Probably thinking of the Biggin Hill Invader crash, about 30 years ago. Not a loop, but a barrel roll, but they are both pitching figures, so maybe not totally off the mark.
They were all killed.
Conflated with the crash of G-MKIV, in which no lives were lost. I don’t think the Invader was newly restored when it crashed in 1980.
But my point is, commentator A makes a fairly vague, and difficult to quantify, statement. “Damned few of them left”. Spitfires? Historic aircraft? Perhaps he is upset at the loss of historic aircraft and is blaming it on pilots ‘bending’ them? Who knows.
Commentator B uses this as an opportunity to demonstrate a tangentially relevant “fact” that he has stored away for such occasions. He combines the loss of Bolingbroke G-MKIV with the loss of the A-26 at Biggin. At some point this becomes a “newly restored bomber” that was apparently a “unique Blenheim”. All killed.
Commentator C comes across as more authoritative, but doesn’t realise commentator B is mixing up air accidents. He also suggests that the Blenheim was ‘built’ by Robs Lamplough, and then asserts that he thinks it might be flying again. The mention of Mr. Lamplough gives his post an air of credibility but is still contains a couple of errors (can you argue that a Bolingbroke isn’t a Blenheim?), and I think Mr. Lamplough is being given a lot of credit for the work of the Air Restoration Company. He also doesn’t put right the post made by Commentator B, so at least some of the content (loss of life for all on board) isn’t really corrected.
This way madness lies.
Sign In
