Well my source, who was involved in the fitting of the winders to the GR3 considered the fit a bit gash…..Bodge, in RAF slang means a non standard quick fix…

Sorry for the confusion, I’ve no problem with the word ‘bodge’ it is a well known and accepted engineering term, and in many of the cases stated, highly appropriate, but I just didn’t want C-TT-18 singled out for criticism; he is young but as he quite rightly points out, a least he is taking the trouble to read about this period of our history.

I’ve actually been there (more than once!!!) Seen a few wrecks…..and even stood on the wing of a Dagger (C-403), shot down over West Falkland by Lt Steve Thomas on 21st May (got a turbine blade from the engine kicking around in the loft somewhere).

As for your Falklands experience I am green with envy…..but I don’t doubt there was a lot of hard work too.

Sounds like a dodgey plan that got shelved before the ship departed.

Clearly, but I’m amazed it got even as far as these trials!

Harriers flew on to the forward pad… (To the front of the pad was a forecastle weather shield, and a large mast).

Yes, but personally I’d have taken a gas-axe to the lot! Even then I don’t suppose there was much chance of doing anything other than a vertical take-off. Maybe with a couple of weeks in a RN dockyard a ski-jump could have been ‘bodged-up’ (I mean superbly improvised!) but time was too short.

Well it was not a head on engagement, was it.

Wasn’t it? Maybe I’ve got it all wrong but I’d assumed that the footage came from the tracker of the Type-22 that shot the Dagger down, so yes, I thought it was a head-on engagement?

…orignal footage released however show a Dagger being hit by a Sea Wolf from the rear (aircraft pitches up on fire) which has been shown on the odd occasion…

I know this piece of footage well and agree with your description except that I’ve always assumed that the Dagger was struck in the rear as opposed to from the rear?

One bit of often shown Falklands footage is of ‘something’ moving rapidly from left-to-right in the distant sky over (presumably) San Carlos. After perhaps five seconds the object explodes with a short sharp bang, there is no ‘fireball’ but four ‘glowing’ pieces are seen to fall.

Although it is often presented as an exploding aircraft I’ve always thought it was a Sea Cat missile exploding at the end of its run. Anybody?

…what were you doing at the time of the Falklands?

Give the guy a break…..he was probably waiting for his mum to meet his dad! 🙂

There seem to be a set of internationally (NATO?) accepted TLA’s (Three Letter Abbreviations :D) for all classes of warship.

I’ve seen the following quoted:

SSN – Ship Submersible Nuclear

SSBN – Ship Submersible Ballistic (Missile Carrying) Nuclear

SSK – Ship Submersible Conventional (Konventional? – Diesel Powered)

I don’t suppose they are all true abbreviations so long as everybody knows them and understands. 😉

I think one parked GR3 fired a Sidewinder across Stanley airfield post-war!

Creaking Door, this IS the replica that was at Old Warden for a while.
Now based at Sywell.;)

Ooops! 😮 That would explain the apparent similarity then! 😀

WW1 aircraft aren’t really my thing. 🙁

Yes the pick-axe handles were a (necessary) period fitment. The high centre of gravity and the propensity of the Triplane to swing on landing would frequently combine to result in a wingtip contacting the deck.

The ‘Spitzhacke-Griff’ (hope my German’s correct) were a way of minimising damage.

Interesting, and authentic too, thanks! 🙂

And the Mirages won hands down! 🙁

But ‘Sharkey’ Ward CO 801 NAS dismissed the results saying he was ‘not surprised’ on finding out which pilots flew the Sea Harriers in DACT on this occasion!

I think the limiting factor with reconnaissance, either satellite or SR-71, over the Falklands was the weather. During the whole conflict there were only about seven days when the weather was good enough to allow large-scale air operations and most photo-reconnaissance sorties were carried out at low-level.