By: halloweene
- 14th May 2014 at 22:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thank you. Btw the mirage 4000 fin was entirely made of composites and used for fuel storage ;)
I'll do my best and of course let you know if...
Atm i am trying to collect archives, then i'll see what i can do with them.
By: Cherry Ripe
- 3rd July 2014 at 13:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the end there was no particular need for the M4000 with the French air force. Avionics wise it offered no particular advantage over the M2000 and they didn't need the unrefueled range. Performance of the M2000 with tanker support was more [than] adequate.
Range of the Mirage 2000 was adequate? Not in the slighest, hence the adoption of 2000-litre external tanks that restrict speed to 500 kts, and those draggy AAR probes. Not to mention inadequate cockpit environment which affects pilot endurance.
The 2000 was a short-range interceptor which was abused to create attack and strike platforms. It was a economy measure, pure and simple, just like the RAF adopting the Tornado as its common platform. Short-sighted but better than nothing, which was the other option the AdLA faced.
By: Cherry Ripe
- 3rd July 2014 at 14:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Develop please?
The 4000's cockpit benefitted from much larger volume available and was designed for comfort during long-endurance patrol or penetration.
I don't have the reference to hand but the cockpit was in the region of 50% wider than the 2000, and much longer ( a lot of volume was unused below the aft fairing that you can see under the canopy )
Unforunately once the AdlA selected the 2000 all State effort swung behind that product and the Rafale; even when the Saudis came back to look at the 4000 in 1987 they were shooed towards the Rafale, which wasn't an option - they needed an urgent supplement for their F-15 force, not something that might have been available in 20 years time. In the end the USA relented and sold more F-15s.
On the topic of internal fuel a quick trip through the Flight International archives gives:
Mirage 2000: 3200 kg
Mirage 4000: 9200 kg
F-15A: 5400 kg ( converted from US gallons )
So even with additional drag and a second M53 to feed the 4000 was in a completely different league.
By: halloweene
- 3rd July 2014 at 16:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
precisely 11430L ;)
That said i recetly finished the book "la guerre vue du ciel" by Cdt "claudia" Schaeffler, a 2000D pilot, and he didn't complain about cockpit comfort, aswell as he talked about very long missions.
I agree 4000 was an entirely different league. But i didn't hear the same things about Saudi rebuttal...
By: MadRat
- 4th July 2014 at 01:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M53 was probably not the best engine to pit against rivalries offered for F-15. In hindsight I'm not so sure Mirage 4k offered any promises that EAP did not already make, plus it had a larger projected customer base. EJ200 was not ready by that time, but it was a technology leap over the M53. France chose to downscale when they designed the Rafale to make it affordable. Would the 4k be affordable in production is the bigger question.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 4th July 2014 at 02:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M53 was probably not the best engine to pit against rivalries offered for F-15. In hindsight I'm not so sure Mirage 4k offered any promises that EAP did not already make, plus it had a larger projected customer base. EJ200 was not ready by that time, but it was a technology leap over the M53. France chose to downscale when they designed the Rafale to make it affordable. Would the 4k be affordable in production is the bigger question.
either way, EAP and its succesor, Rafale, and maybe even M4K.. no body wouldve wanted aside from the home customers and a very limited number of exports.
By: halloweene
- 4th July 2014 at 05:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M53 was probably not the best engine to pit against rivalries offered for F-15. In hindsight I'm not so sure Mirage 4k offered any promises that EAP did not already make, plus it had a larger projected customer base. EJ200 was not ready by that time, but it was a technology leap over the M53. France chose to downscale when they designed the Rafale to make it affordable. Would the 4k be affordable in production is the bigger question.
If you say so (about F-15). I have comparison charts but you'll have to wait sorry. Let alone say it could climb faster was more manoeuvrant at high speed, fly higher and had more range...
About EAP, nothing common, different weight classes. And Mirage 4000 was a prototype, not a Tech demonstrator. some years before EAP.
Rafale has never been a successor of EAP but of ACX.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 14th May 2014 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thank you. Btw the mirage 4000 fin was entirely made of composites and used for fuel storage ;)
I'll do my best and of course let you know if...
Atm i am trying to collect archives, then i'll see what i can do with them.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 3rd July 2014 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
crap photo but original one will be in the booklet...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229736[/ATTACH]
1 conformal 1700L fuel tank + 2* 2500L external fuel tanks + 2+AAS30+ 2missiles + 9* 250 kgs (or is it 125.? )bombs
Posts: 555
By: Cherry Ripe - 3rd July 2014 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Range of the Mirage 2000 was adequate? Not in the slighest, hence the adoption of 2000-litre external tanks that restrict speed to 500 kts, and those draggy AAR probes. Not to mention inadequate cockpit environment which affects pilot endurance.
The 2000 was a short-range interceptor which was abused to create attack and strike platforms. It was a economy measure, pure and simple, just like the RAF adopting the Tornado as its common platform. Short-sighted but better than nothing, which was the other option the AdLA faced.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 3rd July 2014 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Develop please?
Posts: 555
By: Cherry Ripe - 3rd July 2014 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 4000's cockpit benefitted from much larger volume available and was designed for comfort during long-endurance patrol or penetration.
I don't have the reference to hand but the cockpit was in the region of 50% wider than the 2000, and much longer ( a lot of volume was unused below the aft fairing that you can see under the canopy )
Unforunately once the AdlA selected the 2000 all State effort swung behind that product and the Rafale; even when the Saudis came back to look at the 4000 in 1987 they were shooed towards the Rafale, which wasn't an option - they needed an urgent supplement for their F-15 force, not something that might have been available in 20 years time. In the end the USA relented and sold more F-15s.
On the topic of internal fuel a quick trip through the Flight International archives gives:
Mirage 2000: 3200 kg
Mirage 4000: 9200 kg
F-15A: 5400 kg ( converted from US gallons )
So even with additional drag and a second M53 to feed the 4000 was in a completely different league.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 3rd July 2014 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
precisely 11430L ;)
That said i recetly finished the book "la guerre vue du ciel" by Cdt "claudia" Schaeffler, a 2000D pilot, and he didn't complain about cockpit comfort, aswell as he talked about very long missions.
I agree 4000 was an entirely different league. But i didn't hear the same things about Saudi rebuttal...
BTW, mirage 4000 cockpit prototype...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229777[/ATTACH]
not bad for early 80ies no?
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 3rd July 2014 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would it have made a good replacement for the Mirage IV?
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 3rd July 2014 at 21:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By comparison with the Mirage 2000N? Yes, it would been a much better plane, its range and payload were vastly superior to the "N".
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 3rd July 2014 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
3330 Kms on innner fuel (3h30) clean config. Not range, max distance.
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 4th July 2014 at 01:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France could have had a striker pretty much on par with the F-15E.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 4th July 2014 at 01:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M53 was probably not the best engine to pit against rivalries offered for F-15. In hindsight I'm not so sure Mirage 4k offered any promises that EAP did not already make, plus it had a larger projected customer base. EJ200 was not ready by that time, but it was a technology leap over the M53. France chose to downscale when they designed the Rafale to make it affordable. Would the 4k be affordable in production is the bigger question.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 4th July 2014 at 02:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
either way, EAP and its succesor, Rafale, and maybe even M4K.. no body wouldve wanted aside from the home customers and a very limited number of exports.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 4th July 2014 at 05:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you say so (about F-15). I have comparison charts but you'll have to wait sorry. Let alone say it could climb faster was more manoeuvrant at high speed, fly higher and had more range...
About EAP, nothing common, different weight classes. And Mirage 4000 was a prototype, not a Tech demonstrator. some years before EAP.
Rafale has never been a successor of EAP but of ACX.