The Mirage is actually the Fairey Delta 2?

[WV908]

I recently came across a comment on Facebook that mentioned the Fairey Delta 2's were built in Dassualt owned facilities and that the Mirage was essentially a reverse engineered FD.2

 

Now, I cannot find any info on where the FD2's were built, onto where they were first flown. Does anyone have any info to substantiate this or expand on it please?

 

It would certainly make for interesting discussion comparing the types.

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[exdraken]

interesting, of course!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta_2

Wikipedia says that testing was done in in France... caused by Fairey's good relations to Dassault.. so anything is possible I guess!

 

the wing and probably tail look indeed very similar... in planform and some details... the rest of the plane not so much without further studying the topic!

 

all in all, someone did it right in the end....and it seems it was not Fairey.....

Edited June 2, 2020 by exdraken

[WV908]

Hi @exdraken

 

Stupidly I didn't read as far as testing - so we're looking at built in the UK but tested in France. It partially answers my question regarding the Mirage III but it would still be interesting to know just how similar the designs are. It's a shame we didn't end up with a frontline fighter like the FD2!

 

Cheers,

  WV908 

[exdraken]

to me the Mystere Delta MD-550 that lead to the Mirage I definitely has a lot in common with the Fairey Delta, even the name!  but being a twin engined design first it is also noticeably different.. so reverse engineering is probably not the right terminus.. inspired by definitely fits! 

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/news/first-flight-md-550-1955/

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/dassault_md-550.php

 

 

 

 

yes, probably there would not have been a Lightning then...

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by exdraken

[Aardvark]

If the USSR and France / Britain officially exchanged information during their work on the Tu-144 and Concord, reworked Mirage G under LTV name participated in the competition the winner of which was the F-14, then why France and Britain could not exchange information when working on Mystere Delta MD-550 that lead to the Mirage I / Fairey Delta?

 

B.R.

Serge

[WV908]

One thing is for certain and it's that the FD2 / BAC221 and the Mirage III are very visually appealing designs... Outside. I've sat in WG777's cockpit - I'm 11 stone and 5 ft 9'' and only just squeezed in! 

 

Sadly the only Mirage III I've seen is Elvington's example which, considering how many times I've been there I seem to have a knack of not photographing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[71chally]

The Fairey Delta 2 was designed and built at Hayes, under the direction of H E Chaplin and Robert Lickley. Both Richard Fairey and Chaplin were known as designers/engineers that didn't really like to put their work out there for others to take in.

 

Really the only similarity with the aforementioned aircraft is that they are slender deltas, you could expand the discussion and say that Convair were influenced, or did influence.

In fact the FD.2 was quite different, and unusual, in a way in that it was the only mid mounted wing design of these slender delta wing aircraft.  The droop nose was also unique and shows how Fairey struggled to get the landing speed down, requiring a nose held high attitude for approaches.

Most of these designs can be traced to late wartime German aerodynamic theories and designs.  The FD.2, Mirage III, and the F-102 all had predecessors built within their own companies, with their own timelines.

 

Aircraft designers were working to a common goal, with certain technologies and materials, and within the limited design parameters that were available to them at the time, they were bound to come up with some similar designs for the solutions of the problems thrown up by high performance flight.

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by 71chally
Spelling

[Truro Model Builder]

The Delta 2 undertook some of its flight testing at the French Flight Test Centre (CEV) as the weather was rather better. While there it made quite an impression on the French, with the result that Marcel Dassault wasted no time in getting his designers to come up with something similar. The difference, of course, is that France turned it into a fighter while we decided that manned fighters were obsolete. Dassault became quite fond of pointing this out to British politicians, apparently.

 

But apart from a similar configuration, there was no other similarity, and there was certainly no reverse engineering.

[Aardvark]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

The droop nose was also unique and shows how Fairey struggled to get the landing speed down, requiring a nose held high attitude for approaches.

How can a drooping nose reduce landing speed? 🤔

On the contrary, dropping down the nose does not become at an angle to the air flow, but at the same time reduces resistance and increases speed!  Of course, it can be argued that dropping the nose works like a slat on the wing and the fuselage like the wing, but for such a system the fuselage should be flat and have load-bearing properties like the F-5!  But F.D.2 has a round fuselage, it does not have load-bearing properties!

Therefore, the bowed nose of F.D.2, like the Tu-144, Concord, is just a means of improving the pilot's view during takeoff / landing. 😉

B.w. for this reason, Soviet designers did not like the delta scheme, since it required large angles of attack during take-off and landing, which consequently worsened the visibility of the pilot.

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

The FD.2, Mirage III, and the F-102 all had predecessors built within their own companies, with their own timelines.

F.D.1 & F.D2 as M.D.550 & Mirage III and as XF-92 & F-102 it's very big difference. I can illustrate this with an example XF-92 & F-102, but without a doubt, this is the evolution of one plane into another.

1 hour ago, Truro Model Builder said:

The Delta 2 undertook some of its flight testing at the French Flight Test Centre (CEV) as the weather was rather better. While there it made quite an impression on the French, with the result that Marcel Dassault wasted no time in getting his designers to come up with something similar.

Any real cool designer who sees an idea will always try to improve it and make it his own way.... otherwise it is not a designer.

😉

 

B.R.

Serge

[Giorgio N]

Dassault had already flown their first delta when they met the FD.2 at Cazaux in late 1956. WG774 was based there under an agreement with the French authorities as this base not only had better weather in the winter but the are also allowed supersonic flight at low level without problems.

I have read different accounts regarding how the FD-2 influenced Dassault, but most seem to agree that there was some exchange of information between the two companies, exchange that was approved at higher level. Mind, some sources state that the Mirage was an exact copy of the FD.2... it was not !

Dassault was already studying deltas and that his first design had flown 18 months earlier.. it was initially known as Delta Mystere and renamed Mirage in early 1956. And featured two engines. By the time the FD.2 reached France, the first single engined Mirage III was ready to fly and did so a month later. The result of the FD.2 test flights most likely helped Dassault somehow, even just by confirming certain assumptions and maybe disproving others. The Mirage however was already under development based on similar ideas, although with some not so small differences.

 

Regarding the possibility of a fighter derivative of the FD.2, I always believed that Britain made a serious mistake in not considering this. And I still do, however I realized how such an aircraft would have had no place in the RAF and this explained why this never occurred.

Fairey did propose a couple fighter variants very early in the FD.II development, the ER103B (a day fighter with the same wing and no radar) and ER103C (with radar, a larger wing and two Firestreak on the wingtips). The latter was proposed by Fairey as an interim competitor for F-155T, being an aircraft based on current technology that could have entered service in good numbers without many problems before other more "extreme" designs. The RAF seemed not impressed and wanted something more in line with the original specification, to which Fairey responded with what is often known as the FD.III (that is not an official name or designation).

The ER.103C was axed from the competition in November 1955 because it could not carry the Red Hebe missile. The FD.III however was declared as winner together with the Armstrong Witworth design and later only the Fairey proposal was approved for continuation of development and production. Th FD.III was then cancelled as a result of the famous white paper of 1957..

I'll leave it to anyone interested to look for more info on the FD.III for those who don't already know this project, it's IMHO fascinating. The history of this aircraft however also shows why the RAF would have never wanted something derived from the FD.II.

In the mid-to-late '50s the RAF was not interested in "generic" fighters, they had the Hunter in service and this was enough at the moment. The RAF at home and in Europe had to be able to provide a strategic deterrent and the defence of the UK, particularly the defence of the V-bomber bases. This meant that money had to go on the bombers and to the most extreme interceptors possible. The Lightning would have been the first supersonic interceptor and would have been replaced by the winner of the F.155T competition. In the meantime the Hunter would have been perfectly adequate for use in colonial operations (that is what actually happened).

As a result there was no place for a combat derivative of the FD.II, what the RAF wanted was the FD.III, a 22 m long 23 ton monster capable of carrying 2 X 600 Kg missiles at M 2.3 to counter any possible future soviet strategic bomber.

Dassault and the French air force had different ideas and while the Mirage III started as an interceptor, it had potential to be used for other missions and this resulted in a massive export success. The French government has since considered the export potential as an important aspect in the selection process of any new fighter.

[Dave Swindell]

10 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Therefore, the bowed nose of F.D.2, like the Tu-144, Concord, is just a means of improving the pilot's view during takeoff / landing.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle Serge. The design objective of the droop nose was to reduce landing speed, not improve pilot view.

For safe landing there would be a minimum safe view from the cockpit, and the angle of attack at which this view was lost would depend on the amount of droop to the nose. The higher the angle of attack achievable whilst maintaining the minimum safe view from the cockpit, the lower the landing speed.

So more nose droop = higher angle of attack = lower landing speed = same view over the nose.

[Aardvark]

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

but most seem to agree that there was some exchange of information between the two companies, exchange that was approved at higher level

I completely agree, that's what I’m talking about.

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

In the mid-to-late '50s the RAF was not interested in "generic" fighters, they had the Hunter in service and this was enough at the moment. The RAF at home and in Europe had to be able to provide a strategic deterrent and the defence of the UK, particularly the defence of the V-bomber bases. This meant that money had to go on the bombers and to the most extreme interceptors possible.

Moreover, it is not so simple that the RAF even had to abandon the Hawker P.1099 version of the Hunter with missiles and a radar, because this type of radar was needed for the V-bomber.

🤗

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

You're looking at this from the wrong angle Serge

From this point of view, I agree, I did not consider this.

But You can’t increase the angle of attack on the landing above certain values on the landing, because with a decrease in speed there will be a stall of the wing flow, loss of its bearing properties and, as a consequence, a fall, which will lead to disaster at such a low height. In addition, You need to have a longer front landing gear, which is perfectly demonstrated by F.D. 2 , Tu-144, e.t.c in combination with a deviating nose, is this extra weight, is it worth it?

 

B.R.

Serge

[71chally]

12 hours ago, Aardvark said:

How can a drooping nose reduce landing speed? 🤔

As Dave says.

 

Fairey couldn't keep the landing speed low enough without having to raise the FD.2s' approach angle of attack (drag) to such a degree that the cockpit had to be drooped to give the pilot a decent view forwards.

The FD.2 took-off with the nose up, the droop was only required for landings, it must have been an undesirable compromise for the designers adding significant weight and complexity to very high speed design.

The Mirage and F-102 (and the B-58, Mirage IV etc) had to control the approach speed, still with noticeable angle of attack, by other means to make into acceptable front-line service machines.

[tony.t]

The 1/72 FD.2 is being made in the Ukraine and the CAD looks mighty tasty...

 

https://dorawings.com/in-progress/120-fairey-delta-fd2.html

 

Definitely buying this tiddler but it would be magnificent in 1/32 scale

 

Tony 

Edited June 3, 2020 by tony.t
to render link active

[71chally]

3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Regarding the possibility of a fighter derivative of the FD.2, I always believed that Britain made a serious mistake in not considering this. And I still do, however I realized how such an aircraft would have had no place in the RAF and this explained why this never occurred.

The far more fighter looking (2nd prototype armed) English Electric P.1A first flew two months before the spindly FD.2 and was reaching, and restricted to Mach 1.5 whereas the FD.2 reached a maximum of Mach 1.7 and clearly wouldn't make a practical service machine says it all.

The Fairey F.155 design looked promising, but would it have been worth the excessive cost, and achieved much more on a practical level than squadrons of Lightnings and Phantoms.

Interestingly given the thread topic, there were ideas to sell a Fairey Delta fighter to Germany in the late 1950s, and this would have involved 

 

The FD.2 is beautiful, pure looking form, but looked less modern and far less practical than what Dassault and Convair were coming up with.

[tony.t]

The design concepts were different, though drew much from Germany's wartime design efforts.

 

The Americans went for a missile-toting "weapons system" with a big radar that ultimately could be entirely ground controlled or work semi-autonomously. The philosophy created the very different McDonnell Voodoo and Convair Deuce. These were mostly driven by avionics and missiles, the airframe being dictated by the latest turbojets. The aerodynamics, to some extent, followed in trail (e.g. the poor performing Deuce evolved into the Delta Dart or Six).  I'd be interested to know which came first: Convair B-58 or Six.

 

France wanted rudimentary radar in its interceptor but the Dassault Mirage was primarily a "tally ho" visual fighter with a lead computing sight which could also, depressed, be used for air-to-ground gunnery — and, like the American fighters, could expand fuel capacity via underside strap-on 'bags'. It was clearly envisaged for the international export market and had enormous growth potential. The French got it right early on, by focusing on the aerodynamics and not trying to distort the design to accommodate more black boxes, missiles or engines. 

 

Britain loved taking time in development and created the improve-it-as-you-go-along Gloster Javelin which finally became effective on reaching obsolescence. The English Electric Lightning offered stunning speed and climb performance but needed a conformal belly tank (and, later, overwing bags for deployments) and had a teeny-weeny Airpass radar so was heavily reliant on GCI control. It was a cracker but had no growth potential. Britain probably really needed a mix of Lightnings and Canadian Avro Arrows carrying British missiles. The Fairey Deltas were pure research but supremely elegant, and how often do you get to crack open a tin of purple paint?

 

Tony 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

3 hours ago, 71chally said:

The far more fighter looking (2nd prototype armed) English Electric P.1A first flew two months before the spindly FD.2 and was reaching, and restricted to Mach 1.5 whereas the FD.2 reached a maximum of Mach 1.7 and clearly wouldn't make a practical service machine says it all.

 

According to Fairey, the FD.2 was still accelarating when achieved its record speed and the maximum speed would have been higher had the aircraft had enough fuel on board... being a test aircraft only however the type never had much fuel.

The P.1A was at that point much more advanced in its road to service and I agree that it would have made little sense to stop everything to work on am FD.2 derivative... that would have been a totally new aircraft really. It remains to be seen if the Lightning was the best option, in any case this was the kind of fighter the RAF wanted and was what they got,

 

 

go, 71chally said:

The Fairey F.155 design looked promising, but would it have been worth the excessive cost, and achieved much more on a practical level than squadrons of Lightnings and Phantoms.

Interestingly given the thread topic, there were ideas to sell a Fairey Delta fighter to Germany in the late 1950s, and this would have involved 

 

The FD.2 is beautiful, pure looking form, but looked less modern and far less practical than what Dassault and Convair were coming up with.

 

I believe that History has shown how these large interceptors were rarely the best solution. Only the Soviet Union really introduced something similar into service, that makes sense considering their need for very long range types. All Western interpretation of the concept went nowhere.

In the case of the F.155 in theory they would have been much superior to the Lightning, but useful ? Probably not and not worth the massive cost.

The FD.III was impressive but was complex and had absolutely no operational flexibility, it would have been a very expensive aircraft for a single role. Interestingly among the comments made by the selection panel while the type was the overall winner it was criticised for the not impressive range, although the RAF believed that with some small redesign work this could have been much improved on. Sounds like the lack of large enough fuel tanks really was a common feature of many British designs of the era... 🤣

 

[71chally]

1 hour ago, tony.t said:

and how often do you get to crack open a tin of purple paint?

...the range of finishes for just two aircraft is great,

 

Not seen this combination before now

 

Some of the other wonderful schemes,

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/abpic-media-eu-production/pictures/full_size_0449/1678447-large.jpg

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125118633@N05/16527054371/

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuM4g7HWkAMk5mD?format=jpg&name=small

 

And nice bit of info from when they operated with the RAE at Bedford.

https://www.bahg.org.uk/documents/BAHG Newsletter 22.pdf

 

 

 

I'm guessing there must have been a technical reason for it, but I could never understand why the record breaker, WG774 was chosen for conversion to the BAC221, it would have been lovely to see that aircraft preserved in original configuration.

 

@WV908I somehow missed your lovely shots earlier, especially like the cockpit shot.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

On 6/3/2020 at 12:52 PM, Aardvark said:

But You can’t increase the angle of attack on the landing above certain values on the landing, because with a decrease in speed there will be a stall of the wing flow, loss of its bearing properties and, as a consequence, a fall, which will lead to disaster at such a low height.

 

Whilst all wings can and will stall, delta wings do not follow the same general tendencies of straight or swept wings. Delta wings will retain attached airflow at much larger angles of attack than conventional wings will and can be flown safely well beyond the sorts of angles of attack which would have non-delta wings stalling. This is because as angle of attack increases, huge vortexes tend to form on the leading edges of the wings trailing back over the whole wing which forces airflow to remain attached far longer. Equally though, deltas generate poor lift compared to higher aspect ratio wings at low speeds for a given angle of attack so not only can they be flown at very high angles of attack, they need to be flown at high angles of attack when flying slowly.

 

 

From a practical point of view, the limiting factor for a delta wing aircraft's landing speed is when the pilot cannot see the runway to land on it!

[WV908]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:07 PM, 71chally said:

 

@WV908I somehow missed your lovely shots earlier, especially like the cockpit shot.

 

I have a few more from the open cockpit evening;

 

 

I personally think WG777 looks better with the polished nose as in your photo

 

 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[John B (Sc)]

I think in addition to, or following logically from what Jamie said, the higher the angle of attack on a delta wing, the greater the drag , which increases rapidly.  Hence maximum available thrust becomes an issue.

 

On the Dassault-Fairey connection, Bill Gunston wrote  (in Fighters of the Fifties) that Marcel Dassault - whom Mr G knew personally - had asked Fairey about possible collaboration in developing supersonic deltas, when he was working on the Mirage I. It was said that Fairey's influence led to a change in the style of the Mirage I tail.

 

The FD2 trials at Cazaux helped convince doubters of the possible efficacy of the slender delta design. Dassault was said to be grateful to the British Government for being so reluctant to support Fairey's plans. Another example of the short sightedness of the MoS, the RAF and Government - especially that clot Sandys, who had been overly impressed by missiles in WW2. (the comments of Prof RV Jones, who had quite frequent dealings with Sandys, were eloquent!) 

 

Other than the Mirage I tail, there appears to have been no direct design connnection.

The design of the MIrage III was impressive - in the IIIA some of the mid-section fuselage frames which act as wing carry through are part of the fuselage surface - really tight design! 

[Giorgio N]

16 hours ago, John B (Sc) said:

The FD2 trials at Cazaux helped convince doubters of the possible efficacy of the slender delta design. Dassault was said to be grateful to the British Government for being so reluctant to support Fairey's plans. Another example of the short sightedness of the MoS, the RAF and Government - especially that clot Sandys, who had been overly impressed by missiles in WW2. (the comments of Prof RV Jones, who had quite frequent dealings with Sandys, were eloquent!) 

 

 

 

Maybe, but maybe not... as discussed above in this thread, the Fairey proposal for a fighter derivative of the FD.2 would have resulted in an operational aircraft coming slightly later than the Lightning. And it is very likley that it would have had to be one or the other. So at that point the choice would have been between a design purely geared for the interception of bombers or a more multirole, Mirage III-like approach. What would have been the right choice ?

Assuming that the Fairey design would have evolved along similar lines to the Dassault fighter, it could have resulted in a very good export success, and may have been the true successor to the Hunter. Probably this would have resulted in a shorter operational life of the same Hunter within the RAF itself, as could have been adapted in the fighter-bomber and tactical recce roles more easily than the Lightning.

The RAF however at that point in History wanted a fleet of interceptors to defend the V-bomber bases. The Lightning would have probably been superior from this point of view, even if this resulted in a very specialised machine with little export potential (yes the Lightning later was exported with some ground attack capability, but nothing compared to the Mirage III).

We can wonder if the RAF would have been better off with the Lightning or with a Mirage III-like aircraft. Some may consider the latter as a better option (and personally I'm a moderate supporter of this view), others may judge the Lightning as the best choice. It makes for a fascinating debate where of course there's no absolute answer

[Truro Model Builder]

Interesting comments.

 

The British aviation industry was subordinated to the needs of the military and BOAC/BEA to the extent that when those needs began to lessen in the 1960s it had to struggle to sell what were in effect customised designs in the commercial market against established and more flexible competition. I offer the Lightning and the VC10 as examples; both superb aircraft designed for very specific needs, the former was up against the Mirage III and the F-104, while the VC10 had to compete against the DC-8 and the Boeing 707.

 

Resultingly, there was no official support for a Delta 2-derived fighter as the RAF did not see a need for it. Had Fairey wanted to develop one, it would have been an uphill struggle without Government funding and -even more crucially- an order from the RAF. I agree with Giorgio's view that such an aircraft may have been a better fit for the RAF, and it would have provided the aviation industry with a true follow on to the Hunter and a chance to take a real chunk out of the 1960/70s Mach 2 fighter market.

[JohnT]

And as we are looking at what might have been if an advanced Fairey delta had been built and to throw another variable into the works - on the matter of Fairey derivative aircraft sales versus Mirage export sales how many Mirage buyers would have been acceptable as UK customers?  Israel and South African sales might have posed a political problem by then maybe. Australia not so. Latin America?

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, JohnT said:

And as we are looking at what might have been if an advanced Fairey delta had been built and to throw another variable into the works - on the matter of Fairey derivative aircraft sales versus Mirage export sales how many Mirage buyers would have been acceptable as UK customers?  Israel and South African sales might have posed a political problem by then maybe. Australia not so. Latin America?

 

It's impossible to tell, as in any case Dassault would have offered something and this something would have still managed to get some of the sales that the Mirage actually got. In the end military sales are a combination of a good enough product, political and industrial connections, alliances and other kinds of leverage

However most of the actual customers of the Mirage III could have bought a British aircraft without many problems, with some exceptions.

Israel would have not been a problem, afterall they had Meteors in service and had been allied with Britain only a few years ago in the Suez mess.

South Africa received Buccaneers in 1965, so would have not been a problem for them to buy a Fairey fighter in 1962 (that is when they ordered the Mirage).

Most Latin American countries had already bought Meteors (Brazil, Argentina) or Hunters (Chile, Peru). Chile may have been a problem as the Mirages were ordered after 1973 and Britain in those years had stopped selling arms after the Pinoshet coup. However the ban was lifted in the early '80s so maybe some former RAF aircraft would have ended there.

Sales to some middle-eastern countries may have been more difficult, as Britain was not always in good terms with some of them... Lybia may have been difficult, Egypt however got their Mirages from Saudi Arabia, so no problem here. Same for the Emirates, that had traditionally been good buyers of British arms. Sales to some African countries may have been difficult not much because of problems with Britain but simply because these were very close to France and would have bought whatever this country could offer.

Of the European countries, Switzerland would have just been happy to follow the Hunter with another British type, Belgium would have too while Spain may have been more difficult, as the British government was not always in good relations with this country.

Then there's one big potential exception, that is Pakistan... it would have been difficult for Britain in the '60s to supply Pakistan with modern fighters while retaining good relations with India, so it would have likely been one or the other. Most likely Britain would have preferred to offer their fighter to India, that never bought the Mirage III but used a large number of MiG-21s... but I wonder if they would have chosen the Soviet fighter with the availability of a good british type. The same could be said of other countries that are traditionally close to Britain and that bought US types. Kenya, Singapore, Malaysia... maybe they would have chosen a Fairey Mirage. Or maybe they'd have just moved to US products as the American influence replaced the British, particularly in Asia

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Giorgio N