• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Mirage III - why only one R530 on the centerline ?

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
All in the title. Dumb question I never pondered before...
Mirage F1s did it AFAIK. One centerline drop tank, two R530 under wings (Super 530F later), two R550 Magic on the wingtips.

Yet Mirage IIIs only seemed to carry one R530 on the centerline. The underwing pylons could fit two tanks or two R550... but never saw two R530 there.
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
All in the title. Dumb question I never pondered before...
Mirage F1s did it AFAIK. One centerline drop tank, two R530 under wings (Super 530F later), two R550 Magic on the wingtips.

Yet Mirage IIIs only seemed to carry one R530 on the centerline. The underwing pylons could fit two tanks or two R550... but never saw two R530 there.
As far as I know yes, for French Mirage IIIC, only one R530 (or R511 early on) on centerline store. Seen that also on MIIICJ (Israel) and MIIICZ (SdAf).
Inboard wings stores were for fuel tanks, bombs or rocket pods or the RPKs Tank/Bombs pylons or JL-100 Tank/rocket-pod combos.

For outboard pylons I remember reading that on French MIIICs , only the ones deployed at one time to Djibouti (the last ones to serve in Adl'A) were wired for the R550 Magic I. All other French MIIIC were only wired for AIM-9B.
MIIICJ could take AIM-9B and later, or the Russian copy R-3S, or the Shafrir I and II.
MIIICZ could take AIM-9B and the Kukri. Dunno if it could take the Magic I.

Even on later variants (IIIE, V, 50…), I’ve only seen these inboard wing pylons used for tanks, bombs or rockets. No A/A missiles.
Even the 50EV (Venezuela) and the 5PA3 (Pakistan) that can takes Exocet, carries just one on the centerline pylon.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
863
Website
beyondthesprues.com
As per reply elsewhere, if you think about it, the Mirage III was really an interceptor that had a secondary role as a fighter. Its primary intercept would have gone something like: race to enemy (burning fuel like crazy) - upon identification maybe fire a R.530 in the face with the idea being to either bring down a bomber or make the other guys at least go on the defensive - merge and dogfight (using up even more fuel) - maybe get 1 or 2 shots in - bingo fuel light goes off - hope one can extricate from fur ball - head home and fight another day.

Remember that the range of the R.530 wasn't that high and at max speed would have been closed very quickly.
 
Last edited:

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
That was the intended use in the Fr Af for the IIIC. Fast climbing with help of a SEPR 841 rocket engine to intercept hi flying bombers. And the R530 was intended for that.
View: https://youtu.be/j7yqmWZel4k

But the airframe was really good as a fighter or fighter/bomber as seen later. Israel used it more in these two roles than as pure interceptor.
I think that is why Dassault won over other Fr competitor , Durandal, too optimized for interception only. Dassault offered something that could do the same, plus a good fighter, that could also do a bit of A/G.

I don’t think that the R530 was much worse than other early missiles of the time intended to kill big slow targets like bombers in fact, a bit like AIM-4 Falcon.
Note the early Sparrows had their share of problems.
It was just that the R530 was intended more as a bomber killer, and used by 3 Air Forces only . Though I think his only kill was a MiG-19.

Btw, looking for SEPR rocket images, found these interesting pdfs :
REUSABLE MAN-RATED ROCKET ENGINES The French Experience, 1944-1996.
The SEPR 844 Reusable liquid Rocket Engine for Mirage Combat Aircraft
 
Last edited:

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
870
Reaction score
417
I think the main reason for the IIIC to carry a single missile was that the wing points HAD TO be used for tanks if you wanted to reach any useful altitude and distance.

Conversely the Mirage F1 and F-8E(FN) Crusader were able to carry 2 R-530s.

As has been pointed out, the IIIC was very short-legged.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
I think the main reason for the IIIC to carry a single missile was that the wing points HAD TO be used for tanks if you wanted to reach any useful altitude and distance.

Conversely the Mirage F1 and F-8E(FN) Crusader were able to carry 2 R-530s.

As has been pointed out, the IIIC was very short-legged.

Not as much as the Lightning ? (shudders)

Thank you all !

Yeah, the wing points - probably never wired for the R530. And all too necessary for drop tanks, to go anywhere.

Only looking at the undercarriage and its doors, surely enough a Mirage III would never carry such a huge thing as the "iraqi banana tank" - the 2200 L monster with so little ground clearance.

Probably that cooling, power generation or datalink could not be provided on undewing points.
Could the Cyrano II radar even handle two R530s ?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
That was the intended use in the Fr Af for the IIIC. Fast climbing with help of a SEPR 841 rocket engine to intercept hi flying bombers. And the R530 was intended for that.
View: https://youtu.be/j7yqmWZel4k

But the airframe was really good as a fighter or fighter/bomber as seen later. Israel used it more in these two roles than as pure interceptor.
I think that is why Dassault won over other Fr competitor , Durandal, too optimized for interception only. Dassault offered something that could do the same, plus a good fighter, that could also do a bit of A/G.

I don’t think that the R530 was much worse than other early missiles of the time intended to kill big slow targets like bombers in fact, a bit like AIM-4 Falcon.
Note the early Sparrows had their share of problems.
It was just that the R530 was intended more as a bomber killer, and used by 3 Air Forces only . Though I think his only kill was a MiG-19.

Btw, looking for SEPR rocket images, found these interesting pdfs :
REUSABLE MAN-RATED ROCKET ENGINES The French Experience, 1944-1996.
The SEPR 844 Reusable liquid Rocket Engine for Mirage Combat Aircraft
Great video thanks galgot
Do we know what 'three air forces actually operated the R530 missile'? I know France and Australia, but who was the third?

Regards
Pioneer




 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
I know and appreciate we've had a similar in-depth conversion about the Mirage III/Sparrow missile loadout on another forum GTX.
Then, as in know, I concur with your sentiment about the Mirage III being designed and intended as an interceptor, as opposed to a 'fighter'. But a couple of issues I have with the Mirage IIIC relying on a single R530 was not just the R530
inherently poor reliability - not so much because it was the R530, but because of the poor performance of all early AAM's of that period.
I'm envisaging that when the French Air Force development it's requirements and Dassault responded in kind with its Mirage III design, the principle perceived threat would have been Soviet nuclear armed long-range bombers. So I would have thought the destruction of such bombers would have been paramount - hence the reliance on only one unreliable R530 missile seems odd. Ok, I understand and commend the fact that the French Air Force/Dassault was astute enough to include two powerful and reliable 30mm DEFA cannon's for last opportunity close-in destruction of such bomber's, even at a time both the Soviet Union and the U.S. were putting all faith in all-missile armament for their then state-of-the-art fighters/interceptors.
I also appreciate that the French Air Force added Aim-9B Sidewinder's (and then later R550) to its Mirage IIIC's [as a side note, does anyone know when the Aim-9B was fitted to the French Mirage IIIC fleet??], a missile somewhat more reliable than the R530, but again, the Aim-9B still suffered reliability issues and limited engagement envalope. On top of this the Aim-9's warhead was quite small in terms of the Soviet bomber it would be intending to kill, before it could drop its nuclear weapon....
Long of the short, I would have envisaging the French Air Force wanting two R530 type/size missiles to allow for attrition - aka one R530 failing for what ever reasons.

P.S. I know my analogy is simple and dry, but I've come to appreciate the merit in the Soviet's employing a minimum of two missiles on their interceptors (one SARH and one IR) for this same operational reason, in meeting the same perceived threat - nuclear armed bombers...
Hence I guess my interest in the likes of two Aim-7 Sparrow III's equipping the Mirage III.

P.P.S. Given the small size of the Mirage III, if the Aim-7 Sparrow was to be employed on it, where would one incorporate the Continuous Wave Illuminator (CWI) within the airframe?


Regards
Pioneer
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
2,136
I suspect also that two large heavy missiles could have impaired performances and stability high and fast.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
318
I think it was a conscious capability trade-off, especially in terms of weight/drag to ensure good climb/acceleration performance. Here are a couple of possible configurations:

#1. Interceptor loadout (until mid-70s)
- 2x 500L supersonic tanks (non-jettisonable) = drag 38, weight 933kg (incl. 788kg fuel)
- Matra 530 = drag 53, weight 230kg
- 2x Aim-9B = drag 45, weight 212kg

Total drag index 136 and weight 1,375kg


#2. Interceptor loadout (from 1975)
Same as above but with 2x R550 Magics replacing Aim-9B.
- 2x R550 Magic = drag 70, weight 330kg

Total drag index 161 and weight 1,493kg


#3. Hypothetical alternative loadout
With 2x R530 only (1 EM and 1 IR guided)
- 1x 1,300L supersonic tank (jettisonable): drag 91, weight 1,177kg (incl. 1,025kg fuel)
- 2x Matra R530: drag ~106, weight ~460kg

Total drag index 197 and weight 1,633kg

So the 2x R530 configuration would have been significantly draggier and slightly heavier than the standard configuration of 1x R530 + 2x IR AAMs, while being less flexible given that the pilot would likely have only 1x head-on or long-range firing opportunity before entering the merge.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
Thank you alls, a very interesting debate. H_K, how are those drag numbers calculated ?
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
870
Reaction score
417
Do we know what 'three air forces actually operated the R530 missile'? I know France and Australia, but who was the third?
AFAIK the first 3 users were France Israel and South Africa.
Israel scored the first R-530 kill in 1966 on an Egyptian MiG-19. Not sure if anyone else did.
A list of 17 former operators is at

EDIT: Pakistani AF did score at least 2 again India in 1971
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
And they fired some against Angola MiG-21 & MiG-23 (from memories of ACIG.org Tom Cooper's A2A victories database)
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
That was the intended use in the Fr Af for the IIIC. Fast climbing with help of a SEPR 841 rocket engine to intercept hi flying bombers. And the R530 was intended for that.
View: https://youtu.be/j7yqmWZel4k

But the airframe was really good as a fighter or fighter/bomber as seen later. Israel used it more in these two roles than as pure interceptor.
I think that is why Dassault won over other Fr competitor , Durandal, too optimized for interception only. Dassault offered something that could do the same, plus a good fighter, that could also do a bit of A/G.

I don’t think that the R530 was much worse than other early missiles of the time intended to kill big slow targets like bombers in fact, a bit like AIM-4 Falcon.
Note the early Sparrows had their share of problems.
It was just that the R530 was intended more as a bomber killer, and used by 3 Air Forces only . Though I think his only kill was a MiG-19.

Btw, looking for SEPR rocket images, found these interesting pdfs :
REUSABLE MAN-RATED ROCKET ENGINES The French Experience, 1944-1996.
The SEPR 844 Reusable liquid Rocket Engine for Mirage Combat Aircraft
Great video thanks galgot
Do we know what 'three air forces actually operated the R530 missile'? I know France and Australia, but who was the third?

Regards
Pioneer





My bad, I mixed R530 operators with the MIIIC operators, that is France , Israel and South Africa. The other that operated variants of the MIIIE had R530s too, MIIIO Australia, MIIIEA Argentina...
So that's more indeed :)
The video is from the old TV show "Les chevalier du ciel".
 
Last edited:

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
Do we know what 'three air forces actually operated the R530 missile'? I know France and Australia, but who was the third?
AFAIK the first 3 users were France Israel and South Africa.
Israel scored the first R-530 kill in 1966 on an Egyptian MiG-19. Not sure if anyone else did.
A list of 17 former operators is at

EDIT: Pakistani AF did score at least 2 again India in 1971

New to me, thanks. Always thought that MiG-19 was the one and only.
Whats interesting too is that R530 could come as radar homing or IR. I wonder which variants were used in these kills.
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
318

Attachments

  • FCE6C9D3-968F-443A-99BD-C5B64D02C57E.jpeg
    FCE6C9D3-968F-443A-99BD-C5B64D02C57E.jpeg
    592 KB · Views: 79

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
622
Reaction score
311
Btw Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline) plus two Sidewinders on outboard wing pylons.

I wouldn't be surprised that the French operated their IIICs in pairs, one with IR and the other with SARH heads.

We (Polish) used MiG-21PFs always in pairs: one with two IR missiles, the other with two beam-riders (not mixing missiles on one aircraft). Both were to attack one target simultaneously.
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
Btw Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline) plus two Sidewinders on outboard wing pylons.

I wouldn't be surprised that the French operated their IIICs in pairs, one with IR and the other with SARH heads.

We (Polish) used MiG-21PFs always in pairs: one with two IR missiles, the other with two beam-riders (not mixing missiles on one aircraft). Both were to attack one target simultaneously.

Interesting, so that would have been one with two R-3S, and one with two K-5 (Alkali) ?

I think one of the thing that made the MIIIC successful were the integrated 30mm canons in her early fights in the Middle East, at the time when early AA missiles were far from reliable, R530, or even AIM-9B and R-3S.

Facing a MiG-21 F-13 that had gun plus the R-3S, could say it was even.
Then MiG-21 PF/FL/PFS came , without gun… only these crappy R-3S, was these two to miss or fail, and you’re just a supersonic target.

They tried to correct this with the GP-9 gunpack, but I read they got very few of them, plus the thing vibrating so much it was far from effective. (Though one Indian MiG-21 FL did kill a F-104 with it).
Then Israel kept getting Sidewinder versions that kept getting better and better, AIM-9D, G, H … which made a BIG difference over what anything the soviet could deliver to Arab air forces , before they did the somewhat improved K-13M, and later canon armed MiG-21MF.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
I second that opinion. From 1956 to 1970 the Israeli Mirages and older french aircraft did 90% of the Arab air force demolition job with their DEFA guns and a gunsight.

Funny that the Mirage III-E was to be all-weather, radar, advanced avionics, missiles, rockets attack variant of the Mirage...
Yet the israelis instead got the air defense III-C variant and did all the demolition job without any radar or missiles and few bombs - just guns, guns, and guns. In the air and on the ground. The 30 mm DEFA 550 was a damn efficient weapon. Two of them packed a truly devastating punch.

Note that some Vautours carried FOUR guns and their bomb bay was quite enormous - imagine the devastation this aircraft brought to arab airfields.

Shame the Vautour wasn't developed further.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
I think it was a conscious capability trade-off, especially in terms of weight/drag to ensure good climb/acceleration performance. Here are a couple of possible configurations:

#1. Interceptor loadout (until mid-70s)
- 2x 500L supersonic tanks (non-jettisonable) = drag 38, weight 933kg (incl. 788kg fuel)
- Matra 530 = drag 53, weight 230kg
- 2x Aim-9B = drag 45, weight 212kg

Total drag index 136 and weight 1,375kg


#2. Interceptor loadout (from 1975)

Same as above but with 2x R550 Magics replacing Aim-9B.
- 2x R550 Magic = drag 70, weight 330kg

Total drag index 161 and weight 1,493kg


#3. Hypothetical alternative loadout

With 2x R530 only (1 EM and 1 IR guided)
- 1x 1,300L supersonic tank (jettisonable): drag 91, weight 1,177kg (incl. 1,025kg fuel)
- 2x Matra R530: drag ~106, weight ~460kg

Total drag index 197 and weight 1,633kg

So the 2x R530 configuration would have been significantly draggier and slightly heavier than the standard configuration of 1x R530 + 2x IR AAMs, while being less flexible given that the pilot would likely have only 1x head-on or long-range firing opportunity before entering the merge.
Very interesting and appriciates H_K. Any chance you could do the same with two Aim-7 Sparrow III's please for a comparison?

Regards
Pioneer
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
318
Very interesting and appriciates H_K. Any chance you could do the same with two Aim-7 Sparrow III's please for a comparison?

Sure. The drag index of an Aim-7 is roughly 60% more than an Aim-9 according to the F/A-18E performance manual (available here: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf).

So on the MIII that would be ~25 drag units per Aim-7 vs. ~10 per Aim-9B. Add ~10 per launcher. So a total of ~70 drag units for a pair of Aim-7s vs 45 for a pair of Aim-9Bs.

That makes the Aim-7 exactly the same drag as an R550 Magic, interestingly.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
Oh wow, that is very intriguing H_K!

So a load out of two Aim-7 Sparrow III's (including pylons) = 70 drag Vs 106 drag for two R530's....

The weight of a Aim-7E Sparrow III being 197kg, do you have the weight figure for the Sparrow III pylons H_K, so as to calculate the total Sparrow III weight package please?
I seem to have an issue of downloading that F/A-18E Performance Manual you've kindly posted.

P.S.
Whilst on the issue of the Dassault Mirage III and Petrus mentioning the 'Swiss Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline)'; does anyone know what the maximum load capacity of these two additional pylons are rated at?


Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • Model of Swiss Mirage IIIS's additional pylons.jpg
    Model of Swiss Mirage IIIS's additional pylons.jpg
    148.7 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379
Not sure, but there is this pic from the official Dassault Aviation website of the Mirage 5, and a pic of the Cheetah C.
The Cheetah C is carrying either a 120kg or 227kg bomb there, but it appears the Mirage 5 is toting what appears to be a 250kg bomb.
I'm not sure what the Mirage IIIS, or indeed the later Mirages in the family were rated at there. I do recall that the rating was given on a forum years ago, I think on the SAAF forum, but I cannot recall exactly where and what it was right now.
 

Attachments

  • 11002.jpg
    11002.jpg
    226.5 KB · Views: 68
  • 217841_495702950458631_1569907884_n-1.jpg
    217841_495702950458631_1569907884_n-1.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 61
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
2,993
That's a clever but... weird place, to put AIM-26s ! o_O

Interesting drag comparison between Sparrow, R550 and R530.

For the record, the R550 was a french Sidewinder when R530 was kind of AIM-7B. As far as drag goes however, the french missiles are all over the place.

Basically - the Sidewinder-class missile ends as draggy as a Sparrow. And the Sparrow-class missile... better not to think about it (106 vs 70 - WTH ?)

Incidentally the later point brilliantly answer my initial question.

If one R530 is already 53 when two Sparrows would be only 70 - and with the Mirage III being pretty short ranged... and on top of that, the draggier non-FBW-delta-wing...

Then no surprise the Mirage III went with one and only R530.

Note that the Mirage F1 went with two R530 and thus the 106 drag. Some reasons (afaik)
- it had a small swept wing so less drag
- a slightly more powerful Atar 9K50 (compared to the III-C)
- the R530 was only temporary, the Super 530F had a different (and hopefully improved !) aerodynamic shape.
- the taller F1 with the high-mounted wing could afford a much larger centerline drop tank, 2200 L or wing tanks.
- The Mirage III not only lacked range, it also lacked enough hardpoints to carry both tanks and R530 together.
 
Last edited:

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
That's a clever but... weird place, to put AIM-26s ! o_O

Interesting drag comparison between Sparrow, R550 and R530.

For the record, the R550 was a french Sidewinder when R530 was kind of AIM-7B. As far as drag goes however, the french missiles are all over the place.

Basically - the Sidewinder-class missile ends as draggy as a Sparrow. And the Sparrow-class missile... better not to think about it.
Yes, in all honesty, I didn't realise that the Swiss had facilitated these additional two pylons until probably a year or so ago. I can only assume that these two pylons could have been incorporated with the additional 'strengthening' process the Swiss stipulated in their specific variant of the Mirage III Archibald . So I'm intrigued whether it was Dassault that incorporated them into the design, or whether it was an indigenous Swiss thing.....
As per timeline I'm sure the Mirage IIIS was developed before the Mirage 5 (I could be wrong), so I'm wondering if the Mirage 5's additional pylons benefited from the Swiss Mirage IIIS.....


Regards
Pioneer
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
Not sure, but there is this pic from the official Dassault Aviation website of the Mirage 5, and a pic of the Cheetah C.
The Cheetah C is carrying either a 120kg or 227kg bomb there, but it appears the Mirage 5 is toting what appears to be a 250kg bomb.
I'm not sure what the Mirage IIIS, or indeed the later Mirages in the family were rated at there. I do recall that the rating was given on a forum years ago, I think on the SAAF forum, but I cannot recall exactly where and what it was right now.
Yes, interesting kaiserbill , and thank you for your contribution.
Your analogy is interesting.
Given the Aim-4 Falcon/HH-58 (Rb 28) weighs some 61kg (135 lb)

Regards
Pioneer
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
Not sure, but there is this pic from the official Dassault Aviation website of the Mirage 5, and a pic of the Cheetah C.
The Cheetah C is carrying either a 120kg or 227kg bomb there, but it appears the Mirage 5 is toting what appears to be a 250kg bomb.
I'm not sure what the Mirage IIIS, or indeed the later Mirages in the family were rated at there. I do recall that the rating was given on a forum years ago, I think on the SAAF forum, but I cannot recall exactly where and what it was right now.

in case of very last variants, Cheetah-C can take R-Darter on these inboard wing pylons:
2011-12-07 23.25.09.jpg
(Sorry, don't know from what publication that image comes from)

and Colombian Kfir-C10 can take Derby :
7F1.png

Btw, from Mirage IIIC to Kfir-C10 or Cheetah-C, the evolution of this plane is fascinating.
 
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379
Galgot, that comes from the now-defunct VEG magazine.
I think it was done by the guy who wrote Those Who Had The Power, who was involved in various aviation projects with Atlas and Armscor.
R-Darter, radar guided missile weighing about 118kg, could also be carried on outer wing pylons no less.
There is a photo out there of a Cheetah C with 4 R-Darters, but I seem to recall it being said that it wasn't an operational loadout.
I'm unsure though whether the original Mirage III and Cheetah shared the same wiring. I doubt it.
The R-Darter seems a much slimmer missile than the older, draggier missiles.
 

Attachments

  • 461e4d02b243d_large.jpg
    461e4d02b243d_large.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 54
  • d7252dd3656ff6176bbeebbe60ffa7ce.jpg
    d7252dd3656ff6176bbeebbe60ffa7ce.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,418
Website
galgot.com
Galgot, that comes from the now-defunct VEG magazine.
I think it was done by the guy who wrote Those Who Had The Power, who was involved in various aviation projects with Atlas and Armscor.
R-Darter, radar guided missile weighing about 118kg, could also be carried on outer wing pylons no less.
There is a photo out there of a Cheetah C with 4 R-Darters, but I seem to recall it being said that it wasn't an operational loadout.
I'm unsure though whether the original Mirage III and Cheetah shared the same wiring. I doubt it.
The R-Darter seems a much slimmer missile than the older, draggier missiles.
Thanks. Fact is , I couldn't find any pict of a Cheetah-C with Missile on these inboard wing pylons, only that image.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379


Btw, from Mirage IIIC to Kfir-C10 or Cheetah-C, the evolution of this plane is fascinating.
I have in the past posted a very interesting 2 photo comparison of the Mirage IIIC and Cheetah C with similar colour scheme, from about the same angle, and distance.
The evolution is striking, with the latter being a noticeably bigger aircraft, and almost every part of it's structure changed, including even the undercarriage for the larger aircraft.
Fascinating evolution.

Edit: It does make one wonder, on the topic of missile carriage, about the wiring of the various hardpoints between the original and the evolved versions.
 
Last edited:

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
863
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Oh wow, that is very intriguing H_K!

So a load out of two Aim-7 Sparrow III's (including pylons) = 70 drag Vs 106 drag for two R530's....

The weight of a Aim-7E Sparrow III being 197kg, do you have the weight figure for the Sparrow III pylons H_K, so as to calculate the total Sparrow III weight package please?
I seem to have an issue of downloading that F/A-18E Performance Manual you've kindly posted.

P.S.
Whilst on the issue of the Dassault Mirage III and Petrus mentioning the 'Swiss Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline)'; does anyone know what the maximum load capacity of these two additional pylons are rated at?


Regards
Pioneer
Whilst the weight and drag are important, don't forget that the AIM-26B was around 2.07M long vs 3.7m for an AIM-7 so might be an issue fitting in those positions.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
49
Whilst the weight and drag are important, don't forget that the AIM-26B was around 2.07M long vs 3.7m for an AIM-7 so might be an issue fitting in those positions.

The AIM-26B fit pretty much perfectly where it was mounted on the Mirage IIIS. If you try to mount a missile that is any longer, it could interfere with the main gear doors forward or the flaps aft.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
Given the Aim-4 Falcon/HH-58 (Rb 28) weighs some 61kg (135 lb)

Mirage IIIS was using the export HM-55, which was the AIM-26B. Weight was about 258 kg. The smaller Falcons like the HM-58/Rb.28 weighed somewhere around 130 kg depending on variant.





Given the Aim-4 Falcon/HH-58 (Rb 28) weighs some 61kg (135 lb)

Mirage IIIS was using the export HM-55, which was the AIM-26B. Weight was about 258 kg. The smaller Falcons like the HM-58/Rb.28 weighed somewhere around 130 kg depending on variant.
Thanks for the clarification SOC, that quite a weight difference isn't it!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
344
Oh wow, that is very intriguing H_K!

So a load out of two Aim-7 Sparrow III's (including pylons) = 70 drag Vs 106 drag for two R530's....

The weight of a Aim-7E Sparrow III being 197kg, do you have the weight figure for the Sparrow III pylons H_K, so as to calculate the total Sparrow III weight package please?
I seem to have an issue of downloading that F/A-18E Performance Manual you've kindly posted.

P.S.
Whilst on the issue of the Dassault Mirage III and Petrus mentioning the 'Swiss Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline)'; does anyone know what the maximum load capacity of these two additional pylons are rated at?


Regards
Pioneer
Whilst the weight and drag are important, don't forget that the AIM-26B was around 2.07M long vs 3.7m for an AIM-7 so might be an issue fitting in those positions.
Valid and good technical point there GTX. In which case, one might consider implementation of 'Born in a Tent' Program, ha ha.
But seriously, not knowing the technical reason why the Swiss/Dassault elected to use this rear area of fuselage for these pylons - perhaps something to do with using engine mounting structure?, CG issues?....
I can't imagine bringing those two pylons forward of the landing gear, as they'd undoubtedly create issues of weight distribution and access to the modular gun pack.....


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
2,136
There is some stability issue that we can forsee with a frwd mount on a delta wing without FBW. Anything forward CG will reduce plane directional stability at "high" AoA (landing, manoeuvring and high alt).

Think at all the issues faced by the Typhoon team in their similar quest.
 
Top