Flying Failures - Dassault Mirage IIIV

Happy New Year! :D
To get 2022 started, I thought we'd look at something different.
In this episode of Flying Failures, we look back on the Dassault Mirage IIIV and Balzac V, two experimental VTOL fighter jets which did achieve some fame in that they remain the fastest VTOL aircraft ever to fly, but were eventually crippled due to a variety of practical and design flaws which ruined their potential service careers.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated KZbinrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): [e-mail]
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Wikipedia (and its respective references)

[@stephenlaarkamp7344]

Ah, the single seater fighter with nine engines. That won't turn out to be needlessly complicated to it's detriment... Nope. Not at all...

[@benwilson6145]

Nein

[@Hannah_Em]

It doesn't matter how many times I hear it said as "three Vee", I still can't help but read "IIIV" and think "wait, that's not how roman numerals work" lol

[@ronaldderooij1774]

You will search in vain for the Roman numeral IIIV though....

[@Hannah_Em]

@@ronaldderooij1774 Yes, that's... my *entire* point

[@ronaldderooij1774]

@@Hannah_Em I skpped the word "not" in your comment, sorry.

[@Hannah_Em]

@@ronaldderooij1774 Oops, easily done! Especially at this time of year, when revelry and celebration are rife ;D... (that's my excuse, at least, and I'm sticking to it!)

[@carlosandleon]

Simple. It's 2.

[@joshuaharlow4241]

Thank you for the in depth knowledge. Always excited to see a new video!

[@NielMalan]

I really like the summary at the end: it confirms what I think I learned by watching the content.

[@Amadeus_Phoenix]

How many scuffed takes of 'Balzac V' didn't make it into the video? Congratulations on keeping that up with a straight face!

[@jacianmcgurk7424]

I like your sense of humour my friend :-)

[@maestromecanico597]

Excellent job, as always.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The Harrier's vectored thrust concept was created by a Frenchman, Michel Wibault. He couldn't get French industry to take him seriously, so he went to Bristol Engines and soon enough we had the Pegasus engine family.

[@EdgyNumber1]

Imagine if fully computerised flight augmentation systems could have been implemented into the Harrier though. From what I gather it takes a lot of skills to jockey all the controls around related vertical takeoff/landing and hover. These days, with the F35B you press a button and it lands for you, pretty much.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@EdgyNumber1 It was, sort of. The VAAC Harrier was used to develop the control systems for the F-35, as such it had a fully digital FCS.

[@lumpyfishgravy]

@@EdgyNumber1 I recall an article in an IEE magazine - possibly late 90s - describing a control system upgrade using "H Infinity" methods. It apparently reduced pilot workload significantly during transitions to and from vertical lift. A bit of Googling reveals some write-ups, however it's unclear if the system made it to production.

[@jimtaylor294]

Technically Vectored Thrust was a French concept in origin; but it took considerable effort by the British to get it to work. It was by no means a fully fledged idea when it was first presented to us. Still: Shows what a french initial concept, British technicians and US money can achieve... when utilized properly. (all the other attempts at VTOL Fighters showing only that those behind them hadn't thought their concepts through)

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@jimtaylor294 there's no technically about it. It was a French invention. Just because it wasn't practical doesn't change the fact.

[@placeyplacey]

Fascinating as always 👍

[@kostek4430]

1:35 Baltic states and Belarus were part of the USSR at the time not the "independent" satellite states like DDR, Czechoslovakia or Poland. The states you should mention were Romania, Bulgaria and Albania.

[@maxant4285]

Yeah,he messed up that part.

[@maciek_k.cichon]

That is technically truth, but there were shenanigans with Ukraine and Belarus which being part of the USSR were also separate members of the UN. Same goes for Canada at the time. There's the administrative wibbly-wobbly way to the world.

[@kostek4430]

@@maciek_k.cichon I acknowledge your point however the UN voice mandate has nothing to do with being a signatory to Warsaw Pact.

[@sheriff0017]

The Baltic states were never officially part of the USSR. They were occupied, and illegally annexed by the USSR.

[@peterdibble]

Interesting and well produced as always. Happy New Year!

[@mythodeax4861]

Amazing! Happy New Year! Ok.. Siesta is over.. Scramble! Scramble! Scramble!

[@madxico]

Excellent video as always. Love your channel and always share your work when I can. BTW on 4m07s you mention "9 small jet turbines", wasn´t their 8 small jets plus 1 conventional turbine? Keep up the good work!

[@whiskeysk]

Thanks for the extremely interesting vid to kickstart the year! I've got a few bones to pick with some details: Warsaw pact members were East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and USSR. Albania was a member but left in 1968 with the formal reason being the WP invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Baltic states and Belarus had the dubious privilege of being member republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Saying that they were WP members is on the level of claiming that Delaware, Arizona and Oregon are NATO members... Also, NATO was not technically created to counter the Warsaw pact per se (which didn't exist until 6 years after the creation of NATO, 1949 vs 1955, this being one of the major communist propaganda claims to demonstrate the defensive purpose of the Warsaw pact and the aggresive intent of NATO throughout the Cold War), rather the the red threat in general. The huge amount of research and work you put into your videos is undermined by such easily avoidable inaccuracies. Also, it is SNECMA, not SNEMCA engines ;)

[@jimtaylor294]

Granted: Hearing "SNEMCA" just made me think of Simca Cars XD .

[@derrickstorm6976]

Ah yes, you've done your round in high school world history

[@whiskeysk]

@@derrickstorm6976 nah, lived through it.

[@jimtaylor294]

An interesting topic, but the mismatched footage/stills and several mistaken details is - for me at least - a turn off. The P.1121 for instance. It had nout to do with VTOL projects, rather was one of the rival projects for the same Fighter Operational Requirement as the EE Lightning. After losing out on that; Hawker-Siddeley tried to submit an aircraft derived from the P.1121 for GOR.339 (as a replacement for the EE Canberra Tactical Bomber). As arguably one of the least suitable submissions thereto, it was among the first rejected. After that, and knowing that conventional military aircraft orders were vanishing fast as the MoS moved to consolodate the aircraft industry and starve companies of orders if they resisted (like Handley Page), HSA put most of their effort into VTOL fighters. As for whether the F-35 has actually proved the Supersonic VTOL concept... I bet John Farley (the Harrier's Chief Test Pilot) would have a good laugh about that.

[@jimtaylor294]

Well I don't think anything less of RM for trying. Unlike some video authors I've seen - like Simon Whistler or Extra Credits - I couldn't say he was outright lazy in research or distorted by a toxic ideological bent, rather just mistaken, which is relatable IMO. I'd like to make videos before too long (albeit on multiple topics), but for now lack the hardware to do so.

[@Chuck59ish]

It's wonder it even happened in the pre-computer eras. The pilot's work load was extreme at the best of times.

[@lumpyfishgravy]

Thank-you Ruairidh. Informative as always without being woolly. Sound a bit more muffled than usual though.

[@UnitSe7en]

But full of minor technical and historical inaccuracies.

[@elen5871]

ahhh, the IIIV, or as the ancient Romans called it, the 2-4,

[@grahambuckerfield4640]

An interesting summary of some unusual aicraft from a requirement probably little remembered. Just to note, the initial Hawker project, was not the P.1121 but the P.1127, then called the Kestrel, a joint US, UK and West German unit trialled them in temporay strips in the mid 60’s, much how RAF Harriers, the renamed Kestrel, would do in exercises in Germany a few years later. You do show a P.1121, that mock up with the F-16 style intake, this was a private venture by HS, who hoped to sell it to the RAF, (who were instead concentrating on that NATO VSTOL requirement and the gold plated, unexportable, TSR-2). The P.1121 was a conventional supersonic strike fighter, rather like a cross between a F-4 and F-105. A potential Canberra and Hunter replacement as well as exportable, so no chance of RAF interest then and the project died on the vine. The renamed and developed Kestrel, now Harrier, was forced on the RAF after the P.1154, likely an impractical design had it flown, was cancelled by the Royal Navy which made the RAF unwilling to fund soley the very different land based strike version, they wanted Phantoms like the Nayy were now to get. But both the Ministry of Technology and then Defence Secretary felt this new VSTOL technology, where unlike the other NATO designs looked practical, should not be thrown away, the UK was ahead here after all. This time, subsequent events were to prove the men ftom the Ministries right and the Air Staff wrong. Thanks for your informed look at these near forgotten Mirage versions.

[@jimtaylor294]

Err nope. The P.1121 was one of the rivals to the EE Lightning & Fairey Delta series of aircraft, for a seperate Operational Requirement for fighters. Like Fairey HSA lost out to EE, so - while Fairey went off to get some use out of their Delta II prototypes in aiding development of Concorde - HSA proposed a heavily modified take on the P.1121 design for GOR.339. As one of the least suitable candidates for the GOR, it was rejected, among others, with EE & Vickers's proposals [kind of] winning, as the Ministry of Supply wanted an aircraft that combined aspects they liked from both. The result - after probably the most blatantly inept case of civil service interferance in aerospace - was the TSR-2. Damian Burke's book on the topic (TSR-2: Britain's Last Bomber) covers this in detail, alongwith why the various other submissions to GOR.339 - contrary to the claims of a certain Lord Mountbatten - were rejected for good reason. That: and TSR-2 only lost out on exports, because of the Civil Service putting the project overbudget and several years behind shedule with constant micromanagement. (a detail the civil service & politicians alike still try to deflect blame for, and probably always will)

[@rgbaal]

The RB162 lift engines did not come from the Trident - they went the other way - they started life as being designed as lift engines and then were modified into the boosters for the Trident. Thats why that had a short run time of 15 mins.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Vectored thrust was a French idea used effectively on the British Harrier.

[@markcousins9337]

Ball-sack V? OO, la, la!

[@06colkurtz]

This is a classic case of a design that doesn’t close. The Single Stage to Orbit reusable launch vehicle kept getting bigger and bigger until it was into a million pounds with ten unproven motors to lift 10k pounds. Needless to say the program was terminated

[@jimtaylor294]

AKA: the *Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral*

[@burningb2439]

The Mirage as it was is flawless , but when you try getting it to do what it cant do is a bit thick...

[@uzaiyaro]

It’s interesting how elegant the F-35 lift system is in comparison. Unless I’m mistaken, it’s just a giant fan driven from a driveshaft from the main engine. Edit: it also uses a similar thrust nozzle, but it seems like the single engine is used for both.

[@allancopland1768]

We need more flying saucers.... lol!

[@tt-ew7rx]

What do you say the Roman numeral IIIV is???

[@macjim]

To follow on from this, it would be logical to cover the Dasault delta-winged bomber.

[@jimtaylor294]

Not really, as the Mirage IV is an entirely different type of aircraft... related to the III-V by the common ancestor... but not much else. If he does a video on GOR.339 submissions though... it'd be a given inclusion. (as it was submitted, considered and rejected, among various other aircraft)

[@Del_S]

Fnarr Fnarr... Balzac.... :)

[@daniellxnder]

1:42 is that a pagoda mast battleship...?

[@RonJohn63]

1:11 Proof that I'm Old is that you've got to explain things that I assume *every* young person knows, because *every* young person knew it when I was young...

[@Diptera_Larvae]

Having pop culture as my only frame of reference Harrier Jump Jet in True Lies (1994) and GTA : San Andreas (2004) I just always assumed it was an American developed / made jet

[@Hi11is]

Model numbers designated with Roman Numerals should never include the suffixes I, V, X, L, C, D, or M, and no aircraft should ever be named "Ball Sack."

[@NDR-hn3ue]

*Fact : NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization ) was Founded April 4 1949* *The Warsaw Pact was founded May 14 1955 SIX YEARS LATER*

[@hikarikaguraenjoyer9918]

Therapist: VTOL Mirage doesn't exist VTOL Mirage:

[@Vector_QF8]

1K :-)

[@neilturner6749]

I enjoyed the content but, like almost anyone attracted to this video i.e. with a nerdish interest in obscure Cold War experimental aircraft , I didn’t need to have to sit through an explanation of what NATO is and it’s purpose!

[@binaway]

The P.1121 (2.57) was never VTOL and was to be supersonic.The P1127/Kestrel was the subsonic VTOL from which the Harrier was developed. The Trident airliner used 3 RR spay engines, was not VTOL and didn't require the RR162. Although the Mirage IIIV achieved both VTOL and supersonic speed it never did both during the same flight due to insufficient fuel. Whereas the F35B can.

[@evaluateanalysis7974]

From yours and other comments I get the impression that this guy doesn't believe in letting the facts get in the way of a good story. 9:35 "...developed...by Britain, America and West Germany." Not really - that implies investment, design and construction. Wikipedia says "*assessed* by the multinational "Tri-partite Evaluation Squadron", which consisted of British, US and German pilots." They only assessed it.

[@UnitSe7en]

Good job. When someone wants to make a video on a topic, they are talking as a de facto authority. So many video creators get even basic stuff wrong on all sorts of topics. I appreciate people calling them out. Many sycophants however will downvote.

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

@@UnitSe7en there is no downvote, welcome to KZbin.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

What struck me was that if somebody would have thought beforhand a little bit about the concept, it would have saved billions as it then became clear that it was impossible. Like smaller fuel tanks and nine engines instead of one. Somebody must have thought, mmmmm.... I don't think that would work. Let alone the weight of the engines replacing ordnance capacity. Mmmmmm.... what purpose did this aircraft has to fulfill? O wait... fighting a war.

[@maxant4285]

No mention of Russia's Yak-38 or Yak-141...😥

[@captianmorgan7627]

Mixing Roman numerals and standard letters in the same name should be disallowed.

[@marcbrasse747]

The P1121 was not subsonic and not a precursor of the Hariier. You are mixing things up. Because the privately funded P112, conventional strike fighter, did not get any government support Hawker had to look for yet another project. The trigger was a study by Frenchman Michel Wibault. Initial money cam from the US funded Mutual Weapons Development Program. That actually makes the Harrier a lot less British then the English care to admit.

[@rickbear7249]

Essentially, they had the same design flaws as American's new F-35 😄

[@12345fowler]

The only fighter ever designed with vertical takeoff capabilities anf flight past Mach 2 - Quite impressive fail.

[@BStrapper]

The Mirage IIIV was FAR more ambitious plane than the Harrier, for a start its speed was over Mach 2.5, vs Mach 1.1 for the Harrier!!! The F35 VTOL some 50 years later does not match the Mirage speed. The French Ministry of Defense realized that the formula chosen was complex to develop and that the cost of the program exceeded its budget. As a result, the project was abandoned in 1966. Compare the Mirage to the Harrier equates comparing a Horse race to a Dunkey.

[@jean-emmanuelrotzetter6030]

"Mirage III V" designation should be used Roman number "IIIV" does not exist: would mean V minus III that is written "II". "Mirage III V" ist clear: a Mirage III vertical take off and landing. Does not change the fact that the plane program was a failure ......

[@jimtaylor294]

Makes one wonder why Dassault couldn't come up with a catchier - and less confusing - name.

[@dunbar9finger]

"IIIV" looks messy because it looks like an incorrectly formed roman numeral for "2" (three less than five), or if correctly formed, two adjacent digits, as if the name was "Mirage three five". The idea of using "I" as Roman numerals adjacent to a "V" that is NOT a Roman numeral is really messy.

[@BobbyGeneric145]

Your videos are amazing, especially the DC8 video... But you need to end your narration better!

[@macjim]

TSR2 please...and obviously, the Harrier.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Ah, smacking the French, great way to kick the year off!

[@craigsibley8161]

👍👊👊👊

[@jimtaylor294]

Ancient traditions are the best traditions :D

[@Solveig.Tissot]

Average Virgins Cringe Brainless Fatherless Anti France Trolls Fanboys taking Copium over here ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️

[@Sacto1654]

I think the whole idea failed because it was just too mechanically complex to start with. The Russians tried something fairly similar with modified Su-15 and MiG-21 models, and they were not technical successes, either.

[@davidpeters6536]

It's French, they know everything. It must signify Vertical 3 of course but it looks ridiculous, just like the plane... The British did it with one engine, and a supersonic version was on the drawing board.

[@Solveig.Tissot]

Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion.

[@druisteen]

They had no possibilty to the Harrier to be supersonic .... This is the end ...

[@Scots_Diesel]

@Ruairidh MacVeigh your work is being stolen by another channel -kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2SadWmEqdWAqJI

[@rgbaal]

Oh for heaven's sake - They are Roman numerals - There is no "Mirage 3 vee" it's Mirage 8. There is also no "Balzac Vee" it's a Balzac 5.

[@chrismartin3197]

But if it was Mirage 8 it’d be Mirage VIII. I think it stands for Mirage III - VTOL

[@rgbaal]

@@chrismartin3197 I read a long time ago that it was Mirage (8) VIII at first then Dassault wanted a name that referenced the fact that it was derived from the very successful Mirage III (3) line so the just swapped it around - being Aircraft people rather than Latin scholars. It was still referred internally as the 8.

[@Hiemir]

hehehe...... balzac . . . . . . . balls

[@George_M_]

Calling the F-35 a successful design 🤣 good one! Lol it's even slower than the IIIV

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The IIIV had first 9 lift jets and then a few moments later it had 8. Which is it? The Mirage 3 had only 8 RR RB162 lift engines plus 1 P&W/SNECMA TF104 flight engines. The RB162 were serving pairs around the centre of gravity. Yet again you fail to deliver accuracy in your script. Stop rushing to publish and get it right.

[@alexstewart9068]

Great try France.

[@beachboy0505]

Too complicated

[@MrSpringheel]

What a disaster

[@RaySqw785]

well, the french didn't take vtol fighter seriously, from the start, thier engineers were hired in uk , germany etc.. facts are vtol "fighters" are distractions and irrelevant to rest of the world exepted marines, and low cost navies fleet air arms

[@antiussentiment]

Saying Czechoslovakia was conquered by the communists is a stretch.. that government was democratically elected. And the Soviets hated the fact they had no pull over them..

[@geocachingwomble]

They were still controlled by the Russians overall until the late 1980's as my late stepgrandmother actually worked for them and she grew up in the era and said that there was a regular point of once a month where the government counted children out at schools and shot specifically numbered children in line normally picked at random but they would never have shot her (she was 2 years younger than my mother was) because her father was incredibly senior in the eastern block diplomatic service my late stepgrandmother than even became a senior diplomat and diplomatic officer once communism had fallen in the newly formed Czech Republic she was renowned for making the British chief SAS driving instructor actually cry like a baby for 2 and half hours but that is another story

[@antiussentiment]

@@geocachingwomble don't be fooled by popular history aka capitalist propaganda.. yes it exists just like the lefty shit does. Yugoslavia's communism was loose and fast and the Soviets hated it. Also, unlike the Chetnicks, the commies actually fought the Germans. So of course they were elected..

[@allancopland1768]

MEH!

[@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter]

9:20 F-35 isn't VTOL.

[@jerichom11x]

Or. They could have made a short range cruise missile system or SRBM system. Aircraft are so outdated once the bomb comes into play

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Number of times "the bomb" has been used since WWII: 0 Number of times fixed wing aircraft have been used since WWII: Innumerable...

[@jimtaylor294]

Pundits hyperbolically trumpeted that the A Bomb made all conventional weapons - and even war itself - irrelevant, back in the late-1940's too... and were laughed to scorn back then too XD. In reality the A Bomb's only achievements were/are: • It became the new Must-Have weapon for governments, which had previously been that of Standing Navies. • It made war between two nations that had them *politically* unappealing, as there's no political advantage in bringing about actual Mutually Assured Destruction.

[@effyleven]

Boring.

[@Foxbat1155]

Im sorry, but the F-35 is NOT successful. It still has a LOT to prove in actual service terms.