Boeing unveils 6 gen concept

[Phantom88]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/

[Invader ZIM]

lol, by 2030, it may not be, always good to plan ahead.

[VincentLaw]

I think "X gen" is just turning into a catch-phrase where the next plane we build will be gen N+1. This is really just an evolution of current technology, not a revolution. The largest advances are all going to be in avionics, and they will stay classified for the next century, so they can call it anything they want.

Edited April 8, 2013 by VincentLaw

[Kaktus29]

canards? wait a minute, isn't this all the craze about not being stealthy.. or is it only if russian and chinese have canards that they are un-stealthy ..here they become stealthy.. strange..

 

but planning 6 gen. today is really a waste of resources, building newer generation of planes takes more and more time because they are much more complex then before.. look at F-4 jump to F-15 in about 10-15 years, and then we have jump from F-15 to F-22 that took 30 years or more to some extent.. same will be with 5 gen to 6 gen.. it will take even longer..

 

unless we are talking 5gen++ variants.. but thats different altogether..

 

but i say, if pentagon has resources by all means, spend spend spend))

[Suchacz]

I think "X gen" is just turning into a catch-phrase where the next plane we build will be gen N+1. This is really just an evolution of current technology, not a revolution. The largest advances are all going to be in avionics, and they will stay classified for the next century, so they can call it anything they want.

Agree. Early WWI bi-planes and for example P51D are totally different planes, but still, they were both from the first generation...

[marcos]

That honestly looks like something some kid drew in art class.

[Namenlos Ein]

2009.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/saint-louis-missouri----boeing.html

 

[Cedaway]

Are these vids in 3D? I'm crying now! How to reverse it to 2D?

EDIT: I'm not really interested in 6th gen aircraft, because everybody knows that 5th gen is the last MANNED gen... :troll:

[Phantom88]

2009.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/saint-louis-missouri----boeing.html

 

 

WOW,Nice find:thumbup:

[marcos]

Stability through thrust vectoring only?

[Yellonet]

Ah, they just keep getting better and better looking...

[Invader ZIM]

LOL, just remember, it's in the development stages, the design can change quite a bit, especially when you have 15 years before the first prototypes are expected. :smilewink:

[mikoyan]

the navy doesn't like delta wings, why are they planning on designing it as a delta wing?

[Invader ZIM]

Mikoyan, make sure to point that out to the Navy, they'll set the Boeing guys straight and in a few months or years you'll see the new design proposal. :lol:

[mikoyan]

Mikoyan, make sure to point that out to the Navy, they'll set the Boeing guys straight and in a few months or years you'll see the new design proposal. :lol:

 

Yf-32 anyone?

[marcos]

Yf-32 anyone?

No.

[Ich666]

It looks a bit like a Frogfoot with stealth and lacking a tail...

[mikoyan]

No.

 

Why not?

 

The two X-32 prototypes featured a delta wing design, which was chosen to minimize production manufacturing costs. However, eight months into construction of the prototypes, the JSF's maneuverability and payload requirements were refined at the request of the Navy and Boeing's delta wing design fell short of the new targets. Engineers put together a new design with a conventional tail (narrowly beating out a Pelikan tail) with reduced weight and improved agility, but it was too late to change the prototypes. It was judged that they would be sufficient to demonstrate Boeing's technology.[4]

[marcos]

Why not?

 

The two X-32 prototypes featured a delta wing design, which was chosen to minimize production manufacturing costs. However, eight months into construction of the prototypes, the JSF's maneuverability and payload requirements were refined at the request of the Navy and Boeing's delta wing design fell short of the new targets. Engineers put together a new design with a conventional tail (narrowly beating out a Pelikan tail) with reduced weight and improved agility, but it was too late to change the prototypes. It was judged that they would be sufficient to demonstrate Boeing's technology.[4]

So what was reference 4?

 

Here's why not. It looks like a Harrier with a bodykit.

 

[NRG-Vampire]

canards? wait a minute, isn't this all the craze about not being stealthy.. or is it only if russian and chinese have canards that they are un-stealthy ..here they become stealthy.. strange..

 

disinformation all :doh:

 

no high speed (Mach1 +) and high AOA without vertical tail(s)

 

^ end of story :smartass:

Edited April 14, 2013 by NRG-Vampire

[aaron886]

disinformation all :doh:

 

no high speed (Mach1 +) and high AOA without vertical tail(s)

 

^ end of story :smartass:

 

My god, what is Boeing thinking?! Why haven't they hired you yet?! I'll call them, don't worry. They'll make you an offer as soon as they read your post.

[NRG-Vampire]

have you ever seen a fast-jet without vertical stabilizators ? maybe a F-22 without tails ? ;)

i do not think so, but if you are thinking of stealthy and no-tail aircrafts then B-2A is your subsonic aircraft

but no more, i guess boeing going to make a new aircraft and new physics too :smartass:

time will tell how :P

[aaron886]

Innovation is funny like that... what once seemed impossible (at least to the layman) is now commonplace.

[VincentLaw]

Most multi-engine airplanes have a vertical stabilizer/rudder to handle engine out cases. Having a really fancy computer controller won't change the fact that you are going to crash if you lose an engine without any alternative yaw control. A solution to this problem could be variable air brakes modified from something like the A-10. If the left engine fails, the right side brakes could be opened to stabilize the airplane. Then you would not need a vertical stabilizer.

 

On delta wing airplanes the vertical stabilizer has a secondary function of helping attach the over-wing vortices. The main lift generating mechanism of a traditional delta wing is fundamentally different from a standard wing, where normally wing vortices decrease lift, vortices actually increase the lift on a delta wing. Without the vertical stabilizer, delta wings are much less efficient.

[Phantom88]

Maybe it's not powered by conventional Jet Turbine engines?:D