Ah that sounds great Andy, what colours will they be? Will have to get myself down to Bristol to see that
8 (BR) Squadron was camouflage, with a black underside. I have seen some drawings of Bolingbrokes in Alaska in camo with a white underside, which is quite attractive, but we don’t know if 9048 carried this scheme. Whilst in Alaska the red of the roundels were painted out to avoid confusion with Japanese aircraft, so we might do that to. We are looking for photos of 9048 (or similar 8BR Sqn Boly) from the late 1942/early 1943 period to confirm the scheme. We know it was coded YO-T though. Until its restored, it will probably remain out of sight in a hangar at Filton, although sections will be restored one at a time at Kemble and other locations. It may be possible to put the unrestored nose section on a trailer and take it to a couple of air shows over the summer, to raise money towards the restoration.
Andy
Although personally i’ll miss the Mk IV nose as I think the Blenheim IV looks great, will be really good to have a Mk I, and will mean the UK will soon have a good mix of Blenheim/Bolingbrokes – an airworthy Mk I, a Mk IV in RAF colours at Hendon, a Mk IV in target tug (I think) colours at Duxford in airspace, and also the East Fortune one, although don’t know what they’re planning to paint theirs.
Don’t forget the Bolingbroke nose under restoration in the Isle of Man.
In addition the Bristol Aero Collection is in the process of acquiring a Bolingbroke from the US. This one, 9048, has just been moved from Chino, and is currently being prepared for transportation to the UK. We hope it will be in Bristol in time for the 70th anniversary of the first flight of the Blenheim, in June. Being an older Bolingbroke, it saw combat, performing anti-submarine patrols against the Germans and the Japanese, and was based in Alaska during the Aleutian Campaign. All of this was with 8 (BR) Squadron RCAF, so we intend to paint her in these colours once she has been restored to static display condition. If anyone has or knows of any photos of 9048, either with 8 Sqn or later with the BCATP, I’d be very grateful if you could let me know.
Andy
Great news, it’ll be good to see a Buccaneer back at Kemble. Will she be kept under cover or outside?
Andy
Sorry guys, I wouldn’t go as far as to say its 12875 yet. Here is a bit of history:
MoS ordered three prototypes in 1948, all three to be powered by Centaurus, but the second and third could be modified to Proteus when it was available. Development of the Proteus was so advanced by 1950 that there was no need for the Centaurus model, so it was cancelled. In effect, 12873 and 12874 became prototypes 1 and 2, and 12875 was the one that was cancelled. As much of it had already been built, it was used as a functional mock up, aka non-flying prototype (or NFP).
Anyone interested in the NFP should read Flight magazine, 7th March 1952. It describes it and its uses in detail. It does not look like the Abingdon/Brize airframe, as it was effectively as Series 102 i.e. no eyebrow windows etc. Also the fuselage only went as far back as just aft of the wing, just after the second emergency exit window. Here is a photo from Flight whilst on fuel system flow tests, and a drawing of what it looked like.

Now the next blow to the theory. According to the books by Charles Woodley and Frank McKim, G-ANBC was seriously damaged at Rangoon on 9th September 1958, when it ran off the end of the runway, and the nosewheel was pushed thorough the fuselage skin. It was repaired and flown to Filton, and the nose of 12875 was grafted on. It was back in service August 1959.
I’m still sticking with one of the Series 312 functional mock ups at Filton. I dug out my Britannia airframe lecture notes yesterday, and noted the following. The airframes in both the Abindgon and Brize photos do not have pressure head pitot masts, a feature on all flying Brits (below the rear-most cockpit window). There is not even a trace of it being fitted. The skin panel containing the cabin pressure relief valve (round hole beneath the first cabin window) does not look right, normally this has four small locking screws (or something similar) to the left, but on the Abingdon photo it looks much more prominent, and is also prominent on the Brize photo. Perhaps this was the mock up built for pressure tests at Filton.
We still need more info on the Filton Srs 312 mock ups to be sure.
Andy
ALRX – can’t be ALRX with something ‘grafted on’, as there is no trace of a cargo door on the fuselage section currently at Kemble, and there is enough of RX to include what would have been the cargo door.
If its a structural test airframe, from Filton, then it would be a 312, which didn’t have the cargo door. This could have been installed in order to fulfill its requirement with the MoD at Abingdon, seems like a lot of work though.
It looks so much like an Series 250 (i.e. RAF spec), are we totally sure none went missing?!?
Re the Kemble Air Day – Yes MrB.175, careful where you park your car in future – it has been commented on by several people!!!
Andy
OK guys, given up on trying to attach the image, I’ve uploaded it to an appropriate website, and linked it here. Appologies to those with slow connections, but this was the only way to do it.
Regarding the cabin window just aft of the cockpit – the model number does not seem to be an inidication of which had it – 312’s G-AOVF and ‘VS didn’t have it, but 312’s G-AOVC, H, K, and N did.
I’ll have to ask around a couple of people who worked for Bristol at the time.
cheers,
Andy

The cargo door on the Brize dump photo looks about the right size for a genuine one, and of the three hinges at the top, the remains of the middle is clearly visible, and forward one is just visible.
I’ve got an image to attach of both photos of the unknown Abingdon Brit, but this damn thing won’t let me attach files. Dunno what the problem is, perhaps I have an older version of some software. FAQ ain’t much help. Degree in Computing and I still can’t work it out.
Andy
Hi Martin – I think I’m going to change my ‘definitely’ statement!
Firstly – the first cabin window. It was in the same place for both first (BO) and second (RX) prototypes. The photo looks a little strange, as two of the cockpit windows have be painted over or boarded up. This gives it the strange ‘Viscount’ appearance.
Now, that cargo door. I don’t have a clear photo of the port side of RX at Kemble, but from the partial ones I do have, it looks like there has never been a cargo door conversion on it, so I’ll agree to that!
To complicate things further, counting the windows (should have done this before) there are 11 between the fore and aft doors. Series 100 Brits (i.e. including the prototypes) only had 9, so this has to be a Series 250/300 etc. Further complication – the Series 250/300 had the eyebrow windows, and the 100’s didn’t!
OK – looking at Charles Woodleys book on the Britannia (Crowood Series), on page 17 there are two photos of a remarkably similar bare metal Britannia fuselage with the text …
“Mystery ship. The original caption to these photos says ‘Air Transport Development Unit, Abingdon, June 1966’. Could this be c/n 12874 the second prototype Britannia?”
The photos show the fuselage with a cargo door and 11 windows, and eyebrow windows, i.e. its a series 250 or converted 300. In the Brize dump photo, its likely the eyebrow windows were painted over along with the two cockpit windows below. The wing root looks identical.
So, its not ALRX or ALBO (I won’t say definitely again). I did have a photo of BO at St.Athan before it was broken up but I can’t find it at the moment. A possible explanation comes at the end of Frank McKims book on the Brit, when it mentions four test airframes, two 100’s and two 312’s.
“The two Series 312 aircraft were used for exactly the same purpose [as the 100’s, a functional mock up and water tank test frame], the only difference being the water tank test for the Series 312 aircraft was carried out at Filton rather than at Farnborough.”
As you say, judging by the wing root, its probable it was one of these mock-ups. However the only 300’s with cargo doors were conversions (the first being G-ANCF in 1964, which is now sitting forlornly outside hangar A1 at Kemble looking for a new home….) so why would the mock-up have been converted? Further pressure tests?
Still needs more sleuthing!!
cheers,
Andy
I see someone has already copied the text I wrote for the Britannia Aircraft Preservation Trust website on ‘RX! (it does say its copyright, but I’ll let you off this time…). Its definitely the second prototype G-ALRX, although there is quite a bit more fuselage than there was during its Boscombe Down days. Here is a photo of it during its days at the Filton Training School.
cheers,
Andy A.
History of G-ALRX – http://www.britannia.flyer.co.uk/galrxhistory.htm

Many thanks guys, I think that confirms it. In fact, there was a DC-3 fuselage in the compound, I don’t know why I didn’t link them at the time! There were so many sections of aircraft around that it was only when I got the slides developed I could identify them. The reg of the DC-3 was N213MA.
Andy
Keep an eye open for a news article on the three in the US – the CAF/ex Santa Monica one, the Bristol Heritage one, and the Kermit Weeks one – in the next issue of Aircraft Illustrated.
A
A six day aviation meeting took place on Lanark race course, starting 6th August 1910. It is mentioned in the Putnam book “Bristol Aircraft since 1910”, as two Boxkites were there. One had a competition number 19 on the tail, so the ‘6’ on this ‘Bleriot’ could be a competition number from the same event.
Andy
To start the ball rolling here’s a shot taken in the late 1980s of the Bristol & Wessex Aero Club building at the old Bristol Whitchurch aerodrome – is it still there?
Answering the original query, all that remains of the Bristol Whitchurch Aerodrome is a stretch of runway. The Aero Club building was demolished,and a sports track is now in its place. There is some more info on the Bristol Lulsgate website at http://www.eggd.co.uk, include a small aerial photo of the present layout. Click on ‘Old Bristol Whitchurch Airport’ to get to the right page. The Bristol Aviation’ website at http://www.chew76.fsnet.co.uk also has details.
Andy
What happened to these? Obviously the Lanc went to the US, mostly interested in what happened to the Scion, Bolingbroke and Battle, unless thats how the RAF Museum got their Blenheim and Battle
OK, you asked – appologies if its a little out of date, some of this is from memory, and some from what ever Wrecks and Relics I can find….
Lanc KB976 – Is this now in Florida? from memory it was crushed when a hangar roof fell on it, and parts are now in several places.
Bolingbroke 9940 went to East Fortune, and is currently being restored to static
Scion VH-UUP – Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
Messenger G-AJOC – Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
Dragon Rapide G-ALXT – Science Museum Wroughton
Dragon VH-SNB – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Puss Moth VH-UQB – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Provost WV493 – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Monarch G-AFJU – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Cygnet G-AGBN – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Miles M18 G-AHKY – Museum of Flight East Fortune
Hudson A16-199 – RAF Museum Hendon
Sycamore WA576 – Dumfries and Galloway Aviation Museum
Desford G-AGOS – Leicester Museum of Science & Industry
Anson G-AWRS – NEAM
Vampire XD403 – preserved Errol
Anson G-AYWA – Stored Coventry for spares
Bolingbroke 10201 – went to Duxford, and was restored to flying condition (G-BPIV)
Swordfish W5856 – now restored to flying with RNHF Yeovilton
Anson G-AHKX – now restored to flying from Old Warden
Spitfire PV202 – now restored to flying (twice) with Historic Flying
Spitfire ML407 – now restored to flying as the Grace Spitfire
Lysander G-AZWT – flying with Shuttleworth Trust
The following are still in the UK flying, on rebuild or stored AFAIK
Hornet Moth G-ADMT
Monarch G-AFLW
Leopard Moth G-AIYS
Tiger Moth G-ANFV
Tiger Moth G-APGL
Harvard G-AZBN
Prentice G-AOLU
BA Swallow G-ADPS
Fokker S11 G-BEPV
Texan 14526 – I think this is G-BRWB
Shackleton VP293 – broken up on site
Comet G-AMXA – broken up on site, nose was at Gatwick for many years
Abroad:
Firefly WD833 – in USA (now N833WD)
Hurricane G-AWLW – to Canada, but destroyed in hangar fire
Mosquito G-ASKB – to Kermit Weeks, then to EAA Museum
Anson G-AGWE – to Florida
Tiger Moth G-ANTS – now in Sweden AFAIK
Fairey Battle R3950 – I think this is the one now in the Brussels Museum
Not sure of current location:
TBM Avenger ‘045’ (went to Doug Arnold)
So only a small proportion left British shores, but arguably these were the cream of the collection.
Andy
The way the UK is at the moment, and has been for a many years, this trend is bound to continue. Despite many naive comments, warbird operation and preservation is not an easy job – its very expensive, demanding in terms of time and effort, and you have to do a bit of work to get hold of what you want these days – it doesn’t land in your lap. There are several organisations and individuals in this country ( and a few abroad) who do a tremendous job in acquiring historic aircraft on behalf of the British public, but there is a lot of apathy out there regarding historic aviation.
The reason that other countries – USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia come to mind – are better at acquiring and restoring aircraft is that historic aviation has a higher prominence than in the UK. Personally, I think this is because they are younger nations, with less history, therefore aviation plays a more significant role in the eyes of their citizens. In the UK aviation has to compete with the Romans, 1066, the Georgians, Victorians, and so on, and last but definitely not least – trains. The same applies to many other European countries.
The afore mentioned Strathallan Collection is a good example. I remember going to air displays there – Hurricane, Mosquito, Lysander, Magister – and that was the based stuff. Under restoration was a Bolingbroke, Fairey Battle, Lancaster, Swordfish, Dragon Rapide, Short Scion, Anson and more. The Collection collapsed for two reasons – Bureaucracy, e.g. planning permission, something which is much less of a problem in these ‘newer’ countries, and lack of money, back to the old apathy problem. Its worth noting that there are many more tax incentives in donating/gifting to charities in other countries.
Being involved in both a British aviation museum and an American aviation museum, I would prefer aircraft to stay in the UK, but until the history of aviation is more widely recognised, and the current collectors get much more support, especially from the government departments, we will probably see more going abroad. If you are bothered, get off your bum and do something about it.
Andy