FLIGHT International, 17 July 1975
81
veals four small air scoops on the
fuselage sides, as well as a large scoop
at the root of the fin.
The nose is generally similar to that
of the Mirage 5J (the model ordered
by Israel but embargoed), the differ-
ence being limited to the tip. The Kfir
nose is longer and more pointed than
the type characteristic of the Mir-
age IIICJ and, since the diameter
towards the tip is much smaller than
that of the Mirage III, the Kfir is
obviously—like the Mirage 5—not
equipped with radar.
The two aircraft publicly exhibited
—Nos 712 and 724—are fitted with
slightly different nose sections. The
fact that No 712's nose is painted all
black indicates that it is built com-
pletely of plastic materials; the nose
of 724 is likely to be all metal except
for the spherical tip.
The Kfir delta wing appears to be
identical to that of the Mirage, and it
is fitted with a conventional control
system including elevons along the
trailing edge. Contrary to some re-
ports, no high-lift devices can be
observed along the leading edge. The
Kfir tail unit is also identical to that
of the Mirage except for the air intake
at its root.
Since no modifications have been
introduced on the wing, leaving the
overall lift and wing loading largely
unchanged (in fact, wing loading may
have been slightly increased through
marginally higher weight), manoeuvra-
bility of the Kfir may be expected to
be essentially similar to that of the
Mirage—though specific excess power
will of course be higher.
The Kfir's internal armament com-
prises two 30mm cannon, the muzzles
From Mirage to Kfir
The first two Mirage IIICJ fighters
were delivered to Israel on April 7,
1962, and over the next few years
the IAF acquired a total of 72
single-seaters and three twin-seat
trainer Mirage IIIBJs. This early
version, the IIIC, was designed
primarily for the air-superiority
and interception roles, being
equipped with a Cyrano-Ibis fire-
control radar capable of operating
in conjunction with semi-active
missiles such as the Matra R.530,
which was also entering IAF ser-
vice during the 1960s.
Although the Mirage IIIC quickly
became a pilot's favourite and
scored an impressive record in
aerial combat, it was soon apparent
that it should be backed up by
a more specialised ground-attack
version, rather than being side-
tracked into a role for which it
was not ideally suited. Conse-
quently, late in 1966 Israel signed a
contract with Dassault for the Mir-
age 5, developed to IAF specifica-
tions. Following the Six Day War in
1967, an embargo on the delivery
The two aircraft exhibited publicly, 712 (right)
and 724 (above), are fitted with slightly
different nose sections. It is likely that the
nose of 712 is plastic, while that of 724 is metal
apart from the tip. The muzzle of one of the
two 30mm cannon is visible beneath the left-
hand engine inlet, the front of the barrel
being fitted with a gas-deflection baffle
of which are visible beneath the en-
gine air inlets. The front part of the
barrel is fitted with special gas-deflec-
tion baffles. IAI reports officially that
the guns can be fired over the entire
flight envelope without risk of com-
pressor stalling.
No data about the external stores
of the Kfir have been released, apart
from the fact that the aircraft is fitted
with a multi-mode weapon-delivery
system developed and manufactured bombs, rockets and external fuel tanks.
at IAI. Considering the type's outward Since maximum take-off weight—
resemblance to the Mirage 5, it is 14-5 tonnes—is only 1,000kg higher
reasonable to suppose that it carries than for the Mirage 5, and much of
a similar complement of missiles, this increase is accounted for by the
greater weight of the powerplant and
additional systems, it seems most un-
likely that the Kfir can carry a
greater weight of external stores than
the Mirage 5. Any increase in the
of the Mirage 5s was imposed by carrying capability of the pylons and
the French Government and Israel hardpoints would obviously have re-
was compelled to negotiate the quired a considerable "beef-up" of the
reimbursement of all sums paid airframe, and the overall weight
in advance. would have been even higher.
These embargoed aircraft, how- Although no information about the
ever, by no means proved a total internal systems and installations is
loss to Israel. Since they were being available, major portions of the flight-
built to IAF specifications, the en- test programme were devoted to ex-
tire development and manufactur- amining the effectiveness of the en-
ing process was closely monitored larged air intakes and determining a
by the Service as well as by Israel modified schedule for the spikes. In-
Aircraft Industries, which thereby stallation of the J79 had a far-reaching
acquired a valuable fund of first- effect on the aircraft temperature pro-
hand experience. It was this which file and consequently extensive in-
prompted the IAF to consider the flight measurements had to be carried
local production of an aircraft simi- out with temperature gauges distri-
lar to "the Mirage 5, but equipped buted at all critical points.
with a more powerful and efficient
engine.
Although shortly afterwards Atar 9C GE J79-17
Israel began to receive the first Length 5-94m 5-30m
Skyhawks and Phantoms from the Max diameter 102 m 0-99m
USA, the embargo episode high- Weight 1,420kg 1,740kg
lighted the risks of relying on a Static thrust—dry 4,280kg 5,385kg
—with A/B 6,000kg 8,120kg
single source of supply, and conse- r.p.m. 8,400 7,090
quently it was decided to go ahead s.f.c.—dry 101 0-84
with the programme for a locally —with A/B 203 1-965
Airflow rate 68kg/sec 77kg/sec
produced fighter. Wall temperature 300-350°C 650-70G°C
Pressure ratio 5-4:1 12-4:1