Blenheim Accident

Bentwingbomber

I said in an earlier post it would take up to 2 years to rebuild,
this was from ARCO, and was their initial estimate. But as we all know when the work starts a more accurate timescale will be available.

Join the Blenheim Society and keep up to date with goings on, and help fund this important aircraft.

cas

the weight of the bomb released from the rack simply forced open the door enough to allow it through. the doors are prised open by the ground crew and lock to allow re-arming then it was a case of watch your fingers when released.

Well, there you go! 😉 I’m obviously thinking waaay too technical for that age of aircraft. Still, I wonder how the doors would/will respond to sharp pull-up in flight? (ie, change of a/c direction). A touch of G would tend to have them sag open a bit I think.

For example, the Canberra nosewheel doors are closed/opened by mechanical linkage connected to the hyd-powered nose jack mechanism – pretty reliable and fool-proof really (but a bit of a bu**er to set up correctly). But if a pilot applied an over-enthusiastic “back-stick” on t/o they would, sometimes, not close fully so causing a “nosewheel red”. This was, more often than not, the reason for “nosewheel reds” on Cranberries. Even those “rigid” mechanical links could give problems over the last half inch or so of travel, enough to cause a bit of non-compression of the door seals. Although the doors were closed to all intents and purposes, the uplock microswitch hadn’t been “made” – so “n/w red”! Cycling the gear usually cleared this though.

Would be interesting to hear/read any tales about this aspect from the Blenheim’s operational/war days. I say operational because I don’t think the surving Blenheim would do hi-G flying (or bombing).

Anyway, thanks for the info. Being a rigger on Blenheims must have been quite a dicey job. Also, thanks for the psi detail. 😉

Originally posted by LesB
surprised to hear of the “bungee” type arrangment for the bomb doors though, can’t see how that would operate. I guess they could be hand-cranked with the “bungee” providing some sort of back-up up-lock. There must be more to it than this I suppose.

Thanks anyway.

les in answer to that It is that simple, the weight of the bomb released from the rack simply forced open the door enough to allow it through. the doors are prised open by the ground crew and lock to allow re-arming then it was a case of watch your fingers when released.

the answer to your other item regarding pressure its a 1000 psi nitrogen bottle

cas wrote

only the u/c ,flaps and turret are driven by the hydraulics, the u/c has the additional facility to blow down the gear in the event of a leak.

Thanks for that info cas. Also, understand about the blow-down, this is pretty much standard in a/c. Any idea what psi the airbottle is charged to?

Bit surprised to hear of the “bungee” type arrangment for the bomb doors though, can’t see how that would operate. I guess they could be hand-cranked with the “bungee” providing some sort of back-up up-lock. There must be more to it than this I suppose.

Thanks anyway.

Best of luck cas and the rest of the team, I had a look at the old girl today from a distance, very sad.

I suspect we may know one another cas.

blenheim hydraulics

the system is a low pressure system produced by a single engine driven pump on the left engine with the back up of a hand pump in the cockpit.

only the u/c ,flaps and turret are driven by the hydraulics,
the u/c has the additional facility to blow down the gear in the event of a leak.

the bomb bay doors are held shut by bungee cord and would only open in the event of a bomb forcing them open so these can be forced open naturally by the impact.

at present the team is carrying out a survey of the airframe to assess the extent of the damage and will then anounce their intentions.

the team would like to thank all those who have sent their support and ask for some patience from you but will not let this be the end.

Originally posted by LesB
I don’t know the actual Bleheim’s hydraulic system but I can tell you that hyd systems in aircraft do not work like that. They may, in some cases all be fed from the same hyd main reservoir and pump(s) but each circuit will be independent and protected by NRV’s. [/B]

Depends how old the design is, I agree that modern A/C have lots of devices for priority systems but If it is a simple system & you loose all fluid then there is nothing to maintain pressue apart from a broken pipe, although I have to agree that there may be a shuttle valve in the system producing a hydraulic lock, still, It gives us something to talk about!
Cheers………

Forum?

Warbird wrote :

Depending on the system assuming that the U/C is hydraulic then if you knock off the U/C leg it is safe to think that there will be a loss of pressure in the system therefore If the doors are held together by hydraulic pressure loosing the fluid & pressure would then allow the doors to open.

I don’t know the actual Bleheim’s hydraulic system but I can tell you that hyd systems in aircraft do not work like that. They may, in some cases all be fed from the same hyd main reservoir and pump(s) but each circuit will be independent and protected by NRV’s.

“and you complain about the beeb……”
Yes I did ( I believe quite rightly ) and apart from expressing relief that the crew got out ok that’s the only comment I have made however,

Let’s not forget the most important thing is that the guys’ got out in one piece, the second is that the Blenhiem is predominantly also in one slightly bent piece. It could have been so much worse for all concerned.

Lets leave it to those who own, operate and maintain the old girl to decide on her future and the operators official statement and the CAA report to tell us what actually happened.
All this speculation does none of us ( or the reputation of this forum ) any good.

Digby, thats the most sensible comment that I have read all through this thread.

Why don’t we all stop speculating and wait for some sort of official statement from ARCO as they are the only people who know what, why and what will be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was just my opinion. I saw the 1st Blenheim laid out on the floor and the damage to the 2nd does not look a touch on that. Comparing the 2 wrecks visually this Blenheims damage is less than half the 1st ones damage. Again just my opinion.
I guessed 18 months based on the fact that ARCO don’t hang around with jobs.
As i also said it will be down to the money.

Hi Mark12,
That is exactly how I see it , as my previous post, time will tell!
Cheers…..

From what can be seen in the photos, in my opinion, I see about three years and £650k commercial to fix it. I think we should consider the possibility that the owner may not be willing to do it. Even if it is insured, it surely will be considered a write off. The owner has nothing to proove and at his time of life, if it is insured, his inclination may be to take the money and surrender the hull to the insurers. The big question then is who has the b….s to pick up the reins and run with it? Maybe the old girl is trying to tell us something. Difficult times 🙁

Hi DazDaMan,
I hear what you are saying, it’s a very emotive subject but It will take many truckfulls of fivers to get it back in the air! The other problem is that unless you know the funds are there before you start then the planning for the repair can never be accurate which in its self adds to the cost at the end of the day.
If it were sold then with the experience ARCo have then they would be the obvious choice to get the work that way they could do the work quicker so the job could cost less as there is no ‘learning curve’

“Possibly the best way forward would be to sell the aircraft to someone who has the money to fund the repair”

I don’t think ARCo should sell – the Blenheim is synonymous with ARCo, and it’s a testament to their skill and devotion that TWO Blenheims have been restored to fly. But, again, probably the main factor is the cost of this restoration.

On the other hand, I’d gladly stick a fiver (or more) into an envelope and send it in to see the old bird back in the sky.

Depending on the system assuming that the U/C is hydraulic then if you knock off the U/C leg it is safe to think that there will be a loss of pressure in the system therefore If the doors are held together by hydraulic pressure loosing the fluid & pressure would then allow the doors to open.

Hi, Digby.

Seeing as you’ve just cast doubt on Alexis’ opinions of the damage, could you give us a better idea of the extent of the repairs necessary please? Assuming, of course, you are in a position to?

I have no links to any preservation organisation or their staff/volunteers but I was just trying to piece together the circumstances. Someone mentioned a mayday call and engine problems while others have mentioned clipping the bank at the edge of the airfield with one(?) undercarriage leg being torn off. The pictures in the tv link show the starboard engine angled down, damage to skin and ‘splayed’ bomb doors. It will take someone with more knowledge and expertise than me to explain the implications regarding the length and feasibility of any restoration.

Many of us have expressed relief that the crew got out ok. If the above is a reasonable representation of events, perhaps we should offer the crew our gratitude as well? It could have ended so differently and we could have all been offering our condolences to the families of the crew.

Now is not the place, and I am certainly not the person to apportion blame, so, thanks guys, for getting her down at all.

Regards,

kev35

You can guarantee that if there is damage on the outside then it will be much worse on the inside, as I understand it, the aircraft has spun through 180 deg on the ground, then lots of damage will have occurred, to repair it there is both the cost & the time scale to look into, remember, now ARCO is a fully fledged commercial operation & needs revenue to keep going, If the aircraft only had third party insurance & no hull cover then there is no pay for the repair work therefore It has to be put on the back burner so to speak while the paying work is done.
Possibly the best way forward would be to sell the aircraft to someone who has the money to fund the repair, I know it’s not what people want to hear but there are people out there with loads of money to throw at a project but they will want to own it at the end of the day rather than just sponsor the project. my personal thoughts are that the owner will have had enough after two restorations & will possibly not want a 3rd. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.