Jump to content

Talk:Dassault Mirage III: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Archiving post over 12 months old to Talk:Dassault Mirage III/Archive 1
 
(71 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject France}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Aviation
{{WPAVIATION
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|class=start
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|B-Class-1=no
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
|B-Class-2=yes
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|Aircraft=y}}
|B-Class-3=yes
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|B-Class-4=yes
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|B-Class-5=yes
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
|Aircraft-project=yes}}
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
{{WPMILHIST|Aviation=yes|French-task-force=yes|Pakistani=yes|Australian=yes|class=Start
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|Aviation=y|ANZSP=y|French=y|Latin-American=y|South-Asian=y|Cold-War=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
|B-Class-1=no
{{WikiProject France|importance=low}}
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
}}
}}
}}

==Rumors==
IAI Nesher - rumour has it that the US transported the 50 (?) by plane to Israel rather than Israel building them.

''Erm ... so the USA built (or acquired on Israel's behalf) Mirage IIIs/Neshers??? Yeah, right ... I can just picture the USA building French aircraft. [[User:Elf-friend|Elf-friend]] 21:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)''

South Africa and Cheetah : Apparently the airframe number, etc don't tie - highly likely to be Kfir's from Israel.

''OF COURSE not all the airframe numbers "tie". Some of the airframes were either built in South Africa or imported. That doesn't imply ANYTHING about where the (rest of the) aircraft were actually built. [[User:Elf-friend|Elf-friend]] 21:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) ''

::South Africa bought 38 Mirage III airframes from Israel, and converted these to Cheetah Cs itself. Of course, there was some construction done, as SA basically reconstructed 50% of the airframe on some of the aircraft in order to "zero-hour" it. As for Israel, it obtained the plans to the Mirage V through espionage, and built the Neshers that way. The Kfirs are just upgraded Neshers, and the Cheetahs are NOT Kfirs, even the canards are different shapes to those on the Kfir. Incidentally, it does not seem there was any US assistance in either the Nesher or the Kfir. In the case of the latter, it only used the J79 because Israel, as far as I recall, had free access to this engine and may even have been license-producing it. [[User:Impi|Impi]] 22:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

for more info look at htttp://www.acig.org/

''Is there some kind of [[racist]] belief here that anybody outside Europe or the USA can't build fighter aircraft??? [[User:Elf-friend|Elf-friend]] 21:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)''

IAI Kfir/Nesher
The most probable version is that Marcel Dassault (for obvious reason) gave some help to the Israelian to copy his plane. I don't think the US played another role than providing engines. It's worth to notice that a country doesn't buy a fighter plane like you buy a car there is always some technology buyed with the plane, few countries wish to rely on foreign supply for maintaining plane during a war.

This can go as far as building the whole plane for instance there is Australian made Mirage like there is German, Netherland and Japanese made F-104 Starfighters.

Even if you don't acquire a full license, if you can manufacture enough replacement parts the step toward manufacturing the whole plane is not that huge.

[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 08:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

''Is there some kind of racist belief here that anybody outside Europe or the USA can't build fighter aircraft??? Elf-friend 21:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)''

:No, it's just that these (UK/US, Germany and Europe) are the countries with the most aerial combat experience and the most advanced technical knowledge, so they tend to know what makes a good combat aeroplane and are also able to build them. The other countries have in some cases little-or-no combat experience, or else their experience is against second- or third-rate opponents.

:For example, Sweden has designed and built a number of excellent aircraft post WW II, but none of them have had any actual combat record, since Sweden has been neutral in both World Wars, and has generally been content to mind its own business. Similarly, the Israelis (it may be argued) have only fought against what might be regarded as poorly-trained opponents. In the case of the former Soviet Union, their combat aircraft at the beginning of the so-called [[Great Patriotic War]] were for the most part completely outclassed by the German opposition (and the Soviets lost them in great numbers), and technically the Germans remained ahead of the USSR in aircraft design for the remainder of the war, where it was only by using aircraft in vastly greater numbers (and also losing them in similar numbers) that the former SU was able to resist and eventually prevail over the technically-superior Luftwaffe.

:The ultimate test for a combat aeroplane is whether it can survive against the opposition, and a great many on-paper 'good' aeroplanes failed when it came to actually having to fight. Designing a fighting aeroplane is a compromise, favouring certain qualities at the expense of others, speed, range, maneuverability, etc., and getting the balance wrong can make the difference between an 'excellent' aircraft and one that is almost useless, becoming the aerial equivalent of [[cannon fodder]].

:Anyone can build a combat aircraft that looks good on paper and specifications, but the acid test is whether it is any good against top-notch opponents, and so far, only these countries (UK/US, Germany and Europe) have actually fought against first-rate technical powers, using state-of-the-art aircraft, and of these, The UK and Germany have by far the most experience of anyone.

==FA==
Hmm, nice and thorough article - wonder if it might not be a good idea to place it as a featured article candidate? [[User:Krupo|Krupo]] 17:37, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Nice idea, but I don't think it's quite ready yet. Most of the article is based on info from Greg Goebel's Vectorsite, and of late I've come to suspect the accuracy of the Vectorsite, due to the fact that the Cheetah article was also based on info from it, and was so inaccurate that I basically had to rewrite the article. So I think we should first do a bit more checking before nominating it as a featured article candidate. [[User:Impi|Impi]] 22:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:: Cool. [[User:Krupo|Krupo]] 20:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

::: I think some more needs to be said about the performance of the aircraft in combat during the Falklands War. It failed in its first encounter with the Sea Harrier and never again tried to initiate a dogfight with the SH. It is true that the South Atlantic environment was harsh for a jet to operate in and that the Mirage was at the limit of its range, but those points hold equally true for the Harrier, which was after all operating off ships. Then again, the British pilots were no doubt better trained and they were using the Aim-9L sidewinder, superior to any weapon deployed by the Mirages [[JRJW 20 December 2005]].

==Indigestion==
I'm thinking this would be much more digestible if (aside from some rewriting and editing here and there) it were broken up into separate articles, at least for the Kfir/Cheetah/Pantera versions and possibly also for the Mirage III and Mirage V. I realize that the distinction between Mirage III and Mirage V models (and particularly the Mirage 50) after the various upgrade programmes is troublesome, but this is awfully dense.
[[User:ArgentLA|ArgentLA]] 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (PST)

:You can cut down on the Kfir/Cheetah/Pantera a bit. All three variants have their own articles, though only the Cheetah article is comprehensive. Still, all the info from the Mirage article is duplicated in the articles of the three variants. I think the most pressing need with the page though, aside from that, is better ordering. Perhaps grouping all the variants as subheadings under a "Variants" heading, and rewriting some sections to make them more consise. I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll also try give it a shot in a couple of days. [[User:Impi|Impi]] 12:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== IAI Nesher/Atlas Cheetah/EMBRAER Pantera ==

Since these subheadings are ''exactly'' duplicated in those separate entities, I went ahead and deleted the text here. There doesn't seem to be any reason to have the exact same material twice.

[[User:ArgentLA|ArgentLA]] 30 Nov 2004

IAI Nesher/Atlas Cheetah/EMBRAER Pantera are Mirage III derivatives. I agree there is no reason to have the exact same material twice. But there should be something in the article ! [[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 13:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: In fact, Neshers and Panteras are Mirage 5 derivatives -- [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Error, the image is a Mirage 2000, no a M. III ==

Rectified the error ?

== Reformat article proposal ==

The article is not very friendly, mainly there is a mess with all the variants mentioned through the text, perhaps making a table or something could make it better [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mirage 5 has enough information to warrant a separate article. - [[User:Emt147|Emt147]] [[User_talk:Emt147|<small><sup>Burninate!</sup></small>]] 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::I agree, we could move M5 to a new one and clear a bit the rest (due dup info, not ordered, etc ) [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== The fairey delta ==

i heard that the Mirarge idea initialy came from the [[fairey delta]] with the plans being bought by Dassault is this true?

also should the comment on lack of manuverability be removed? low wing loadings would result in hight turning rates which is goog manuveability and also delta wings allow high angles of attack due to [[vortex lift]]


---
I also agree on the manuverability issue. Delta winged aircrafts tend to have good manuverability due to the leading edge vortex creation that delays the stall at high AoA.

I also believe that the comment about the canards is false. An aircraft becomes unstable by moving the point of aerodynamic pressure in front of the center of gravity. On the other hand what canards do is to create additional vortices which are forced towards the main wing due to the canard induced downwash. These vortices reattache the flow of the main wing near the wing root and offer improved high alpha (high AoA) performance. A good citation of the issue is the book of Klaus Huenecke ''Modern combat aircraft design''

In the ''Comparable Aircraft'' list I would also add
the Saab 37 Viggen (also a canard plane)
as well as the EF 2000 the wing of which is following a somehow similar configuration (although much more advanced)

Last but not least, I believe that the comment about the half cone shock diffusers is also somehow incorect. The purpose of the shock diffusers is not to create smooth flow for the engine but to create an obleaque shock wave that meets the lip of the air inlet. This shock is mainly responsible for the deceleration of the flow and the increase in static pressure before the 1st stage of the compressor. The displacement of the cone takes place in order to mach the shock cone to the air inlet lip at any speed (f course only at the speeds where air compresibility occurs). The book of K. Huenecke is also a sufficient refference as well as any other book on aviation gas turbines.
A nice link with more info is the article about the inlet cone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone

[[User:Georgepehli|georgepehli]] ([[User talk:Georgepehli|talk]]) 09:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:I wholeheartedly agree with you about the canards. And the statement as it stands now doesn't even have a source. Maybe it should be changed? [[Special:Contributions/130.234.187.171|130.234.187.171]] ([[User talk:130.234.187.171|talk]]) 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

==1970s French TV Series with Mirage IIIs?==
Back in the early seventies the [[BBC]] in the UK used to show a French TV series about a French squadron of Mirages (Mirage IIIs - I think) in the children's afternoon-slot on [[BBC One|BBC 1]]. If I remember correctly it was dubbed into English for the BBC version but I could be wrong. From memory it sounds similar to the comic story mentioned in the article, but the names of the characters don't ring a bell so it may be something compeletely different. I seem to remember they did a lot of flying around snow-covered mountains.

Does anyone remember what it was called and anything else about it? - as it may do for a 'Trivia' section in the article or as an article on the TV series itself.


UPDATE - forget it! - just found a mention of the TV series on a forum here: [http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=54994] - it was called ''The Aeronauts'' in English and it would seem it WAS based on the comic stories.

''Les Chevaliers du Ciel - (France "The Aeronauts", tv series; ORTF 1967-69, 1014m) D: François Villiers. Jacques Santi = Lt Tanguy, Christian Marin = Lt Laverdure, Muriel Baptiste = Colette, Michèle Girardon = Nicole, Marlène Jobert = Irène, Victor Lanoux = Lantier. Screenplay: Jean-Michel Charlier. 39 episodes. Based on Charlier and Uderzo's comic strip Les aventures de Tanguy et Laverdure.''

From here: [http://aerofiles.com/film-k.html]

The aircraft BTW were Mirage IIICs
[[User:Ian Dunster|Ian Dunster]] 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

==Mirage 5==
Splitting of the Mirage 5/50/3NG has been mentione a few times above, but it has never been done. I'm ready to give it a shot. I'm not sure what to do with the [[List of Dassault Mirage III operators]] page, but I'm OK with leaving it where it is, with links in both articles. Both articles will be short enough to handle the list of their respective operators, but it'd be quite a job to re-incorporate it. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:Go for it, and if you'd like a hand, let me know on my talk page when you've split them. I'd be happy to give both a look and make changes to improve their overall states. [[User:ericg|ericg]] [[User_talk:Ericg|✈]] 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Te easy part for me is the cut-and-paste, then chopping out the parts relevant to the other articles. The harder part for me is correcting the specs (too tedious), and fixing redirects. On redirects, [[User:Petri Krohn]] did alot of the work already, and keyed me in on the fact the Mirage 5 didn't have it's own article. Once we get a consensus here, I'll let you know when the new page is made. Sometimes I miss things in the splits, so watch for those. Also, check the Intros; I have a hard time with those. Again, thanks for the support and the offer! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The text in the existing article does not follow the basic WP:AIR page format, having a brief development section followed by all the variants. I'll do what I can to split out appropriate sections as I go along, but both articles will probably require a major restructuring. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing a [[User:BillCJ/Test Article 1|test article]] for the Mirage 5, and have run into a slight problem. The article text describes the Milan and Mirage 3NG under the "Mirage 5/50/Milan/3NG section", but my sources describe the Milan and 3NG as improvements of the IIIE. For the time being, I am going to leave them in the Mirage III article, but would certainly appreciate some input on the issue. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Split completed! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

==Operators==
Now the article is splitted, I think we have countries that should not be here, e.g., Chile (mirage 50 and 5BR) and Peru (5P) [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:Feel free to take them out if you're sure those countries never operated Mirage 3s at anytime. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Im pretty sure, Peru uses M5Px and Chile M50(some 5F) and ex belgians 5BE, however, there is very thin line between the different designations, e.g. Mirage IIIR or 5R are basically the same plane and could go in any article. Also, Argentines Mirage IIIEA were pure interceptors just with Cyrano II and without doppler (first batch do not even had the wires for carrying AAM in their wings until 1981) whilst Peru's Mirage 5 were more sophisticated than the multirole brazilian Mirage IIIEBR. I think would be great to have a table explaining all this data instead of the mess of text we currenly have [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::Personally, I feel the operators section should be updated or altered as many of these nations listed are former operaors, ie. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Gabon, Israel. (It Australia and Frances's respective cases, neither have been operators of Mirage IIIs for ten years or more.) ([[User:Bobbo9000|Bobbo9000]] 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Bobbo9000)

:::The Operators list is intended for all operators, past and present. Feel free to add the dates they were operated, or even split the list into former and current operators if you like. However, there is no reason to remove all the former operators completely. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==Incorrect mention of M2000 as a variant of MIII==
Please note that is incorrect that the Mirage-2000 is a variant of the Mirage III. Both aircraft are different, even though the M2000 is inspired on the MIII. Please consider removing the mention of M2000 in the variants list on the "Infobox", and add it to a list of "Related Aircraft".
[[User:DPdH|DPdH]] 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

==Peru is listed incorrectly as operator of Mirage III==
Greetings, the Peruvian Air Force never operate the Mirage III, is probably a confusion between Mirage III and Mirage 5P which remain in service in our air force until the 90s -[[User:Cloudaoc|Cloudaoc]] 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== Mirage jets in Pakistan ==

From [[Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction]]: "(Pakistani Air Force aircraft include) the [[Dassault Mirage III|Mirage IIIOs]], [[Mirage IIIODs]] and [[Mirage IIIEs]]. The [[Pakistani Air Force]], currently, operates some 156 Mirage (III & V) aircraft." --
Can anyone straighten out those redlinks? ([[WP:REDLINK]]). Thanks. -- [[Special:Contributions/201.37.229.117|201.37.229.117]] ([[User talk:201.37.229.117|talk]]) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== Operationl History ==

This article is missing the Operational History of the Mirage III, which is a very long and full operational history. From the IAF in the Arab-Israeli wars in the Middle East to the South Atlantic in the Falkland War with Argentina's Air Force. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/201.212.97.42|201.212.97.42]] ([[User talk:201.212.97.42|talk]]) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Rate of climb ==

"Rate of climb: 83.3 m/s (16,400 ft/min)" This is much too low, the real figure is about twice that high. This is possibly a rate of climb at high altitude or with external payload. [[User:Lastdingo|Lastdingo]] ([[User talk:Lastdingo|talk]]) 04:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


==Rewrite==
== Rocket pack ==
I am about to undertake a major revision and I could certainly use some help. One of the aspects that I find wanting is that there are very few references in the form of citations. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


in the article on the central rocket booster it talks about a number of things that seem like they would be relevant on the page about the jet itself. Like how when the rocket pack was fitted the cannon pack was replaced with a fuel tank for the rocket, making it a missile-only interceptor, and how the tanks find be swapped in half an hour or so, and how when not being used the space for the rocket booster was filled by a fuel tank that fitted the same envelope. The book i have here says 110 gallon, while the article says like 87.
==Swiss Mirage Versions==


Not sure if this all applies to the IIIC or the E, or both, but it seems like it would be relevant to the jet itself more than the rocket booster.


[[User:Idumea47b|Idumea47b]] ([[User talk:Idumea47b|talk]]) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


== Main image ==
Sources are:
Offical Hompage of the Swiss Air Force (some pages ther are only aviabel in German, some also in English) and the Book about the FFA P-16


Is there a particular reason why the [[commons:File:RAAF_Mirage_III_(78-438976).jpg|current header image]] is a dubiously-photoshopped version of a perfectly good [[commons:File:Two_Mirage_III_of_the_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_1.JPEG|original image]]? I'd think it's preferable to use an unaltered image when it's good enough, especially since the editing job isn't that great. [[User:Renaati|Renaati]] ([[User talk:Renaati|talk]]) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft.html
http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/verbaende/einsatz_lw.html
Hanspeter Strehler (2004): Das Schweizer Düsenflugzeug P-16. ISBN 3-03-300051-7 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.79.78.156|83.79.78.156]] ([[User talk:83.79.78.156|talk]]) 12:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 16:26, 24 October 2024

Rocket pack

[edit]

in the article on the central rocket booster it talks about a number of things that seem like they would be relevant on the page about the jet itself. Like how when the rocket pack was fitted the cannon pack was replaced with a fuel tank for the rocket, making it a missile-only interceptor, and how the tanks find be swapped in half an hour or so, and how when not being used the space for the rocket booster was filled by a fuel tank that fitted the same envelope. The book i have here says 110 gallon, while the article says like 87.

Not sure if this all applies to the IIIC or the E, or both, but it seems like it would be relevant to the jet itself more than the rocket booster.

Idumea47b (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

[edit]

Is there a particular reason why the current header image is a dubiously-photoshopped version of a perfectly good original image? I'd think it's preferable to use an unaltered image when it's good enough, especially since the editing job isn't that great. Renaati (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dassault_Mirage_III&oldid=1253156075"