FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1975
1975 - 0072.PDF
36 FLIGHT International, 9 January 1975 mini DEFENCE F.1E and Super Mirage performance THE FIRST FLIGHT of the Dassault F.1/M53 (.Flight last week, pages 2 and 11) lasted for lhr and took a flying M53 engine to supersonic speed for the first time, to Mach 1-32. With its contender for the European F-104- replaeement market now airborne, France has released a considerable amount of new information on the aircraft and has begun to point out areas of specific competition with the American YF-16 and YF-17. Sweep at the leading edge of the wing is 47° 30' and aspect ratio is 2-8:1. Thickness/chord ratio is 4-5 per cent at the root and 3-5 per cent at the tip. Take-off weight, clean, is 25,3001b, maximum takeoff weight is 34,3001fo. Internal fuel capacity is 946 Imp gal. Maximum toad factor subsonic is 8-6g and supersonic is 7-15g. Under attack mission conditions, manooeuvr- ability of the F.1/M53 is claimed to be beyond the physical limits of the pilot: stabilised 6g up to 13,000ft and a maximum 6g up to 30,000ft. Max speed at sea level is SOOkt, Mach 1 • 2. Max rate of climb is 59,000ft/min up to Mach 2 and 32,800ft. Takeoff dis tance is said to be 2,000ft clean and landing speed and distance 127kt and 2,000ft. Service ceiling of the F.1/M53 is estimated at 65,000ft and time to 42,500ft from brake release at 4-5min. Time to 39,370ft .and Mach 1-8 is estimated at 5-2min, and to 49,200ft and Mach 2-2 at 8min. According to the latest defence report to the French National Assembly, maximum low- altitude radius of action is 390 miles, which reduces to 280 miles with four (unspecified weight) bombs on a tacti cal attack mission. On an interception mission, carrying missiles and external fuel, radius of action is said toi be 416 miles. In an article on the F.1/M53, how ever, our French contemporary Air et Cosmos claims that the low-altitude radius with six (unspecified weight) bombs is about 400 n.m. rising to about 650 n.m. on a hi-lo^hi profile. These figures compare with that in the report to> the National Assembly where a clean hi-lo-hi radius of 600 n.m, is claimed. Dassault is emphasising the high supersonic endurance of the F.1E with the M53, claiming a fuel consumption per kilometre at Mach 2 70 per cent lower than that of the nearest com petitive aircraft, although this is not named. It is also said that the installed Mach 2 thrust to engine weight ratio of the M53 is the highest of all exist ing turbojets (though the engine is strictly a turbofan of course). Maximum continuous speed of the aeroplane is Mach 2.2 though the engine was designed for at least Mach 2-5 and this would be attainable with modifications to> the leading edges and cockpit transparencies of the F.l. Some emphasis is also, being given to the growth potential of the M53 which has: a moderate pressure ratio of only 8-5:1 (compared to the 25:1 or so of the advanced American engines in the YF-16 and YF-17) and which is said to have provision for a 15 per cent thrust increase with a 10 per cent decrease in weight by the early 1980s. Although the low pressure ratio, combined with the low (0-4:1) bypass ratio, results in slightly higher specific fuel consump tion subsonic and at low level, thrust recovery of the French engine at altitude and high Mach number is, as would be expected, reckoned to be better than that of the F100, and even than that of the J101. Taking Mach 0-9 s.l. penetration and Mach 2 interception as the two most important Nato missions, French industry is making the following com parisons. The P&W F100, with a conir parable weight and 33 per cent more static thrust, is reckoned to have only 15 per cent more thrust at low level and 30 per cent less thrust on the interception mission. A pair of GE JlOls, weighing about 20 per cent more than the M53 and also' having about 33 per cent more static thrust, is claimed to' have only 14 per cent more at low level and no more in the Mach 2 interception. F.1E Armament France is stressing the development status of the F.1/M53 and says that all the various combinations of guns, bombs and missiles have effectively been evaluated through the F.l/Atar programme. The two 30mm Defa cannon on the aircraft are reckoned to have three times the killing power of the single 20mm Vulcan on the YF-16 and YF-17; the two Magic dog- fighting missiles are regarded as definitely superior to the Sidewinders of the US aircraft; and the longer- range Super 530s for all-weather inter ception by the F.l have as yet no counterpart on the American pair. Dassault calculates that the higher wing loading of the F.1/M53 compared with the US fighters will allow no less than a 40 per cent higher speed in severe turbulence, which could be critical on a low-level penetration mission over Europe. Low-speed manoeuvrability is said to have been improved through recent develop ments with the flaps by 20-25 per cent. The above-mentioned report to the French National Assembly claims that the Armee de i'Air has never asked for Mirage F.lCs and equally does not want the F.1E with its 20 per cent greater cost and, according to the Service, no significant performance improvements. The report suggests, however, that the Armee de l'Air should buy F.lEs as a gesture of faith in the aircraft and return, its F.lCs to the manufacturer for sale abroad. Such a move would, it is claimed, im prove the F.lE's export chances; M Soufuet, the Minister of Defence, has already said that the Armee de l'Air will buy about 40 F.lEs if that type is selected by the four Nato countries seeking an F-104 replacement. The report acknowledges that such a proposal is likely to meet with opposition in the Armee de TAir but it points out the technical advantages of the M53—an engine designed for speeds of Mach 2 • 5 and above, where as the 9K50 is the end of an Atar line which stretches back more than 20 years. The M53 is also: the powerplant chosen for the Super Mirage (formerly Avion de Combat Futur) and thus has the advantage of commonality but, as the report points out, the missions of the F.1E and Super Mirage overlap. Indeed, the report is surprisingly outspoken about the Super Mirage, the first of two prototypes of which is due to fly in the last third of 1976 and the strike version of which enter production in 1980. The programme (200 aircraft) is, the report asserts, expected to cost about Fr20,000 million (some £2,000 million) and unit cost will be at least Fr80 million (£7 • 75 million). The September 21 statement by German Defence Minister Georg Leber that the Super Mirage will be DM25 million (£4-5 million) more expensive than MRCA is quoted. The lightness of a fixed wing is acknowledged but the abandonment of variable geometry for a multi-role aircraft such as the Super Mirage is questioned. The report asserts that the strike version armed with Air-Sol Moyenne Portee (ASMP) stand-off air-to-surface missiles will not be ready until! 1982 rather than the 1980-81 which has previously been mentioned. It also maintains that, following the refusal by the United States to sell France a suitable Doppler radar with a 90cm-diameter dish (compared with the F.l's 60cm) and a range of 100km, domestically developed equipment will not be avail able until 1983-84 and the air-defence Super Mirage cannot enter service until at least 1985. The report concludes that the French defence budget, which may well have to> cover the purchase of a substantial number of F.lEs, will probably not run to the complete Super Mirage programme, particularly in view of the competition likely to. be encountered from MRCA in the export field.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
