Shuttleworth Discovery

The Pixie III did actually fly very well once the engine was replaced with the much more reliable Bristol Cherub. As I mentioned in an earlier post I have a photocopy of the logbook – which includes all of the flights in both the 1924 and 1926 Lympne Trials. It also details all of the work done on the aircraft, down to the component numbers of the individual parts. It was this discovery which led to the realisation that “No 14” in the 1926 trials was actually G-EBJG and not G-EBKK as had been published in the first edition of AJJ’s “British Civil Aircraft”.

After the trials it had a 10 year career with the Bristol & Wessex Aeroplane Club, amongst other owners, and put in plenty of cross-country flights without mishap.

Out of all the Lympe Trials aircraft the Pixie III was the most successful – in terms of being flown as a practical two-seater. Remarkable considering the Cherub only puts out a nominal 32hp.

I researched the history and structure of this aircraft, and the three single seaters – finding photographic proof that there were indeed three single-seaters, one of which later became G-EBKM. It too survived well into the 1930s – based for a time at Old Warden when owned by Geoff Chamberlain & Sid Miles.

The only drawings are ones published in the aeronautical press at the time – I posted a sample earlier.

If somebody were interested I still feel that a modern reproduction could be built quite easily and powered by a VW conversion or something similar it would make a very pretty “retro-style” homebuilt.

If anyone is interested I have many more photos of all of the Pixies (one is even in RAF markings!)

Roger,
Thanks for the extra background on the material in my picture. I’ll try and find the rest of the batch I took in there and hopefully you can identify some more of the flying surfaces and components that sat amongst the more recognisable aircraft fuselages- very interesting. So far as the Pixie goes – I agree with David Burke to the extent that it is an artifact and should be conserved. I believe, however, that it might gain more attention and understanding by the observer if it were able to be incorporated into a static rebuild, which hopefully didn’t compromise (by any loss or excessive replacement) the originality of the components that survive. I totally accord with his views that it should not be restored to fly on two grounds: a) to restore it to fly would require almost complete replacement of any original components to ensure structural integrity and strength b) in effect this would then be a replica and if a replica is feasible then the existing components could be used as patterns without their destruction or abandonment as ongoing exhibits. There are, of course, examples of good quality replicas / reproductions such as the Hawker Cygnet, which flies – whereas the original safely survives as a static. In Holland they have statically restored the BAT Bantam (ex Shuttleworth) and I believe were going to (or are) using the data from the restoration to enable a flyable replica to be constructed. Maybe this would be the best way to go – but it’s all pure conjecture as the MAM must call the shots as the owners.

I took the photograph (mentioned in a post above) of the Pixie 111 G-EBJG that was published in Wrecks & Relics 16th edition. I took that shot in Nov 1997. The picture (the original slide of which I can’t lay my hands on just now) depicted the fuselage and tailplane and you could see the various cowlings placed on the ground in front of it. The aircraft was then (and still is) in their Robbin hangar. Although now it is relegated out of view behind the more glamourous but far less rare Sea Harrier.

I attach for your enjoyment here a scan of another slide of G-EBJG which I took earlier, back in 1988. It was then stored in a brick building which had no windows and was adjacent to the Museum’s old location on the site. A while later I recall that the Pixie’s rudder appeared on display for a while upstairs in their new hangar – but it’s no longer there and I wonder if it can be located now.

The store in which I took the attached photo contained a number of interesting machines, including the Messenger (now moved on). It also held components of the Wheeler Slymph G-ABOI (built (I think in Iraq) by Alan Wheeler, the one time doyen of the Shuttleworth collection. It never flew). I say components – well what I was shown comprised no more than remnants such as wheels plus (literally) a tea chest of small components / bits of wood. I recall seeing a photo in Control Column of ‘BOI taken in woods at Old Warden. It was then sitting on its wheels and comprised a complete but fabric-less fuselage minus engine. I fear the Slymph is beyond resurrection – but the Pixie deserves better. It is a fascinating example of one of the Lympne trials aircraft and interesting in having flown in both monoplane and biplane configuration. The MAPS subsequent MAM must be congratulated on keeping the remains under cover all these years. As, however, it doesn’t seem to fit with MAM’s primary themes and it needs very specialist woodworking and associated skills to properly restore, maybe it could be released or swapped to enable someone with relevant will and resources to bring it back to at least static glory?

The picture attached shows the inverted fuselage with tailplane and elevators stacked against it. The picture was taken using flash as it was pitch black in there! Enjoy.

Ahh the old Lairage. The Museum was able to include this ex Airport Cattle Lairage in it’s rental of it’s museum site off Coventry Council. The building was a reasonable size but never in good condition and whilst not offering the best of cover for it’s contents it was the best we could afford.

Also seen in Consul’s photo: as he says the Pixie fuselage is inverted – you can see the two undercarraige legs pointing up and the rear piece of fuselage is poked into the main section. Behind is one wing off the Crossley Tom Thumb and one of two R.E.8 propellors the Museum has (most R.E.8 s were built by Coventry firms). In the foreground are, I think, the two wings from Luton Minor, G-BAPC. These were obtained from Scotland and I have always thought from the first Minor (G-AEPD) although have never been able to prove this. These were sold (to Nigel Ponsford??) during the clearance of the Lairage on it’s loss when the Museum moved onto the present site.

Roger Smith.

And i belive that the Humingbird has even made the short hop over to Woburn in the recent past, it is certainly flown when conditions allow. I would agree that it is not somthing that will be flown every weekend but surley that would be better than how it is at present.

Good grief! Please tell me that his expression is not related to its flying capabilities!

Adrian

Excellent – I must have been asleep.

Arm Waver – You can make anything fly again but in reality when there is 80% of the fuselage there which is original and no wings is it really desirable to get her in the air.
The DH.53 Humming Bird is probably the most desirable of the breed yet the Shuttleworth example hasn’t flown for a good while. Lovely to look at but in reality does anyone apart from enthusiasts want to see them in the air?
The Dart Kitten is decidedly from the late 1930’s and a little more substancial – 1920’s ultralights were exactly that .

Thanks for the info & picture G-ORDY & Consul.
David – There are a number of unique very early types that fly. Provided they are treated with respect and flown within limits there should be no reason why she couldn’t be made to fly again. The Dart Kitten is an example of this…

I know very little about aircraft of that era, and even less about the ultralights, but I believe the ultralights were all extremely marginal on performance.

IIRC, it’s what triggered Geoffrey de Havilland to design the Moth, (and the basic outline of the Cirrus), concluding the trials specifications could never produce a useable aeroplane.

Ollie – read post no.3

If it is the shuttleworth collections i would imagine if they cannot rebuild it to fly they will build a replica of it.

It’s a unique survivor that is probably quite marginal in terms of engine performance .
As it stands its an original artifact that should be conserved – when we have more than one Pixie by all means put one in the air . I feel however it would be more prudent in the case of something like the Pixie to measure her and build a new one .

Are drawings available? if so then it should be rebuilt, and why not to flying status.

God at first glimpse you would not think that is an aeroplane.

I took the photograph (mentioned in a post above) of the Pixie 111 G-EBJG that was published in Wrecks & Relics 16th edition. I took that shot in Nov 1997. The picture (the original slide of which I can’t lay my hands on just now) depicted the fuselage and tailplane and you could see the various cowlings placed on the ground in front of it. The aircraft was then (and still is) in their Robbin hangar. Although now it is relegated out of view behind the more glamourous but far less rare Sea Harrier.

I attach for your enjoyment here a scan of another slide of G-EBJG which I took earlier, back in 1988. It was then stored in a brick building which had no windows and was adjacent to the Museum’s old location on the site. A while later I recall that the Pixie’s rudder appeared on display for a while upstairs in their new hangar – but it’s no longer there and I wonder if it can be located now.

The store in which I took the attached photo contained a number of interesting machines, including the Messenger (now moved on). It also held components of the Wheeler Slymph G-ABOI (built (I think in Iraq) by Alan Wheeler, the one time doyen of the Shuttleworth collection. It never flew). I say components – well what I was shown comprised no more than remnants such as wheels plus (literally) a tea chest of small components / bits of wood. I recall seeing a photo in Control Column of ‘BOI taken in woods at Old Warden. It was then sitting on its wheels and comprised a complete but fabric-less fuselage minus engine. I fear the Slymph is beyond resurrection – but the Pixie deserves better. It is a fascinating example of one of the Lympne trials aircraft and interesting in having flown in both monoplane and biplane configuration. The MAPS subsequent MAM must be congratulated on keeping the remains under cover all these years. As, however, it doesn’t seem to fit with MAM’s primary themes and it needs very specialist woodworking and associated skills to properly restore, maybe it could be released or swapped to enable someone with relevant will and resources to bring it back to at least static glory?

The picture attached shows the inverted fuselage with tailplane and elevators stacked against it. The picture was taken using flash as it was pitch black in there! Enjoy.

I must say I’d love to see it restored for static display.

Parnall Pixie III, G-EBJG

Here’s a “Then & Then” pair of photos (although I don’t think much has changed in the past 30-odd years … apart from Roger’s hair! :diablo: ) plus some drawings from “The Aeroplane”.

Enjoy!

I was forgetting one of G-ORDY’s early efforts at writing aviation material was a 3 1/2 page spread (plus my own 3 view drawings) about the Pixies in “Control Column” (about 1970?).

Roger Smith.

Pixie photos

I’ll scan & post when I get home … watch this space.

I’d be interested in seeing pictures please.
General Aviation types are often over looked I fear.
I enjoyed the series in Aeroplane all those years ago featuring aircraft such as the Pixie as well as the Dart built aircraft and so on.