It required a concrete launch ramp and it's payload was too small to be practical. No point in being VTOL if you still require an airfield. I agree the Harrier was a better VTOL aircraft but drag from those huge air intakes prevented it being supersonic and the airframe was not strong enough either.
Yup. The Balzac was a dream. An aerodynamic and technologic testbench. That's a shame he never flewd in an army, maybe with some more studies it would have been able to. Anyway, it's reactor design is used in the F-35 prototype, proof that it was not such a bad idea.
Very handsome aircraft I always thought but sadly misconceived. You cannot take four or more dead engines into combat. The Harrier solution was much more practical.
Dommage de devoir recourir à plusieurs réacteurs réservés à la sustentation au décollage et à l'atterrissage. Cela représente un sacré poids supplémentaire, sans compter la consommation très forte de kérosène dans ces deux phases de vol.
Qui a des éléments de comparaison avec le Harrier, par exemple ?
Only the French would name something Ballsac. LOL
supressorgrid 6 days ago
It required a concrete launch ramp and it's payload was too small to be practical. No point in being VTOL if you still require an airfield. I agree the Harrier was a better VTOL aircraft but drag from those huge air intakes prevented it being supersonic and the airframe was not strong enough either.
binaway 3 weeks ago
@binaway
Yup. The Balzac was a dream. An aerodynamic and technologic testbench. That's a shame he never flewd in an army, maybe with some more studies it would have been able to. Anyway, it's reactor design is used in the F-35 prototype, proof that it was not such a bad idea.
chenoir 2 weeks ago
Nive vid. The Balzac V has the most unfortunate record of being the only aircraft to kill two test pilots in two separate test flights.
spinacilight 9 months ago
Haha, The Dassault ballsack!
scarabmasta 1 year ago
Amazing! Never heard of this aircraft before. Damn that thing is awesome
wellerocks 1 year ago 4
"You fly the what??"
Chuckjagermeister 1 year ago
Very handsome aircraft I always thought but sadly misconceived. You cannot take four or more dead engines into combat. The Harrier solution was much more practical.
spitfireJEJ 1 year ago
Solution complexe et couteuse c'est vrai mais cela aurait été le seul et l'unique appareil VSTOL de la classe Mach2.
Le Harrier est à peine sonique.
De toute manière, dans les 2 cas, le décollage et l'atterrissage verticale n'est possible qu'avec très peu de charge.
ch307 2 years ago
Vive le France.
daltonagre 2 years ago 4
@daltonagre vive le français
floflo008 7 months ago
Dommage de devoir recourir à plusieurs réacteurs réservés à la sustentation au décollage et à l'atterrissage. Cela représente un sacré poids supplémentaire, sans compter la consommation très forte de kérosène dans ces deux phases de vol.
Qui a des éléments de comparaison avec le Harrier, par exemple ?
RayComet 3 years ago