Evolution of the Mirage 2000?

[sgeorges4]

Hello, I'm looking for informtion in its development but can't find any on internet, no drawing for the delta 2000 projeect or the cosntructor/windturbine model.
Thanks for your answer! I want to turn a revell mirage 2000 in a project due to its innacuracies

 

[Deltafan]

Hello, I'm looking for informtion in its development but can't find any on internet, no drawing for the delta 2000 projeect or the cosntructor/windturbine model.
Thanks for your answer! I want to turn a revell mirage 2000 in a project due to its innacuracies

Hi,
I can't look at my documentation for a few weeks, but there will surely be something in this new book, available for a few time :

Mirage 2000, l'histoire dans l'armée de l'Air de 1974 à nos jours : Beaumont, Hervé: Amazon.nl: Books

Mirage 2000, l'histoire dans l'armée de l'Air de 1974 à nos jours : Beaumont, Hervé: Amazon.nl: Books

www.amazon.nl

MIRAGE 2000, l'histoire dans l'armée de l'Air de 1974 à nos jours - Sophia Editions

Auteur: Hervé BEAUMONT

www.editions-etai.fr

(...)
this reference book brings together and retraces the development and history of the versions of the Mirage 2000 in the Air Force with their genesis, their history, their detailed technical design
(...)

As the title is: Mirage 2000, history in the Air Force from 1974 to the present day
And as the first flight of the Mirage 2000 is 1978, There should be answers to your questions.

Edit : the title of the first chapter (from page 4 to 23) is: The origins and prototypes of the Mirage 2000

MIRAGE 2000

Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get them in front of Issuu’s millions of monthly readers. Title: MIRAGE 2000 , Author: INFOPRO DIGITAL, Length: 14 pages, Page: 1...

issuu.com

 

[Deltafan]

Hi,
according to readers of the Mirage 2000 book, there is, alas, nothing as drawing or photo about its evolution from the drawing board to the plane that we know

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

During the early 1970s, several
concepts of a 'Mimi' - Mini Mirage - had been
examined under the direction of Jean-Jacques
Samin and a team of engineers led by Jean-Paul
Emoré and including François Dessirier,
Christian Decaix and Jean-Maurice Roubertie.
As the aircraft looked like the first-generation
Mirage, it was alternatively known as Super
Mirage III and later gained the alternative
epithets of Delta 1000 and 2000.
By December 1975, Super Mirage 2000 was
the generally accepted name for the aircraft
which the Defence Council immediately nominated
as the ACF's successor.

Mirage 2000 Variant Briefing, Paul Jackson, WAPJ.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I looks through my Janes All the Worlds Aircraft volumes and 1975-1976 has no trace of Mirage 2000, 1978-1979 has drawing and photo of the first prototype. I don't have 1976-1977 or 1977-1978 which might have a drawing of the Mirage 2000 prior to first flight.

According to Paul Jackson in Modern Combat Aircraft Mirage (Ian Allan) the Mirage 2000 derived from the export-focused 1972 "Delta 1000" study.

 

[hesham]

I don't have 1976-1977 or 1977-1978 which might have a drawing of the Mirage 2000 prior to first flight.

From those two issues.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It appears so far that the earlier designs (Delta 1000 etc.) weren't really publicized so would need to be researched in Dassault archive. In 1972 -1975 it was strictly an export focused design as the ACF was supposed to be the new French fighter.

 

[Archibald]

Yep. The high end / low end combination was ACF / F1-M53. Although the Armée de l'Air was not really interested in the F1-M53: they just had IOC the F1-Atar in Reims in spring 1973. They got 246 of them in the end; the M53 variant was being shoehorned (if not hammered) into that big order: perhaps half of it, 120 airframes.
Truth was an export order was badly needed to smoothen the cost of rolling the M53 into operational F1s... and Belgium was the main target. The Edmond Leburton government was hammered by Dassault with a big "package deal" in the fall of 1973: Alphajet trainers (success), F1-M53, plus Mercure airliners to replace SABENA's Caravelles (miserable failure).
And then The Netherlands stepped in and dragged Belgium into what became the deal of the Century. A nail bitting defeat later it became obvious the F1-M53 couldn't face a F-16 on export markets, so the Mirage 2000 was rolled in place of it. Even if, as far as the AdA interceptor role was concerned, by 1985 the F1C-200 and 2000-RDM ended a little redundant...

On December 18, 1975 Dassault paid a visit to Président Giscard at the Elysée palace, to discuss the brand new "high end / low end" combination. The F1-M53 was toast since the Deal of the Century had gone to the F-16: on June 7, 1975 at Le Bourget airshow, one hell of an humiliation for the French.
The ACF without its low end or not remained too expensive.
Dassault nonetheless pitched the 4000 to Giscard for the Armée de l'Air "because it is what they want, even if same absurdly expensive as the ACF."
He made clear the "low end" 2000 was for export markets only: a FBW Mirage III. The AdA did not wanted it.
What is remarquable is that Dassault was going the full Northrop F-20 / F-18L way with the 2000 there.
Giscard, for all his flaws elsewhere, had been Pompidou Minister of finances, and saw both problems: a ruinous 4000 and a F-20-ized Mirage 2000.
And thus he reversed the proposal, to which Dassault tacitally agreed.
Had Dassault not budged
- the 4000 would have been ruinous, Tomcat-style: few if none export orders
- the 2000 would have became an F-20, not good either...

 

[hesham]

From Cols-bleus 1989.

 

[H_K]

Found this great paper from a NATO conference on the design evolution from Mirage III to Mirage 2000. Lots of interesting technical details.

AERODYNAMICS OF THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMBAT AIRCRAFT WITH DELTA WINGS (1977)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800013819/downloads/19800013819.pdf

Approach Speed: To go from the Mirage 3 at 180 kt to the Mirage 2000 at 150 kt (in spite of a heavier weapons system), several factors had to be used because no single factor was large enough by itself to produce this improvement. We shall mention three of them:
1) Rearward centering, permitted by electric flight control technology
2) Increased approach angle, thanks to the better reaction time of the M53 engine
3) Decreased wing-loading with a 20% larger wing

Weight savings: The wing root shapes have given us a weight saving in the wing, thanks to the increased height of the longeron attachment points, without any visible loss for supersonic drag. Adding this weight saving to the one from carbon-fiber elevons, the Mirage 2000 wing is lighter than the Mirage 3's despite an area about 20% larger and the addition of movable leading-edge slats

Air intake optimization: Although the principle of the Mirage III air intakes was retained, the supersonic performance of these air intakes was improved by working from theoretical computer calculations for the forward fuselage shape. In the same way, we have found that at the same flight Mach number, Mach 2, the local Mach number at the air intakes goes from Mach 2.10 for the Mirage 3 to Mach 1.95 for the Mirage 2000, which is, of course, reflected in increased efficiency at a given Mach number

Maneuvering: In comparing the Mirage 2000 to the Mirage 3, the wing area is increased by about 20% and Cz max by 70%, so that the manoeuverlng limit has been doubled. (...) A swlng-wing fighter with the same engine would have a manoeuvering limit of 50% of the Mirage 2000's. This amounts to a swing-wing aircraft at the Mirage-3 level, which isn't too bad, but isn't good enough to fight against new generation aircraft. We have just illustrated the main reason for stopping work on swing-wing aircraft in France.

Comparison to US designs: We have considered a fixed-wing aircraft with rear empennage designed around the same 9-tonne engine. We have called it the Super F-1. Its design and its characteristics are very similar to an American aircraft recently chosen by several European countries. We can see a 40% increase in Cz max. But there, too, the presence of the empennage reduces the wing area which can be designed around a given fuselage. This Super F-1 would have a wing area about 35% smaller than the Mirage 2000's. One would get a manoeuvering limit for the Super F-1 equal to 1.4 x 0.65 = 0.91 times the Mirage 2000's, just a little smaller.

But considering that a few per cent difference is not significant because of the refinements possible for any aerodynamic design, let us look at their supersonic performances to decide between the two formulas. The supersonic drag of the Super F-1 is about 35% higher than the Mirage 2000's at equal engine thrust. The penalty in terms of supersonic performance is thus large, and has not been accepted in France since 1975, the date when it could be shown that the Mirage 2000 design would allow an approach speed of about 150 kt.