That would depend entirely on how much of a ‘replica’ you wanted it to be…

…for example would you need to see inside the wings, would panels need to be removable, would there be replica machine guns?

Unless the cowlings could be removed you wouldn’t need an engine at all or if you did it could be fibreglass (filled with concrete) but would that be a good enough replica for you?

The frames and skins even if not ‘aircraft quality’ would need to be fabricated in the same way and that is where the majority of the cost would probably be.

Virtually impossible question…..but there are some on this forum who are building their own!

Hispano-Suiza, No, but close.

Is it from a Klimov M-105 / VK-105 then?

Thanks for the information about the aircraft used for long-range merchant-shipping attacks; I had no idea that so many aircraft were involved or that so many operations were mounted.

I don’t think that there is any problem for the crew in Argentina for being Italian as a big part of the population here is of Italian origin.

I did not mean that there would be any problem for the Italian crew in Argentina but rather, in Britain anyway, both Italian men and the women of Rio have reputations…

…I cannot comment on the accuracy of these reputations but these reputations persist.

I knew that the Hercules had stopped at Rio on the way down from the Virgin Islands (but I’m not sure why) possibly that was the reason that she chose to return there…..after all the damage did not make her unseaworthy.

The Argentine government has no official version of this.

Why not? The Argentine government or military have official versions of every other attack during the conflict.

I don’t where or when they loaded the cargo and where the cargo was being carried, it was a very big ship. As the Brazilians stated, they didn’t saw any very big cargo, but a lot of small spares and supplies.

Urgently needed spares (and personnel) for the Task Force were dropped from C-130 by parachute into the sea and recovered by RN warships. Perhaps what the Brazilians saw were spares for the ship itself; it would not be uncommon for merchant ships of this size to carry quite a lot of spares aboard.

After the attack, when the captain declared by radio that the ship was bombed and decided to go to Rio de Janeiro, the Argentine Navy offered them to go to an Argentine harbor to dismantle the bomb. But this will lead to an Argentine inspection of the ship.

There is an interesting account in ‘Ordeal by Exocet’ by Lieutenant Commander Ian Inskip who was the navigator of HMS Glamorgan that states:

“…that Hercules, after being bombed, had turned round and headed for Brazil. Three hours later she was called by an Argentine station using her own call sign and told that if she did not steer for Argentina she would be attacked again. Hercules kept on towards Brazil and fifteen minutes later came under rocket attack…”

I have to say that there are many errors in ‘Ordeal by Exocet’ particularly regarding the types of aircraft lost and things of that nature (not sure when it was written) but it is a very interesting read and I’m sure it is accurate regarding the first hand experience of Lieutenant Commander Inskip (and others) aboard HMS Glamorgan.

His account of the attacks on Hercules put a different slant on the ‘offer’ of an Argentine port. Now I am not totally convinced by this account either but I think any master of a neutral vessel that had just been bombed may take the view that he would prefer to go to a neutral port. Apparently the crew were Italian so that may be another reason that they wanted to go to Rio de Janeiro!

I would be very interested if you had any information about what aircraft were involved (other than Canberra B-105), what weapons were used (some accounts talk of rockets) and the timing of the attacks.

Sadly I think we will never know the complete true about this. The way the ship’s crew and owners actuated was very strange for a civilian ship with nothing related to the war. The Argentine intelligence information indicated the ship was carrying supplies and the Brazilian information from the inspection stated this was true.

I have also read that the ship was insured for war loss and that at the time there was a surplus of oil-tankers of this size and that the owners came to an agreement with the insurers to ‘write-off’ the ship for a sum lower than the insured value but higher than the current sale value of the ship. This may explain why a ship that was clearly repairable was scuttled in such a way.

As you say we may never know the whole truth about this incident but I certainly don’t think that it was carrying supplies for the British; logically this would make no sense. And why would the British not admit it if it was?

I’ve tried hard to think of some other covert or clandestine reason why this ship could have been operating for the British but haven’t been able to come up with anything plausible.

I think the ship was carrying supplies from the US as she was coming from the USA and never stopped in any British harbour, but she was going directly to the operations theatre…

I think the US sent this support directly to the operations theatre because they were needed fast, so to carry them to Ascension and then to British ships will take a lot of time.

I’m not convinced that the British urgently needed an empty tanker!

The oil-tanker Hercules was coming from the oil refinery on the Virgin Islands not from the US, which she left on 25th May, and was on her way (empty) to Alaska via Cape Horn (she was too big for the Panama Canal).

Are you suggesting that essential, urgently needed supplies were loaded in the Virgin Islands and then sailed the 6000 miles to the Falklands on the deck of a huge, slow super-tanker?

And how did these supplies get to the Virgin Islands; were they flown there? Wouldn’t it have been quicker to fly them to Ascension Island which is 2000 miles closer to the Falklands?

Another interesting thing is that, because Argentine accused the ship for carrying supplies for the British, the operators of the ship didn’t want to show the press that they were not carrying supplies. They forbid the access to the press to the ship…

A ship that had a least one unexploded bomb on board…..maybe that was a reason to deny press access?

…and Argentina offered to dismantle the bombs.

Now why would Argentina make that offer if the ship was a legitimate target?

So if Argentina was convinced that the ship Hercules was carrying supplies for the British and it was deliberately (and successfully) targeted why was this attack not celebrated as a success?

Sadly the FAA doesn’t authorize the official publication of the attacks against British Wye and Hercules…

Officially, the Argentine Armed Forces never talked about those attacks, so there is no Argentine cover about this operation, officially this never happened…

Sorry, but that sounds like a cover-up to me.

Wouldn’t it be too far for a Type-42 to get to Weddell Island (for example) and back (to screen the Carrier Battle Group) and have any meaningful time on station to intercept the Canberra flights?

Also, although quite a lot of effort was expended trying to stop them, how effective were these Canberra missions? The tonnage of bombs dropped was quite large but they were little danger to shipping and I cannot think of any significant land casualties caused by them? Were the Argentine command aware of this and was this why their mission was changed (back) to anti-shipping missions?

…it had to be a BMW or Audi.

Hey, I drive an Audi and there’s nothing wrong with my driving…..it’s the Mercedes drivers that are the problem! :diablo:

Anyway I don’t shop in Sainsbury’s…..it’s common! :rolleyes: