X-47B based on Northrop ATA design?

[quellish]

But one thing is for sure apart from the stealth experience the Northrop ATA was a much nicer airplane. The design is so good it is basically reused in the X-47B and in the Northrop LRB proposals.

How was it reused?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How was it reused?

The wing and planform. The X-47B added the nose extension but the rest is pretty much a 60% down size of their ATA.

 

[quellish]

How was it reused?

The wing and planform. The X-47B added the nose extension but the rest is pretty much a 60% down size of their ATA.

I do not think that is at all correct. Both teams arrived at (some) similar solutions maybe, but there is no commonality between the two designs. The planform is nothing new, nor unique to Northrop. The X-47B has very unique aerodynamics that are a complete departure from the Northrop ATA.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The X-47B has very unique aerodynamics that are a complete departure from the Northrop ATA.

Then why are the wings identical?

 

[quellish]

Then why are the wings identical?

They both produce lift and fold.
Airfoil is different, control surfaces are different, materials are different....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They both produce lift and fold.
Airfoil is different, control surfaces are different, materials are different....

The differences between the X-47B and ATA are minor compared to the differences between the X-47B and the ATA and most other aircraft. The planform comparison shoes just how similar they are. Obviously differences because of their size, engines, mission, etc and the nose extension. But most noteworthy is their shared unique type of airfoil with a significant 'bulge' towards the outer edge of the wings.

 

[quellish]

The differences between the X-47B and ATA are minor compared to the differences between the X-47B and the ATA and most other aircraft. The planform comparison shoes just how similar they are. Obviously differences because of their size, engines, mission, etc and the nose extension. But most noteworthy is their shared unique type of airfoil with a significant 'bulge' towards the outer edge of the wings.

The X-47B cranked kite configuration evolved directly from the X-47A's kite configuration. The ATA evolved from the B-2's configuration, there was no direct lineage between X-47B and ATA or B-2. X-47B and ATA are significantly different - especially in the airfoil.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

X-47B and ATA are significantly different - especially in the airfoil.

Well I’m looking at a Pacrim model of the X-47B and the photos of the model of the ATA and the wing configuration looks pretty identical to me. They both have the bulges and in the same proportions. Which would achieve enhanced lift (thickness and Coanda) and longitudinal stability (channelisation) both important things for CTOL carrier landing. It stands to reason when Northrop needed to turn the X-47A into an aircraft that could land on a carrier while carrying some weight they turned to their last effort for a stealthy carrier aircraft: their ATA bid.

 

[flateric]

The X-47B cranked kite configuration evolved directly from the X-47A's kite configuration. The ATA evolved from the B-2's configuration, there was no direct lineage between X-47B and ATA or B-2. X-47B and ATA are significantly different - especially in the airfoil.

exactly the same version I have heard from Northrop guys

 

[quellish]

It stands to reason when Northrop needed to turn the X-47A into an aircraft that could land on a carrier while carrying some weight they turned to their last effort for a stealthy carrier aircraft: their ATA bid.

Just because it "stands to reason" does not make it true.

The Northrop ATA and X-47B were designed for very different missions and very different roles. For example, the Northrop ATA was designed to operate primarily at high altitudes like the B-2, while the X-47B is designed for medium altitude. That alone necessitates a very different aircraft, carrier or no carrier.

But to get back on topic, we may see photos of the Northrop ATA pole model here in the future. It sure beats the low fidelity table model shown in the Stevenson book.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Quellish, do you have a version of that A-12A/X-47B comparison to scale?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just because it "stands to reason" does not make it true.

Sure, but like I said this is not my reason. As far as available sources indicate the wings look identical. Additional sources may prove this wrong when they are unveiled. To make an argument that my assessment is wrong with the benefit of additional information BEFORE revealing that information is hardly fair and reasonable practice. I would very much like to find out more about the Northrop ATA and would happily have my hypothesis proven wrong by new information.

 

[quellish]

Sure, but like I said this is not my reason. As far as available sources indicate the wings look identical. Additional sources may prove this wrong when they are unveiled. To make an argument that my assessment is wrong with the benefit of additional information BEFORE revealing that information is hardly fair and reasonable practice. I would very much like to find out more about the Northrop ATA and would happily have my hypothesis proven wrong by new information.

Absolutely! And I disagree with your assessment based on the information available to you. There is a great deal of information on the X-47B design and its evolution, and none of that information indicates an ancestry that includes the Northrop ATA. To the contrary, much of the X-47B design incorporates new technologies developed during the 1990s and early 2000s. Again, the two aircraft were designed for very different missions.
The leading edges and "bulge" you refer to on the X-47B were actually designed by LM.

 

[aero-engineer]

It should not be surprising that two different design teams came up with somewhat similar looking planforms.

After all, both aircraft had to be stealthy and take off and land on an aircraft carrier. That places a number of common constraints within the design space.