Talk:Percival Mew Gull

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Terminology

Copyedit from the article: Even though the Lockheed 'Airdraulic' undercarraige legs were also outsourced from a commonly used supplier (Percivals were a very small company at that time.) of such EQUIPMENT in the 1930's, they are not described as 'proprietary' or 'EQUIPMENT' here, because one of the 'experts' editing this page of course knows better. Clearly the drawings and manufactures plates are all wrong! Comment by 88.110.161.238. There may be a rationaization here. If the editor is referring to undercarriage "legs" then that is exactly correct, while the spatted structure that represents the external undercarriage would be unique and designed and manufactured by the Percival company. I believe this is a matter of interpretation and an edit will be made in the article to reflect this distinction. Bzuk 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Percivals did wheel-off the spats and cowlings... However, the paragraph in question is comparing the commonality in equipment with the Gull VI / Vega Gull with the Mew. The 'standard' Mews used the same spats too (Strictly only a fairing anyway.), so the distinction is meaningless in that context and was correct. The E1 originaly used the strutted u/c off the Gull IV, and the E3 was a more narrow version of the E2H's. I thought this page was about Mew Gulls, not just one or one pilot..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.65.248 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about making major edits without consulting the talk page. A very large quote from Desmond Penrose was recently inserted and may need revision or editing, Make a case for the change here. I was reluctant to simply "slash" a good faith edit without further discussion. BTW an "anon" or any contributor/editor calling another editor a troll is not considered acceptable. FWIWBzuk 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The original short reference that covered the episode in question was factual, ample and germain to the Type Hisory. Quoting a huge tract from Alex' Henshaws book (Presumably to assuage Penrose. Perhaps he should start his own page...)is not. People can read Henshaw's book for all that. The insertion also threw out the chronology of the modifications to the machine in question, which you keep re-buggering. The quote is from A.H's book anyway, not Penrose. "BTW an "anon" or any contributor/editor calling another editor a troll is not considered acceptable." I was quoting you Einstein. Evidently irony doesn't travel well......... In any event, this page isn't about one machine or one pilot. It's supposed to be about Mew Gulls. A no-brainer I would have thought. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.65.248 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are fighting with but it isn't me, another editor made a "good faith" edit; it's contingent on subsequent editors to improve rather than revert the edit. Taking it up here is the proper forum. BTW – knock off the taunts, that's completely uncalled for. Bzuk 13:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Revision required for type history section

A recent addition to the section has enlarged the section appreciably. The suggestion to revise the information to more closely adhere to an encyclopedic format has been forwarded through a note in the edit history of a change to the article. This is appropriate and the additional information, if warranted, can be either "pruned" or moved to another article, as per suggestion, to the Alex Henshaw article. Other comments? Bzuk 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"15:16, 4 September 2007 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (18,635 bytes) (Additional reference, a fight over a meaningless point?)" Not at all. It's heading the whole article and prominently colours it with one aside by one person that happened to be picked-up in an on-line article and it is demonstrably not in 'common usage'. That's not a dig at the speaker or the a/c. It's about balance. I always try to imagine the weight of words upon the uninformed reader. I look at it this way, If one says that the Beaufighter was known as the 'Whispering Death', - that's a fair comment and was in very wide and well-documented contemporary usage when the a/c was in service. Spit'. Hurribags, Hallibags, Wimpy, Emil, Dore et al... Aside from the works nickname for the E1 as 'The Beetle-in-boots', the only commonly used epithet for a Mew that I'm aware of was the unofficial late 1930's references to the E3H as the 'Super Mew'. Not that EWP would have approved.... 88.111.70.176 PontiusPilot

Get back to the topic at hand- the article section was the type history that we were discussing.

As to the the lead paragraph, there are now two references cited for verification; as well, the issue was discussed previously. Both authors independently referred to the aircraft in the same words at two different times. I established that as being "common usage" when two contemporary (modern) independent but knowledgeable observers made the same statement. The reason why two different citations were not given is that was not normally the convention for citations.

"Independently"... after both interviewing the same bloke, - probably on the same day? That establishes 'common usage' does it...? That's plain daft. That means that if I get two magazines to quote me as saying that Wiki is 'Anorak Central' it's in 'common usage' is it..??? Mew's have simply been referred to as 'Mew's' since first flown as far as I know, in all the pre-war magazines and books, by their pilots and the people that built, flew and maintained them. A mere 77 years - THAT is common usage IMHO. I honestly don't object to the epithet BTW - per se, just the headline prominence and the inference that it is in 'common usage', which it plainly, factually isn't. Blindingly obvious I'd have though. Both of those magazines are full of the sort of glaring factual errors which is why I contributed to this article in the first place. Not good souces for anything, except filling Wiki pages with misleading crap. That's why some folks think Elvis is living in a menage with Earhart and Noonan..... 88.111.70.176 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the easiest way to "sign" your comments, is to use four "tildes" which will automatically sign your Wikiepdia username and give the exact date. Trace back the edit on this exchange and see how it works. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Getting back the the main article; Can't the details about the Kings Cup go to the Kings Cup page, and the detailed blather about Penrose go to his own page or Henshaw's....? 88.111.70.176 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

- The aircraft was designed for Handicapped Air Racing which gained huge popularity in the U.K. during the 1920's and especially 1930's, - the so-called 'Golden Age' of aviation. The King's Cup Race, an annual handicapped air racing event developed to aid in the development of British light aircraft, was considered to be the 'Blue-Riband' event. Mew Gulls went on, ultimately, to win this event four times

+ The aircraft was designed for handicapped air racing which gained huge popularity in the UK during the 1920s and especially 1930s – the so-called "Golden Age" of aviation. The King's Cup Race, an annual handicapped air racing event developed to aid in the development of British light aircraft, was considered to be the "Blue-Riband" event. Ultimately, Mew Gulls went on to win this event four times.

Just what in Gods name is the POINT in this sort of editing...????????????? It isn't even good English. Why does everything have to be 'dumbed-down'....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.133.218 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Percival Mew Gull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not citevar

same format and I fixed bare urls and dead links!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you said, you DID change the reference format -[1] changed the format for the reference for the specifications - while [2] this changed the format of references (and also removed cites without any explanation or changed cites to ones that cannot support the claimed text - how can a 1934 magazine article be used to talk about what is happening at Shuttleworth like you claimed [3] - if you are that careless then you really need to slow down or stop these mass changes.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clearly not the same format. In the Auster AOP.6 article you (PB) have changed the citation format and added a citation needed tag to the range figure which was already sourced to Green. It is convention that specs sections only use one source wherever possible with one citation to avoid clutter. Why is the range being questioned? A Gipsy Major burns roughly six gallons an hour, more at high power. 23 gallons divided by six is 3.8, 3.8 times 94 (knots cruise speed) is 357 nautical miles, 315 nm seems entirely correct allowing for a reserve margin. Can you explain the need for the citation needed tag for a sensible value that was already sourced? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Green state the range for the AOP6? If so, it can be restored.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, I have the book in my hand. I restored it but was reverted. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Registration data

The registration record at http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_G-A5.html and subsequent pages disagrees with the aircraft details on several points:

Yes, it has two entries for G-ACDN, but note that only one has a CoR identified. Moreover it records the later 1935 machine as the one which crashed, the original 1934 one being the one that was burned. I have therefore merged the entries for this registration unless and until some verifiable clarity is obtained.

It describes all the Mew Gulls as the Percival P.6 model, none of this E.1/E.2 stuff. I am not sure what to do about this. Where do the E numbers come from? They are reminiscent of, but not the same as, the manufacturer's construction numbers.

Baragwanath is recorded as the owner Halse's home base, so ascribing it as the aircraft's name requires verification. I have deleted the name unless and until some verifiable clarity is obtained.

Here is the raw registration data:

G-ACND	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E20	G-ACND	Percival Aircraft Co Ltd	26.01.34	4758	Burnt Luton 7.7.45

G-ACND	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E20A	G-ACND	Percival Aircraft Co Ltd	18.07.35	-	Crashed nr Angouleme France 10.35

G-AEKL	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E21	G-AEKL	unknown >Air Publicity Ltd/Heston >CE Gardner /Hamsey Green >GG Brent /Ipswich	30.06.36	7068	Destroyed by enemy bombing Lympne 1.9.40

G-AEMO	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E23	G-AEMO ZS-AHO	SS Halse/Baragwanath SA	17.08.36	7267	Sold South Africa 9.36

G-AEXF	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E.22 & PFA 13-10020	ZS-AHM G-AEXF	A Henshaw/ Heston	18.05.37	7820	Wfu 11.10.69 restored 28.4.70

G-AFAA	Percival P.6 Mew Gull	E24	X-2 G-AFAA	Percival Aircraft Ltd/ Luton	14.07.37	7996	Burnt Luton 7.7.45

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Type numbers of E.1, E.2 and E.3H are used in a 1990 article in Air Britain Archive - "The Whole Truth: Percival Mew Gull". Archive. No. 4. Air Britain. 1990. pp. 97–100. ISSN 0262-4923.. The article states that it was c/n E.20 (or at least the bits that didn't up in c/n E.20A) that was burnt at Luton together with C/n E.24 in 1945 (p. 97), and that E.20A was the one that crashed in France in October 1935 (p. 98). It states that E.23 was registered to Stanley Seward Halse, Baragwanath, Jo-burg, and was named "Barawanath" and painted "pillar box red with gold lettering" (p. 100). There is probably later, more accurate scholarship than this.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That source needs citing in the article. One more puzzle; if ZS-AHM was later re-registered as G-AEMO and sold in SA in 1936, can it really have been written off when it crashed, as the article currently states? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c/n E.23 was built as G-AEMO which became ZS-AHO which crashed on 1 October 1936 in Rhodesia during the Schlessinger race - the remains were taken to SA and stored, with the engine returned to the US and used in G-AECL. c/n E.22 was originally ZS-AHM, later becoming G-AEXF of Alex Henshaw fame and has been rebuilt more times than the human mind can comfortably comprehend.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Found a copy of the source online here, so I'll have a read. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Fighter

The article on emergency fighter mentions, in a single line, a plan to fit one of these aircraft with a pair of machine guns in case of a critical shortage of fighters. There's no source and this article doesn't say anything about it. While the type has a vague resemblance to e.g. the Miles M20 and Martin Baker MB2 it seems much too small to work as a fighter. Was it seriously considered? On a complete tangent G-HEKL was at Middle Wallop's Wheels and Wings earlier today. It stood out because it looked fast. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of the emergency fighter story. Percival did advertise it as suitable for fighter training in 1938/9, for example this in Flight (1939): "Although essentially a racing and sporting type, the Percival Mew Gull can also be used for fast mail carrying or fighter-training work. Even with a range of 860 miles the payload, in addition to the pilot, is 483 lb." But the idea was never taken seriously; at that time the Miles Magister/Master and NA Harvard were coming into service in far greater numbers than Miles could spin out at a moment's notice. Even as a trainer it appears to have been just a far-fetched sales pitch of no encyclopedic value. I suspect that we have an over-enthusiastic fanboi to rein back here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

I see the specs are for the prototype in its first state. This seems somewhat peculiar; I would have thought it more appropriate to give the specs for a representative example. Is there simply nothing reliable available? I have something I would describe as reliable(ish), one of a slipcased set of 'data sheets' published around 1937/8. However they are little use as a cite because there seems to be no publisher data that I can see.TheLongTone (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they were all different, there was no such thing as a standard machine. The nearest thing would probably be the salient airframe features of the E2H which actually managed to stay the same, at least when first built. Even there, engines specified by the client, and everything dependent on them, varied. Most of them went through various modifications and engine changes, frequently accompanied by modified cowlings and spinners if nothing else. The most famous, and the only survivor, was the most heavily and frequently modified of the lot. If there is such a thing as a default E2H fit with say Gipsy Six II engine and accompanying prop and spinner, that would be the one to go for. Sadly, I do not have the time to do much about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the problem, but the example for which details are given is most unrepresentive, with a totally differeent engine and a much shorter fuselage....the other examples might have varied slightly in length due do different props or whatyever, and I know there were variant wings.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found out that there are specs for G-AFAA in British Rqcing Aircraft and I propose replacing the specs given with these. It's a short span Gull, but I think more representative than the (rather short and Dagger engined) prototype in its first iteration.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any other variant is better than the sole Javelin-powered (which I presume you mean) E1. [Signed late, sorree!] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indded I do. Slip of the brain. Don't have the book with me today, but will do it soon. Changing the subject, I have a reliable ref for Arthur Bage's work on the type (Harald Penrose's Britich Aviation , but am not entirely sure its worth a mention. All aircraft design involves considerablee input from draughtsman & so on. Any thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If his work was significant and helped give the plane its salient characteristics, go for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was draughtsman and later chief draughtsman & also did the stressing calculations. But who designed Percival aircraft might be a murky issue; there was some dispute about how much of the Gull design was his & how much was 'derived' from the Hendy 302.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the dispute might give the topic notability. But comparing the first Mew Gull with the 302 it is clearly a different design. Possibly it has a similar girder-style box spar, but that is hardly a notable ripoff unless RS say it is. If it's just some fanboi storm in a teacup, then definitely not notable. Also, draughtsman and stress engineer are not "design" roles as such, so anything of the airframe that he did design would need good RS. It's probably OK to mention him as draughtsman and stressman, but I'd go no further than that without multiple RS to back it up. Just my opinion, anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hendy thing is to do with the wing structure, which I understand had a patented torsional bracing. My source for this is Harald Penrose, who is not in my view 100% reliable but is a very good source for contemporary industry scuttlebutt. In this case the dispute is well sourced. My feeling about Bage is that he probably is worth a mention in the article on the company, but not in those on individual aircraft. I've just ordered a book about Percival, so will wait until this arrives & I've consulted it before doing any more.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to that! Info on these planes is hard to find. Since one of them remains all-time class record holder in the Kings Cup, that is little short of scandalous. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[My post was reverted] As for 'citing' - maybe you'd like to cite where you got all your 'correct' facts from? 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:8898:5D5E:BDE2:19F3 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [personal attacks redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)][reply]

In "five or six" built, you deleted "six", despite the fact that the source cited at the end of the paragraph states "a total of six machines". That left your claim contradicting the cited source. Further down, you made several contentious claims without citing your sources. On Wikipedia, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claims, not on those who doubt them. For what it's worth, you also added editorial value judgements, which is something we do not do here. I am sure you feel strongly about all this, but Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs - it is a place to record what RS say. If you see claims in the article which are not supported by reliable sources, by all means tag them for further examination - better still, cite a source with the correct information and fix them accordingly. But take care to avoid unjustified conclusions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to explain why I was exactly correct about G-ACND. It was a DEVELOPMENT machine. Engines aside, it first had the wing replaced - and carried-on flying with the ORIGINAL fuselage. Later, the fuselage was replaced - and was then re-designated an E2. At NO TIME did TWO SEPARATE MACHINES EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY. How do we know this....? Look at the photographic records - they ARE documents - and speak for themselves - and are more reliable than books written by enthusiasts over half a century later. So no, strictly speaking, there were FIVE machines. Period. You want to prove there were six....? Prove it...well, you can't. Incidentally - in ALL of the books describing the Mew, there are contradictory 'facts' - and misunderstandings. This is a perfect example. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:8964:8036:F636:2DA3 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your reverted post, and it says a great deal about how fit you are to edit on wikipedia. And I've reverted your edit about an erroneous designation. If this is widely used in (otherwise) reliable sources, cite it; otherwise abstain.TheLongTone (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot if you knew what you were talking about. As for 'Fit'...? All I'm concerned about are FACTS - and not allowing rubbish to be promulgated to The Great Unwashed. Knowing, as I do, how Wiki works (Too many 'editors' who lack subject knowledge.) - I take all Wiki entries with a bucket full of salt. Sadly - the average punter only reads it - and has little - if anything to add. I have nothing whatsoever to add to 99.999999r% of Wikipedia - but it just so happens that this is a subject that I CAN point in the direction of historical FACTS.

READ what I have replied to Steelpillow with regards to the 'P6' rubbish. Then you can re-insert the revert - if facts are of any concern to you.

BTW - well-done for removing that absurd 'Holy Grail' drivel. I have tried many times to remove that and it was reverted and I was blocked. No good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia....!

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:8AE:6C46:FF4D:550A (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is a perfect example of conflicting sources is of course why it is also a perfect example of the importance of citing those sources, so that other editors can see for themselves. This you have not done. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth, it is not a place to right great wrongs. If WP:RS truly differ over whether one should count five or six, then we need to reflect that here. So far, we have one source which flatly states six. I ask you again, where are your sources? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. The SERIAL development of G-ACDN is inarguable as extant images show it in intermediate states of build. It's ONE a/c - a slam-dunk.

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:A51F:CE40:BBB1:BDAF (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P 6 designation

The Internet is rife with sources that give the Mew Gull the designation P 6. See for example this search on "Percival P 6". Its use is so widespread that we ought to mention it here. But contemporary records show clearly that the type was designated the E, with variants E1, E2 and E3. So what can we say about this P 6 meme? How did it arise? Does it have any historical validity? The above search offered no obvious enlightenment, while RS are as hard to track down on this matter as any about the Mew Gull are. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Mew Gulls were - and are - E-Series, absolutely without exception. E1/E2, E2H and E3H. All pre-war wooden Percival machines had their own letter designation - Gulls were D and Vega Gulls K-series etc. After Edgar Percival was pushed-out of the company early in the war when Huntings took-over, it effectively became another company. Production of wooden Percival designs - at Percivals factory basically ended and almost all production at Luton switched to the Mosquito - and production of Proctors was largely outsourced to other factories around the UK. Huntings took over, and all new designs were thereafter designated P...... So far so good.

However, Huntings employed an eastern-European gentleman who had the bright idea of RETROSPECTIVELY giving P-series designations to all previous Percival designs. It was, of course, totally nonsensical - rather like saying a 1959 Morris Minor is a 'British Leyland Minor'....! It never really caught on - just a paperwork exercise in the office and bluntly, Huntings really had no further interest whatsoever in Percivals older designs and wooden aircraft generally - except the Mosquito for the war effort. Percivals never designed any more wooden aircraft - and Percivals chief designer, Arthur Bage left the company. However some anoraks have tried to keep this P..... nonsense alive - largely through sheer ignorance. Lets be absolutely crystal-clear ;- NO pre-war Percivals were EVER built as a P - anything. They are, correctly, whatever they were built as. Thus, it's important for the Mew Gull Wiki page to firmly set the record straight. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:8AE:6C46:FF4D:550A (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That certainly fits well with what we see today. But Wikipedia requires citation of a suitable source, to add it to the article as it stands would be original research, which is not allowed here. The Hunting staffer who came up with these P designations must have promulgated them somehow, but who first published them, and where? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the P..... thing was really intended as a bit of internal bureaucratic tidying-up for the new regime after Huntings took -over in September 1944, and certainly post EWP's departure. (He was shunted-off to the USA early in the war - probably to just get him out of the way.). When the list was seen post war, a few enthusiasts picked-up on it....by which time, the whole pre-war cycle of events was becoming a dim memory. Today, the chief culprits are websites, sellers on eBay, and those with only a passing knowledge or interest. There there are about five books which, whilst not dedicated to the Mew, touch on it. As I recall, they all refer to it as E1/E2, E2H & E3H.

Citing ;-

First mention, must go to the late R. John Silvester, who wrote 'Percival & Hunting Aircraft'(ISBN 0 9513386 0 X.) of 1987. Significantly, John worked in EWP's drawing office under Arthur A.Bage after R.H.Bound had left. P56-68 refers. All references to Mews are as I have described, and exactly as expected, the post Hunting machines all have P.... designations. This book should be considered as a primary source and is perfectly explicit about these designations.

Another much slimmer tome written by an ex-Employee is Norman Ellison's 'Percivals Aircraft'. (ISBN 0 7524 0774 0.) 1997.

See also ;-

'Flight of the Mew Gull' by Alex Henshaw, (ISBN 0 7195 3740 1.) 1980.

'On The Wings Of A Gull' by David W. Gearing (ISBN 978 0 85130 449 0.)2012.

'Percival Aircraft, Edgar Percival, The Man & His Legacy' A.W.J.G Orde-Hume. ( ISBN 978 1 84033 618 4.) 2013.

'British Racing & Record-Breaking Aircraft'by Peter Lewis (ISBN 0 370 00067 6.) 1971.

There is, however, a caveat to all these book, in that my copies all have dozens of Post-It notes protruding from them, where I have highlighted errors - even by ex-employees. Ideally, it's really necessary to have read all this - as well as all the technical publications, to really get to all the facts.

Anyway - the point is that the Mew article should point-out that the 'P6' designation in wrong. They were - and are historically - what they were built as - unless you can point me to a 1959 'British Leyland Minor'....!

Phew. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:8AE:6C46:FF4D:550A (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just got my hands on the Sylvester book...which actually says that the prototype was destroyed when Guy de Chateaubrun had to bail out of it. Clearly whether there were five or six built depends on whether the 'prototype' counts as one or two aircraft, and (imo) its a case of there being two aircraft but pretending that there was only one, the registration being transferred to the rebuild & it having having the c/n 20a. I can't imagine much beyond the wheels being of much use for the rebuild after that. As regards the P6 designation, I had not come across this until I noticed that it was used in the (linked elsewhere on this page) list of civil registrations. I do think that if this stands (you may have noticed I reverted my last removal of it) I think some explanation of it is needed. After all there is a huge amount of the simply wrong floating about, and most of it is simply not worth mentioning.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all an informational equivalent of Gresham's Law....TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, I was also beguiled by the popular misconception that G-ACDN was two a/c. It was NOT. (Bear in mind my caveat about errors - even by ex-employees....!) Factually G-ACDN was NOT two a/c, as I have explained here several times. Again;- G-ACDN It was built with the R.H.Bound-designed short fuselage and small wing. It then flew with the larger flapped A.A.Bage-designed wing. Then the fuselage was replaced with the Bage-designed version - a series of SERIAL modifications to the SAME machine. It was in this final configuration that it crashed in France. What was left of earlier iterations - and what became of them, is really immaterial. It is perfectly normal for development aircraft to shed whole section - but not change their ID. In fact, in service, engines, wings and virtually whole fuselages can be replaced, but the ID stays with the machine and it's serial-number if it's military. Modern rebuilds of machines such as Spitfires often progress from a mere data plate. As with the 'P6' rubbish, this idea of two machines is given life merely through repetition - which is why the Wiki entry needs correcting. The irrebuttable proof of the above is the many extant images of 'ND in it's various SERIAL configurations. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:A51F:CE40:BBB1:BDAF (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no problem in accepting what you say, thank you for your full account. The problem here is that Wikipedia demands we stick to published "reliable" sources. The only exception is where another, more reliable source contradicts it. Even pointing out the sequence of changes in the photos needs explicit sourcing, otherwise gainsaying the published sources is deemed "original research" on our part. Frustrating for those of us who know the truth but cannot prove it because it comes from unpublished private or personal sources. Sometimes we just have to accept that Wikipedia's rules oblige us to get it wrong. I think the best we can do here is to try and present both sides impartially, as in "five or six" and so on, and at least not kill the truth off. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's rules might seem sound......in theory. However - all of the images to which I refer are actual contemporary images that were also widely PUBLISHED in magazines such as 'Flight' & 'The Aeroplane' at the time - that's about as good as such historic references get - bearing in mind all the stupid howlers in the books that are available that cover the Mew. That's in no way 'original research' either. I have a pretty comprehensive collection of these original wet-process prints - many taken directly from original glass negatives. However, it seems pretty pointless me posting material - only to have it picked-apart and every word moved on a whim - to then misrepresent what I have put together. Bear in mind that most of the factual material in this page was either put there by me or corrected by me. The words 'task' and 'thankless' come to mind.

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:38BD:D8BB:9A43:FECD (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That sounds like one important collection! But even where the images are staring you in the face, Wikipedia regards it as OR to interpret that as article text (I agree that is overly strict, but we are stuck with it). In the case of the DH Comet racer I was moved to publish a booklet collating all the new information, photographs and text sources. It was endorsed by the Comet Racer Restoration Project and received high praise from Aeroplane, and in consequence is being accepted by other editors here as a reliable source. I don't suppose you have that much material available, but if you would consider preparing an illustrated article for publication I am sure you could find an interested journal. As you are an IP editor here the wiki email system is not available, but if you like you can find my contact details easily enough at www.steelpillow.com — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the photos appeared in 'Flight' and/or 'The Aeroplane' (Often repeatedly.) - why can't those issues (Of the magazines.) be cited....? What's the difference...? I don't have the time or motivation to generally edit on Wiki other than a couple of related subjects, but I can think of many pages where, if all the strictly un-cited material was deleted...then good information would be lost - and very little would remain, so clearly, a level of compromise already exists. The rules seem to be a moving target requiring significant deflection.

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:A8F2:A924:FE21:89DA (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's knowing which pages of which issues to dig up, and not all those back numbers are available online. Trawling through dozens of bound volumes at the NAL or BL is not practicable for many of us. Then again, copyrights can be a problem here. Are you able to at least help with those issue dates and page numbers? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a collection of both - where issues intersect with my interests - but at the moment, I'd struggle to lay my hands on them. Flight did have all the old issues online, but sadly they shut that down and have only partially restored access. I'm told, however, that most stuff can be hunted-down via the Wayback machine. As for copyright - I was under the impression that if use was for educational purposes it was OK....? Anyway, Flights images are very widely used. Unfortunately, there is no access to the Aeroplane archives - other than old copies of magazines. Image quality is is poor - but usually good enough to establish the points such as the serial modifications to 'ND. Of course, a lot of older material was out of copyright anyway - until the EU updated the copyright system. Not sure if those rules apply to a US-based platform such as Wiki....? 'Fair Usage'....?

V. 2A00:23C5:2845:6F00:A8F2:A924:FE21:89DA (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine is very patchy, often one gets the holding page but not the PDF itself. I have found some Aeroplane issues as plain text, which can be downloaded and searched - one issue at a time. Copies of whole Flight issues up to 1948 can now be downloaded from the Internet Archive [=mediatype%3A%22texts%22&and[]=subject%3A%22Flight+International+Magazine%22 here] but the old page-based search/view is gone. One Wikipedia editor obtained specific permission to release some of their aircraft photos on the Wikimedia Commons, but it is not generally allowed. Copyrights allow personal academic research, but not publishing in any way (e.g. this encyclopedia). If you have original negatives and the like, that makes the copyright yours to publish or license as you please. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]