m³ (includes structures, pipes plumbing, pumps etc.)
=> useable fuel 28123 lb or 4197.5 US gal JP-8 at 6.7lb/US gal => 35.785%
=> rounded down (adds safety) 28000 lb / 4179 US gal =>35.637% fuel fraction (for range and consumption calculation & this would be official data sheet release numbers)
=> rounded up (adds safety) 31500 lb (for weight calculation)
OEM 53%:
• Structure 24% => 18861.6 lb => 18900 lb
• System 8.7%: 6836 lb (evolving & subject to increase)
• Power(engine) 13.4%: ~10500 lb (rounded up)
• Crew: pilot 245 lb + 132 lb (suit+eq)
• Contingency ~1%: 785.71 lb => 1000 lb ~0.7 m³
• Furnishing 0.925%: 728 lb
• unaccounted 4.975%: towed decoy; expendable electronic decoys; chaff; flare; etc
Total : 75341 lb (3230 lb unaccounted = 4.11% error margin)
removed:
M61A2+1000 rounds+feed system+gun oil: 996.38 lb; can be counted toward weapons payload if it occupies a bay; or if fixed in the wing root would count toward unaccounted
Aircraft Volume
Since I haven't made a 3D model yet for a reason this is just theoretical & estimations.
fuel tanks (see above) 19m³
weapons bays (with 10% extra):
side 8.75 m³ (3 missile wide); center 6.3 m³ = 15.05 m³
side 5.85 m³ (2 missile wide); center 6.3 m³ = 12.15 m³
engines+ducts: 2*0.8*12.5*0.9=18 m³
forebody: L7.5*W1.25*H1.636*roundish(412002/(1370*568))*ogive-ish(8235042/12270000)=5.45 m³ but partially occupied by ~15.5% fuel tanks! => *0.845=4.6137 m³
wings: 1200 ft² = 111.5 m² : ~8.2 m³ (F22 ~6.8 m³); 0.8 useable volume (ESAV rule) -> 0.7 fuel tank => 8.2*0.3=2.46 m³
unaccounted,empty,contingency space, design contingency tanks, design optional tanks: ~2 m³ (arbitrary)
19+12,15+18+4,6137+2,46+2=58,2237
=> total:58.2237 to 61.1237 m³ (for different side bays)
real world check:
DOI:10.2514/6.2014-2426 : high supersonic vehicle density 25 lb/ft³ < vehicle < 50 lb/ft³
=> average 37.5 lb/ft³
estimate total: 78571/37.5=2095.227 ft³ = 59.330221534416384 m³
There's a -1.865% to +3% difference. This fits unexpectedly too well.
This means the design leans on the less dense mass.
This means I could keep the full sized side bays, unless the intake S-ducts do require more space.
It certainly is a safer bet to go with just 2-missile-wide side bays.
BAe had prior stealth experience (much less publicised than FOAS and Replica) which went into JSF, as FOAS was only beginning when the UK entered into JSF and Replica came after afaik
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
