CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

targetpractice said:
I don't disagree it looks... lumpy. Some thoughts:
  • At the moment I'm digging into the idea that the official images are presented in a misleading way, but essentially contain a real plane.
  • On that assumption, I'm trying to make something that both matches the official images, and still looks like a vaguely sensible machine.
  • My plane is approx. 20m long, mainly to accommodate some engines which are a bit bigger than F119s, and some big missiles. I was also thinking about the SU-57 and J-20 as good comparisons for role/range.
  • Here's a side-by-side comparison with the F-22. The new canopy is definitely wider, but I feel it looks less wonky in the side and topdown views (please excuse the crappy renders)
View attachment 775804
  • (Looking at it now, my plane is MASSIVE. I suspect the canopy would look even less whacky if I were to go for smaller engines and lopped a couple of metres off the length)
  • Also worth noting that a bunch of the Boeing NGAD and FA-XX renders feature hugenormous canopies, so there is precedent for something similar here.
View attachment 775806

  • Finally, the dihedral. I've argued against its existence in the past, but having pushed this model around for a while, I'm struggling to think of any other way of explaining what is in those images. Always happy to be proven wrong though!
Click to expand...
The single inlet could work as long if the fan faces are properly attenuated for LO and designed in the manner where if there was a compressor stall in one of the engines it would not disrupt the shockwave and airflow to other. As an example as everyone knows, each pair of B-2 engines shares a common inlet and during in-flight inlet distortion testing where we went to max AOA and max AOS and rammed the throttles rapidly back and forth, no compressor stalls, which was great. Now granted, the B-2 is definitely not a fighter and newer engines and there engine controls/software keep the engines lit no matter what.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
From knowledgable guys like some of you my expectation was a labeled diagram, an online calculator.
But anyways, Thanks, that's a useful doc.
I guess i'll have to do all the homework. Knowledge of right keywords is very important for a precise & fast google search.
But that free trial still asks for credit/debit card # :mad:



​
​
Click to expand...
Sorry about the link, I thought that was the one where you could download the whole handbook for free. Google the title and you might be able to find a better link.

The table that is easiest to use starts on Page 72. It lists P2 and T2 at various Mn and altitudes in 5000 ft increments using a standard inlet recovery at standard day conditions.

Ref your question regarding variable blade incidence for the velocity triangles, there has been some research on variable pitch blades on large single stage high bypass fans, but for the vast majority of designs the blade angle is fixed. However, variable stator vanes are extensively used to change the angle of the air flow approaching the blade. At low rotor speeds, the variable vane is moved in the cambered direction deflecting the flow in the direction of rotation, lowering the angle of attack of the blades and reducing the airflow of the front end of the fan or compressor to match the low speed flow capacity of the back end of the compressor. As the corrected rotor speed increases, the variable vanes are moved towards the axial alignment which increases the blade angle of attack and increases the stage flow.
 
Hydroman said:
The single inlet could work as long if the fan faces are properly attenuated for LO and designed in the manner where if there was a compressor stall in one of the engines it would not disrupt the shockwave and airflow to other. As an example as everyone knows, each pair of B-2 engines shares a common inlet and during in-flight inlet distortion testing where we went to max AOA and max AOS and rammed the throttles rapidly back and forth, no compressor stalls, which was great. Now granted, the B-2 is definitely not a fighter and newer engines and there engine controls/software keep the engines lit no matter what.
Click to expand...
targetpractice said:
Including nozzle, I'm estimating 10m in length for the XA103, does that seem sensible?
Click to expand...
I looked it up including the patent drawings before posting my first drawing for the USAF renders. The length difference was less than 1 m:
F119,XA102,XA103-matching.png
Still oversized for legacy but not too bad for a new design.

As for the video if it take the diameter (1.2m) as the base the setup is only 6-7.8 m long. The engine itself seemss to be ~3.6m.
So at worse this is 1.8 longer.
 
Seragina said:
I looked it up including the patent drawings before posting my first drawing for the USAF renders. The length difference was less than 1 m:
View attachment 775899
Still oversized for legacy but not too bad for a new design.

As for the video if it take the diameter (1.2m) as the base the setup is only 6-7.8 m long. The engine itself seemss to be ~3.6m.
So at worse this is 1.8 longer.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks!
 
As to the long engine nozzles, that strongly suggests to me that the aircraft has two tandem bays, not a pair of wide bays up front.




Yellow Palace said:
It's more likely than you think. There are absolutely industry people on here, alongside the plagiarising journalists. Just obviously not discussing active projects.
Click to expand...
I just wish I could read their Teams/Slack: "hey, have you seen what they're BSing about for [the program]?"
 
Scott Kenny said:
As to the long engine nozzles, that strongly suggests to me that the aircraft has two tandem bays, not a pair of wide bays up front.
Click to expand...

VTOLicious said:
I've always assumed a flat nozzle, most likely including yaw TVC (+ flaps used for pitch/roll TVC at the rear end of the fuselage)...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ion-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793/post-794740

View attachment 775859
View attachment 775858
Click to expand...
Yeah the tandem bays look good, but with bays that far apart, wouldn't that have less thrust efficiency than side by side engines?

Im guessing if the yf-23 could get away with it though, it probably isnt that much of an issue
 
In theory, the farther away from the center of mass the less thrust efficient. But this applies more to space craft than aircraft.
Wings and other body parts add their own counter or spin leading to more stability and control options.
Fighters being small, the effect is less of a problem than them causing directional imbalance.
 
Now we've seen the engine, any predictions or references for what the nozzle might look like?
 
Reddington777 said:
Yeah the tandem bays look good, but with bays that far apart, wouldn't that have less thrust efficiency than side by side engines?

Im guessing if the yf-23 could get away with it though, it probably isnt that much of an issue
Click to expand...
no
 
I see these gigantic exhaust outlets in the P&W video, and I can't stop thinking about the red plane in the Voodoo II patch and its strange gingerbread man shape with "legs."
patch-voddo II editado.jpg
As I asked in this forum, could those "legs" be gigantic exhaust outlets?
If we look at these images from the official P&W video, the plane also appears to have legs, but in this case, straight, not oblique.
I find it strange that a company like P&W doesn't hire a modeler to modify the model (my model in this case, haha) so that the engine outlets fit. Unless these exhaust outlets extending from the fuselage are a feature of the new NGAD.

01.jpg
02.jpg

I'm sharing this image again, though I don't know if it would make any sense from a practical or theoretical standpoint.
Perhaps from a differential thrust standpoint:
Vodoo-II TOP.jpg

What I understand is that with outlets like this, the plane would be quite unstable, perhaps hence the dihedral wings.
Best regards!
 
Last edited:
This is surely why the rear of the craft is not on the rendering.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodrigo Avella said:
I see these gigantic exhaust outlets in the P&W video, and I can't stop thinking about the red plane in the Voodoo II patch and its strange gingerbread man shape with "legs."
Click to expand...
There's conception that red plane doll (a victim projection) in Vodoo witcher hand symbolizes an enemy plane (in BLUEFOR / REDFOR confrontation) .
 
Last edited:
Built a glide demonstrator/surface effector model and I am impressed at the effectiveness. Low speed "landing" configurations, yaw deflection, and turning maneuvers were cool. Made a mock landing setup with LE Slats deflected and it practically floated. (Also has dihedral)
 

Attachments

  • 20250628_114106.jpg
    20250628_114106.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 140
  • 20250628_114047.jpg
    20250628_114047.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 130
  • 20250628_114043.jpg
    20250628_114043.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 126
  • F47 cutout.png
    F47 cutout.png
    15.4 KB · Views: 169
flateric said:
There's conception thast red plane doll (a victim projection) in Vodoo witcher hand symbolizes an enemy plane (in BLUEFOR / REDFOR confrontation) .
Click to expand...
Admittedly, there are very few pixels doing a lot of work, but my full-Mulder interpretation is that this patch is for the Boeing demonstrator team, with the collar/cape representing their machine (halfway between the BOP and the recent renders), and the red plane their MD competitor.
 

Attachments

  • Voodoo Patch (1).png
    Voodoo Patch (1).png
    908.5 KB · Views: 202
FlyGuy369 said:
Built a glide demonstrator/surface effector model and I am impressed at the effectiveness. Low speed "landing" configurations, yaw deflection, and turning maneuvers were cool. Made a mock landing setup with LE Slats deflected and it practically floated. (Also has dihedral)
Click to expand...
Nice work.

Rodrigo Avella said:
If we look at these images from the official P&W video, the plane also appears to have legs, but in this case, straight, not oblique.
I find it strange that a company like P&W doesn't hire a modeler to modify the model (my model in this case, haha) so that the engine outlets fit. Unless these exhaust outlets extending from the fuselage are a feature of the new NGAD.
Click to expand...

Boeing (I think) has an alternative thrust vectoring patent using bypass air to control and redirect the exhaust. This fits well into the 3rd stream design idea. Though it's bad for bypass ratio or requirement (need to be bigger) and efficiency.
So exhaust outlets don't have to be moveable. They just need to be polygonal for stealth reasons.
Like the inlets there are many possible choices here.

On a side note the B-21 exhaust was also speculated to be spreading out similarly based on past design drawings. But it seems it's actually almost the same as the B-2.
 
targetpractice said:
Admittedly, there are very few pixels doing a lot of work, but my full-Mulder interpretation is that this patch is for the Boeing demonstrator team, with the collar/cape representing their machine (halfway between the BOP and the recent renders), and the red plane their MD competitor.
Click to expand...
Good catch for the patch.
 
Looking up for wider placement of engine nacelles on fighters I found this paper on a Mach 2.5 aircraft publish before the NGAD program.
Sadly, the paper didn't go into the design at all and mostly talked about the B58 as reference and similar old aircrafts.
But the placement is rouggly in line with most of Boeing's released images of the F/A-XX at least as far as the wide placement is concerned. These represent at least a consistent narrative for engine placement like with the video above.
M2.5-design-figure_005.png

Apparently, this isn't desired mainly due to the size the aircraft would have. Welp, I did post an example like this before with a different planform.
Also it doesn't look that maneuverable. Asuming the chinese will make theirs better than the F22 and NGAD still getting to be finalized we can assume it's going to be made better. The J-50 apparently is designed around M2. I assume that's the new bar for sustained maneuerability here.
 
VTOLicious said:
;)

View attachment 776274
Click to expand...
How much rcs increase( in both x and lower bandwidth like L band and VHF, ) will it have if we were to add a pair of small all moving vertical stabilizers on it?, simular to su57's vertical stabilizers.
1000013531.png
1000013535.png
Would be quite beneficial for yaw, some pitch too, and overall maneuverability in general.
 
Last edited:
Rodrigo Avella said:
I see these gigantic exhaust outlets in the P&W video, and I can't stop thinking about the red plane in the Voodoo II patch and its strange gingerbread man shape with "legs."
View attachment 776094
As I asked in this forum, could those "legs" be gigantic exhaust outlets?
If we look at these images from the official P&W video, the plane also appears to have legs, but in this case, straight, not oblique.
I find it strange that a company like P&W doesn't hire a modeler to modify the model (my model in this case, haha) so that the engine outlets fit. Unless these exhaust outlets extending from the fuselage are a feature of the new NGAD.

View attachment 776095
View attachment 776096

I'm sharing this image again, though I don't know if it would make any sense from a practical or theoretical standpoint.
Perhaps from a differential thrust standpoint:
View attachment 776098

What I understand is that with outlets like this, the plane would be quite unstable, perhaps hence the dihedral wings.
Best regards!
Click to expand...

It is technically possible. Earlier i was thinking of yaw moment. But F117's exhausts are also angled like this. The engine & tail pipe would remain longitudinal, just the inner exhaust edge extends back more.
At slow speed the engine would provide higher speed air than ambient, deflected by control surface giving more authority.
The weight of control surface will increase, being made of high temp. materials & permanently grey or black color.
 
targetpractice said:
How often does this happen, and how much of a problem if it does?
Click to expand...
Depends how would engine fail -
- internal H/w issues
- internal S/w issues
- bird strike
- hotter air ingestion
- compressor stall at low density

So redundancy & safety have to be thought in design phase itself.
 
targetpractice said:
Admittedly, there are very few pixels doing a lot of work, but my full-Mulder interpretation is that this patch is for the Boeing demonstrator team, with the collar/cape representing their machine (halfway between the BOP and the recent renders), and the red plane their MD competitor.
Click to expand...

In terms of clues to NGAD's design in the patch - A voodoo sorcerer (oungan) uses a voodoo doll to attack their opponents at a distance, out of sight.

1751303685695.png

Thus, the little red plane held by the sorcerer in the patch:

1751303658281.png
... Represents the CCA/Loyal Wingman which the F-47 controls. It even resembles a Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat, especially in the tail section.

1751303881102.png

Cheers!
 
Low IQ Techie said:
I would expect it to be at least 22m long.
The nozzles have to be hidded from side so wing TERX extended back.
Click to expand...
Total aircraft length is actually secondary. Look at the F-22 - The horizontal stabilizers extend far beyond the actual body. What matters is the volume of the airframe and the associated space for fuel, weapons, and whatever else you need to accomplish the mission. Hence my aim was to design something in the order of magnitude of the F-22, but with increased airframe volume. To do so, I chose wide spaced engines and tandem bays, wraped in a blended-wing-body airframe - Imho a very efficient layout.

I think the exhaust nozzles in my concept are actually hidden pretty well. Additional factors come into play if you want full TVC (pitch/roll/yaw) - tradeoffs! Btw, we don't even know yet if F-47 will feature TVC at all. This will definitely effect the shape of the nozzles and the rear of the airframe.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom