As requested on my Ryan PT22 thread, here is the history of my aircraft –
No. 1203 of 1230 Magisters built for the RAF, V1075, serial no. 2228, was delivered to No. 27 Maintenance Unit (MU) at Shawbury on 9.12.40 before being issued to No.16 Elementary Flying Training Squadron (EFTS) at Burnaston on 2.1.41.
Its service career ended on 9.11.42 when it was placed in storage at No.51 MU at Lichfield and it was finally sold on 4.12.47 for £50.
Registered G-AKPF and ‘civilianised’ by Wolverhampton Aviation Ltd, the aircraft was granted its initial Certificate of Airworthiness on 23.4.48. It had a rather chequered career as a flying school aircraft, principally with Air Schools Ltd at Wolverhampton and Burnaston, and according to the logbooks was damaged and rebuilt a number of times.
Ron Paine flew the aircraft to victory in the Magister Race at Thruxton on 21.8.49. It also gained third place in the 1958 Kings Cup Air Race at a speed of 128mph.
The last recorded flight was from RAF Wattisham on 1.5.62.
Stored outside, wingless and in semi-derelict condition at Hadleigh, the aircraft was eventually purchased in 1969 for £80. Restoration was commenced by The East Anglian Aviation Society in 1970 but not completed, the project passing to Adrian Brook, West Sussex in 1989 for completion by him at Shoreham.
The aircraft made its first post-restoration flight on July 21st 1990 with Adrian at the controls.
So, thats the simple story. However, there is a twist to the tale!
I am relying on Man on the Fence to post the relevant logbook page here but suffice it to say – a decision was made during repairs in the 50’s to retain the identity despite the fact that the fuselage was replaced.
It seems probable that the reason for not adopting the identity of the replacement fuselage was simply because KPF had a CofA and the fuselage used was from an aircraft that had never been ‘civilianised’.
Enquiries reveal that the fuselage was N3788, a much earlier 1938 machine.
The beautiful scheme currently worn is incorrect for V1075. It would have been camo top and yellow bottom. It would not have worn those gorgeous spats either. However, the scheme is 100% correct for N3788.
The dilemna now is to paint over V1075 and apply N3788 – a job that isn’t so straighforward as it sounds in terms of paint matching and getting rid of the previous markings (no problem on a back to metal job but the Maggie is of course made of tree) – or do I apply the lovely but completely spurious CFS aerobatic scheme (yellow but with all upper surfaces in a red/ white chequerboard) proposed by Damien B and subsequently/ widely supported by contributors to this forum a few months back?
Anyway, there you have it. My aircraft is a composite machine but with a continous and fascinating history.
Like so many of these aircraft, airframe parts were routinely swapped to keep them flying. Post-war, they were as cheap as chips to buy and thus invariably operated on a shoestring.
In the early 60’s, just before mine was retired from service, it was an absolute shed. Lets see what photos we can get posted on this thread.
Thank you again for the interest in my flying machines. The Magister is priceless to me. A beauty to look at and a honey to fly. It is probably the easiest taildragger (well maybe a close run thing with the Condor I learned on back in the 70’s) ever.
I am priviledged to own and operate it and keep my fingers crossed that it will give me and many others ( on the ground or in the passenger seat) many more years of pleasure.
Over to you MotF please!
HP
By: Hairyplane - 13th July 2004 at 18:01
Old Buckenham
Hi Yak 11.
It was indeed my aircraft. Regrettably, it ‘had the bonnet up’ throughout the morning – the (pneumatic) flaps failed inbound and began drooping on the downwing leg. An unpleasant protracted float on the downhill grass – I reckon you could soar a Maggie on a good day!
We literally tied the operating arms up with para-cord that I had chopped off my chocks and flew back to OW. I was due to display the Ryan (and the Maggie) there in the afternoon so couldn’t stay.
The good news was – I met up there with Laurie Taylor, the guy who saved the aircraft in the 60’s from an almost certain ‘November 5th fate’. Respect!
HP
By: Yak 11 Fan - 13th July 2004 at 09:02
Hairyplane,
Was your aircraft at Old Buckenham for a while on the show day a couple of weeks ago? When I arrived I saw a Maggie close to where our Auster was parked but didn’t manage to get over in time before you started up and departed.
By: Hairyplane - 13th July 2004 at 08:59
My whizzer
A big thank you to all recent posters – I am learning more about the history of my aircraft every day.
CL5 – Do you think you might either source some photos for me or point me in the right direction? I wonder if Ron Paine’s estate has any photos of him and my Maggie? Great to include them in the history file if so.
Albert Ross – My goodness, you are knowledgable!
I agree that the vertical surfaces on my aircraft are the later, taller items. However, if you read the WW2 Farnborough test reports you will understand why there are no Magisters with the earlier (a la my Falcon!) fin/ rudder. Logically then, had the CFS machine survived, it would likely have been modded! Indeed, it was probably scrapped ‘just because’. I dont know that they ever did retrofit the latter components in WW2. However, the mod was very sensible – I think one would be nuts to retrofit the earlier items.
The CFS scheme is 1938, as is my fuselage, so that fits. I would of course need to apply the CFS registration. However, V1075 would appear to be a spurious ID anyway.
I do like the civvy scheme and a civvy Maggie would be nice. However, I dont think I could grind down those lovely cowlings to accept the paint and then rip the spats off!
Also, to do the CFS scheme, the lower fuselage and underneath remain yellow.
It will therefore remain in a military scheme, and with no immediate plans to do anything at all.
All the best
HP
By: JDK - 13th July 2004 at 01:13
I’d like to see the change to the CFS scheme, but love it as it is too. So whatever, it’s a winner. (And it is, Mr HP, it is…)
By: ALBERT ROSS - 12th July 2004 at 21:43
I agree with Webpilot and that the fuselage is the ‘heart of the plane’ and that you should change the serial to N3788, but have reservations about the CFS scheme because it has the wrong tail. Why not solve the dilemma by putting it back to G-AKPF in the two-tone blue scheme?
By: Charlielima5 - 12th July 2004 at 21:35
Very interesting to read of Ron Paine’s part in this Magister’s history – but people may not yet know that Ron passed away last month on 13th June at the age of 90. He had a fascinating and distinguished aviation career starting as an apprentice with Vickers Aviation at Brooklands in 1928 and ultimately becoming the first MD of British Midland Airways in 1965! He was of course probably best known for his postwar air-racing with the Hawk Speed Six G-ADGP. When Adrian Brook first brought ‘KPF to a Brooklands fly-in a few years ago, Ron was delighted to be reunited with one of ‘his’ Magisters – having worked for both 16EFTS and Wolverhampton Aviation.
By: Dave Homewood - 12th July 2004 at 11:55
Thanks Hairyplane for posting the history of your lovely aircraft. It has an interesting story.
I too love the yellow scheme, though it may be an interesting one for the future to repaint it in the CFS scheme mentioned as it would really be an eyecatcher. Maybe if you bought a second Magister you could have your cake and eat it too. 🙂
Cheers
Dave
By: Andy in Beds - 12th July 2004 at 07:49
Trainer Yellow….
I agree with Robbo
Now we’ve lost the yellow Tutor scheme at OW please keep your aircraft all over trainer yellow.
It’s my all time favorite aircraft livery.
Andy
By: Arabella-Cox - 11th July 2004 at 20:55
Hairyplane’s Maggie is, to me at least, the prettiest aeroplane I’ve ever seen. The all yellow scheme soaks up all available light and then blasts it back out in a glorious glow. On centenary day at Old Warden she positively shone, and whenever I’ve seen her elsewhere she invokes a smile and a loving sigh. She’s a familiar and pleasing aeroplane, and she looks good no matter where she is. So in all honesty, I’d be sad to see her change colours.
But that’s just my opinion. Obviously time marches on, paintwork starts to age, and eventually it needs to be re-done. At quite a high cost too I should imagine, bearing in mind the complexities involved in re-marking wooden airframes. So really, my opinion doesn’t matter in the slightest. What I would say though, is that when I look at MotF’s final picture there, of G-AKPF as a wingless and tattered hulk, and compare it to the G-AKPF / V1075 that I gaze longingly at, I’m just glad to see that she’s able to go up there where she belongs.
I guess I’d better just get myself down to OW again before the year is out to fire off a load of shots of her while she’s still in yellow. 😉
By: Manonthefence - 11th July 2004 at 20:20
Sorry it took me so long.
As requested, photos from the Hairyplane Archives
I vote for the CFS Scheme 😀
By: WebPilot - 11th July 2004 at 18:57
Tough decision!
Personally, I regard the fuselage as the “heart” of the aircraft. So I would tend towards N3788, especially as the machine has been rebuilt a few times and so the wings may not have much of V1075 left in them (?).
So N3788 with the CFS Scheme…
Actually, it doesn’t matter. It’s a beautiful aircraft, whatever number is on it and whatever colour it is. I’m awful jealous!
I hope it will continue to delight you up there in it, and us below, for many more years to come.
Sign In
July 11, 2004 at 6:49 pm