Alex Henhaws Static Mew Gull Gift to RAF Museum

As Snapper remarked on an unrelated thread, “can of worms”. I wonder how much of the “original” G-AEXF actually exists. With the mods made by Alex and the various restorations since I doubt there’s much Percival left and possibly not a great deal of Essex Aero, who I think did the mods for Alex. (Haven’t read Flight of the Mew Gull for a while).

Let’s not forget there were two principal parts of Alex Henshaw’s fabulous aviation career.

As well as his pre-war period setting/breaking records he also was in charge of flight testing at Castle Bromwich where Vickers Armstrong were churning out Spitfires and Lancasters for the RAF.

Having said that I believe that the Science Museum ought to have been the most suitable repository for his papers and a Mew Gull. Like others have said I feel uncomfortable with the RAF Museum acquiring/displaying non-military aircraft (excepting the British Airways collection at Cosford).

But, to an outsider, the RAFM appear to have a positive (one could say agressive) attitude to expansion and the Science Museum do not.

Percival Mew Gull G-AEXF is, surely, one of the most important individual British civil aircraft – certainly amongst those that have survived. It (the “real” ‘EXF) would sit (or hang) equally with the Vimy and Moth at South Kensington. A new-build replica could do the flying.

Roger Smith.

Wright Flyer, The Smithsonian and the Science Museum.

See: Science Museum

The original Wright Flyer was placed in the Science Museum by Orville Wright in 1928, but was returned to the United States in 1948.

And: The Smithsonian telling a bit more of this shocking case of fraud.

The Wright Flyer began to acquire its status of national tr asure in the 1920s with the growing feud between Orville Wright and the Smithsonian Inst tution. The dispute revolved around the Smithsonian’s misleading public display of the aeronauti al achievements of its former Secretary, Samuel P. Langley, and the Institution’s reluctance to proper y credit the Wright brother as the true inventors of the airplane. The dispute was not resolved un il the early1940s, and the Flyer was not given to the Smithsonian.

****

In 1925, Orville decided to use the Flyer as leverage to shame the Smithsonian into correcting its stance. He announced that he would loan it to the Science Museum in London. Surely, Orville believed, the American people would not stand to have the world’s first airplane, built in America, by Americans, exiled to a foreign land. Orville had drawn his line in the sand.

****

The Wright Flyer would remain in England until 1948. In its 1942 annual report, the Smithsonian finally published the article, entitled “The 1914 Tests of the Langley Aerodrome,” recanting its views on the Langley matter that Orville wanted. In 1943 he made plans to have the Flyer returned to the United States and transferred to the Smithsonian for public display.
During World War II, the airplane was safely stored with other British national treasures in an underground chamber about 100 miles from London. (Not in the London subway as is sometimes asserted.) After the war, Orville agreed to leave the Flyer at the Science Museum until they could make a copy of it for permanent display.

And the Science Museum has a plaque explaining this story. You can’t trust some museum curators, you know!

Strange – I thought that the Wright Flyer was in the NASM, Washington DC, not South Kensington!

Indeed. And the story of WHY it’s now in the NASAM rather than in the Science Museum, or a Welsh cave and WHY the Science Museum has the only de Havilland Flyer says a lot about museum politics and fakes and fraud. 😉

Bruce – good points, and I generally agree. However in terms of the RAF Museum it’s the only collection that is representing itself as something it’s not, not even has a right to the title. The defence of ‘bigger appeal’ from a bigger title won’t was. To the public Air Force and Aeroplanes are almost synonymous.

As regards women in the museums, the RAAF Museum has just put a very interesting Women in Australian air forces display up for that very reason.

Alex’s papers etc. Yes, I agree they should be preserved, not in the RAF Museum.

True, point taken! Now you mention it they have the ‘de Havilland’ Wright Flyer do they not? It replaced the original aircraft in the 1960’s if memory serves.

Bruce

Confused

The Science Museum is an ‘odd’ collection, and I dont think they would countenance having a replica!

Strange – I thought that the Wright Flyer was in the NASM, Washington DC, not South Kensington!

JDK

You make some good points – fact is there are not many ‘personalities’ from the thirties who have survived to see the present interest in the aircraft of yesteryear. Ten and twenty years ago, there would not have been the interest. I too wondered if there was some degree of ‘self preservation’ in this, and am sure that comes into it. However, this is a feat that deserves to be commemorated. We are perhaps fortunate that Alex is in a position to do this. I am sure you would not disagree that his papers were of national importance, and should be preserved by a national museum?

Now, all the national museums are blurring somewhat – Why? I think it is down to needing to broaden their appeal. There is so much competition these days for leisure cash that all of our attractions are having to find new and different ways of attracting the general public – not the enthusiasts, they will go anyway, but the general public, and to keep them coming back.

Now, and I may get some flak for this, consider the appeal of the average aircraft museum to the average woman. There is none. In general, we find that very often, the women will sit down in the tea bar whilst the men go and look at aeroplanes. However, give them a good story to focus on; such as the Mew Gull adventure, and they will take some interest from it, and engage more in the museum as a whole. By lifting the museum ‘experience’ away from a poorly lit collection of dead mechanical objects, you can bring them alive in a different way, and engage with those who may not have shown an interest before.

(Please, please; the women here are clearly different to those I have portrayed, and share an interest that you must agree is a predominantly male domain. I am not trying to tar everyone with the same brush!)

David is also right in that there are some types that arent getting the attention from national museums. That is something that the BAPC should be getting involved with. Time for them to find their voice once more I feel… But, we must also accept that there will be some types that wont be preserved for one reason or another. We cannot and should not preserve everything…

Will the real David Burke & JDK please stand up. Unprecedented agreement. Oops! 😀

It is because alex has donated his papers,art collection,photos and trophies to the museum

Clunk! The Penny drops.

As for the Mew going to Hendon- I think the idea is for the aircraft to be displayed in the ‘Milestones of Flight’

At last it all makes (some sort of) sense! I cant think why I didnt think of the milestones of Flight, maybe because to date it doesnt include many items that are actually Milestones of flight!!!!!

Thanks for the info chaps, it really does make sense now. In a strange way I am glad that a replica is being built rather than put the real aircraft in there.

JDK- I have to agree on the somewhat blurring of collecting policies with the National museums. The Air-Space concept is good in terms of housing more aircraft but the rational of the Imperial War Museum and what it should be preserving becomes more difficult when you get interesting combat aircraft
which havn’t actually been blooded!
The RAF museum similarily is in a difficult position when they are donated
a Jetstream and then a few years later receive an ex RAF example.
There is a Mohawk waiting in the wings and I am finding it difficult to actually
fit in the collection where these civil types relevance is.
Interestingly the Museum of Flight at East Fortune has abroad remit which maybe we are suffering from ‘down south’. Certainly types like the Carvair need preserving but I cannot see anyone grasping the nettle.
Instead of rivallry in British preservation -the time is long over due
for more rational debate and aircraft exchanges amonst museums.

Hmmm.

As G-ORDY says, The National Aviation Collection is within the brief of the Science Museum.

They have a tight and focussed collection policy, and fulfil their brief as a collection much better than any other equivalent UK organisation. TT – have a look for the answer to your question – I think you’ll be surprised.

They would not be interested in a replica Mew Gull as they are interested either in original representative types (Constellation, Lockheed 10A, Avro 504 Fokker Eindekker) or historic aircraft – Vimy, ‘Jason’, Looker’s Hurricane, S6B, E28/39.

Milestones of Flight is an aspect of the RAF Museum’s attempts to become ‘the’ aviation museum in the UK, IMHO a perversion of their main brief. An open collection may be a good thing, but as they do not represent the Navy in the air at all, the Army only briefly and civil aviation with a couple of pre-war light planes, have no airliners, and a military bias to their history of technology, attempts to show themselves as ‘the’ aviation collection are completely inaccurate – PR spin.

While building and displaying a representation of the Mew Gull (it’s not built by Percival, so it’s not, strictly speaking a replica) is laudable, I feel there is a degree of ego-polishing and preperation for posterity going on here. Alex Henshaw’s achievements are many and well earned. There are other dead pioneers of the thirties not in such a position to spotlight their own achievements. It is not as if the real Mew Gull was no longer about.

If the RAF Museum can find space for a Mew Gull facsimile but can’t find a photo of Sir Sidney Camm* for Milestones, I think they need to re-visit their collection policy. Gift or acquisition is irrelevent; all museums must be adept at politely turning away agenda setting donations.

Not impressed.

(*On the computer screen in the interactives in the Milestones building, under the Hawker aircraft section there was ‘image not available’ for Camm – despite having had a full display of his aircraft previously and having a photo of him on display then. Very, very poor. No points, Mr Fopp.)

I thought that the Science Museum held the “National Aviation Collection” – or did it lose that title?

The Science Museum is an ‘odd’ collection, and I dont think they would countenance having a replica! They have a number of very significant aircraft, but nothing has been added to the collection for years! If they strive to be the ‘National Aviation Collection’ I do feel they need to concentrate on acquiring some real landmark aircraft to supplement what they already have.

I suspect the problem there is one of money, as of course, Aviation is not their ‘core’ responsibility.

Bruce

Hear Hear Bruce.

TT

(P.S. G-ORDY, when did you last hear of the Science Museum acquiring a new aeroplane for their collection)

I dont think space will be a problem; The Mew Gull is a tiny aeroplane.

For those that dont know much about it, or even havent heard of it, get a copy of ‘Flight of the Mew Gull’ by Alex Henshaw.

Henshaw set records in that aeroplane that still stand today. It is wholly fitting that that feat be recognised by a national museum. As mentioned above, Milestones, is the perfect place for it.

Bruce

I thought that the Science Museum held the “National Aviation Collection” – or did it lose that title?

Really, where? Apparently theres tons of stuff at Brunters you don’t get to see on open days, i think theres even a Spitfire somewhere.

The Gull at Brunters is a pretty advanced replica, together with Racing engine -being built for a chap in the states by a VERY skillful friend of ours.

No Spit at Brunters anymore 😮

As for the Mew going to Hendon- I think the idea is for the aircraft to be displayed in the ‘Milestones of Flight’ part- given what our Honorary President did for aviation I cannot think of a better place for it to be 🙂

TT

Hi – Re Duxford

I guess someday they will come up with the cash and build more accomodation – they do a great job for all my reservations about architecture and ambieance and I hope they keep going in this way in the future – I could never have guessed at the progress and expansion there in the past – It is not that long since there was no dough for any sort of Aviation Museum expansion any where – I think we all forget that in the light of the more trivial argument over asthetics . Me included .

Regards
John P

At Duxford, my guess is that they will restore all the aircraft that are outdoors one by one in the conservation bit of Airspace, and then send them back outside until they need work again.

Rlangham

Any idea where the Mew Gull will be put? Last time i went, Hendon was pretty packed out and theres no area she could go as each area has a theme. Cosford possibly, although don’t know where she’d go either as the hangars should be pretty well packed after the cold war exhibition is finished and they bring the other planes inside

.

Isn’t it nice to be talking about expansion at Cosford – great to see the new (Ugly though) accomodation going in – The big aircraft are always vulnerable – look at Duxford – I just hope they get more accomodation in time to save all the stuff outside.

Regards
John P

Any idea where the Mew Gull will be put? Last time i went, Hendon was pretty packed out and theres no area she could go as each area has a theme. Cosford possibly, although don’t know where she’d go either as the hangars should be pretty well packed after the cold war exhibition is finished and they bring the other planes inside.