Creaking DoorAs Nogueira said the missile was fired from the front of the ship and they were not very close, I think it was a Sea Dart.
But no Sea Dart missiles were fired before 9th May so how could this be?
In the case of the T-24, the crew of the other Learjet saw the missile seconds before impact and they said they avoided a second missile fired upon them.
HMS Exeter did fire two missiles on this occasion but I understand there was a technical failure onboard one missile long before it could be ‘avoided’ by any other Learjet.
The Canberra pilots said they avoided Sea Darts fired during the night missions on June 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th and 12th. On June 5th, the B-101 was almost shot down by a missile that passed very close and made the pilot (1st Lt Mauad) to lose control of the plane. When the pilot landed he went off the runway and caused minor damage to the plane. This was one of the radar equipped Canberras.
That is interesting; were Sea Dart missiles definitely fired on all these occasions?
Also on may 9th two Learjets (callsign Pepe, sadly I don’t have the serials of those planes as they are not stated on the FAA records) on a diversion flight to the islands, simulating an attack mission, at 10:30AM local time saw two missiles coming towards them and manoeuvered succesfully to avoid them. Those were the first two missiles fired by HMS Coventry.
I didn’t know that Learjet decoy flights were flown to the point that they could be engaged by Royal Navy warships. The time, 10:30am (Buenos Aires time?) would be fairly close to the time 14:15 Zulu (GMT) that HMS Coventry fired two or three Sea Dart missiles at a suspected C-130 with ‘escorts’. Two FAA Skyhawks and pilots were lost also on 9th May (Casco C-313 / Farias C-303) and it has been claimed that these two aircraft could have been the targets for the Sea Dart missiles fired by HMS Coventry. Do you have any information about the routing and timing of the Skyhawk mission or information about any other aircraft involved?
Creaking DoorI’ve never had the chance to try my ABS equipped Audi in the snow but wide tyres and big discs doesn’t sound like a good combination on snow…
…and you can’t turn the ABS off (well not officially)!
Creaking DoorI’ve never had the chance to try my ABS equipped Audi in the snow but wide tyres and big discs doesn’t sound like a good combination on snow…
…and you can’t turn the ABS off (well not officially)!
Creaking DoorWe must have winter tyres…..and sometimes have them with metal studs because of the ice on the road, I don’t mind a bit of snow, it’s the ice that’s the problem!
How do you find ABS brakes cope with the snow and ice (with winter or studded tyres)?
The first time I drove a car with ABS in the snow I got a bit of a shock; a friend had asked to borrow my snow-chains and I had demonstrated fitting them. There was packed snow on the roads so I took his Volvo 480 out to try them (and the ABS) but instead of stopping abruptly next to him I shot past him and only managed to stop 200 metres up the street!
Creaking DoorWe must have winter tyres…..and sometimes have them with metal studs because of the ice on the road, I don’t mind a bit of snow, it’s the ice that’s the problem!
How do you find ABS brakes cope with the snow and ice (with winter or studded tyres)?
The first time I drove a car with ABS in the snow I got a bit of a shock; a friend had asked to borrow my snow-chains and I had demonstrated fitting them. There was packed snow on the roads so I took his Volvo 480 out to try them (and the ABS) but instead of stopping abruptly next to him I shot past him and only managed to stop 200 metres up the street!
Creaking DoorI think it was a Sea Dart, as the Sea Wolf was first fired on May 12th and was very accurate…
The first Sea Dart missiles fired during the conflict were the two (or three) missiles fired by HMS Coventry on 9th May.
…the Sea Dart only hit the target in the cases when the target didn’t see the missile before impact (example: the Learjet T-24 or Canberra B-108).
I’m not sure I would agree with that statement; many Sea Dart launches were made at extreme range when the actions of the target made little difference to the outcome of the engagement, but generally if a target was within range and the Sea Dart system functioned correctly the target was destroyed.
Creaking Door…if I bought the Econetic version of the Focus, I was paying around 5000€ more.
Actually that is a very interesting point…..why should you have to pay a €5000 premium because you care about the environment?
Do the environmental features of the ‘Econetic’ model actually cost the manufacturer that much extra to produce…..somehow I doubt it.
I’d guess in order of preference my choice would be:
1) Across the range
Sounds the best approach because if they can make environmentally better cars why should they make anything else…..unless there are large cost implications (and not just a showroom premium) or the performance of the vehicle is so much worse that the customer is put off. However a high across-range price is always going to be off-putting.
2) The featured model
A good approach but why such a premium for being environmentally aware…..does it really cost this much extra or again is customer guilt being used to hike prices?
3) The wider definition
Not really sure what benefit the customer would get here other than buying an already economical vehicle (presumably a reasonable cost) with a sticker on to say it is economical…..mind you it had better be economical because it has few other selling points.
I suppose the key is the three-year-old trade in…..people who trade in cars this new must be aware of how much depreciation cost they carry so the initial purchase price of a car is going to be less of an issue.
Sounds like only the relatively wealthy can help the environment…..or is it only the relatively wealthy new-car-buyer that the manufacturers are interested in? :rolleyes:
Creaking Door…if I bought the Econetic version of the Focus, I was paying around 5000€ more.
Actually that is a very interesting point…..why should you have to pay a €5000 premium because you care about the environment?
Do the environmental features of the ‘Econetic’ model actually cost the manufacturer that much extra to produce…..somehow I doubt it.
I’d guess in order of preference my choice would be:
1) Across the range
Sounds the best approach because if they can make environmentally better cars why should they make anything else…..unless there are large cost implications (and not just a showroom premium) or the performance of the vehicle is so much worse that the customer is put off. However a high across-range price is always going to be off-putting.
2) The featured model
A good approach but why such a premium for being environmentally aware…..does it really cost this much extra or again is customer guilt being used to hike prices?
3) The wider definition
Not really sure what benefit the customer would get here other than buying an already economical vehicle (presumably a reasonable cost) with a sticker on to say it is economical…..mind you it had better be economical because it has few other selling points.
I suppose the key is the three-year-old trade in…..people who trade in cars this new must be aware of how much depreciation cost they carry so the initial purchase price of a car is going to be less of an issue.
Sounds like only the relatively wealthy can help the environment…..or is it only the relatively wealthy new-car-buyer that the manufacturers are interested in? :rolleyes:
Creaking Door…the photo of the Lear 35 with Canberra B-108…..I believe this was part of the ‘Escuadron Fenix’ that played a part in countering ‘Operation Canbelow’ by acting as decoys of a sort. A little too effectively it would seem when one was shot down on 7th June.
I think ‘Escuadron Fenix’ referred only to former civilian registered aircraft impressed into military service and although several Learjets were impressed none were lost in combat during the conflict.
The Learjet that was shot-down by one of a pair of Sea Dart missiles fired by HMS Exeter on 7th June was an Argentine Air Force aircraft, serial T-24, that had been delivered in 1980. Four aircraft were operated by Grupo 1 throughout the conflict on photo-reconnaissance missions and it was during such a daylight mission by all four aircraft that Learjet T-24 was shot-down.
HMS Exeter believed that she was engaging a flight of Canberra bombers.
Creaking DoorI think Luftwaffe self-sealing tanks of the Battle-of-Britain period were based on alternate layers of ‘raw’ rubber (un-vulcanised?), vulcanised rubber and an outer casing of leather, all over a light alloy tank.
The sealing action relied on the raw rubber swelling when it came into contact with the leaking petrol…..it also helped that the RAF weren’t firing anything bigger than a 303 at them!
Creaking DoorCreaking DoorYour piston appears to indeed be a BMW VI piston…..series 9, a very late version of this type of engine.
Mystery solved! Thank you Peter Garner (and Hilmar Lang). 🙂
Once again, good luck with your project and keep the (engine ;)) updates coming.
Creaking Door…now it seems that the plane may be significantly overweight by up to 12 tons.
How can the A400M design suddenly gain 12 tonnes in weight?
I’m sure the design was completed within a CAD system and as such the weight of every single component, right down to the smallest rivet, was known before a single piece of metal (or composite) was cut. This couldn’t have been a surprise when the prototype was assembled and weighed. :rolleyes:
Creaking DoorFascinating information from all involved and has cleared up a lot of my questions about this incident, even if the jury is still, and potentially always will be, out on what exactly was fired at who.
Why should the jury still be out? In my opinion this incident has got to be one of the most clear-cut engagements of the conflict.
There is no dispute about the Argentine aircraft involved or in the loss of a single aircraft, Canberra B-108. There is no dispute that this Canberra was brought down by a Sea Dart missile or the Type-42 destroyer HMS Cardiff was within range at the time and fired at least one Sea Dart.
Conflicting accounts suggest that more than one Sea Dart was fired at elements of the formation, possibly by HMS Exeter, but no account suggests that any other aircraft was damaged in any way. However the suggestion that HMS Exeter also engaged the formation conflicts with accounts that she was out of range acting as picket to the carrier battle group.
What of the other ‘sightings’ made during this engagement? Aircrew reported seeing Sea Dart (or other missiles) and flak fired at them. Ships crews reported seeing missiles impacting the sea close to them. The fog of war?
Nothing really ‘concrete’ in these sightings, and wasn’t it dark? British aircrew repeatedly misidentified what they saw during this conflict, in many cases ‘seeing’ what they expected (or feared) to see. Was this another case of the same?
Creaking DoorI don’t suppose you could post a photo of a piston could you?
Sure! 🙂
Nice looking piston…..you were right about its condition too!
The reason I asked is that I’ve got a piston myself that I’ve been trying to identify for a while. It is 160mm bore, German (Kolbenschmidt), old, and intriguingly, has ‘VI’ cast under the crown…
…although it doesn’t look much like your pistons it shares some design features. I had wondered if it could be a BMW VI piston?
Anyway thanks for the photos and good luck with your project.
Sign In
