![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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).
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).
"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
"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)
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) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
same format and I fixed bare urls and dead links!!-- Petebutt ( talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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).
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).
"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
"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)
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) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- 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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
same format and I fixed bare urls and dead links!!-- Petebutt ( talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)