Mirage 4000

[Rickshaw]

In order to fix the balance problems, why not make fuel tanks that use the extra room in the rear fuselage where the EJ2000 engines are?

 

[Foo Fighter]

I would hazard a guess that once the fuel was used the imbalance would return.

 

[NoBarrelRolls]

I found this cool photo of both Mirage 2000 & 4000 prototypes flying in formation.
Sorry this is the best resolution I got.

 

[Harry64]

The design of the two fighter planes was pretty similar, so one can say that the Mirage 2000 was more maneuverable than the 4000 due to its smaller size or that the 4000 had superior maneuverability due to the canards?

 

[apparition13]

The design of the two fighter planes was pretty similar, so one can say that the Mirage 2000 was more maneuverable than the 4000 due to its smaller size or that the 4000 had superior maneuverability due to the canards?

Bear with me for a moment. The F-16N is like half an F-14D. One rather than two F110 engines, half the empty weight, and half the fuel. So thrust to weight and range should be comparable. By contrast the 4000, when compared to the 2000, is an engineering magic trick. The 4000 has twice the engines of the 2000, but one and half times the empty weight and three times the fuel, I presume from the structural simplicity of the delta and the square cube effect of the much larger wing resulting in much higher fuel capacity, but grain of salt and all since I'm no engineer. The end result of this is to raise the thrust to weight from about .7 to over 1/1, and all else being equal would imply one and half times the range.

The canards contribute to the greater maneuverability of the 4000, but the primary difference is the much higher thrust to weight ratio - it can sustain a turn rather than losing energy, it can gain or regain energy much faster, it's superior in the vertical, etc.

For an ultimate 4000, imagine the M53s replaced with a thrust vectoring M88 derivative* and larger fully powered canards, resulting in not just more thrust but also powerful pitch control on both sides of the center of gravity. The aircraft equivalent of four wheel steering on an auto, if you will - the ability to carve through a turn rather than slide through one.


*Perhaps the proposed M88-4 with a larger fan, better fuel efficiency, and 24000 pounds of thrust in burner, some 5000 pounds more thrust total over the M53, or perhaps a scaled up version with even more thrust that would fit the space and match the center of gravity better. In either case add thrust vectoring to the engine.

 

[H_K]

Perhaps the proposed M88-4 with a larger fan, better fuel efficiency, and 24000 pounds of thrust in burner, some 5000 pounds more thrust total over the M53

Stick those engines in a stealthy airframe with Dassault’s engineering wizardry which always produces airframes with low drag/low structural weight and you have my dream 5th Gen fighter!

 

[Motocar]

Cutaway

By Motocar modified drawing...!

 

[DWG]

The F-16N is like half an F-14D. One rather than two F110 engines, half the empty weight, and half the fuel. So thrust to weight and range should be comparable. By contrast the 4000, when compared to the 2000, is an engineering magic trick.

Compared to the F-16, and the Mirages, the F-14's toting around the weight of the sweep mechanism and everything that supports it, plus the more robust engineering needed of an aircraft intended to land on a carrier. It was always going to have a poorer comparison with F-16 than the Mirages with each other.

 

[Trident]

Still, the F-16C comes out quite comparably to the F-14D regarding the relevant ratios: T/W, fuel fraction and even W/S. Given the same engine cycle (which is self-evidently true, because the engines are closely related), that should result in similar range and other performance. HOWEVER, there are major aerodynamic differences between them in that the F-14 can adapt its wing aspect ratio to flight condition while the F-16 has relaxed stability and vortex lift from LERX. By decreasing trim drag, relaxed stability could recoup some of the range for the F-16 and vortex lift helps its sub-/transonic turn performance.

Difficult to assess from gut instinct alone how these differences would play out, but my SWAG is that the F-14 retains an edge in range/endurance while the F-16 turns better in the transonic regime. A closer "F-16 Zwilling" analogy is actually the Su-27, which ought to give pause to people dismissing its transonic/supersonic performance based on gratuitously low-speed air show displays. Markedly better fuel fraction though, and somewhat lower wing loading (but then later-model F-16s are a bit tight in that regard).

 

[DWG]

Still, the F-16C comes out quite comparably to the F-14D regarding the relevant ratios:

It's the failure of the F-14 to do better that's the issue, all things being equal, the larger aircraft should always do better on t/w etc, because there's a significant part of the payload - avionics, parts of the structure -that's largely identical between small and large, rather than scaling.

 

[sferrin]

Still, the F-16C comes out quite comparably to the F-14D regarding the relevant ratios:

It's the failure of the F-14 to do better that's the issue, all things being equal, the larger aircraft should always do better on t/w etc, because there's a significant part of the payload - avionics, parts of the structure -that's largely identical between small and large, rather than scaling.

AWG-9 is a bit different than an APG-66. Also the Tomcat has the IR/TV system upfront. Also there's that landing on a carrier thing.

 

[Archibald]

I found this cool photo of both Mirage 2000 & 4000 prototypes flying in formation.
Sorry this is the best resolution I got.

View attachment 640935

It's a pity the bubble canopy couldn't make it into the 2000. Avionics had to go somewhere...

 

[Mirage4000]

I found this cool photo of both Mirage 2000 & 4000 prototypes flying in formation.
Sorry this is the best resolution I got.

View attachment 640935

It's a pity the bubble canopy couldn't make it into the 2000. Avionics had to go somewhere...

The canopy of Mirage 4000 is almost identical to F-15






to be honest, i love both aircraft, I am 50 years old but I love 1970s aircraft

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1977.

 

[Deltafan]

From a French forumer on a French website :

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

 

[Archibald]

27 bombs, 500 pounds each. Talk about a bomb truck.

 

[hesham]

27 bombs, 500 pounds each. Talk about a bomb truck.

Yes ?.

 

[Pioneer]

From a French forumer on a French website :

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

Great find thank's Deltafan
Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Foo Fighter]

^ What he said, brilliant stuff mate.

 

[F-2]

From a French forumer on a French website :

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

Great find thank's Deltafan
Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

Regards
Pioneer

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGp19c-CoPU
according to this description it’s carrying two here.

 

[Archibald]

Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

You raise an interesting point here. There are indeed too few photos of Mirage 4000 in flight; and the best known show a load of 6 Magic short range AAMs = 6*AIM-9L sidewinder.
Yet we all know the F-15 carried Sparrows on top of Sidewinders, and thus the 4000 should have been seen carrying at least Super 530D mockups.

Then again, the 4000 was dead even before its first flight (1976 to 1979) so missiles were always mockups: no hurry to fire live / real ones, as if the plane was to enter service with the Armée de l'Air... that happened with the 2000 and Rafale, but the lone 4000 prototype was "marginal", unfortunately.

 

[Pioneer]

From a French forumer on a French website :

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

Great find thank's Deltafan
Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

Regards
Pioneer

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGp19c-CoPU
according to this description it’s carrying two here.

Thank you F-2, you've made my day with your attached video.
Looking at the video and what with it's quality, am I right in thinking there were two wing-mounted 530's and two fuselage centre-mounted 530's to boot.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

You raise an interesting point here. There are indeed too few photos of Mirage 4000 in flight; and the best known show a load of 6 Magic short range AAMs = 6*AIM-9L sidewinder.
Yet we all know the F-15 carried Sparrows on top of Sidewinders, and thus the 4000 should have been seen carrying at least Super 530D mockups.

Then again, the 4000 was dead even before its first flight (1976 to 1979) so missiles were always mockups: no hurry to fire live / real ones, as if the plane was to enter service with the Armée de l'Air... that happened with the 2000 and Rafale, but the lone 4000 prototype was "marginal", unfortunately.

Archibald, I'd think any attempt to compete or add a alternative to the likes of the F-15 Eagle would have necessitated a medium-range AAM from the get-go or it wouldn't be in the show.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Manuducati]

From a French forumer on a French website :

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

Great find thank's Deltafan
Interesting that the loadout/hardpoint diagram shows the design ability to employ Matra Super 530 medium range AAM's and yet I've never seen a photo of the prototype carrying the Super 530. Which is odd, given that Dassault was promoting the Mirage 4000 as a cheaper option to the F-15...
Does anyone have any such photos?

Regards
Pioneer

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGp19c-CoPU
according to this description it’s carrying two here.

Thank you F-2, you've made my day with your attached video.
Looking at the video and what with it's quality, am I right in thinking there were two wing-mounted 530's and two fuselage centre-mounted 530's to boot.

Regards
Pioneer

Unfortunately I think the configuration seen here is the following one, with two AS-30L under the wings (plus two tanks and two Magic 2), two BGL-1000 in the centerline, navigation and targeting pods under the air intakes, plus two unknown pods in the rear (maybe jammer and/or decoys dispenser).

As far as I know, the Super 530 were only displayed in front of the Mirage 4000 during airshow but not flown (last picture).

 

[Archibald]

What I was trying to say (the wrong way) is that the lone 4000 prototype, the type having been rejected by the AdA for the 2000 as early as December 1975, had no priorit nor urgency whatsoever for live missile trials or even aerodynamic ones. I don't even know if it ever had a radar, so what would be the point of carrying live Super 530Ds ? Only dead mockups made sense, unfortunately; for the show at airshows.
Had Iraq (1979) or Saudi Arabia (1987) funded production, things would have drastically changed, I tell you.

 

[Elan Vital]

What I was trying to say (the wrong way) is that the lone 4000 prototype, the type having been rejected by the AdA for the 2000 as early as December 1975, had no priorit nor urgency whatsoever for live missile trials or even aerodynamic ones. I don't even know if it ever had a radar, so what would be the point of carrying live Super 530Ds ? Only dead mockups made sense, unfortunately; for the show at airshows.
Had Iraq (1979) or Saudi Arabia (1987) funded production, things would have drastically changed, I tell you.

Better than a Tornado buy maybe.

 

[Archibald]

Alas, while it had lower performance and agility, the Tornado ADV had one huge advantage over the 4000: a massive order from the RAF, for 165 airframes.
As far as the Saudis were concerned when looking for a F-15 alternative, that was enough.
(and yes, I know its infuriating, but think of the F-17, F-18L and F-20: three excellent aircraft yet no orders = Northrop screwed thrice).

 

[kaiserd]

Alas, while it had lower performance and agility, the Tornado ADV had one huge advantage over the 4000: a massive order from the RAF, for 165 airframes.
As far as the Saudis were concerned when looking for a F-15 alternative, that was enough.
(and yes, I know its infuriating, but think of the F-17, F-18L and F-20: three excellent aircraft yet no orders = Northrop screwed thrice).

And Saudi was already buying the Tornado IDS, the top quality strike variant.
As mentioned above re: the Tornado ADV the Saudi’s were after a small relatively token buy to have greater leverage with the US re: the F-15 - none of the 3 US aircraft named above would have given them that.
Plus can’t forget all those proven acknowledged massive bribes re: those Saudi defence deals.

 

[Archibald]

Plus can’t forget all those proven acknowledged massive bribes re: those Saudi defence deals.

In that regards, all countries and weapons manufacturers are equals - democracy or authoritarian states, they are one and the same. France with Dassault (Belgium Mirage Vs, cough; Swiss Mirage IIIS, cough cough) America, Great Britain... frack, even Sweden with Bofors and India went that dark road.

You KNOW a business is definitively a corrupt one when even Sweden is shaken with a corruption arm deal scandal, for frack sake.

 

[leopardo2]

Hello everyone; I am looking for information about the external fuel tanks that the Dassault Mirage 4000 could use, that is: Types and capacities. In the few available photos that exist of the Super Mirage 4000, you can see some large tanks, apparently they are large capacity tanks (2,500 liters). If anyone knows what type they are (RPL-????) and the capacity (since I'm not sure they are 2,500 liters), as well as the type of weapons that could be carried in all its hard points under the fuselage and under the wings. I need it because I am making 3 models of the M-4000 in scales 1/144, 1/72 and 1/48, (plastic kits, plastic and resin remains and carved wood parts). I would greatly appreciate your help with this information. Thank you very much! https://www.airliners.net/photo/Fra.../aYT+JlTptdHrBwfovTMdz+5jqmXi3oBxmmjbvhQnL/Q=

 

[Archibald]

Pretty hard to find any meaningful data on french drop tanks.

I once got similar issue, and the two best sources I could find where those ones.

http://florent1973.free.fr/FrenchAirWings/francais/aviation/equipement/RP/fiche_RP_listing.htm

Capacité des bidons / réservoirs pendulaires... - Check-Six Forums

www.checksix-forums.com

Dassault being Dassault, could be Mirage 2000 drop tanks as found on the 2000N/D, but I'm not sure of the shape. They are definitively NOT Iraqi F1 big belly tanks (both +2000 L: 2200 & 2500 respectively)

Which leaves Mirage IV drop tanks (2500 L) . Would be a bit old in the days of the 4000: then again, they are just drop tanks.
Crucially, the 4000 was a lone prototype, and I can't see drop tanks created just for it. Considering the +2000L capacity and the shape (not iraqi F1, nor 2000N) my bet would be on "recycled" Mirage IV tanks (nothing is ever wasted, at Dassault).

 

[H_K]

my bet would be on "recycled" Mirage IV tanks

The Mirage 4000 and Mirage IV tanks have very different fins and shapes. Not related I think.

 

[leopardo2]

Pretty hard to find any meaningful data on french drop tanks.

I once got similar issue, and the two best sources I could find where those ones.

http://florent1973.free.fr/FrenchAirWings/francais/aviation/equipement/RP/fiche_RP_listing.htm

Capacité des bidons / réservoirs pendulaires... - Check-Six Forums

www.checksix-forums.com

Dassault being Dassault, could be Mirage 2000 drop tanks as found on the 2000N/D, but I'm not sure of the shape. They are definitively NOT Iraqi F1 big belly tanks (both +2000 L: 2200 & 2500 respectively)

Which leaves Mirage IV drop tanks (2500 L) . Would be a bit old in the days of the 4000: then again, they are just drop tanks.
Crucially, the 4000 was a lone prototype, and I can't see drop tanks created just for it. Considering the +2000L capacity and the shape (not iraqi F1, nor 2000N) my bet would be on "recycled" Mirage IV tanks (nothing is ever wasted, at Dassault).

Thank you very much for your kind answer!
In fact, I find it very useful for many of my models, even for invented models (fictitious).
I think you're right, in that those are tanks that the Mirage 2000 also uses, so now my search is going to be based on ALL tanks that the Mirage 2000 can use.
As for the Mirage IV tanks, I find them to be longer and skinnier than the ones seen on the Mirage 4000.
They are also not seen on the Mirage III or Mirage V.
Once again, I really appreciate your kind response.

 

[leopardo2]

Pretty hard to find any meaningful data on french drop tanks.

I once got similar issue, and the two best sources I could find where those ones.

http://florent1973.free.fr/FrenchAirWings/francais/aviation/equipement/RP/fiche_RP_listing.htm

Capacité des bidons / réservoirs pendulaires... - Check-Six Forums

www.checksix-forums.com

Dassault being Dassault, could be Mirage 2000 drop tanks as found on the 2000N/D, but I'm not sure of the shape. They are definitively NOT Iraqi F1 big belly tanks (both +2000 L: 2200 & 2500 respectively)

Which leaves Mirage IV drop tanks (2500 L) . Would be a bit old in the days of the 4000: then again, they are just drop tanks.
Crucially, the 4000 was a lone prototype, and I can't see drop tanks created just for it. Considering the +2000L capacity and the shape (not iraqi F1, nor 2000N) my bet would be on "recycled" Mirage IV tanks (nothing is ever wasted, at Dassault).

Thank you very much for your kind answer!
In fact, I find it very useful for many of my models, even for invented models (fictitious).
I think you're right, in that those are tanks that the Mirage 2000 also uses, so now my search is going to be based on ALL tanks that the Mirage 2000 can use.
As for the Mirage IV tanks, I find them to be longer and skinnier than the ones seen on the Mirage 4000.
They are also not seen on the Mirage III or Mirage V.
Once again, I really appreciate your kind response.

my bet would be on "recycled" Mirage IV tanks

The Mirage 4000 and Mirage IV tanks have very different fins and shapes. Not related I think.

I agree with you! They are longer, thinner and more pointed tanks than the ones seen on the Mirage 4000. They may have the same capacity (2,500), but the shape is different!
I really appreciate your kind response!

 

[H_K]

now my search is going to be based on ALL tanks that the Mirage 2000 can use

Look at the RPL-501/502 1,700L tanks on the Mirage 2000… they look similar to the Mirage 4000´s tanks. But perhaps scaled down… hard to tell.

 

[H_K]

Maybe with a little measuring to scale you can figure out dimensions and compare the Mirage 2000 vs 4000 tanks…

 

[leopardo2]

now my search is going to be based on ALL tanks that the Mirage 2000 can use

Look at the RPL-501/502 1,700L tanks on the Mirage 2000… they look similar to the Mirage 4000´s tanks. But perhaps scaled down… hard to tell.

Hello H_K; tank you so much for your kind reply!
Yes, it really looks like these. It only makes me doubt that they are 1,700 liters. I positively know that those of the M-4000 are 2,500, (they are the largest capacity tanks of the Mirage series). If only someone could confirm that the tanks that are seen in the photo (Mirage 2000P of the Peruvian Air Force), are 1,700 or 2,500 liters?

 

[H_K]

@leopardo2 The Mirage 2000’s RPL 501/502 wing tanks are definitely 1,700 liters. There are also larger 2,000L RPL 541/542 tanks but those are very easy to recognize with their bulbeous nose shape (the 541 is in fact the back of a 501 tank mated to a new larger front section).

The wing pylons are limited to 1,800kg so 2,000L is the maximum that can be carried.

 

[leopardo2]

Maybe with a little measuring to scale you can figure out dimensions and compare the Mirage 2000 vs 4000 tanks…

The tanks that this Greek M-2000 carries, are the RPL-501/502 1,700L, and due to the scale, they are smaller and thinner than the M-4000.

 

[leopardo2]

@leopardo2 The Mirage 2000’s RPL 501/502 wing tanks are definitely 1,700 liters. There also larger 2,000L RPL 541/542 tanks but those are very easy to recognize with their bulbeous nose shape (the 541 is in fact the back of a 501 tank mated to a new larger front section).

The wing pylons are limited to 1,800kg so 2,000L is the maximum that can be carried.

This information is very useful! Thank you very much H_K!