Talk:Percival Mew Gull

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terminology

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070514220547/http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/february-march/and_then_there_was_one.htm to http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/february-march/and_then_there_was_one.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821090912/http://www.americasflyways.com/jan05story.html to http://www.americasflyways.com/jan05story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717044520/http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/MewGull.html to http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/MewGull.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821090912/http://www.americasflyways.com/jan05story.html to http://www.americasflyways.com/jan05story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: same format and I fixed bare urls and dead links!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you said, you DID change the reference format - changed the format for the reference for the specifications - while  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  - 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Does Green state the range for the AOP6? If so, it can be restored.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not citevar 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Type numbers of E.1, E.2 and E.3H are used in a 1990 article in Air Britain Archive - . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Registration data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Emergency Fighter