Dassault Etendard Prototypes and Projects

[H_K]

I suspect that [a] the Etendard formula simply reached the end of its development potential with the ATAR 8 and was never intended or engineered to be a supersonic fighter.

The Etendard formula should inherently be quite suitable for a supersonic fighter, being optimized for low transonic drag. The prototype Etd IV is said to have exceeded Mach 1 straight and level and the IVM was capable of Mach 1.3 in a dive.

Keep in mind it’s the same wing formula as the Super Mystère (which could fly Mach 1.3-1.4 with the Atar 9B - aka. SMB4), but further optimized with reduced thickness for less transonic drag. And of course 20% smaller total wing area which also reduces drag.

Likewise the Etendard’s narrow, area-ruled fuselage should be much less draggy than the Super Mystère.

Overall it was superficially similar to the F11F which as we know did quite well once fitted with a good afterburning engine (the J79). The Etendard would never be as good for the high-altitude interceptor role as a pure delta like the Mirage III, which would always win in terms of low drag & structural weight. But as a Mach ~1.5+ (my guess) tactical fighter optimized for high maneuverability and good runway requirements it seems like it could have been a more balanced design.

 

[Archibald]

The irony is that Dassault ended returning to swept wing a decade later... with the F1: after VSTOL and VG types, or in parallel.

The Etendard would never be as good for the high-altitude interceptor role as a pure delta like the Mirage III, which would always win in terms of low drag & structural weight. But as a Mach ~1.5+ (my guess) tactical fighter optimized for high maneuverability and good runway requirements it seems like it could have been a more balanced design.

And they would call it a Mirage F1 (half joking, but the bolded part, really: the F1 raison d'être after the VSTOL failed and paralleling the VG types)

 

[phantomphan]

Just curious, what would have offered the best practical mix for the French carriers?

1. Crusader / Etendard
2. Crusader / Skyhawk
3. Crusader / Corsair II

 

[lancer21]

Thanks for the most educative input, i must admit this was more of a what-if question and i thought i posted it in the what-if section but must have clicked on this link and didn't realized.

I imagined this supersonic Etendard with a streched fuselage to cater for the longer AB engine and restore the COG, and intake mice (souris) like Mirage, Cyrano radar in the nose, an R-530 under the fuselage and/or AIM-9 and R-550s when available under the wings. Still seems to me the result would be smaller and lighter than the F-8.

 

[Archibald]

Just curious, what would have offered the best practical mix for the French carriers?

1. Crusader / Etendard
2. Crusader / Skyhawk
3. Crusader / Corsair II

Corsair II would be the best and almost happened in 72' butwas too heavy and expensive.
Skyhawk was second best but S.E was close... with a J52 initially.

 

[H_K]

Just curious, what would have offered the best practical mix for the French carriers?

1. Crusader / Etendard
2. Crusader / Skyhawk
3. Crusader / Corsair II

Tough choice as none of the options are ideal:

1) Crusader / Etendard cost a fair bit of money and the Etendard had limited carrying ability in the strike role.

2) Skyhawk was a great bomb truck but lower performance than an Etendard in the fighter role, lack of radar, might have been a problem for integration of French missiles like the AS-30 and later Exocet.

3) The A-7 Corsair II was weight restricted on the Clemenceau catapults. Though maybe still worth it as even a lightly loaded A-7 might carry as much as a Skyhawk or Etendard.

In hindsight a single multi-role type similar to the F11F-1F Super Tiger would have been ideal. Which Dassault should have been capable of delivering using the Etendard + Atar 9B combo.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suspect that [a] the Etendard formula simply reached the end of its development potential with the ATAR 8 and was never intended or engineered to be a supersonic fighter.

The Etendard line began as an adaptation/modernization of the Ouragan/Mystere formula to meet a French requirement for an ultra-lightweight fighter powered by a pair of little Gabizo engines. This design was recast around a Bristol Orpheus to meet the NATO lightweight tactical fighter requirement that was ultimately met by the FIAT G-91R. It went into service with the ATAR 8 as a replacement for the Jaguar M.

The various Etendards and the Jaguar M were tactical fighters--attack aircraft--rather than fighters per se. Supersonic performance was never a requirement. The Etendard was selected because it was good enough for the role and was a domestic product. The A-4 and A-7 were the alternative choices, not the F-8.

France chose the F-8 for the carrier-based fighter role because it was the only available modern fighter aircraft that could operate from its relatively small carriers at a reasonable cost. Phantoms would probably have been preferred, but were too large and heavy. A dedicated French project was probably out of the question given the cost and the small number required.

Yeah, the Foch/Clemenceau carriers were basically the size of an Essex class, which never operated Phantoms. Though they did operate A3 Skywarriors...

 

[Scott Kenny]

In hindsight a single multi-role type similar to the F11F-1F Super Tiger would have been ideal. Which Dassault should have been capable of delivering using the Etendard + Atar 9B combo.

I don't think the French would have been willing to sacrifice the sheer performance of the Crusader, though. Even if it was low missile capacity, it was a very good fighter.

I'm more surprised that they didn't run any A-7s, though I'm sure the French heavily weight the fact that it wasn't made there against it. The A-7 was only slightly heavier than the F-8 empty, so "only" loading 10klbs of boom onboard wouldn't have been much of a loss. I mean, yes, that's losing 1/3 of the theoretical max load, but so what? 10klbs is a lot of boom, even with 1000rds of 20mm and a pair of Sidewinders taking a bite out of that. And if the A-7 was flying from land, they could run at max load if needed.

 

[Archibald]

I can tell you that, when the Jaguar M ran into trouble late 1971 (cracked engine bay during trials on the Foch) the A-7 was clearly seen as the best option among the whole lot. And Aerospatiale was willing to licence build it, and so was Vought. The company was familiar with the French Aéronavale since 1939, as they used the following types
- V-156F dive bombers, 1939
- F-4U Corsairs, 1953-1963
- Crusaders since 1964.
- Also: by 1969 Vought was working on VG naval aircraft with Dassault.
- They were also changing the wings of the Crusader fleet.

So Vought and the Aéronavale had a long love affair. My understanding was it was considered too expensive, because avionics; and a little too heavy for the carriers (19 tons max was at the extreme capability of BS-5 catapults).

Unfortunately, the influential Dassault hated the A-7 for two major reasons
- Switzerland: it was competing against the Milan (Mirage V with canards) and the whole affair was very ugly. In the end the Swiss just bought more Hawker Hunter (facepalm)
- SNIAS / Aerospatiale offer to licence-build A-7s was their last atempt, ever, at reentering the combat aircraft area - against Dassault. Since 1963 they had competed for ECAT (and lost to Breguet & Jaguar) then Alphajet, also proposals to build F-5s under licence.
Everytime, they had their asses kicked either by Dassault or by the French government, influence by Dassault.

So A-7 was a non starter, despite its qualities.

By order of preference (kind of)
-A-7
-A-4
-upgraded Etendard with J52 (the Navy did not cared about buying French)
-upgraded Etendard with Atar 8 (hello, Super Etendard).
Outsiders
- naval F1 (prototype 04 made approaches on Foch 11/1971)
- Harrier (Landed on Jeanne D'Arc LPH 11/1971)
Out of the race
- Jaguar M