Winter at Duxford

If the mark I nose is used, would it be possible to create a ‘hybrid’ with the more modern, ergonomic, engine controls etc. Though not as original, could it be justified to make the aircraft safer to fly, given the operational problems already explained?

I noticed that the (mark 1) nose is now sitting by the recovering Blenheim, the updates posted by the collecting tin/ bomb 😮 bring encouraging news but do not commit to which nose it is planned to have, have any decisions been made yet? (Pocketful of change deposited 😉 )

kigas has outlined the plan with complete accuracy and knowledge.
much work has already been completed and to this end , the main effort is being placed on the wings and centre section at this time but it is still considered to be the mk 1 option which will fly.
🙂 thanks for the pocket of change it all helps

Hi Kigas,
Thanks for the (clearly authoritative) input! Much appreciated.
Regards,

The type 149 Blenheim and the type 149 Bolingbroke are the same aircraft. The name Bolingbroke was used by Bristol but changed by the Air Ministry to Blenheim IV. The main difference is in the cockpit layout. K 7072 the first Bolingbroke converted from a MkI was sent to Canada, with a number of others to set up the production line, crashed and was converted by Fairchild to accept North American sourced instruments although the blind flying panel was kept as per British built aircraft. At the same time the throttles, trim, carb cutouts, pitch change and hydraulic systems were converted to be opereated by the right hand so making the aircraft very much more `ergonomic` is the modern parlance otherwise the original aircraft are exactly the same. A number of Bolingbrokes served operationally with the Canadians on maritime patrol and in the Aleutian Islands supporting the Americans against the Japanese. With regard to the larger port nacelle this was enlarged to carry the dinghy on the maritime machines and was released by a cable located in the port wing fairing. The canadians also carried a 4th crew member as a radio operater and the radio was situated aft of the bomb bay. When the Bolingbroke was used as a trainer its then when the oil tanks were enlarged to facilitate longer training runs. With regard to converting the Duxford aircraft to a MkI a certain amount of re engineering the torque tubes to put the throttles back on the left hand side would be required and obtaining the vertical reading instruments of the British versions would pose a great deal of difficulty, also whether it would be safe to put the hydraulic systems down by the right side of the pilot and the pitch, carb cut outs and pitch chain behind the pilots left shoulder, if these systems can be found. A great number of Blenheims were lost because the pilot hadn`t got enough hands to cope with emergencies with such a poor layout and of course we were needing aircraft in squadron and there wasn`t time to make the cockpit controls better. As regards the flying controls these are the same between the MKI, MkIV, Bolingbroke and Bisley (MkV). The production break at the rear of the fuselage is the same for all models which would allow the MKI nose to be fitted to a Bolinbroke fuselage. All in all the MKI is viable allowing for the problems described and of course money and time, and as said to change back to a MKIV at a later date is always a viable option.

P-39. Winter maintainance I’d guess, mainly. I heard, but this may not be right, that a new / better rad was being made and fitted, as they were finding it run hot. However, happy to be corrected on that!

Does anyone know what’s happenning with the P39?With her being so recently restored,it seems odd that they’ve got all the panels off etc.

Winter maintenance??? Putting her on the UK register???

Does anyone know what’s happenning with the P39?With her being so recently restored,it seems odd that they’ve got all the panels off etc.
Lovely pics btw folks,the Razorback ’51 looks gorgeous already and I’m looking forward to seeing the Mossie in the TT scheme. Hell,I love all of ’em! 🙂

I think I prefer the MkIV but anything looks better than the MkV.

PS, am I alone here in thinking the mark I Blenheim is better looking?

no you are not……..its got something about it, that’s for sure.

[QUOTE=Will J]Cheers Septic, do you mind if I copy a couple of them, some are carbon copies of the ones of mine that went AWOL :rolleyes:

No problem Will, If you need anything in particular let me know.

Septic

Reminder to check Martin Claydon’s Duxford Update site at:- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mclaydon/homefpage.htm
He usually visits and photographs each weekend.
mmitch.

Thanks dh!

To respond. Detail differences only, certainly I agree. But if you want to look at a Bolly/Blenheim and tell which is which the porthole and beetlebacks are your ouside visual cues.

As ever the Putnams tells you a lot of facts from original paperwork, but not a lot about what came out of the factory or what they look like, or how they were used differently. (That’s right, I think Putnams are slightly overrated.)

The internal control changes are the sort of thing the ‘rough colonials’ would do to make a British a/c safer that wouldn’t get acknowleged in the home country, and Putnams have failed us by not noting them. The Blenheim accident rate was nothing for Bristols to be proud of. Hobby horse? Moi? 😉

Sorry James, missed that.
However, paraphrasing ferociously from the Putnam book:
Early production Blenheim became prototype Bolingbroke 1. Initial production order cancelled to avoid disrupting Blenheim production and replaced with a further order for Blenheims on the understanding as many as possible would be produced to Bolingbroke standards. After 66 had been produced it was possible to change to the Bolingbroke but to avoid confusion it was decided to use the name Blenheim IV.
The Blenheim IV was adopted for licence production in Canada, the name Bolingbroke being retained.

Just detail differences surely?

Hi Will,
No you are not alone, I like both Blenheims.

I’ve some pics from Monday too (as has MikeJ and some others) which I can send you a CD of if you pm me. But you’ve got to go back anyway, haven’t you? 😉

The original plan when they got the ‘car’ was to have a swapable nose, further investigation showing it wasn’t that easy. The second Blenheim restoration was first painted black to show it was ‘different’ to the crashed first resto; perhaps the short nose option this time follows the same logic.

Albert, the brief of the Blenheim team is to commemorate all the Blenheim crews as far as possible; the short nose was thus due at some point. A Mk.V isn’t going to happen, but they are doing their best with what they’ve got.

DHFan, see my earler post (and MikeJ’s correction) on the Bolly / Blenheim differences. Minor, but they are there. Sensible engine control positions was rather useful for reducing the accident rate, though not exactly obvious from outside!

Cheers!

Cheers Septic, do you mind if I copy a couple of them, some are carbon copies of the ones of mine that went AWOL :rolleyes:

PS, am I alone here in thinking the mark I Blenheim is better looking?

“Albert” it’s an original Mk1 nose that was converted into a car by a Bristol employee – the story is in this thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=26902&highlight=blenheim+nose+car
Rob

Thanks for that Robbo! Would still feel happier if the noses could be changed round every few years, as the Mk.IV is far better looking.

So where did Duxford get the Mk.1 nose from? Is this original or a reproduction?
If the latter, I would prefer to see as much ‘original’ airframe flying as possible, so I agree with Robbo that the Mk.IV should continue as its a Canadian Bolingbroke of which the majority is original.

Sorry Robbo, no sign of the embroidery or ‘cheerful chap’!

According to the FC engineer the Mercury is there to stay as the eighteen bolts holding it on are all b*****ds to fit.

Septic

A few more.

Septic.

Sorry to hear you lost a some of your photos Will, here’s a few I took on Monday.

Septic.