By: TomcatViP
- 19th October 2016 at 23:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249090[/ATTACH]
Aarff, can't see the picture. Anyone for a repost or pm?
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 19th October 2016 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
assume the Saudis chose the M4k instead of the Tornado (something which probably would've been better to begin with).
what other air forces would've potentially wanted such an aircraft/capability?
i would argue that eventually it would've been adopted at home (and the 2000D and N wouldn't have been developed in response, and instead of the Rafale, Dassault may have made a different aircraft to follow)
Singapore
and India (and as a response, they may not have went with the Su-30, and instead with the su-34 and 35)
India would not have been able to afford the Mirage-4000 in any meaningful numbers, even if had been interested or if Dassault had developed it and offered it. One of the major reasons for the selection of the Su-30 over the Mirage-2000-5 was the high price being quoted for the Mirage-2000-5. So imagine how much more expensive the bigger Mirage-4000 would've been and how competitive that would've made it.
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 19th October 2016 at 23:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a lower wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.
You mean lower wing loading right? The reason the Tornado and other swing wing jets handled like trucks was their high wing loading..increasing it would make them single/twin seat airliners.
By: Multirole
- 20th October 2016 at 01:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I make it 274, not counting the secondhand ones passed on to Brazil.
Not that different from my estimates. My point stands that the Mirage 2000 was not the export success many imagine it to be. There were a significant number of users but many of those operated a dozen or so jets. The Mirage 4000 would be competing for the same customers as those that eventually bought Eagles and Flankers. There was no reason any of them would have preferred the 4000. Export chances would have been dismal.
By: Multirole
- 20th October 2016 at 01:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I should revise my statement. If the French could make it at a price point competitive to the F/A-18, they could potentially win Kuwaiti, Finnish, Spanish, Malaysian contracts in the 90s. I doubt that would've happened.
By: djcross
- 20th October 2016 at 01:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I should revise my statement. If the French could make it at a price point competitive to the F/A-18, they could potentially win Kuwaiti, Finnish, Spanish, Malaysian contracts in the 90s. I doubt that would've happened.
You forgot Canada.
New
Posts: 269
By: Byoin
- 20th October 2016 at 03:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not that different from my estimates. My point stands that the Mirage 2000 was not the export success many imagine it to be. There were a significant number of users but many of those operated a dozen or so jets. The Mirage 4000 would be competing for the same customers as those that eventually bought Eagles and Flankers. There was no reason any of them would have preferred the 4000. Export chances would have been dismal.
French stuff are nice, but too expensive. only middle eastern oil countries could have afforded it.
By: Sintra
- 20th October 2016 at 13:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are confusing the JH-7 and JH-7A
also the Tornado cannot carry four AShMs
No, i was actually refering to aircraft that entered service, the JH-7A.
On the four AShMs, actually today it doesnt carry any, but in the eighties, untill the beggining of the nineties, when severall of the user nations had an anti ship mission in their Tornado fleets, sights of Marineflieger Tornados with four MBB Kormorans or even RAF Tornados with four Sea Eagles were common.
By: wilhelm
- 21st October 2016 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looked like something from the 60's.
What exactly about it looks like it is from the 60's?
It looks pretty much what it is, a design from the 70's that first flew in the 70's.
Two things I found interesting on the Mirage 4000 was the sideways opeing canopy and the massive vertical tail.
Does anyone know what the wing sweep angle of the Mirage 4000 was?
I seem to recall the original Mirage III was 60 degrees, while the Mirage 2000 was 58 degrees.
Some pics of the Dassault stablemates:
New
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss
- 21st October 2016 at 12:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What exactly about it looks like it is from the 60's?
It looks pretty much what it is, a design from the 70's that first flew in the 70's.
Two things I found interesting on the Mirage 4000 was the sideways opeing canopy and the massive vertical tail.
Does anyone know what the wing sweep angle of the Mirage 4000 was?
I seem to recall the original Mirage III was 60 degrees, while the Mirage 2000 was 58 degrees.
Some pics of the Dassault stablemates:
A beauty anyway...
Think I recall reading that fin was used as a fuel tank.
About wing sweep angle, if we can believe these silhouettes :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249161[/ATTACH]
It would be 56°. But the M2000 silhouette is a bit off for the 58°... so not sure.
That's why I asked Halloweene about an accurate scale plane in his coming book. I don't know of any good plan of this plane.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 19th October 2016 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aarff, can't see the picture. Anyone for a repost or pm?
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 19th October 2016 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India would not have been able to afford the Mirage-4000 in any meaningful numbers, even if had been interested or if Dassault had developed it and offered it. One of the major reasons for the selection of the Su-30 over the Mirage-2000-5 was the high price being quoted for the Mirage-2000-5. So imagine how much more expensive the bigger Mirage-4000 would've been and how competitive that would've made it.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 19th October 2016 at 23:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean lower wing loading right? The reason the Tornado and other swing wing jets handled like trucks was their high wing loading..increasing it would make them single/twin seat airliners.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 19th October 2016 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure it can.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249120[/ATTACH]
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 20th October 2016 at 01:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not that different from my estimates. My point stands that the Mirage 2000 was not the export success many imagine it to be. There were a significant number of users but many of those operated a dozen or so jets. The Mirage 4000 would be competing for the same customers as those that eventually bought Eagles and Flankers. There was no reason any of them would have preferred the 4000. Export chances would have been dismal.
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 20th October 2016 at 01:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I should revise my statement. If the French could make it at a price point competitive to the F/A-18, they could potentially win Kuwaiti, Finnish, Spanish, Malaysian contracts in the 90s. I doubt that would've happened.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 20th October 2016 at 01:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You forgot Canada.
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 20th October 2016 at 03:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
French stuff are nice, but too expensive. only middle eastern oil countries could have afforded it.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th October 2016 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dassault archives in St Cloud. I'm on writing a booklet about Mirage 4000 story.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 20th October 2016 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, i was actually refering to aircraft that entered service, the JH-7A.
On the four AShMs, actually today it doesnt carry any, but in the eighties, untill the beggining of the nineties, when severall of the user nations had an anti ship mission in their Tornado fleets, sights of Marineflieger Tornados with four MBB Kormorans or even RAF Tornados with four Sea Eagles were common.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249137[/ATTACH]
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 20th October 2016 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mirage 4000 just wasn't pretty. If it had been similar to Rafale perhaps it would have been marketable....
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 20th October 2016 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cool ! will it include an accurate scalepan ?
Hu ?? not pretty ?
![http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/8/0/1832083.jpg?v=v40](http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/8/0/1832083.jpg?v=v40)
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 20th October 2016 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looked like something from the 60's.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th October 2016 at 19:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, including the never buuilt two seater ;)
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 20th October 2016 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OH Oo
Yep, i am going to buy a copy of that booklet... Hallo, warn when its released, thanks in advance.
Posts: 1,059
By: RpR - 21st October 2016 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL, well the Rafale looks like a bulimic Mirage.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 21st October 2016 at 06:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its them shock cones aint it
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 21st October 2016 at 07:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now , what's wrong with the 60's ? mmm...?
![https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4NDI2NzA3OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDM1OTQyOA@@._V1_UY317_CR20,0,214,317_AL_.jpg](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4NDI2NzA3OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDM1OTQyOA@@._V1_UY317_CR20,0,214,317_AL_.jpg)
Posts: 1,620
By: wilhelm - 21st October 2016 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What exactly about it looks like it is from the 60's?
It looks pretty much what it is, a design from the 70's that first flew in the 70's.
Two things I found interesting on the Mirage 4000 was the sideways opeing canopy and the massive vertical tail.
Does anyone know what the wing sweep angle of the Mirage 4000 was?
I seem to recall the original Mirage III was 60 degrees, while the Mirage 2000 was 58 degrees.
Some pics of the Dassault stablemates:
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 21st October 2016 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A beauty anyway...
Think I recall reading that fin was used as a fuel tank.
About wing sweep angle, if we can believe these silhouettes :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249161[/ATTACH]
It would be 56°. But the M2000 silhouette is a bit off for the 58°... so not sure.
That's why I asked Halloweene about an accurate scale plane in his coming book. I don't know of any good plan of this plane.