ProjectFear alleged Boeing NGAD F-47 demonstrator video - June 2026

It could be a real tech demonstrator of some kind. Although in this day and age I wonder if the contractors working out there would be willing to throw together a simple drone with a particular wing shape and have it do some circles above Area 51 solely for the purpose of having people guessing what the hell it was for the next several years.
 
Think about it, when they said that the rendering at the contract announcement wasn't the F-47, it is because it wasn't, it was the tech demonstrator. I feel that what we have seen in the FLIR image and the two images of the "not-the-F-47" are the same plane. I mean, the shovel nose, canards, dihedral-anhedral wing layout, even down to the fact that the fuselage line behind the canard is slightly wider in all three images is VERY telling.

Edit:

Whatever Reddington whipped up back in December is probably the closest I've seen to this.
 

Attachments

  • 8928856A_ff7bc6.jpg
    8928856A_ff7bc6.jpg
    847 KB · Views: 245
  • F-47-artist-rendition_(cropped).jpg
    F-47-artist-rendition_(cropped).jpg
    999.8 KB · Views: 119
  • HJ-NdINa4AA2stQ.jpeg
    HJ-NdINa4AA2stQ.jpeg
    53.1 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:
Threw together a rudimentary mock up of it somewhat based on my old model. Didn't really bother with making everything detailed or match up this time. Just made it to see how it compares.
 

Attachments

  • 1780629598165.png
    1780629598165.png
    195.9 KB · Views: 194
  • 1780629722274.png
    1780629722274.png
    133.8 KB · Views: 172
  • 1780629796848.png
    1780629796848.png
    137.4 KB · Views: 186
  • 1780629939774.png
    1780629939774.png
    167.9 KB · Views: 236
Last edited by a moderator:
flateric said:
As @Not James Stockdale said, lack of exhaust plumes on IR image should give you some idea of authenticity
Click to expand...
You’re only getting half the story of this you need to look on the Dreamland Resort forum for the full story. Where a gentleman called Anders, who seems to be well respected on there, was vouching for it.

Anyway they are supposed to be publishing a video as well, at least according to that forum.
 
flateric said:
F-47 will not fly before 2028
Click to expand...
I've been saying for a year that the Boeing demonstrator was extremely close to the production representative aircraft.

I just searched my profile and I have mentioned the Rafale in 22 separate posts in NGAD/F/A-XX threads on this forum. The Rafale A was a technology demonstrator and then Dassault made the Rafale C and M production versions for their Air Force and Navy. Boeing can also offer their design to both services.

The Boeing MQ-25 and T-7 prototypes were extremely close to the production versions. Everything is designed digitally so there will be very minor changes.

The Boeing demonstrator is effectively the F-47 prototype.

ginkgo_thruster said:
lol why everyone think that have to F-47? NGAD competition ended March 2025, F-47 EMD prototype is not yet ready.
Click to expand...
All the people who have been arguing with me are now extremely confused.

There is no point continuing to fly the Boeing demonstrator unless it was production representative from an aerodynamic perspective.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
I've been saying for a year that the Boeing demonstrator was extremely close to the production representative aircraft.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make you correct.

insidersource said:
I just searched my profile and I have mentioned the Rafale in 22 separate posts in NGAD/F/A-XX threads on this forum. The Rafale A was a technology demonstrator and then Dassault made the Rafale C and M production versions for their Air Force and Navy. Boeing can also offer their design to both services.
Click to expand...
This demonstration of how annoyingly repetitive your posts are is not winning you any awards. Can't see relevance of Rafale to Boeing NGAD.
insidersource said:
The Boeing MQ-25 and T-7 prototypes were extremely close to the production versions. Everything is designed digitally so there will be very minor changes.
Click to expand...
Yes, their prototypes were close to production.
insidersource said:
The Boeing demonstrator is effectively the F-47 prototype.
Click to expand...
Demonstrator is not a prototype.

insidersource said:
All the people who have been arguing with me are now extremely confused.
Click to expand...
Everyone reading your posts is confused why you are so certain you are right in the absence of any evidence.

insidersource said:
There is no point continuing to fly the Boeing demonstrator unless it was production representative from an aerodynamic perspective.
Click to expand...
You are literally making up stuff. Again.

1) Is this real?

2) Is it the Boeing demonstrator?

3) Was the sole purpose of the Boeing demonstrator to test a specific aerodynamic perspective?
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Demonstrator is not a prototype.
Click to expand...
The Rafale A was called a demonstrator. Yet about 80% of the primary structure was dimensionally the same to the production version. The wing sweep was identical. Canopy was the same. The production version had a slightly smaller nose and shorter nozzles on the M88 engines. Yet it was called a demonstrator.

The YF22 was called a prototype. Yet less than 10% of the parts were carried over to the production version. The wing sweep was changed from 48 to 42 degrees. Every mold line and panel gap was recalculated for stealth. Every bulkhead was changed. The canopy moved forward. Intakes moved back.

Yet they still called the YF22 a prototype.

A prototype by definition is meant to more closely match the production aircraft. A demonstrator does not have to be close to a production aircraft.

By definition this makes the YF22 the demonstrator and the Rafale A the prototype.

The Boeing aircraft shown is a prototype by definition. Feel free to call it a demonstrator. It doesn't make much difference.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
3) Was the sole purpose of the Boeing demonstrator to test a specific aerodynamic perspective?
Click to expand...
The sole purpose was to do a cleansweep of both programs.

Boeing's plan was never to do the bare minimum to satisfy the demonstration requirements. Boeing went all in. They invested billions in a new production facility to prove how serious they are. They built a design that was as close to production representative as possible.

I'm super excited when the F/A-XX is selected for obvious reasons.
 
Afterthought and question, Quellish, what is your take? You have pictures of the demonstrator, can we get a thumbs up or thumbs down?
 
insidersource said:
The Boeing aircraft shown is a prototype by definition. Feel free to call it a demonstrator. It doesn't make much difference.

The sole purpose was to do a cleansweep of both programs.

Boeing's plan was never to do the bare minimum to satisfy the demonstration requirements. Boeing went all in. They invested billions in a new production facility to prove how serious they are. They built a design that was as close to production representative as possible.

I'm super excited when the F/A-XX is selected for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm convinced, Its amazing how much you know about this. You are clearly Boeing CEO "Kelly" Ortberg.
 
Hey Reddington are you planning on doing a full refine to match the photo?
 
insidersource said:
The Rafale A was called a demonstrator. Yet about 80% of the primary structure was dimensionally the same to the production version. The wing sweep was identical. Canopy was the same. The production version had a slightly smaller nose and shorter nozzles on the M88 engines. Yet it was called a demonstrator.

The YF22 was called a prototype. Yet less than 10% of the parts were carried over to the production version. The wing sweep was changed from 48 to 42 degrees. Every mold line and panel gap was recalculated for stealth. Every bulkhead was changed. The canopy moved forward. Intakes moved back.

Yet they still called the YF22 a prototype.

A prototype by definition is meant to more closely match the production aircraft. A demonstrator does not have to be close to a production aircraft.

By definition this makes the YF22 the demonstrator and the Rafale A the prototype.
Click to expand...

Both your examples are tech demonstrators, not prototypes. YF-22 and YF-23 were built as part of Dem/Val phase of ATF. They were built to demonstrate and validate key capabilities such as supercruise for each vendor. The EMD design of F-22 has only a vague overall configuration resemblance to YF-22.

Rafale-A was also built a tech demonstrator. There was no plan to build a Rafale yet when it was built. However, the Rafale-C was certainly closer to Rafale-A in layout than EAP was to Typhoon, or YF-22 to F-22. Rafale C was smaller, used completely different engines to Rafale A (F404 to M88, not "shorter nozzles on the M88 engines") and refined many details. I would be surprised if there is any actual commonality between then except the general configuration.

France ordered prototype Rafale C01, B01 and M01 & M02 in 1988. Because they needed prototypes, because Rafale-A was a tech demonstrator.
 
Last edited:
FlyGuy369 said:
Hey Reddington are you planning on doing a full refine to match the photo?
Click to expand...
How about we wait to see the video and decide if its genuine first?
Reddington777 said:
Surely if they named themselves insider source than they must be an insider source! Everyone is exactly who they say they are on the internet!

/s
Click to expand...
True of course, Raymond.
1780668640377.png
 
insidersource said:
Yet they still called the YF22 a prototype.

A prototype by definition is meant to more closely match the production aircraft. A demonstrator does not have to be close to a production aircraft.

By definition this makes the YF22 the demonstrator and the Rafale A the prototype.
Click to expand...
English is a sloppy language, we readily bend definitions to suit. The real prototypes of both F-22, Rafale and Eurofighter were the production representative EMD aircraft, so the Block 1/2/10 F-22s, Rafales C01, B01 and M01/02, and Eurofighters DA1-7.
 
So....

Their description of channel

PROJECT FEAR​

DescriptionWelcome To Project Fear! We created the TV show "Destination Fear" and now our haunted adventures continue. On this YouTube channel we will create paranormal road trips, exploration videos, and go ghost hunting. From abandoned asylums to demonic prisons,

Perhaps the video is going to be genuine, but have they really caught something extraordinary on their first attempt at filming in the desert of Are 51 when many many regular visitors have seen nothing? hmmmm

I've not watched any of their videos, but i'm assuming there the "scary ghost feeling" type that are "scripted"

Ill watch it on YT when it come out, with a large pinch of salt.
 
Only a few more hours to the supposed full release Overscan, guess we will see!
 
insidersource said:
The Rafale A was called a demonstrator. Yet about 80% of the primary structure was dimensionally the same to the production version. The wing sweep was identical. Canopy was the same. The production version had a slightly smaller nose and shorter nozzles on the M88 engines. Yet it was called a demonstrator.
Click to expand...

80% dimensionally the same? Really?
The Rafale A was larger in every dimension than any following Rafale (53cm longer, 34cm wider), and even one full ton heavier... Even the material used evolved for production models.


overscan (PaulMM) said:
Rafale-A was also built a tech demonstrator. There was no plan to build a Rafale yet when it was built. However, the Rafale-C was certainly closer to Rafale-A in layout than EAP was to Typhoon, or YF-22 to F-22. Rafale C was smaller, used completely different engines to Rafale A (F404 to M88, not "shorter nozzles on the M88 engines") and refined many details. I would be surprised if there is any actual commonality between then except the general configuration.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that between the Rafale demonstrator and production, only the main landing wheels were not redesigned...
 
Well, it does look like a consistent 3D object with potential F-47 related shape viewed from various angles, with downturned wingtips and canards, but it appeared to be flying very slowly (they seem to think its a helicopter). It could just be a subscale drone, or faked from CGI renders.
 
Someone with sufficient filmmaking skills could fake this. How hard would it be to make an RC plane in this shape and fly it over your backyard on a dark night? Film it with the correct equipment, do some post-processing if needed. The darkness and image noise can hide a lot of flaws. The guy from Uncanny Expeditions can't "verify" that this video is genuine given that it's possible to make a fake that is indistinguishable from reality.

Thus, we mostly have to rely on the bona fides of the source. The Uncanny Expeditions guy seems serious and puts out a lot of videos that don't contain crazy content, so I'm more apt to trust his grainy dorito video.

This Project Fear youtube channel, on the other hand, makes sensationalized paranormal content for clicks. Not only do they lack credibility, but they also have a positive incentive to fake this for the views.

Finally, what are the odds that they would get so lucky on their first camping trip to Area 51?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Well, it does look like a consistent 3D object with potential F-47 related shape viewed from various angles, with downturned wingtips and canards, but it appeared to be flying very slowly (they seem to think its a helicopter). It could just be a subscale drone, or faked from CGI renders.
Click to expand...
I think the 'thinking it's a helicopter' was probably due to it's initial altitude (edit: and the observer's creds, or lack thereof!) and the bright light perhaps. The tri-camera section seems to be consistent and none of them immediatley 'stink' to me ?

edit: but yes, agree with above post regarding the source/channel, but who knows
 
Typically a "bright light" like that is indicative of landing configuration and a lower power setting. It looked like it may have been doing some kind of instrument work.

Edit:

In this frame it appears that there's a protrusion at the bottom, most likely MLG if authentic.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260605_143448_YouTube.jpg
    Screenshot_20260605_143448_YouTube.jpg
    7.4 KB · Views: 160

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom