Can we have a thread devoted to concept drawings? No CGI. Starting

File: BoeingModel818TFX-2.jpg (93KB, 900x538px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 900x538px

>>27791067
Hold onto your butts I have tons of these.
>This should have been the F-111

File: GD AMSA.jpg (713KB, 2376x1622px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 2376x1622px

>General Dynamics proposal for what became the B-1

File: 191vy3wiwrh30jpg.jpg (51KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x450px

>>27791067

Everybody's favorite doomsday machine.

File: 507.jpg (205KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1000x750px

>>27791067

Proposal for a medium-range supersonic bomber based around the YF-23.

File: 1280px-Artist_Concept_of_F-111_1980.jpg (198KB, 1280x740px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1280x740px

Navalized F-111

>>27791589
Shit meant proposed long bodied variant

>>27791589

I heard about this. This was the original platform for the AIM-54. It was cancelled because they couldn't get the weight down enough. The Tomcat was developed instead.

File: 508A.jpg (165KB, 1200x586px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x586px

>general Dynamics STOVL fighter proposal

File: STOL F-111 proposals.jpg (369KB, 2400x897px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 2400x897px

A bunch of proposals for STOL/STOVL F-111s

File: FS2020-111454_copy1.jpg (12KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 450x253px

>>27791067

Concept drawing for a 5th Generation fighter by Saab.

File: 116mc92jt8.jpg (93KB, 635x482px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 635x482px

>>27791588

File: mdd jsf.jpg (162KB, 1600x1190px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1600x1190px

>>27791067

Northrop's JSF proposal that never even got to the prototype stage.

>>27791627
>STOL/STOVL F-111s

FOR WHAT PURPOSE

File: NATF 23.jpg (413KB, 3000x620px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 3000x620px

>proposal for a Navalized YF-23

File: NorthropFB-23model.jpg (43KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x480px

>>27791708

Here's a model that was made. It was rejected because the government wanted longer range for a new bomber.

File: mcdonnell_f-4fvs-08-680x576.jpg (32KB, 680x576px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 680x576px

>concept for a swing-wing F-4

>>27792949

Why

File: 132516ngo9uolllxdlt19g.jpg (198KB, 1260x1112px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1260x1112px

6th Gen concept contender.

>>27793211

No tail?

>>27793272
No tail.

Would require TVC for rudder-control. But this would grant it exceptional stealth.

>>27792961
The same reason the P-82 existed.

MORE DAKKA

File: X-44 Manta.jpg (84KB, 836x537px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 836x537px

>>27793295

The US considered something similar, but it never even got to prototype stage.

>>27793295
it would also be shit at any maneuvering.

>>27791713
Man, Northrop are really loving the cranked wing lately.

>>27793393
why?

File: image.png (146KB, 623x486px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 623x486px

>>27791798
Dick status: MUH

Contribootin' with one of Northrop's concepts for ATF

>>27793806

Because you wouldn't have a tail! That's where the majority of a plane's maneuvering comes from. Would pure thrust vectoring be enough to make up for losing that? Maybe so, but probably not.

>>27791798
Stupid moment on me but what's the point of variable swept wing aircraft? Having the wing swept back helps for better aerodynamics but I don't see the point of having them all the way out.

File: tu160extfront.jpg (29KB, 480x318px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x318px

>>27794405

You get better lift with the wings spread out. Swing-wing designs allow you to have a design that can go really fast and still be able to take off on short runways. Plus, you can extend the wings to give yourself better turning during a dogfight if you don't mind sacrificing some speed.

>>27794405
Better handling at low speeds with the wings out.

File: A-12_Avenger_Concept.jpg (813KB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 2400x3000px

Just a reminder that the USN should have had a stealth attack aircraft in service in the late 1990's. As it stands the USN still can't into stealth. Fuck Dick Cheney.

>>27794280
The majority of a plane's maneuvering? no. The only thing that the tail offers is yaw, which in a fighter (high t/w engines located off axis) would most likely make it acceptable.

Check out the unwanted blog. Guy literally collectes and publishes schematics of aerospace prototypes for a living.
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/

>>27791756
>>27791588
>tfw this might be the LRSB

File: vipera12.jpg (54KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1280x1024px

>le trollface

>>27795650
...that needs some refining...but i am inspired. Im stealing this for motovational purposes.

>>27793912

that's awesome

>>27795576

Nope. It's going to be this >>27795293.

A bit smaller B-2 that is cheaper to maintain and operate.

>>27791603
>We added engines to your engines, so you can burn fuel while burning fuel.
6(?) engines and wing mechanization - where is fuel and payload?

File: Sukhoi_T-4MS_CG_4.jpg (82KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1024x768px

Sukhoi T-4MS, a Soviet swing-wing strategic bomber project that had to be canceled so Sukhoi could work on the Su-27 instead.

>>27795736

2 BRRRRTs is a little much, though.

>>27795736

And also the turbine blades would have to be magic.

File: ATF 102.jpg (422KB, 2400x1553px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 2400x1553px

>>27796834
Those designs were from a time when the only payload they thought they needed was a single tactical nuke

>>27798097
What we really need is the AC-5, a Galaxy with three to four BRRRTs mounted on it's side.

Or at least some art of one so I can masturbate furiously to all the dakka.

>>27795326
Holy God, you are retarded.

Go look at a modern fighter during slow speed manuevering. Watch it's rudders and elevators.

File: sikorsky_x-wing_01.jpg (77KB, 830x517px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 830x517px

X W I N G
W
I
N
G

>>27798162

The recoil would destroy the plane.

Which is undeniable proof that the GAU-8 is the most badass cannon ever made.

File: 1.png (691KB, 800x2220px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 800x2220px

>>27798579

File: 2.png (607KB, 800x2220px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 800x2220px

>>27799381

File: 1320033610851.jpg (79KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x560px

>>27799582

File: 1320033703165.jpg (81KB, 800x621px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x621px

>>27799587

File: MantaWIG01res.jpg (115KB, 800x406px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x406px

>>27799592

>>27799592

Looks like the congenitally deformed offspring of a Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing's Bird of Prey concept.

File: MantaWIG02res.jpg (83KB, 800x421px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x421px

>>27799612

File: MarauderWIG01.jpg (150KB, 800x565px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 800x565px

>>27799614

>>27799582

>EmpireEarth.jpg

File: AvroWS606.jpg (16KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x240px

>>27799618

File: micro-figther747carrier-7.gif (27KB, 623x1017px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 623x1017px

>>27799628

File: micro-figther747carrier-9.gif (27KB, 769x812px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 769x812px

>>27799638

File: micro-figther747carrier-13.gif (16KB, 559x425px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 559x425px

>>27799641

File: A57.jpg (35KB, 620x315px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x315px

>>27799645

>>27798384
I don't think this is the same as that X-44 concept; this chinkshit would have elevons.

>>27797554
The T-4 was an actual prototype that looked nothing like that (?)

Can someone give me the run-down on why every plane-discussion involves Cheney-hate? What did he do/fuck up so badly?

>>27799641
>747carrier
>shows a C-5 Galaxy.
>says C-5 on the fucking picture

>>27793366
Wrong. More range. Like, cross half of the globe range.

>>27799645
Nothingwrongwiththisidea.jpg

>>27799701
He was Secretary of Defense during the Soviet Union's final collapse, so 'he' killed a lot of projects that were on the drawing board and put a lot of iconic Cold Warriors on the path to retirement.

File: attachment.jpg (50KB, 750x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 750x300px

Such a shame the JSF killed the P.125

>>27799679
>implying
If you are making assumptions with no proof you are talking out your ass shithead.

>>27800164
As cool as it was, the F-35B is better than it ever could have been. It had a shit ton of cool concepts that I'd love to see in a new fighter, but nothing could compare to the F-35's lift system.

>>27797568
Leave.

You will be welcomed back when you accept that more guns is always more gooder for making stuff more deader.

>>27800599
Point is that the UK had no need for the lift system. Don;t operate LHDs like the USMC does.

QEs were originally designed for F-35Cs.

File: Hawker P1214.png (334KB, 730x832px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 730x832px

>>27800636
At the time they were still operating the Invincible Class, and (IIRC) they hadn't begun work on the new carriers when they started the P.126 design.

BAe Kingston was actually working on a ton of different STOVL design studies that ended up getting killed by the F-35.