Why are the Concepts for secret planes usually more advanced then the real plane

Has anyone noticed that more often then not, when the Military declassifies a secret airplane or rolls out a new design, it very rarely looks as advanced and hi-tech as the earily artist concepts. Here are some quick examples:

The Stealth Fighter:

Here's the Early concept:



It really looks like a space-age weapon. now compare it to the F-117 Nighthawk:



Now Look at the origional concept for the F-22:



And compare it with the Real F-22:



The Mig 31 concept:



The Mig 31:



I'm not picking at any company, I'm just asking in general. Why do the artists Concepts usually look more futuristic and advanced then the actual aircrafts?

Tim

[edit on 4/15/2007 by Ghost01]

Props and drawings do not have to undergo wind tunnel testing or actually have any flight characteristics of any kind

I do not think that first photo was ever a real idea, just what someone supposed one might look like. That was not a real concept out of Lockheed. Its not even very stealthy, so not sure how you are saying it is actually more advanced

As for the other one, well Lockheed was not going to actually release what the plane was going to look like. dhy would you say that one was more advanced? I would say it is less advanced, looks like it has no stealth characteristics too.

Sometimes those pictures like the 2nd probably have a degree of deception too, you certainly dont want to lead your opponent on to something. Lockheeds ATF design was still highly classified then.

Firefox was not meant as a real aircraft design, its just a movie prop.






[edit on 15-4-2007 by firepilot]

Well, I'm not sure that your F117 "early concept" is correct...the first radar targets generated from Ufimtsev's equations were plywood "diamonds", and unless I miss my guess, the first "early concept drawing" that Ben Rich got in 1975 was this.

The model you show is too smooth...Ufimtsev didn't derive solutions for convex and concave curved surfaces for years after his first paper. And they would have been far too complex for 1975 computers to solve in any realistic time. They had fits designing and simulating with triangular facets back then, much less with curvilinear sections.

But, I understand your confusion. The reason why is, you oversell like mad. In your sketches, the military personnel will always look heroic, the equipment futuristic, any depicted encounter with opposition will always be to their abject defeat. You do not depict any malfunction, failure or loss, except to possibly show how easy the equipment is to repair in the incredibly unlikely event that the enemy gets a shot in before dying in a loud, grotesque, military manner. And you better believe that death will HAVE to be in any panels showing repair or refit.

Next, it's a concept. You typically haven't designed anything yet, you have gotten everyone together, gotten a lot of blue sky from everyone, and put it in the pitch. You DO usually do some proof-of-concept testing on the main concept, if it's new like the F117, to make sure you didn't drop a decimal point. But you will insert anything cool that engineering or physics comes up with that can even vaguely be associated with the system.

Because you're pitching it to brass. These guys may be good at what they do, but they're usually not technical brainiacs. At least, the ones with the money usually aren't. Now they may HAVE some brainiacs there that you'll have to do a very different pitch to later, but first you gotta sell the money guys. Because your competition is in there and they will be lying their asses off just like you are.

An example.

Once upon a time, we were in one of these bid-a-thons with a couple of other primes. Our prime got smart...the customer was SOCOM, so they searched the company through and put together a pitch team that was all retired SEALs and beenies. These guys weren't actually on the design team, and they never actually SAID they were/weren't. But it was like old-home week when the pitch team walked in. Guess who won?

Same with buying "ladies of the evening", meals, booze, small children, goats, whatever it takes. There's people in the sales dept who specialize in knowing who does what and with whom/what on the customer side. So the customer might find a nice expensive golf club in their car, or a $1,000 bottle of wine, or a side of Kobe beef or what have you. Don't think they don't take it, either.

edit: typo

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

My most favorite looking "Concept" plane is the Mig 37 Testors kit (Old)

www.fortunecity.com...

There is something about this shape that just looks cool!

[edit on 15-4-2007 by ivymike]

The only time I ever saw your first one, in relation to the F-117 was the Testors model of what they THOUGHT the Nighthawk was going to be. As Tom posted, all of the early concepts of the F-117 were diamond type designs.

[edit on 4/15/2007 by Zaphod58]

I have to concur with the rest of 'em Tim.

What you showed were not early concepts for these aircraft at all. The first picture was a conjectural idea by a toy company, with no affiliation to Lockheed whatsoever, as to what a stealth fighter 'might' look like, based on the very little that was publicly known about stealth back then.

The reason it looks so different is because toy companies don't know very much about aerospace, but quite a lot about appealing to kids.

The second picture was not a concept for the F-22, it was an artistic impression of 'the sort of thing that ATF might result in'. It was intended to satisfy public curiosity and was deliberately misleading, as were similar concepts from Boeing, Grumman et al, because the real ATF designs were completely secret at the time.

Lastly, the MiG 31 you showed has as little connection to Mikoyan as the stealth fighter at the top. The author Craig Thomas wrote a fictional spy story about a brand new Russian super plane, *He* called it the MiG 31 as it was the next unused number in the MiG range (we didn't even know what the MiG 29 looked like then, only that it existed). The model you showed was created by a film company to illustrate the story for a movie of the book. There was never any reason to suppose that the real MiG 31, when it did appear, would ever be anything like that one. And it clearly isn't related at all.

The reasons the made up ones often look so much more impressive (except in the case of the B-2 - that is even better than the guesses) is because when a plane is secret peoples imaginations go into overdrive, often neglecting to consider any practicalities at all - such as with monograms 'amazing-unflyable-stealth fighter'.

You might have had a point if any of the concepts were ever published by the manufacturers to illustrate what they were working on, but they weren't, except for the Lockheed one and that was a deliberate googly, as I said.



[edit on 16-4-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
The reasons the made up ones often look so much more impressive (except in the case of the B-2 - that is even better than the guesses) is because when a plane is secret peoples imaginations go into overdrive, often neglecting to consider any practicalities at all - such as with monograms 'amazing-unflyable-stealth fighter'.
[edit on 16-4-2007 by waynos]

The Monogram model of a stealth fighter isn't all that different from a Blackbird spyplane in its shape. Considering that Lockheed's facited design flies, why does everyone say the Monogram design is impossible to fly?

Tim

I covered it on another thread (with pictures ) but I can't remember which thread it was now.

In brief, aerodynamically, it is fine....as long as it is air dropped by a B-52, the undercarriage design makes take off impossible - look at the photo and try to imagine it taking off without dragging its arse along the ground.

And you accept that the canards and fins are there for nothing but decoration so you only want to be going in a straight line, if the FBW can work its magic on the wing controls. Those silly canards might actually destabilise the thing without adding any controllability at all, there moveable surface area is too small to be effective, the design would have been better off without them. In contrast, look at the canards on the drawing below it, which Lockheed really did issue, there is none of that blended, rounded nonsense on the ATF artwork.

The fins are in the most useless position possible (as are the air intakes) being in the area of lowest air pressure, directly above the wing, and far too short to have any useful 'side area' effect, they even fail completely to mask the engine exhaust as they are too far forward.

It is a really poorly thought out concept in which 'cool' is king and actually flying it is nowhere.


[edit on 16-4-2007 by waynos]

In addition to the intakes being non stealthy, rear also would give nice radar turn from turbine blades too. Vertical stabilizers and rudders too small.
Hinges in wing would give some nice radar return too.

You have destroyed my childhood!

Hey, why we are at it, lets just wonder why the USAF and scientists are so stupid as to not have had a craft that flies the speed or light or in multiples of it.

Its been happening on television since the late 60s!

Originally posted by firepilot
Hey, why we are at it, lets just wonder why the USAF and scientists are so stupid as to not have had a craft that flies the speed or light or in multiples of it.

They don't? Maybe you should ask, say, John Lear about it - I'm sure he can tell you something about the USAF's secret faster-than-light spaceships !

Regards
yf

Originally posted by firepilot
Hey, why we are at it, lets just wonder why the USAF and scientists are so stupid as to not have had a craft that flies the speed or light or in multiples of it.

Homor aside for a moment, if it was possible to build an aircraft that could fly faster than the speed of light, what could they use it for?

It would NOT work as a fighter. The reason is no human could manuver it at those speeds because of G-forces ant the speed of human reaction.

You cound NOT used it as a bomber/strike/attack aircraft. No one could target bombs that fast. You would have to hit the bomb release over 1000 Miles from the target for the bombs to even land in the right city.

Spy Planes usually take pictures, which you can't achieve at that speed. You need the light to travel from the target to the camera for a picture.

I don't care how hi-tech your plane is, No military will spend a penny on the project if it has no application that relates to their mission. Without a mission the plane is worthless to the military. That is one of the easiest things to forget when looking at technology for the military. For it to be useful and worthwhile to them, it has to be able to forfill a need of theirs. If your advanced plane can't forfill an existing need, you won't sell a single copy.

Tim

Originally posted by ivymike
My most favorite looking "Concept" plane is the Mig 37 Testors kit (Old)

www.fortunecity.com...

There is something about this shape that just looks cool!

[edit on 15-4-2007 by ivymike]

I think I've got one of those kits, or maybe it's a Mig-31, but it looks like that anyway. Still haven't built it yet. Maybe I'll get a few hundred quid for it on e-bay...

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by firepilot
Hey, why we are at it, lets just wonder why the USAF and scientists are so stupid as to not have had a craft that flies the speed or light or in multiples of it.

Homor aside for a moment, if it was possible to build an aircraft that could fly faster than the speed of light, what could they use it for?

It would NOT work as a fighter. The reason is no human could manuver it at those speeds because of G-forces ant the speed of human reaction.

You cound NOT used it as a bomber/strike/attack aircraft. No one could target bombs that fast. You would have to hit the bomb release over 1000 Miles from the target for the bombs to even land in the right city.

Spy Planes usually take pictures, which you can't achieve at that speed. You need the light to travel from the target to the camera for a picture.

I don't care how hi-tech your plane is, No military will spend a penny on the project if it has no application that relates to their mission. Without a mission the plane is worthless to the military. That is one of the easiest things to forget when looking at technology for the military. For it to be useful and worthwhile to them, it has to be able to forfill a need of theirs. If your advanced plane can't forfill an existing need, you won't sell a single copy.

Tim

ummm it was a joke I was making, I think you took it a tad bit too seriously and missed the point.

Do you know what the coolest thing about the 'MiG 37 Ferret' is?

Its that, as way off beam as their 'F-19' was, the MiG 37 nailed the layout of the YF-23 completely! Now, given that the YF-23 did not even exist at the time, that was impressive

Originally posted by waynos
Its that, as way off beam as their 'F-19' was, the MiG 37 nailed the layout of the YF-23 completely! Now, given that the YF-23 did not even exist at the time, that was impressive

Waynos,

Did it ever occure to you that maybe the designers of the YF-23 may have looked at the MiG 37 concept for some inspiration?

It wouldn't be the first time that a fictional design inspired a real one.

Tim

An interesting thought Tim, but I kind of hope that the aerospace engineers can come up with their own answers. I just think it is an amazing co-incidence, if not a 'disguised leak', after all, the YF-23 would have been on the drawing board around this time, who knows if somebody talked to somebody else and it was interpreted in kit form, after all the toy makers DO have contacts inside the industry, I know that Airfix always used original manufacturers drawings, supplied directly, for their kits (not that it showed that often ). They even famously used the wrong Fairey drawings for their kit of the Fairey Battle, modelling a unique unbuilt version that would be equivalent of all Mustang kits being based on the original drawings for the first proposal of the NA.73!)



[edit on 19-4-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by Ghost01
Homor aside for a moment, if it was possible to build an aircraft that could fly faster than the speed of light, what could they use it for?

[...]
No military will spend a penny on the project if it has no application that relates to their mission. Without a mission the plane is worthless to the military.

An FTL (Faster Than Light) craft is also a time machine! I could see a few useful purposes for such a device !

Regards
yf

re: the faster than light stuff - Certainly you can forget about doing any fancy flight without first inventing an inertia dampner of some sort or the first time you try to do any sort of banked turn you'd turn the pilot to goo

I suspect you'd find that other methods would be employed rather than aerodynamic flight, such as direct point to point travel from bending space-time - in which case pretty much everything goes out of the window..

as for the original question the others have covered it in dtail, but it's also the same in the automotive industry, you start with a concept that gets everyone talking/drooling, then by the time it actually gets into production it bares little resemblence to the concept, purely because of preactical considerations.