Mirage1110 standard climb speed of 400knots (with afterburner deselected) gave an initial rate of climb of 25,000 feet per minute.

 

Max rate of climb (afterburner engaged) at 450knots ( 0.95Mach) gave a rate of climb of 50,000 feet per minute.

 

Sourced: page121, The RAAF Mirage Story. 1989. Susans, M.(WingCmdr).

 

 

 

...especially given the Mirage's big wing and consequent low wing loading.

Yes, that is generally what you will get with tailless deltas because they use one control surface to do two jobs, which inevitably means that neither is done as well as would have been the case with a conventional design. The other disadvantage is the rapid loss of speed associated with that type of wing when the aircraft is turning. This is probably why the Israelis tended to use the Mirage in the vertical. However, in my question I was specifically referring to the impact that the large wing area should have and apparently did have on rate of climb.

 

On the manouverability of the type I would also note that everything is reletive to the overall performance of it's contemporaries. The Mirage's strengths were that it was reasonably easy to fly and that in the E model  had good range, so could make good use of its afterburners. The Mig-21 was manouverable at high altitude but lost manouverability at low altitude, had a lousy view out of the cockpit and a terribly short range so was vulnerable to being run out of fuel, and had to be very careful with useing its afterburners. The F-104 wasn't manouverable in any flight regime, had a mediocre range and was too easy to crash during hard manouvers. The Lightning was manouverable and kicked arse in terms of acceleration and rate of climb, but suffered the Mig-21's disadvantage with range. The F-4 was pretty good at everything except for its lack of a gun until the E model, but it cost twice as much as a Mirage. The F-8 was probably the best all round dogfighter of the time but not so good an interceptor because of its poor range and rate of climb. 

Chuck Horner said in his book that if you got jumped by a Lightning (he was flying F-100s at the time), your best bet was to just try to outlast him, because you damn sure weren't going to take him in the vertical (which you could with a Hunter) or by outmanuevering him (which was the case with the Javelin).  The Lightning really was an underrated fighter.

 

But since we're talking about the Mirage III--I was reading that the Swiss mounted Falcons on theirs.  Why? Didn't the Swiss have Magics?

 

And where's our French posters?  For once we have a thread on a French fighter that really was a world-beater for awhile.

 

The Swiss never used the Magic on their Mirage IIIS interceptor variant (they never bought the Magic at all), only the Sidewinders and Falcons (esp. the AIM-26B variant with a semi-active radar seeker). Two of these missiles could be carried on two additional pylons under the rear fuselage.

 

The Swiss selected a different radar system for their Mirage IIIS, the Hughes TARAN-18, and compatible Falcon missiles instead of the usual Thomson-CSF Cyrano IIbis radar and Matra R.530 missile offered with the Mirage IIIE. The different radar was also compatible with the FLORIDA air defense system, which was also developed by Hughes under a separate contract for the Swiss air force.

 

And an absolute piece of $h1t at the same time! 

I dunno, DB...the Israelis kicked major ass with their Mirages.  I suppose you could make the argument that it was in spite of the Mirage's shortcomings, but I think it was a sound design that continues to do well.

 

 It wasn't just the Israelis that did well with it, in 71' the Pakistani Mirage 111's wiped the floor with the Indian Mig-21's which in turn wiped the floor with the Pakistani F-104A's. IMHO its a nice demonstration of pecking order amongst those three fighters.