Why would they want to replace the F-8 with the F1 – surely the Vought is the better fighter?;)

Not sure if you’re being serious with the emoticon attached.;)

The Mirage F1 was smaller, faster, had superior range, double the payload, could climb much faster, had a higher operational ceiling etc etc.

I have no idea what the manoevreability comparison between the two were, although I suspect the F1 would be superior here too. It certainly was half a ton lighter, whilst having a superior dry thrust. The nosecone design of the F8 Crusader provided limited space. The F1 was also a newer generation fighter, with all the advantages that entailed.

It’s an animation.

Anyone have credible comparisons between the Mirage 50 performance compared to the Mirage F1? That would be helpful in determining if the Atar 9K was the reason for the F1’s edge over the III, or if it was truly the conventional wing design.

I’ve always thought the F1’s advantages came about through the wing design, more internal fuel, ATAR 9K50, and superior onboard systems (not just the avionics).

Of course, many of those could be remedied ala the Cheetah C, but then you end up with an aircraft that is quite different from an original Mirage III. Below you can see how different the Cheetah C is from a Mirage IIIC. In fact, a brief comparison of the first 2 photos shows almost no unchanged structures at all. It’s like two completely different aircraft.

The M53 dates back to the ’70s. First flight on a modified Mirage F1 in 1974. The M53-2 equipped the Mirage F1/M53, Mirage 4000 and Mirage 2000 prototype. It was further developed for the Mirage 2000 (M53-5, M53-P2).

I see the first M53 ran in February 1970.
The M53-2 was considered the initial low rate production model and flew in the Mirage F1.M53 in December 1974. So I assume that this model, the M53-2 was available from 1975 onwards?

The M53-5 was the model that powered the Mirage 2000C.

I see the thrust was basically the same, so was the M53 ready before the Mirage 2000? In other words, was the Mirage 2000 entry a decade after the M53 a function of the airframe/avionics, and not engine?

Does anyone have a chronological development timeframe of the various M53 models, and the thrusts they acheived datewise?

The Mirage F1 also had the ability to sef-deploy with basic equipment equipment in pods as far as remember. At least, that was the original intention.

It also had the ability to self-start, unlike the Mirage III.

Below are two photos of the Mirage F1.M53. The probe is interesting, and may be a mock-up, as the intention was for a retractable type to be fitted.

EDIT: That may be the Marine Mirage F1M as proposed to the Navy, hence the non-retractable probe.

A little known fact is that a clean Mirage F1 is one of the fastest aircraft down at sea level or very low altitude. There have not been many aircraft taken into service that are much faster in this regime.

Just some of the criteria that the Mirage F1 showed improvement over the Mirage III was increased speed, a 3-fold increased pursuit flight time at high mach numbers, and much better range in the ground attack role. It had a 30% reduced take off length, 25% lower landing speed, and improved manoeverability.

The legacy MiG-29 and MiG-29M/K/35 engines are NOT interchangeable.

The legacy MiG-29 are using RD-33:
series 1 were used on proptotypes anevery early airframes
series 2 are most common, used on most variants
series 3 are the new model with upgrades used in SMT

The II gen MiG-29 airframes (MiG-29M, MiG-29K and MiG-35) are using RD-33MK. My assumption is that RD-33MKM is some kind of upgrade to RD-33MK and can be used on every II gen airframe, but was intended to be used on MiG-35.

Are you sure?

Everything I’ve seen suggests all the engine accessories are in exactly the same place, diameter and length are unchanged, whilst the MK has a slight weight penalty of around 90kg over the vanilla RD-33. That would also obviously also leave the engine mounting points in the same location.