Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It is personal view of the artist, otherwise the rear half design can be anything.
Let's see for how many weeks or months USA will hide its jet.
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
I think they'll make 2 jets - 1 engine exportable future of JSF & 2 engine domestic future of ATF. Time will tell soon.
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Another artist's good imagination:
> This is tandem tri-plane, but putting canard just in front of intake could obstruct airflow, unless onlyouter 2/3rd or half of canard moves.
> Bcoz of darkened flag in poster, some people are still speculating small all-moving rudders.
> Like Bird-of-Prey the wing can still be slightly tilted up with with drooped winglet, but He forgot to allign the bend-axis longitudinally parallel to length. Such wing adds to stability while a fighter needs to be unstable for agility.
> Such platipus like flatter nose could mean lesser pitch agility & little more RCS return by nose.
> Overall this looks like 1 engine exportable jet. I wonder how in Trump's words "nothing even comes close from speed to maneuverability to payload" & this is "most advanced, capable, lethal".
> This is tandem tri-plane, but putting canard just in front of intake could obstruct airflow, unless onlyouter 2/3rd or half of canard moves.
> Bcoz of darkened flag in poster, some people are still speculating small all-moving rudders.
> Like Bird-of-Prey the wing can still be slightly tilted up with with drooped winglet, but He forgot to allign the bend-axis longitudinally parallel to length. Such wing adds to stability while a fighter needs to be unstable for agility.
> Such platipus like flatter nose could mean lesser pitch agility & little more RCS return by nose.
> Overall this looks like 1 engine exportable jet. I wonder how in Trump's words "nothing even comes close from speed to maneuverability to payload" & this is "most advanced, capable, lethal".
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Another artist imagines F-47 little longer, dihedral wing with anhedral winglet.
The wing root is shifted back & intakes are also much behind, not enough space for serpentine duct, so engine would be visible.
Engine bays are apart & middle space filled like in Su-57, so might have tandem IWBs.
Perfect side, front, bottom images not available.
sketchfab.com
The wing root is shifted back & intakes are also much behind, not enough space for serpentine duct, so engine would be visible.
Engine bays are apart & middle space filled like in Su-57, so might have tandem IWBs.
Perfect side, front, bottom images not available.
Boeing F-47 Thunderstorm NGAD fighter | Galleries | Vehicle
6thgen | boeing | f-47 | fighter | jet | ngad | stealth | supersonic | thunderstorm
www.cgtrader.com
Boeing F-47 Thunderstorm NGAD - 3D model by NETRUNNER_pl
Boeing F-47 Thunderstorm NGAD Lowpoly model of new concept american stealth fighter The Boeing F-47 is a 6-generation fighter aircraft developed for the U.S. Air Force under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. It’s designed to succeed the F-22 Raptor, with enhanced stealth...
sketchfab.com
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Some 3D artist imagined & made 3D model & animation of F-47, whose fuselage looks like F/A-XX concept, upward tilted wings remind of Bird-of-Prey, engine bay hump reminds of YF-23.
So F-47 NGAD = F/A-XX + BoP + YF-23.
I'm putting a smaller collage as the images are huge, bigger than the collage.
View attachment 74224
Some selected screenshots from animation showing specific angles to show airframe shape, parts:
View attachment 74225
The artist has updated a modified version w/o canard stating that USN doesn't wan't canards.
Well, this is opposite expectation if USAF wants canards but not USN bcoz the wing leading edge has high sweep angle means higher landing speed w/o canard.
I'm posting a collage again as the images are huge.
> Perhaps the nose & chine need more blending like in Rodrigo Avellas F/A-X concept for bigger & wider coverage radar.
> Wings have been made little Lambda style than Delta earlier.
> There doesn't seem to be any winglet.
> Intakes have DSI. The intake lower edge is ahead of upper edge (blended with wing root). This can be a problem if high AoA & tight turn is desired as some air can slip out over wing causing insufficient air flow & compressor stall. Giving aux-intakes below or moving lip like in EF-2000 would increase complexity & RCS.
> Parallel IWB not tandem & SWB have been marked.
> Engine bays quite far separated, the duct may not be serpentine enough, engine would be visible.
> Exhaust look like that of YF-23 w/o TVC.
It seems that this is going to become a standard look of all 6gen jets.
Blame game already started on who's copying whom.
It is bcoz of planform shaping fundamental started since 5gen.
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 81
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
For common people like us it can actually be a big headache
to imagine & estimate a new jet in 2D, unless we know how to use 3D CAD S/w.
Most 3D artists also make models w/o thinking too much themselves.
Let's take F-22 as foundation reference.
If we wan't a better TE jet as per 6gen features of more capacity of weapons, fuel, new components, then it'll be bigger. So if the size/volume/weight is more & if same or more dry/wet ATWR (Airframe Thrust to Weight Ratio) needs to be maintained, then more airframe weight -> more thrust -> more air -> more area of intake, duct & inlet.
For idea, F-22's F119 Vs F-35's F-135 engines: 100cm Vs 109cm inlet dia., 116/128 KN Vs 156/191 KN dry/wet thrust. 9% more inlet dia., almost 19% more area, 10.3% more dry thrust, 22.4% more wet thrust.
There is no fixed formula b/w area of intake/duct/inlet & thrust, let's assume 1:1 ratio in increase for easy understanding. So if we fit F-22 with a bigger & 33% better engine of 156*1.33= 207.5 KN, the challenges are -
- increase air flow by 33%, means increase area of intake, duct & inlet by 33%. Inlet diameter increases by square-root(1.33) times or 15.32%.
- increase payload & range, means lengthen the jet.
- restrict airframe volume to 133%.
- restrict airframe height to that of F-22 if possible.
If the airframe expands only in width & height then it is easy to estimate.
If the airframe expands in all 3 XYZ axis in same ratio then also it is easy to estimate.
But if all 3 axis have different ratios then we have to be careful not to eceed new volume/weight.
Option 1 - stretch the airframe length only by 33%, which will need tandem IWB for extra AAMs.
Option 2 - stretch the airframe width only by 33%, which can adjust 4 more AAMs easily.
Option 3 - stretch both airframe width & length by ratio such that X*Y=1.33, like 1.1*1.2 or 10% X 20%.
Exploring option-1 1st, the fuselage width remains same, area of intake, duct & engine increased, again there are 3 sub-options:
1A - expand area in width & height by 15.32%, engine can be pushed down, but intake slightly portrudes down & out, duct above IWB is manageable.
1B - expand area in height only by 33%, engine can be pushed down, but intake portrudes down more & duct above IWB produces bump.
1C - expand area in width only by 33%, engine is pushed down, intake portrudes out sideways but manageable, duct above IWB is manageable.
I don't have 3D CAD S/w, so I put the above options 3 sub-options in approximate cross section diagrams of F-22:
So we see that increased size/volume of 1 or some components or system affects other parts & entire airframe.
The engine power, size, weight is dictating design of stealth jet if same ATWR has to be maintained.
to imagine & estimate a new jet in 2D, unless we know how to use 3D CAD S/w.Most 3D artists also make models w/o thinking too much themselves.
Let's take F-22 as foundation reference.
If we wan't a better TE jet as per 6gen features of more capacity of weapons, fuel, new components, then it'll be bigger. So if the size/volume/weight is more & if same or more dry/wet ATWR (Airframe Thrust to Weight Ratio) needs to be maintained, then more airframe weight -> more thrust -> more air -> more area of intake, duct & inlet.
For idea, F-22's F119 Vs F-35's F-135 engines: 100cm Vs 109cm inlet dia., 116/128 KN Vs 156/191 KN dry/wet thrust. 9% more inlet dia., almost 19% more area, 10.3% more dry thrust, 22.4% more wet thrust.
There is no fixed formula b/w area of intake/duct/inlet & thrust, let's assume 1:1 ratio in increase for easy understanding. So if we fit F-22 with a bigger & 33% better engine of 156*1.33= 207.5 KN, the challenges are -
- increase air flow by 33%, means increase area of intake, duct & inlet by 33%. Inlet diameter increases by square-root(1.33) times or 15.32%.
- increase payload & range, means lengthen the jet.
- restrict airframe volume to 133%.
- restrict airframe height to that of F-22 if possible.
If the airframe expands only in width & height then it is easy to estimate.
If the airframe expands in all 3 XYZ axis in same ratio then also it is easy to estimate.
But if all 3 axis have different ratios then we have to be careful not to eceed new volume/weight.
Option 1 - stretch the airframe length only by 33%, which will need tandem IWB for extra AAMs.
Option 2 - stretch the airframe width only by 33%, which can adjust 4 more AAMs easily.
Option 3 - stretch both airframe width & length by ratio such that X*Y=1.33, like 1.1*1.2 or 10% X 20%.
Exploring option-1 1st, the fuselage width remains same, area of intake, duct & engine increased, again there are 3 sub-options:
1A - expand area in width & height by 15.32%, engine can be pushed down, but intake slightly portrudes down & out, duct above IWB is manageable.
1B - expand area in height only by 33%, engine can be pushed down, but intake portrudes down more & duct above IWB produces bump.
1C - expand area in width only by 33%, engine is pushed down, intake portrudes out sideways but manageable, duct above IWB is manageable.
I don't have 3D CAD S/w, so I put the above options 3 sub-options in approximate cross section diagrams of F-22:
So we see that increased size/volume of 1 or some components or system affects other parts & entire airframe.
The engine power, size, weight is dictating design of stealth jet if same ATWR has to be maintained.
- Messages
- 10,061
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
For common people like us it can actually be a big headache
Most 3D artists also make models w/o thinking too much themselves.
Let's take F-22 as foundation reference.
If we wan't a better TE jet as per 6gen features of more capacity of weapons, fuel, new components, then it'll be bigger. So if the size/volume/weight is more & if same or more dry/wet ATWR (Airframe Thrust to Weight Ratio) needs to be maintained, then more airframe weight -> more thrust -> more air -> more area of intake, duct & inlet.
For idea, F-22's F119 Vs F-35's F-135 engines: 100cm Vs 109cm inlet dia., 116/128 KN Vs 156/191 KN dry/wet thrust. 9% more inlet dia., almost 19% more area, 10.3% more dry thrust, 22.4% more wet thrust.
There is no fixed formula b/w area of intake/duct/inlet & thrust, let's assume 1:1 ratio in increase for easy understanding. So if we fit F-22 with a bigger & 33% better engine of 156*1.33= 207.5 KN, the challenges are -
- increase air flow by 33%, means increase area of intake, duct & inlet by 33%. Inlet diameter increases by square-root(1.33) times or 15.32%.
- increase payload & range, means lengthen the jet.
- restrict airframe volume to 133%.
- restrict airframe height to that of F-22 if possible.
If the airframe expands only in width & height then it is easy to estimate.
If the airframe expands in all 3 XYZ axis in same ratio then also it is easy to estimate.
But if all 3 axis have different ratios then we have to be careful not to eceed new volume/weight.
Option 1 - stretch the airframe length only by 33%, which will need tandem IWB for extra AAMs.
Option 2 - stretch the airframe width only by 33%, which can adjust 4 more AAMs easily.
Option 3 - stretch both airframe width & length by ratio such that X*Y=1.33, like 1.1*1.2 or 10% X 20%.
Exploring option-1 1st, the fuselage width remains same, area of intake, duct & engine increased, again there are 3 sub-options:
1A - expand area in width & height by 15.32%, engine can be pushed down, but intake slightly portrudes down & out, duct above IWB is manageable.
1B - expand area in height only by 33%, engine can be pushed down, but intake portrudes down more & duct above IWB produces bump.
1C - expand area in width only by 33%, engine is pushed down, intake portrudes out sideways but manageable, duct above IWB is manageable.
I don't have 3D CAD S/w, so I put the above options 3 sub-options in approximate cross section diagrams of F-22:
View attachment 74373
So we see that increased size/volume of 1 or some components or system affects other parts & entire airframe.
The engine power, size, weight is dictating design of stealth jet if same ATWR has to be maintained.
There are also things that cascade to aircraft stability and control when you fudge around dimensionally.
You create more of a lifting surface with say wideness relative to the C of G that needs to be taken into account in stabilizer sizing and placement and so on.
If the C of G itself is moved, then the whole moment diagram is changed and this causes drastic size changes for same reason.
