Boeing / Dassault Collaboration (Mirage IIIW, Mirage IIIV)

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
6,186
In one of the Gunston books on military aircraft, the author recounts that in 1962 when
Boeing and BAC decided to support Dassault's Mirage III vstol variant BAC produced a brochure
illustrating the type's advantages over the Hawker P1154 for the RN and RAF. The last page of the brochure showed a "squadron of Mirages doing a vertical take off at the 1966 SBAC Farnborough show". In view of the later problems with the Mirage this was wishful thinking of course.

However, it did get me wondering how much material was produced by BAC and Rolls Royce in support of the Mirage bid and whether any interesting variants or weapon fits are contained in the brochures. The adoption of P1154 by the RAF would seem to have made this a pointless exercise but maybe officials were more interested in the Mirage than has been revealed.

Purely on paper at a time when the main requirement seemed to be to lug a single US supplied nuclear NATO store onto a target in East Germany the Mirage must have seemed attractive. The Germans had the very similar VJ 101 D programme.
 
Very interesting. Were any illustrations of such British Mirage IIIs produced at the time?
 
Stargazer

None of the material in the BAC brochure(s) of the time has ever been published as far as I
know. I suspect that the brochure simply used the French art of the time but do not know.
Boeing may also have produced a brochure as well.

Given that P1154 won the RAF and also the NATO contest (though France was given a consolation
equal billing and no procurement followed) there may not be much material on Mirage IIIV.
 
Many of the early-1960s' NBMRs (which covered more than aircraft) were US-supported, through DoD's Paris Mutual Weapons Development Program, as means of developing European industrial capacity/competence, and enhancing inventory standardisation. The strike type, NBMR.3, became affected by evolution of tactical nuclear doctrine, which involved wider application of the UK/US Project 'E' (firstly TBF Canberra B.6, May,1959), then as Project "Emily", Thor (and similar Italy/Turkey, Jupiter). NBMR.3 lapsed not so much due to French recalcitrance faced with NATO's rejection of Mirage IIIV, in favour of P.1154, but due to the confusion of USArmy custodials on 2/4 ATAF bases, releasing US stores as directed by their President. All conflicting with the notion of dispersal away from deleted F-104 runways. Cost, in compromised readiness and payload/range, of V/STOL, came by 1965 to be seen as nugatory. So AlphaJet/Jaguar/Mirage F.1, operating off autobahns if necesary, took on the iron Task, while the nuclear Task remained on long runways, magically impervious to Scuds. UK persevered with V/STOL in P.1154(RN and RAF) until (RAF) Feb.65 in part because tactical nuclear store WE177A would not involve US custodials. W.Germany persevered, as AVS, in part to attempt to command an area of techno-expertise, and in part shrugging off the custodial issue.

BAC, as licensee/work-sharing partner, bid Mirage IIIV to NBMR.3 and {to be P.1154 (RN and RAF)}. Dead-weight lift engines was a factor favouring BSEL's patented swivels on P.1154, then P.1127(RAF), to be Harriers.

In the detritus of AFVG's deletion, kited UKVG was evidently under threat from Buccaneer 2**; BAC schemed Spey/Mirage IV. All were grateful that AVS then lapsed and W.Germany was receptive to a UK involvement in NKF75, emerging as Tornado, very runway-centric.
 
Alertken

Excellent summary of the history surrounding Mirage III v and P1154.

Gunston suggests that BAC and Rolls Royce were very keen on the Mirage and brochures
were prepared. I am still hoping that they will turn up somewhere.
 
Hi everyone,
I've heard that Boeing proposed to produce the French fighter Mirage III, it was named Mirage III W.
Does anybody have more information on it? Any brochure or image?
Thank you very much.
Alain
 
Mirage IIIW was to be a license-built Boeing variant to compete with the F-5A/E on export markets.

It seems that Boeing had Dassault's fighters in good consideration.

W stands for Wichita.

According to Jack Gee's book on the Mirage, this was a variant of the Mirage IIIC intended as a competitor for the F-5A/B in the early 1960s. It would indeed have been built by Boeing-Wichita. It definitely could've lead somewhat earlier to a J9-powered version of the Mirage.
 
Hi,
Nobody has an image of this mysterious Mirage IIIW?
Regards
Alain
 
Hi
I guess the Mirage III W was very similar to the Mirage III C, because it was foreseen to be a "technical"* Mirage III C (to be built by Boeing in Wichita for W) with an ATAR 9 B jet engine (to be built by Pratt & Withney) and Aïda radar (to be built by Hughes). The weapon system was foreseen to be all american.
*"Boeing construirait le Mirage III W selon la définition technique du Mirage III C, équipé du réacteur Snecma Atar 9 B et du radar Aïda. (...) Boeing sera responsable de la mise au point du système d'armes dont les équipements seront américains". DASSAULT 50 ANS D'AVENTURE AERONAUTIQUE, CARLIER-BERGER, EDITIONS DU CHENE, 1996, page 82.

For the Mirage III VTOL, in 1961 Dassault and Boeing want to work together for the NATO programme of a V/STOL Strike Reconnaissance Aircraft NBMR3 (Sud-Aviation and BAC were foreseen too to be part of the plane of Dassault-Boeing). It was foreseen that Boeing present the plane to the USAF too. Dassault and Sud-Aviation were foreseen to design an to build the prototype and BAC and Boeing to give technical aid. The NATO programme is cancelled in 1962.
In 1963 the USAF had foreseen to buy 3 Mirage III V 03 like (two seats) planes to test them. Boeing was in charge to assemble and prepare the planes. In may 1964, it is foreseen to buy only two Mirage III V 03, but the project is cancelled.
DASSAULT 50 ANS D'AVENTURE AERONAUTIQUE, CARLIER-BERGER, EDITIONS DU CHENE, 1996, page 126.
 
No pics, unfortunately.

Another item from the web:

Dassault then started talks with Boeing, which was seeking to compete with the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter on the export market. This led to the Mirage IIIW programme, involving the Atar 9B engine and the Aida radar. The aircraft was to be built at Wichita (Kansas) in collaboration with Hughes (radar) and Pratt and Whitney (engine). The weapon system (4 tonnes payload) was to be US-made. However, the French government -- in the midst of pulling back from Nato -- did not relish the idea. Added to that, Boeing was planning on delivering the aircraft to the Vietnamese theatre of operations. This only compounded the matter and that was the end of the project.

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_655_56/ai_n28851436/pg_9/
 
By the way, thanks to everyone for your inputs.
Regards
Alain
 
The Boeing 837-333 clearly was a Mirage IIIV derivative and surely not suitable for a
competition for a light-weight fighter. In http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,839.0.html ,
#6 Archibald already mentioned the IIIW in this sense, confirmed by deltafan, so I moved the those posts
regarding the Boeing 837-333 to the "Boeing VSTOL/STOL projects" thread.
 
Boeing and the Mirage III.

Source: RAF Flight Magazine 1962
 

Attachments

  • Dassault Mirage Boeing RAF and RN.jpg
    Dassault Mirage Boeing RAF and RN.jpg
    169.8 KB · Views: 899
Just stumbled across this alanqua:

"In the early 1960s, the USAF launched a competition to procure a light fighter aircraft for its allies. The idea was to obtain an inexpensive aircraft intended mainly for export to South America, Africa and Asia. In fact, the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter, which had just flown and had been built according to these principles, was already in the sights. Lockheed's F-104 was also presented in this competition.

Boeing had no fighter to oppose it, but Dassault came to its aid with its Mirage IIIC, which it offered to Boeing. The idea was to have it built under license by Boeing at its factory in Wichita, Kansas.

The new device was called Mirage IIIW (for Wichita, therefore). Pratt & Whitney was to build the Atar 9B under license and Hughes was to build the Aida radar as well. The aircraft obtained would therefore have been very close to the Mirage IIIC, with only the entirely American weapon system. It could carry 4 tons of weaponry.

The aircraft manufacturers were enthusiastic and the negotiations went well. Boeing obtained a product to present to this market and developed its military branch. Dassault could hope to penetrate the American market. The agreement was signed on December 23, 1961. A small model was even made on this occasion. Boeing was planning to deliver the Mirage IIIW to Vietnam and was also starting to take an interest in the Mirage III V. A market of 600 units was expected.

But the project failed after a few months for several reasons. The opposition did not come only from the United States as one might think, but also from France. She was on the verge of leaving NATO Integrated Command and did not like the idea of the Mirage IIIW. In addition to the reluctance of the United States towards foreign military aircraft, it was also necessary to take into account Boeing's desire to devote itself instead to the TFX, a tactical fighter of varying sizes. The F-5A Freedom Fighter was the big winner of this competition.
"

(Source:https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/17429/dassault-mirage-iii-w)


Regards
Pioneer
 
Problem with that story - the timeline is wholly uncoherent !

- France partially left NATO in 1966, not 1961
- Mirage III-V did not flew before 1965 and the Balzac V demonstrator in 1962
- Vietnam war didn't existed by 1961, too

Which doesn't mean the basic story is bullshit. Still quite interesting at many levels !

- It would have been a Mirage V long before 1967, except with Uncle Sam powerful sale machines behind it (= Mirage III-E without the expensive avionics - clear weather combat variant, for export - Israel, cough)

- Note that Aida radar was Dassault "second-hand" in-house option found on Etendard and others aircraft. Usually the Mirages had Cyrano II radar, not from Dassault but from Thomson-CSF.

- Funny to think Hughes would produce a Dassault radar... when you think the Swiss Mirages had a Hughes TARAN system.

- And Pratt Atars ? Hopefully, it would help getting more performance out of the engine.
- There, it is not Dassault but SNECMA matters. Since 1959 they had a deal with Pratt.
They wanted to licence-build J75s for the Mirage IVB.
They ended in 1963-1970 licensing the TF30 for a whole bunch of different Mirages - the -V, the -F, and the -G series.

More generally, while the Mirage III was a fine airframe, there were a lot of critics over

- the Atar lack of power and the lack of alternatives from SNECMA

- CSF Cyrano radars (called Teflon / Tefal by pilots - because they heated a lot, but did not stick to the target - just like the eponymous frying pan technology !)

 
roblem with that story - the timeline is wholly uncoherent !

- France partially left NATO in 1966, not 1961
- Mirage III-V did not flew before 1965 and the Balzac V demonstrator in 1962
- Vietnam war didn't existed by 1961, too
Dear Archibald, I agree with you.

Such 1961 timeline reminds me of another contest for a lightweight fighter: the one that U.S. Army wanted, and for such reason FIAT G 91s were tested at Fort Rucker (along with F-5 and A-4).

Maybe did such Mirage IIIW proposal fall under such cadre?
In the same timeframe and also for the same reasons even the Vought V-1000 (F-8 for USAF) was proposed, there is a connection between them?
 
However.....is the real origin of the J79 Mirage III?
 
I was about to make the same remarks as Archibald. Wouldn't make more sense, from a business point of view, to sell the Mirage IIIW with American made engine and radar? Specially after the Aida was a very basic ranging radar that was installed in the Mirage 5.
 
However.....is the real origin of the J79 Mirage III?
Not exactly, the IAI Kfir was son of French embargo against Israel from one side and by need to have common engine with the Phantom II already used by IAF on the other side. Let alone the thrust increase from Atar to J79....
 
However.....is the real origin of the J79 Mirage III?
Asked myself that too a while ago when finding that MIIIW-Boeing connection.
Later found that the J79 to mirage integration work for the Kfir was mainly done by Gene Salvay from Rockwell, with some help from Dassault.
So I know he was working for Rockwell at the time, but maybe he worked for Boeing before that ?
 
Last edited:
More generally, while the Mirage III was a fine airframe, there were a lot of critics over

- the Atar lack of power and the lack of alternatives from SNECMA

- CSF Cyrano radars (called Teflon / Tefal by pilots - because they heated a lot, but did not stick to the target - just like the eponymous frying pan technology !)

Neither of which would have been a problem in head-to-head competition against the F-5A.
 
I think in essence there ought to be some Boeing study for Mirage III with a J79, or even a Dassault study.
Whether that is influential or not on later French and Israeli efforts is open to question.
 
I think in essence there ought to be some Boeing study for Mirage III with a J79, or even a Dassault study.
Whether that is influential or not on later French and Israeli efforts is open to question.

Indeed as Dassault fully cooperated with the Rockwell team for the J79 integration, so earlier Dassault J79 integration study could have been used.

This was posted by T.Cooper on ACIG, related to Kfir but interesting nonetheless:

« Here you are: an excerpt from an interview with Salvay by Joe Mizrahi, published in the "Wings" magazine, volume 30/No.4, from August 2000. The article is titled "The Designer of the B-1 Bomber's Airframe". On the page 48 it says:

"It was then that a new and completely unexpected challenge arose, one that he could never have foreseen. Five thousand miles away, in Israel, a delivery of Mirage jets, purchased by the Israelis, had been embargoed by their french manufacturer, Dassault, on the orders of French president, Charles deGaulle, or so everyone was led to believe. The Six Days War of 1967, in which Israel had triumphed over a strong coalition of five Arab states, was over, but the country desperately needed the promised aircraft. Without them, it was claimed, the tentative balance in the Middle East could not be maintained.

The chairman of North American Rockwell's board had long since established a manufacturing presence in Israel, given over to building transmissions and other auto products, an industry in which Rockwell was already a leader. He was also promoting plans for building an
indigenous manufacturing base for aircraft, and when its government approached him to allow several of his picked engineers to travel to Israel to set up that capability, he agreed. Among those invited to participate was Gene Salvay.

Several years before, Moshe Ahrens, then a US citizen and a graduate aeronautical engineer, had met Gene at Wright Field in Ohio. He
remembered the North American designed and as Israeli Aircraft Industries Engineering vice president, specifically asked for him. Since Rockwell wanted to expand its overseas business, and America's aviation industry was in a temporary downturn, Gene, with the blessings of the US government and his employer, took a one-year leave of absence and traveled to Israel. What he discovered was not what was being portrayed in the newspapers.

Instead of an embargo - which was only proclaimed to ease the fears of their Arab oil suppliers - the French were shipping brand-new Mirage IIIC jets, complete in knockdown assembly kits, direct to Israel aboard USAF C-5 cargoplanes. There was no embargo and the Israelis were not building 50 examples of their own version of the Mirage, called Nesher, from plans purportedly smuggled out of Switzerland - a licence builder - but were merely putting them together on a modern production line as fast as the C-5s could make delivery. Still, the Israelis did need Gene Salvay's talents. The Mirage, in its original form, with an Atar 0B engine generating 9,350lbs. of static thrust (13,250 with afterburning), was not suitable for sustained, heavy ground attack, a mission the IAF wanted to upgrade. It had neither the power nor the structural strength. In the completely new version, Gene, as the chief designer, would create the Kfir. In a near total makeover, what was once a lightweight dogfighter would be equipped with 10,000lb thrust GE J79 engine (15,000lbs with afterburning), the same as that in the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. It would also feature improved munitions capability.

In order to accomplish the transformation, the entire airframe aft of the cockpit had to be redesigned, since the J79 was not only more
powerful, but had a larger diameter. In order to better mesh the new engine with his fuselage, Gene consulted with Lockheed designer and old friend, Ben Rich, who worked out the thermodynamic problems and communicated the results to Salvay by phone. With the full help of Marcel Dassault, himself, who was extremely cooperative, plus the input of twelve US engineering specialists - eventually the number was increased to 150 - Gene set up shop for preliminary design. Among his most dedicated and valuable contributors was Ray Kann, who had worked on the Doublas DC-9 project.

Within twelve months, engind in June, 1971, Gene and his team had transformed the Mirage into the Kfir, beefing up its overall structure, revamping its inlets and exhaust, turning it from an agile 22,000lb interceptor (loaded) into a 28,000lb interceptor/ground attack machine, capable of carrying twice the offensive load.

While he was at it, Gene also looked over the Arava 101 transport, a failed, homegrown, high-winged, twin-engined, twin-boomed STOL affair, which had literally fallen out of the sky during the initial trials...."

etc., etc. etc.

Now, of course, there are few factual errors re. "Mirage IIIC" vs. 5Js, as well as the inaccurate thrust values for the J79 used in the Kfir in that article.

For example, in the first case, the Mirage 5 has the stretched fuselage of the IIIE, with the intakes lining up with the aft edge of the canopy rather than a foot or two forward, a dead visual giveaway betwen a Mirage IIIC and a IIIE/5/50. If accurate, why would France be sending Mirage IIICs to Israel instead of Mirage 5s, when it was the 5s that Israel had specified ordered and paid for?

The Neshers are, after all, clearly Mirage 5Js, whether built in France or Israel.

In the case of the Kfir's J79, maybe they used a -7 or -11 in the prototype, but the production a/c had what was effectively a -19, with much higher ratings.

Despite such (unbeliveable) mistakes for an author publishing in a magazine claiming for itself for being especially precise in information, Gene Salvay never denied anything that was stated in that article in regards to his person."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think in essence there ought to be some Boeing study for Mirage III with a J79, or even a Dassault study.
Whether that is influential or not on later French and Israeli efforts is open to question.

One thing is sure: there were studies of Mirage F1 with J79 (according to Liébert).
 
Seems like they were planning a Boeing built F.1 as well, maybe against the F-16?
 
Not really surprising. Boeing was markedly absent from the fighter business - between 1944 F-8B and 1997 X-32.
Boeing being Boeing (how funny does that sounds :p - boing boing boing !) they salivated at the fighter juicy market... and tried to jump back into that bandwagon by "hijacking" whatever design they could get their hands on. Including foreign ones.
That what it would take to try and outsmart such colossus as Lockheed, NAAR, Northrop and so many others...
 
Found something else about Dassault/Rockwell connection :
"Actually, in early 1968 and in great secrecy, Dassault signed the contract titled “JC3” with Rockwell International for license production of Mirage 5s in Israel. Rockwell was a company hitherto known for production of transmissions and other car-related products, but in mid-1960s it acquired the famous aircraft manufacturer North American and then became curious to expand abroad.

Its agreement with Dassault stipulated delivery of 50 aircraft in the form of knockdown assembly kits, made from parts manufactured by a wide variety of Dassault’s subcontractors, including Aerospatiale and the Reims-Cessna: Dassault manufactured only the front fuselages for 10 two-seaters that were delivered as a part of a follow-on order, in the early 1970s.

There is less clarity in regards of who furnished the necessary SNECMA Atar 09C engines, but it seems that the “production” of these in Israel was organized with help of Belgian and Swiss companies, with specialized tools purchased from France, Australia, and the Fairchild Company in the United States.

The result of all of these efforts was the establishment of Israeli Aircraft Industries in 1968."

Complete article here :
 
Un-be-lie-va-ble. Shame NAR was so busy with the F-15 afterwards... imagine if they had used that Dassault agreement to back the F-1M53 as their very own entry in the Deal of the Century... just to piss off Lockheed, GD, and Northrop. :p
 
Boeing, Dassault Forming V STOL Team

Wichita, Kan.-Boeing Co. and Marcel Dassault have teamed formally to collaborate in technical and sales efforts on vertical and short takeoff and landing aircraft programs.

Three specific agreements have been signed by the two companies with the approval of the U. S. and French governments and direct liaison has been established between the two companies.

Dassault’s immediate line of contact with Boeing is the American company’s Military Aircraft Systems Division (MASD), here. Agreements, expected to be announced this week, basically cover these areas:
  • Technical evaluation of the V/STOL Dassault Mirage 3V by Boeing’s MASD. This is planned to ensure that the program represents technologies that will not only fit North Atlantic Treaty Organization requirements in the NBMR—S strike fighter competition—adding whatever Boeing knowledge may enhance the airplanes performance—but also to incorporate U S. military system requirements that would make the Mirage 3V a potentially useful system to U. S. services with minimum modifications. This agreement also pledges Boeing to support the Mirage 3V fully in NATO and U. S. markets, and gives MASD the option of building the strike fighter in this country. Dassault has a similar agrccmcnt covering Britain with British Aircraft Corp. (A\V July 30, p. 18).
  • Similar understanding covering a V/STOL assault transport. proposed in the NATO NBMR-4 competition, is incorporated in a second Boeing-Dassault agreement.
  • Rights to Dassault-developed V S'I'OL thrust control system, covering sales and production in the United States by MASD, are included in the third agreement.
Under the technical collaboration agreement, MASD will tap its own engineering resources at Wichita. It also will be able to call for assistance on any of Boeing's other divisions which it feels have specialized knowledge and equipment fitting any portion of the 3V’s needs. Interchange will provide free passage of unclassified data. Classified material will have to be approved for transmission between the two companies by their respective governments.

Initial contributions by Boeing to the Mirage 3V include advice regarding fuel systems design technology, data on the effects of sonic fatigue on structure and personnel—a vital area due to the large number of engines in the airplane which develop high noise levels—and information on long-life, fail-safe structures. Dassault laison with Boeing is directly with MASD. Boeing Vice president and division general manager, Edward C. Wells, is the key man, with authority to make decisions reflecting Boeing policy.

MASD Exploratory Studies Manager Donald D. Hufford will coordinate and implement the agreements in Wichita. Herbert S. Clayman, recently assigned by MASD as European manager with offices in Paris, will manage the program at its source. T. E. Lollar, a division aerodynamics and dynamics stability specialist, is being moved to the Paris office to act as liaison during the tethered and flight test program, being carried out by Dassault on the Mirage 3V Balzac, approximately a half- scale testbed of the Mirage 3V.

Boeing collaboration with Dassault on the new program actually is a follow-on to the U. S. company's earlier working arrangements with the French manufacturer. The arrangements involved an unsuccessful attempt to fulfill an informal Dept. of Defense requirement for a lightweight, simplified fighter-bomber, a competition in which the Northrop N-156 and Lockheed F-104 also participated. Boeing and Dassault, working together on a general policy basis and operating agreements never made formal, jointly entered the Dassault Mirage 3W, which actually was a Mirage 3C modified to meet DOD desires for an airplane that would be able to operate out of relatively unprepared fields, have relatively unsophisticated fire control and electronics equipment and feature some degree of self—sufficiency in combat.

The 3W was fitted with larger tires, its rocket pack was deleted, simpler Aida radar replaced the more complex Cyrano equipment, and a self—contained starting system was incorporated in the design. Proposal by the two companies last March contemplated manufacture of the prime equipment by the U. S. companies under license to satisfy DOD's reluctance to rely on foreign supply sources. For example, Pratt & Whitney would be assigned the manufacture of the 3W’s Snecma turbojct engine and Hughes Aircraft would provide the Aida radar.

This earlier collaboration provided Boeing management with insight into Dassault capabilities. With growing interest in V/STOL programs evidenced by NATO and the US. indicating a firm market developing in the near future, the American company decided to leap-frog its own research and development programs by utilizing what appeared to be a definite lead by European designers in actual V/STOL hardware.

Other agreements by U. S and European companies—Pratt & Whitney and Bristol Siddeley, Rolls-Royce and Allison, Ling-Tcmco-Vought and Short Bros. & Harland (A\V Sept. 10, p. 30)— also influenced the Boeing decision. Boeing probably sees the agreement with Dassault as providing considerable benefits in developing its own technologies and considers the Mirage 3V as not merely the means to an end, but as providing invaluable broad—based additional V/STOL technology which can be applied to future programs.

MASD engineers appear to have developed considerable respect for the French company’s attitude and ability to make decisions to build hardware to flight—test concepts at an earlier stage than is prevalent in U. S.—where the design constantly is refined on the drawing board and in the wind tunnel until it is in danger of being obsolete before being built.

The Boeing engineers point out that as a result of the 3V Balzac testbed program, Dassault expects to roll out and start flight tests on the full-scale Mirage 3V strike fighter in late 1963 and believes it can have the airplane operational with the French air force in quantity by 1966.

Aviation Week 15 October 1962 P31
 
Fantastic stuff !

a Mirage 3C modified to meet DOD desires for an airplane that would be able to operate out of relatively unprepared fields

Alas... delta wing without FBW is anatema to the bolded part... the Mirage needed a relatively long takeoff run and landed pretty fast. The F1 and all the related projects before it were created expressly to solve that issue - VTOL, STOL, VG - in that order.
 
The only additional details I've found about the 3W is that it would have also featured larger tyres and a self-starting capability ( AvWeek, 15 Oct 1962 ).

As an aside, Boeing's Military Aircraft Systems Division was created in September 1965 to unify the Wichita and Aerospace Systems operations. First general manager was Boeing's VP E.C. Wells. It existed until September 1965 when the Military Airplane Division emerged.
 
Last edited:
I made this speculative drawing of the Mirage IIIW based on the descriptions from various sources.
It contains:

-Mirage IIIC airframe
-SEPR 84 removed
-Mirage V nose with an Aida radar
-Later version ATAR 9C Nozzle

View attachment 718915
Hello,
There is a very nice color profile from Vincent Dhorne in the Fana de l'Aviation (sorry, for the bad quality). I don't remember the issue, but it's quite recent, 2023 I would say.
Noteworthy is:
- the more traditional engine exhaust,
- addition of a sensor on top of the radome (i don't know what it is).
Very nice profile! I have the personal project to do it as a hobby model
Regards
 

Attachments

  • 372991609_902862114558832_5893996017792449456_n.jpg
    372991609_902862114558832_5893996017792449456_n.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 86

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom