Question about Mirage 50 and F.1

[lastdingo]

Both appeared practically in parallel, many Mirage 50s shared avionics and engine with Mirage F.1s.

My question is WHY? Why was there a Mirage 50 at all once the F.1 had arrived?

The newer wing gave shorter take-off run, shorter landing run, better agility (except maybe at high altitude/supersonic speed) especially in regard to sustained turn rate, it offered wingtip missile launch rails and for all I know the Mirage 50 was if at all superior only at high and altitudes. Yet there were plenty Mirage 50s clearly not built for high altitude recce or interceptor duties, but for ground attack / multi-role.
I don't see the point, especially as some Mirage 50 users had no Mirage delta-experienced pilots, and even if they had, those pilots had an easy transition to the better flight characteristics of the F.1. If anything they needed time to learn how to exploit the better characteristics (learn to feel the different flight envelope limits).

Has anyone a source about this, maybe even a reliable objective comparison of characteristics that shows some important Mirage 50 advantage other than Mirage delta fame?

 

[Deltafan]

Re: Quesiton about Mirage 50 and F.1

I think that the advantage number one is simply that the Mirage 50 (main flight 15.05.1979) was cheaper than the Mirage F1 (entered service in French Air Force on 14.03.1974)

Designed as a first aircraft for countries wanting to possess a Mach 2+ combat aircraft for the least possible outlay, the Mirage 50 was also the natural next step up from the Mirage III or 5

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-50/?noredirect=en_US

 

[lastdingo]

The airframes were extremely similar, the engine the same and the avionics interchangeable.
I don't see where a noteworthy price difference may have come from.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Some of the Mirage 50s were refurbs of existing airframes I believe.

 

[Archibald]

Dassault wanted to push the proven Mirage III airframe to his absolute limits. Mind you, the Mirage 50 was not the last avatar: the Mirage IIING flew three years later, in 1982, and was another leap forward in capability, including a cranked delta and FBW. This time it was not only redundant with the Mirage F1, but also with the Mirage 2000 itself. And it was a bridge too far, by the way.
As Overscan said, a lot of the Mirage 50 (if not all of them) were refurbished Mirage V airframes. Dassault was trying to get as much money as possible from all these Mirage III the company had sold over the years.
Make no mistake, past 1975 Dassault sold very few Mirage III. It really belonged to the past.

 

[Retrofit]

The airframes were extremely similar, the engine the same and the avionics interchangeable.
I don't see where a noteworthy price difference may have come from.

From an industrial point of view, development and production tools costs have long been absorbed for the delta wing Mirage 50. Not the case for the F1.

 

[Deltafan]

The airframes were extremely similar, the engine the same and the avionics interchangeable.
I don't see where a noteworthy price difference may have come from.

-The airframes seemed extremely similar but were not the same. The frame of the F1 was wider. And the structural efforts (and then the designs and overall the internal designs) of the frames cannot be the same in a plane with low delta wings (50) and in a plane with high swept winghs (F1).

http://spotaero.blogspot.com/2013/02/

And the designs of the internal tanks were completely different : the mirage 50 needed flexible tanks. The internal tanks of the Mirage F1 were "dry". And the frame of the F1 contains more fuel in internal tanks than the 50 (even if the wings of the 50 contain more fuel than the wings of the F1). In total the F1 contains 3350 kg of fuel and the 50 2600 kg.

-In 1979, you offset better the costs with 1400 Mirage III/V since 1961 (introduction) than with 468 F1 since 1973

-For the two customers of the 50 (Chili and Venezuela), the Chili got only 6 new planes, the 8 others were chilean Mirage 5 transformed into Mirage 50. For the Venezuela, it got 7 new planes, the 11 others were venezuelan Mirage III and 5 transformed into Mirage 50. This possibility of transformation of older III and 5 was, of course, another economical advantage of the Mirage 50.

-If the 50 was not cheaper than the F1 why Dassault writes

Designed as a first aircraft for countries wanting to possess a Mach 2+ combat aircraft for the least possible outlay

?

 

[TomcatViP]

The F1 is also a much more complicated airframe with added ctrl surfaces than the simple delta winged 50. I would bet also that the fuselages differ also structurally significantly with less frame and bracing on the F1.

 

[lastdingo]

The airframes were extremely similar, the engine the same and the avionics interchangeable.
I don't see where a noteworthy price difference may have come from.

From an industrial point of view, development and production tools costs have long been absorbed for the delta wing Mirage 50. Not the case for the F1.

That's a fallacious accountant's perspective.
It's absolutely irrelevant from an economcis perspective because those fixed costs of the F.1 occurred anyway. They were irrelevant (sunk) costs.

The F1 is also a much more complicated airframe with added ctrl surfaces than the simple delta winged 50. I would bet also that the fuselages differ also structurally significantly with less frame and bracing on the F1.

Elevon control are more complicated than mere aileron controls. You don't get control around one axis for free with deltas.

 

[TomcatViP]

Absolutely but irrelevant. Once mastered, it cost less to build a delta.