I’m sure I’ve heard of an Argentinian film of the Falklands War that was supposed to have been even-handed and realistic. It would be nice to see it here.

I also posted the letter on another forum. Somebody has said that he doesn’t believe it, so I have asked him to give his reasons for such a statement. I posted it in good faith as it came from a trusted source – a retired tin-pusher in Canada. If it does turn out to be bogus I will unreservedly apologise to our membership.

If the airframe driver tried to put it on the ground in one piece the landing speed would have been very high – certainly more than the limit that the tyres were subject to. However it is still possible. Years ago an Attacker landed after a wing fold in flight. In this case the undercarriage collapsed but the pilot survived with a mostly intact specimen for the engineers and designers to inspect.

[QUOTE=BuffPuff;1075322]And how many Brits learn the native tounge before deciding to live in Spain, France, Portugal, etc.

But how many will have learned the language after having lived there for a few years? We know large numbers of our immigrants make no effort to do so, and this is particularly true of the older ones. There are whole areas where people of one nationality live in the UK, and they find little incentive to learn English.

I have just re-read the CAA Approved Flight Manual for the S.A.6 Series 1K of 1953. A few facts: VNE 178 kts 205mph. Max cruise 139 kts 160 mph. Max T/O weight 9,100 lbs. (but temperature limited) at light weight the power on stall was 47 kts. The Gipsy Queen 70-4 engines had reverse pitch, and 7’6″ 3 bladed props.
A perusal of this document convinces me that the Sealand, pretty little thing that it was, was underpowered. The thought occurs that if Leonides engines were used they would have most likely been further ourboard than the Gipsy Queens, making it a real handful in an engine out situation, and the larger diameter props would have been more prone to spray damage. ( Just a thought).

SuE really NOT the best ACM machine……..pretty much a mudmover. She has the 2 guns, and I suppose you could hang a couple “Magics” on her, be she is really not a fighter v fighter crate.

She was designed for the same job as the A-4 series, but had to be French. A rather capable machine.

The intake for the Blackburn-Turbomeca Marbore of 883 lb thrust( or optional Continental J-69 of 1,025 ib thrust) was on top of the canopy which had an indentation in the centre.
According to a copy of the Miles brochure for the type it was designed for 10G loading, and had a dive limit speed of 460mph.
Maximum speed was 298mph at 20,000′ with the Marbore, and 310mph for the J-69 at the same altitude. Stalling speed in both cases was 68mph. The ‘no-reserves’ range for either engine was 637 statute miles. Seems to have been quite a capable little craft by a firm that had constructed over 6,000 low powered trainers.

Always a pleasure to assist a kindred spirit!