Simviation Forums

Don't know how I missed this. Bristol Blenheim Mk.I L6739 (G-BPIV) takes to the skies at IWM Duxford

I look forward to getting my own photos during this year's display season.

Dam they put the ugly Mk1 nose back on her
At the risk of being picky, she is not actually a Blenheim, but a Bollingbrook. I worked on her back in the early 90's before the second crash (I also flew in her once too....got the pictures to prove it as well ) ARC had the Mk1 nose in storage and John Romain was toying with the idea of a nose change way back then. Can't say I like the decision, but if it means we have something unusual in the air to attract the crowds, then so be it. Still, as we use to say, happiness is a nice pair of Bristols......

Matt

She's still ugly, but it'll be nice to see her flying again!

expat wrote:Dam they put the ugly Mk1 nose back on her
At the risk of being picky, she is not actually a Blenheim, but a Bollingbrook. I worked on her back in the early 90's before the second crash (I also flew in her once too....got the pictures to prove it as well )

That's a tad pedantic. It's actually a bitzer built from several different airframes. The Bolingbroke was the Canadian-built Mk IV

ARC had the Mk1 nose in storage and John Romain was toying with the idea of a nose change way back then. Can't say I like the decision, but if it means we have something unusual in the air to attract the crowds, then so be it. Still, as we use to say, happiness is a nice pair of Bristols......

Matt

From a conversation I had with John Romain at Shoreham soon after the second crash I understand that was always the intention. I admire his determination to complete this third restoration. At least it's different.

ozzy72 wrote:She's still ugly, but it'll be nice to see her flying again!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think part of the idea with the Mk1 nose is that they can move away from its previous identity as a Bolingbroke, and the ill fated aircraft that they were (it's probably become more valuable too).

I suspect they'll be exceptionally selective with their pilots this time, as both crashes were effectively pilot error (rich cut - you can't slam the throttles open on a Mercury - during unplanned touch and go at Denham IIRC, and fuel starvation at Duxford - a imperial/metric faff I think). The sad thing is that Graham Warner died before it flew again. He was very unlucky with first two.

More than the "pedigree", I think the good new is a Bristol flying again.

Wonderful shots, great commentary and congratulations to all who were involved with the project...

It does not matter how may bits it was built from, the only thing that matters is the ID plate that they built it under. If that came form a Blenheim Fuselarge, she is a Blenheim, if it was a Bollinbrook Fuselage then she is a Bollinbrook regardless of what people want to call her.....That is why, when a total wreak is dug out of the ground, the most important thing is to find the ID plate. Without that the aircraft is only a replica when it takes to the skies again.

Matt

expat wrote:It does not matter how may bits it was built from, the only thing that matters is the ID plate that they built it under. If that came form a Blenheim Fuselarge, she is a Blenheim, if it was a Bollinbrook Fuselage then she is a Bollinbrook regardless of what people want to call her.....That is why, when a total wreak is dug out of the ground, the most important thing is to find the ID plate. Without that the aircraft is only a replica when it takes to the skies again.

Matt

Hence technically it's a completely different airframe to that which crashed in 2003!

C wrote:

expat wrote:It does not matter how may bits it was built from, the only thing that matters is the ID plate that they built it under. If that came form a Blenheim Fuselarge, she is a Blenheim, if it was a Bollinbrook Fuselage then she is a Bollinbrook regardless of what people want to call her.....That is why, when a total wreak is dug out of the ground, the most important thing is to find the ID plate. Without that the aircraft is only a replica when it takes to the skies again.

Matt

Hence technically it's a completely different airframe to that which crashed in 2003!

Yes, but what does the ID plate say...? Just curious, not argumentative......

Matt

It's now flying as L6739, which is the Mk 1 nose's identity...

...so the aircraft that had the little whoopsy (ie, pretty much everything aft of the cockpit) is no longer the aircraft that had the whoopsy.

It's still G-BPIV though.

C wrote:It's now flying as L6739, which is the Mk 1 nose's identity...

...so the aircraft that had the little whoopsy (ie, pretty much everything aft of the cockpit) is no longer the aircraft that had the whoopsy.

It's still G-BPIV though.

So a Blenhenbrook with a rhinoplasty........

Matt

I think the closest comparison would be sticking a Lusinov nose on a DC-3 and calling it the former! Mind you, it's far better (and cheaper) than most of the Spitfires that have appeared out of Duxford in the past 10 years, which really are dataplate restorations*.

*for the uninitiated, effectively new build airframes with an historic identity.

C wrote:I think the closest comparison would be sticking a Lusinov nose on a DC-3 and calling it the former! Mind you, it's far better (and cheaper) than most of the Spitfires that have appeared out of Duxford in the past 10 years, which really are dataplate restorations*.

*for the uninitiated, effectively new build airframes with an historic identity.

As I said, it was a professional interest as to the true identity, but if it looks like a Blenheim or Spitfire, sounds like them and was assembled from gathered bits, then who am I to say that it is not what it is appearing to be. If you build a Spitfire from Spitfire parts, it is a Spitfire regardless what the name plate says......?

Matt