F-16.net

Mirage III


Mirage V


Mirage F1


Mirage 2000


Mirage III and Mirage V were made first, and then it was replaced by Mirage F1, then Mirage F1 are latter replaced by Mirage 2000.Why did the mirage F1 use normal wing configuration instead of delta wing like mirage III, V and mirage 2000? ( if normal wing configuration is superior then why mirage 2000 didn't use it? , if delta is superior then why mirage F1 use wing + tail fin, instead of delta wing like the Mirage III, IV and V)

if weapons was equal, neither side have support, which aircraft is better air to air, Mirage V or Harrier

Different wings for different designs and design goals.

Also when they switched back to the Delta with the Mirage 2000 they had better technology so could overcome some of the problems / drawbacks of the Delta on the Mirage III (e.g. more computing power for a flight control system and an aft shift of CG)

basher54321 wrote:Different wings for different designs and design goals.

)

wasnt they all supposed to be air superiority fighter ?

eloise wrote:

basher54321 wrote:Different wings for different designs and design goals.

)

wasnt they all supposed to be air superiority fighter ?

Well yes (Mirage III was designed as an Interceptor though) - but without asking Dassault you would hope the Mirage F1 wing achieved their design goals and thus was better than the Delta on the Mirage III (for what they wanted).

Some sources state that the Mirage III had a high landing speed, long take off run and could not maintain stable flight at high AOA - thus again the technology had got to a point where they could use a more conventional wing on the F1 and solve some of the problems of the Mirage III delta using high lift devices on the wing.

Then technology changes allowed them to implement it differently again with the M2000 as said above.

You see its not just the wing shape that is important.

Long time ago, Israel put a J-79 in a Mirage airframe to build the Kfir.

That was the ultimate "Mirage" at the time.

I Always wondered:

What would have happened if Israel would have installed a P&W or GE engine in a Mirage 2000.

Now THAT would have been THE hottest bird around!

vilters wrote:Long time ago, Israel put a J-79 in a Mirage airframe to build the Kfir.

That was the ultimate "Mirage" at the time.

I Always wondered:

What would have happened if Israel would have installed a P&W or GE engine in a Mirage 2000.

Now THAT would have been THE hottest bird around!

Yes the PW1120 would have been a good fit, but used J79's were cheap and new motors expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1120

At the time they put J-79's in the Mirage to build the Kfir because they had the J-79 for their F-4

Now they have the P&W in their F-15 and F-16 so, all they need are Mirage 2000 airframes.

You might want to look at the size difference between the F100 and the M53.

It was a clear option for the ATAR powered aircraft.

Engine PW1120 M53 ATAR F414
Length: 4,110 mm / 5,070 mm / 5,900 mm / 3910 mm
Diameter: 1,021 mm / 796 mm / 1,000 mm / 890 mm
Dry weight: 1,292 kg / 1,515 kg / 1,456 kg / 1,110 kg

Wonder if the F414 could replace the M53?

Mirage 4000...

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/pas ... rage-4000/

The Mirage 4000 was something they put together to be a F-15 competitor. (Or for those that insisted on double trouble = a twin engine A/C)

But it never went beyond prototyping.

Well, putting the J-79 inside a Mirage 3 was not exactly plug & play either.

But putting a P&W 100 in a Mirage 2000 => That would have been the dragster of the century. LOL.

And in the mean time, they lost on that Livi thing they build, but stopped.

But it is understandable, certainly in that period, that they wanted to be freed of France's policy.
(France refused to deliver the Mirage 5's they ordered and payed for.)

But, a P&W in a Mir 2000 alike airframe? WHAW !

Frances engines Always where very thirsty. F-16 versus Mirage 2000 was fuel limited for the Mirage 2000.