Author Topic: Navalized Mirage? (Read 9416 times)

Cliffy B · « **on:** July 03, 2012, 12:38:37 PM »

I've been wondering about this for awhile and I'm not finding much info so I ask you gentlemen; has there ever been any navalized Mirage variants proposed? Which of the many variants would seem the best candidate? What do you guys think? I've come across some vague mentions of the Mirage III being tested and rejected by no reasons given.

Litvyak · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:40:51 PM »

Don't quote me but I seem to recall there being some issue with the delta wings not being suitable for carrier landings? Maybe because of landing speeds?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:02:17 PM »

I believe there was a Mirage F.1 naval proposal.

AGRA · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:54:52 PM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on July 03, 2012, 06:02:17 PM

I believe there was a Mirage F.1 naval proposal.

Yep (see attached picture). But not a Mirage III naval proposal. You can’t put flaps on delta wings so they tend to have high landing speeds which makes them unsuited for arrested landings on carriers. The Mirage F1 (and other second generation Mirage designs) abandoned the delta for conventional or variable geometry wings to avoid this landing speed problem. The reason Dassault used the delta wing is with 1950s technology they couldn’t build a wing with low enough t/c (thickness divided by chord) without giving it a very long cord. The best way to provide long cord is with a delta otherwise you end up with a low lift very small low aspect ratio wing (F-104). By the 1960s the technology was there to build very fine wings (low t/c) without a high chord. Dassault went back to the delta for the third generation Mirage (x000) for other reasons (high speed drag) and because fly-by-wire was able to overcome a lot of low speed problems of the delta.

Cliffy B · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:35:09 AM »

OK, so it was the F.1 then that drawn up. Did it ever reach the test phase; did/would it work? I'm searching for info about the F.1 now but again am coming up with little if any info. Just says it was an option but they went the Etendard instead and that's it

Thank you for the description about why the delta wing wouldn't work. It makes a lot of sense now. Also, do you know what the "hook" looking object is in front of the center line tank? Something to do with catapult launch or an anti-sway brace maybe?

JP Vieira · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:36:20 AM »

Of course there were; not only proposals but real navalized Mirages: like the Mirage F-1MA

Cliffy B · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:45:03 AM »

Nice one JP!!!! I'm going to have Brazil use them in my South American War story.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:11:58 AM »

That's the one I was thinking of.

Quote from: Cliffy B on July 04, 2012, 01:35:09 AM

Did it ever reach the test phase;

I don't believe so.

Quote from: Cliffy B on July 04, 2012, 01:35:09 AM

Also, do you know what the "hook" looking object is in front of the center line tank? Something to do with catapult launch or an anti-sway brace maybe?

I believe it might be involved with the catapult launch - maybe a retractable attachment for strops?

elmayerle · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:14:24 AM »

If memory serves me correctly, I've seen discussions of a studied navalized Mirage III in a Fench book, As I remember, it had a samll horizontal tail added about 2/3's up the vertical to help with the control needed when coming aboard ship. I know it was in the two-volume Docavia set on French military and experimental aircraft from 1945 to 1960 and I believe I've seen it at least mentioned in Jack Gee's Mirage, along with mention of the Boeing-built Mirage IIIW proposal.

AGRA · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:42:41 AM »

Quote from: Cliffy B on July 04, 2012, 01:35:09 AM

Also, do you know what the "hook" looking object is in front of the center line tank? Something to do with catapult launch or an anti-sway brace maybe?

This is a pretty strange item. It’s too short to be a catapult bar, facing the wrong direction to be a hold back bar and as GTX points out is probably an attachment for the catapult strops. But why would you bother with all the weight and complexity of a lowerable arm for the strops? As wire cables the thing about strops is they can be any length to match up the particular aircraft airframe to the catapult. Also you can attach both ends of the strop to the aircraft slug around the catapult eye so as to share the transference of the force of the catapult launch to two points of the airframe. Anyway it is a French aircraft and they often do strange things.

Quote from: elmayerle on July 05, 2012, 06:14:24 AM

If memory serves me correctly, I've seen discussions of a tudied navalized Mirage III in a Fench book, As I remember, it had a samll horizontal tail added about 2/3's up the vertical to help with the control needed when coming aboard ship. I know it was in the two-volume Docavia set on French military and experimental aircraft from 1945 to 1960 and I believe I've seen it at least mentioned in Jack Gee's Mirage, along with mention of the Boeing-built Mirage IIIW proposal.

A new seperate horizontal tail wouldn’t be to add extra pitch control for a Mirage III but to move the elevators from the wing to the new tail. That way flaps could be fitted where the elevators used to be so as to reduce the stall speed and allow an arrested carrier landing. But such a tail would be highly suspect to deep stall at any angle of attack. I doubt such an aircraft could be flown without crashing.

elmayerle · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:04:41 AM »

Agreed; that's probably one reason it never got beyond an AD/PD (Advanced Design/Preliminary Design) status.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2012, 09:57:24 AM »

Me thinks a Mirage F.1B Naval version might be on the plans in the future...

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:32:54 PM »

I love the front view of the top one. :)

M.A.D · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:31:54 AM »

Quote from: JoseFern on July 21, 2012, 04:50:16 AM

Is this drawing fairdimkum or a 'what if'

??

M.A.D

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2012, 02:20:25 PM »

Little bit of both I think...

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2012, 06:22:56 AM »

I wonder...a Naval Mirage based upon the Mirage G developments (Dassault Mirage G8-01 and G-8-02 prototypes shown):

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2012, 06:24:33 AM »

Speaking of which, what wings do people think would be best to use as the basis for a G-8in 1/48? Mig-27/23? F-14? F-111? Tornado?

JoseFern · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2012, 09:56:56 PM »

Tornado and MiG wings are probably too small, go with the F-14 or F-111 wing.

Example of a G8 build (1/72 resin kit) where parts of a Tomcat wing were used for the flaps...
http://maquette72.free.fr/amis/CSourdet/2011_16_MirageG8/index16.php

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2012, 02:26:47 AM »

Ta - I thought that too.

I wonder about a single engined version created be converting a Mirage F.1 and using MiG-23/27 wings?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2012, 02:23:14 AM »

elmayerle · « **Reply #20 on:** August 08, 2012, 09:05:48 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on July 26, 2012, 02:26:47 AM

Ta - I thought that too.

I wonder about a single engined version created be converting a Mirage F.1 and using MiG-23/27 wings?

Doing that in 1/144 and upgrading to a F.1-M53 starting point while I'm at it; I figure the extra thrust won't hurt.


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Navalized Mirage? (Read 9416 times)