Talk:Dassault Mirage III

Mirage was not the first W. European aircraft to achieve Mach 2.
We have the Dassault website stating 1958 for the Mirage, BAE Systems stating 1957 for the EE Lightning.

Someone has taken umbrage at this. If they believe the manufacturers' own websites are not a reliable reference, can they please provide a reference from a reputable source (e.g. flightglobal, Janes, reputable newspaper article from 1958 that states "this is the first time Lightning has achieved Mach 2") that is actually available to others for verification?

If they believe that there is a genuine reason why the Lightning claim is invalid, can they explain here and not just remove perfectly good information and references from the article with a claim of "Lightning bias"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.21.13 (talk • contribs)


 * BAE systems articles have errors in them. For example, their Vampire article states that the mk.25 was an export variant for New Zealand. However no historical source mentions a mk.25. Neither does adf-serials.com.au, a website run by people doing actual archive research. Baesystems.com most likely just took the previously misleading information found on the Wikipedia EE lightning article for their article. Here is a brass plate that sat on XA847 for display following its mach 2 flight in 1958. --Blockhaj (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is a basic typo on the BAE Systems website. It should say 25 November 1958 instead of 1957. We have a couple of sources listed on the English_Electric_Lightning article confirming the year. --McSly (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oooh yes it was. Nice try though. :D --FabBar (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Rocket pack
in the article on the central rocket booster it talks about a number of things that seem like they would be relevant on the page about the jet itself. Like how when the rocket pack was fitted the cannon pack was replaced with a fuel tank for the rocket, making it a missile-only interceptor, and how the tanks find be swapped in half an hour or so, and how when not being used the space for the rocket booster was filled by a fuel tank that fitted the same envelope. The book i have here says 110 gallon, while the article says like 87.

Not sure if this all applies to the IIIC or the E, or both, but it seems like it would be relevant to the jet itself more than the rocket booster.

Idumea47b (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)