Argentines At The Hms Melbourne

Hi guys,

A tough one! In the early 1970's (1972) a group of Argentine navy A-4 pilots and crew came aboard the Australian aircraft carrier HMS "Melbourne" for carrier qualifications for their own A-4Q's. Now, just 33 years later I would like to know if any one served with RAN during that period has memories or photo's available from this interesting moment.

Thanks for any help,

Cheers!

Brugal B)

There was a party of Argentine Naval LSO's ( Landing Signals Officers) aboard the Melbourne in the early 70's to discuss their problems with RAN LSO's...maybe they were being qualified by RAN LSO's for service aboard their own carrier. No flying took place with Argentine aircrew from the Melbourne.

Thanks Dave, do you know by any chance if there are former RAN LSO who has more details from this interesting moment? We are almost finnished a complete A-4Q history book in Argentina now...... any details are hihly welcome.

Salu2,

Brugal

HMAS MELBOURNE !!!!

Phil Thompson, an ex-RAN skyhawk pilot replied to my email with the following;

---

"An Argentine Navy Admiral came to visit VF-805 at Nowra in late 1971 before we went on the cruise to Hawaii for RIMPAC; so the visit would have been between July-August 1971 approximately. The Admiral was interested in our operations but spoke mostly to our CO Lcdr Colin Patterson (now deceased) and our SP Leut Barrie Daly (who cannot be contacted for comment at moment)."

---

Regards,

Darren Crick

Brugal,
Here is a quote from a source at the Nowra Museum Bob "Windy" Geale:
"The Three Argentine Navy LSO's visited HMAS ALBATROSS on 14 January 1980
for discussions on fixed wing carrier landing." Bob's e-mail is:
Bob "Windy" Geale <bobgeale@optusnet.com.au>

I am interested to know why you believe A-4Q pilots used HMAS Melbourne for their carrier qualifications in 1972 or thereabouts. What is your original source for this idea. It does not sound at all possible if you consider this:

Where was HMAS Melbourne and the A-4Qs when this event occured?

Are you helping write a book about Skyhawk operations? Will the book be about only Argentine Skyhawks or generally about Skyhawks worldwide?
Phil Thompson.

This post has been edited by Luig on Oct 26 2006, 06:37 AM

Luiq,

Thanks for comments. Actually the A-4Q's did not flew or embarked on the HMAS "Melbourne", only some Argentine Navy Officers went aboard this (beautiful) carrier during 1972. By that time the RAN already experienced some (difficulty) operations with their A-4's and the Argentines suffered the same when their A-4Q0s arrived in Argentina. However, the reports I have are conflict each other; some say only LSO have been temporarely embarked on " Melbourne" while other says including some pilots too! Today I am calling one good friend in Argentina and ask more details on this subject.

The book mentiones is only Argentine A-4Q related, with luck I have also a early production edition on Argentine A-4Q and if you wish I can send it to you :)

I keep you all informed about this subject......

greetzzz Brugal (Rico)

Dear friend,

I think that navy Admiral came to VF-805 to discus the possible deployment for the Argentine navy Officers (LSO' s) to be embarked on the carrier for a small period to learn how to overcome the difficulties on A-4 operations from small carriers as the HMAS " Melbourne" and it's Argentine sistership " 25 de Mayo". However, there are conflicting reports on this matter as sources say only LSO came to Australia while other says there were also pilots included (which sounds logical to me). Today I will call one Argentine friends who flew the A-4Q untill the War against the UK in 1982, a real veteran. I keep you up-dated with the subject.

Cheers mate,

Rico (Brugal)

That would most likely be correct. Usually an LSO is a pilot, who is undergoing a course to become a a landing signals officer. You will find that the Argentine LSO's on HMAS Melbourne would have been pilots.

Brugal & Dave,
In the early 1970's if any Argentine A4 LSOs (as suggested they would be A4 pilots also) visited either HMAS Melbourne or NAS Nowra this would have been a noteworthy event. Personally I don't recall such an event other than the Argentine Admiral's visit noted in a previous message. However my memory could be faulty. No one I have e-mailed about this has responded with any new information. Please refer to the Nowra museum note about a visit of Argentine LSOs to NAS Nowra in 1980. So far this is the only information made available on this point.
Phil.

Dear Henrico

Captain Italo Lavezzo was the officer of the COAN who went aboard HMAS Melbourne. I`ll look into my files, since I think I`ve its original report !.

Yours

Jorge

I received this message from the author of the book "A-4Q Skyhawk en servicio de Aviación Naval" (A-4Q is Argentine Navy use) and he is going to look into files for more information on this really interesting story.

I keep you all up-dated (remember that Capitán Lavezzo was one of the first Argentine Navy A-4 pilots that time........) :)

Cheers all,

Brugal (Henrico)

Brugal (Henrico) - What does "Brugal" mean please?

I notice that you mention a book already published but you yourself are working on another book. Good luck trying to track down all the details.

To answer your question further, if you can provide more details such as dates/places then this will help anyone here remember, or ask someone else about such an event / visit. For example it is likely your Captain "came aboard" not flying a Skyhawk. This would have been a very noteworthy event that would have been recorded somewhere that is easy to find, such as a Squadron diary or linebook (pictorial diary made by the pilots themselves).

HMAS Melbourne operated in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. Rarely did it venture beyond Hawaii to California or the Canadian West coast. Once again your Captain most likely 'visited' at a port that was convenient in the vague area I have outlined here. It seems few foreign Skyhawks landed on HMAS Melbourne (if any) other than a USN A-4B back in the middle 1960s, off the Phillippines. This was done to demonstrate that the Skyhawk could be operated from HMAS Melbourne before our Navy bought a bunch later.

Please give me your e-mail address if you are interested and I can send more information to you in PDF format about this USN A-4B event.
Phil.

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 1 2006, 01:27 PM

All, Here is a photo (provided by the Nowra Museum by Dave Masterson) of the first Skyhawk (a USN A-4B Skyhawk from VC-8 at Cubi Point in the Phillippines) in May 1965. After his first catapult from Melbourne's short 100 foot catapult the pilot was heard on radio to exclaim "Holy Shit!" This story is from page 130 in Jim Winchester's excellent book "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk" published a year or two ago.
Phil.

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 1 2006, 06:03 PM

Attached Image

G'day Phil,

For those of who dont quite get exactly why, can you explain the difference between the length of the cat on HMAS Melbourne and a larger carrier of the period and what sort of speed and effect that would have on the aircraft as it is airborne...

I get the fact that it is shorter and therefore you speed would be lower, but can we have some comparisions if thats ok??

thanks mate...


Darren

Darren,
Without checking, from my poor memory I think the WW2 era wooden deck USN carriers such as the USS Bon(ne?) Homme Richard had catapults of a similar size to Melbourne. For sure the RCN Bonaventure had the same catapult because most of it was eventually used in the Melbourne catapult refit in the early 1970s (when the Bonaventure was scrapped) thus adding a few extra feet I believe to Melbourne's cat length. As a round number we can say that Melbourne's catapult stroke was 100 feet.

An A-4G was catapulted down the track to the end in less than 2 seconds. To my knowledge no one ever timed it with a stop watch to be more precise. In any event the steam driven cat had an inconsistency but it all works out to an end speed of around 100 knots groundspeed (for example sake). Add the windspeed over the deck WOD and you have a flying speed of 125 knots if the WOD is 25 knots. The WOD consists of ship speed into wind (max. of 20 knots for example sake) and the wind itself coming down the catapult track.

To my recollection (being told this) the Skyhawk setting for the catapult was the same always, no matter what the weight was as long as the desired end speed (flying speed) was adequate for the aircraft weight and conditions. Only in the tropics (where high temperatures and NIL wind) was catapulting a Skyhawk possibly problematic due to weight. If this was the case then the overall weight was reduced, or the ship would go searching for wind. In calm conditions wind lanes can be seen at a distance so the ship would steam full speed for them and hope the WOD would be sufficient.

Having the same WHAM meant that low weight launches were a shock physically. The aircraft end speed would be much higher than a normal launch. Low weight launches were gained during deck landing qualifications when the aircraft would arrest at low landing arrest weight and then be catapulted at that low weight. The physical effect on the first catapult takes your breath away. I have a video clip that tells a first person account of this. Can it be added to your site somewhere?

Anyway to get back to your question I don't have the comparison of catapult lengths to hand nor have I researched this question except having vague knowledge. Most modern day carriers in the USN have catapults of over 200 feet. They need this for their heavier aircraft particularly of the previous heavy generation. Having longer catapults means less physical stress on the airframe and pilot. A Skyhawk was stressed longitudinally to 9 Gs I was told to allow for the stresses of the catapult. Simple physics equations show that length, time and end speed needed about a 6G launch for example. Trackers were launched at a different catapult setting and you will see them getting airborne towards the end of the catapult stroke because they have such excess end speed. This is always a good thing.

The 'catapult being shorter and therefore the speed being lower' only holds true for a limitation on either the G the aircraft can withstand or the power of the catapult. Usually a steam catapult (if let loose) could break anything; however the power is controlled by various means. If these devices fail or correct catapult procedures are not followed by the catapult team then a 'cold cat' can be experienced with disastrous consequences for aircraft and crew. Also if the 'holdback' mechanism fails with the aircraft at full power - and no catapult power - then the aircraft cannot reach flying speed NOR can it stop on the slippery 100 feet of deck in front of it. Zero Zero ejection seats are good for this situation.

Getting back to your question again. I have heard stories of our Skyhawks being 'cross decked' with HMS Eagle or Hermes for example where the longer catapult meant that the A4G had a lot of excess airspeed at the end because there was a limit to how much the catapult itself could be throttled back for the Skyhawk (not normally operated from HMS Hermes or Eagle for example). So often for lighter aircraft long catapults built for heavier aircraft can become problematic. One reason why certain types of aircraft stayed with older carriers, also the launch mechanism changed after the USN Skyhawk to the launch bar we see on USN carriers today; thus getting rid of the Skyhawk because it became incompatible with this new launch technique (apart from other factors of course).

USN carriers had more flexible launch procedures and of course usually longer catapults; so they could cater for any eventuality of their day. Generally the Melbourne catapult was adequate except in certain circumstances as outlined.

Vaguely I hope I have answered your question but go ahead and ask me to clarify (if this is possible - I'm no catapult expert and it was now 35 years ago). You will have seen some catapult videos where it is obvious that an aircraft is light or heavy. A heavy aircraft at the minimum launch conditions will rotate off the catapult but do nothing much for a few seconds whilst it gathers flying speed. In some shots you will see the lighter weight A4G leap into the air off the catapult.

One other factor could cause concern. In heavy seas the catapult firing had to be timed so that the aircraft was launched as the bow started to rise on the swell. Being launched while the bow was going down into the swell was not something to contemplate for the 2 seconds between saluting the cat officer and being actually launched - sometimes this delay could be longer for whatever reason. The Skyhawk rotated naturally to the correct angle of attack off the catapult by allowing the stick to come back into your stomach - we held our hand there to catch the stick while holding on to a launch bar and throttle to ensure that the throttle did not reduce during launch. There is at least one story of an A4G being launched into the swell such that the wheels skimmed the sea surface for a few seconds.
Phil.

Dear Luig,

Brugal is the name of my favourite Caribbean rum (from the Dominican Republic)!
Further on the subject, the Capitán de Corbeta who came aboard the HMAS "Melbourne" was one of the group (more info is comming next few days). According to the well informed source (Jorge) they did actually whatch A-4G operations on sea, but not flying the A-4 themeselves!

Date, names and other reliable and interesting information will follow next days, as I will get some original documents on this matter soon B)

My e-mail address is dacari@planet.nl

Cheers

Brugal (real fine taste of rum)

Henrico, 'Bundaberg' is a favourite Australian Rum brand.
My nickname on this forum (Luig) was one of my nicknames in the Navy, but my real name is Phil. The PDF with information about the first Skyhawk landing on Melbourne will be e-mailed to you soon. Just collecting all the bits now.
Phil.

thanks Phil, that explained what I wanted... I have seen that cold shot video... I can safely say I wouldnt have wanted to be on that skyhawk...

As for adding content, feel free to email anything to me and we will find a place for it!

thanks again...

Darren

To put the first Skyhawk (USN A-4B) landing on HMAS Melbourne in context here is the first launch with the Gannets and Sea Venoms parked on the bow (FLY1). This photo has come from my own collection so it would be an old Navy official photo.
Phil.

Attached Image

not to mention a large number of onlookers...

The crowd of “lollygaggers” (onlookers) usually would be in the ‘goofers’ (a platform overlooking the flight deck). However this was a special occasion for sure.

Below is a photo provided by the Nowra museum via Dave Masterson of one of the first ever A-4G launches from any aircraft carrier. HMS Hermes was visiting the east coast of NSW, so the opportunity was taken in late 1968 for the first pilots in what was then 805 Squadron (changed to VF-805 in 1969) to get some deck landings until HMAS Melbourne came out of an extended refit in early 1969.

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 2 2006, 01:34 PM

Attached Image

The second low quality image has come from the Nowra Museum showing the deck crew readying the USN Skyhawk for catapult with Gannets and Venoms in Fly1.
Phil.

Attached Image

What a sad day, when they took our cariers away.

Col

Indeed Herkman, nations like Australia which such large sea boundries need to have at least one aircraft carrier to defend the shores and show power!!!

In the time of speaking, the Argentine navy is in high level talks to buy a (second-hand) helicopter carrier like the USS Saipan class...... Hope that something good will come from these talks.

Cheers!

Brugal

Carriers become worn out and need to be replaced. HMAS Melbourne was going to be replaced - which did not happen. The photo below shows effect of wear and tear in the catapult track of HMAS Melbourne.

RAN A-4G Side Number 876, BuNo.155063 (N13-155063) which went on to become RNZAF NZ6217 in 1984, in this photo (taken by Dave Ramsay in 1974) shows the effect of a loose bolt in the catapult track of HMAS Melbourne. The problem was fixed from the evidence of this photograph - there were no ill effects to other aircraft. The tail of 876 is marked "CAG" for Commander Air Group.
Phil.


Attached Image

Luig,

Could you urgent take contact with me (dacari@planet.nl)

I have (classified) documents from Argentine navy that I like to share with you.....

Cheers friend,

Henrico

Luig,

After the Christmas holidays I will have a full account in English about the Argentine navy contignent that went aboard the RAN aircraft carrier....... for sure you will like to read this.

Wish you and all others here a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Cheers mate.

Henrico "Brugal" Angerman