Sorting Out The Percival Gulls

🙂 Thank you all…I’m ordering it.
As soon as I’ll finish my Chilton model, I’ll continue with the Gull.

http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=88594

Oh, don’t get me wrong, it is an excellent book, I’m just sad that it is a missed opportunity to do as thorough a job as they did with the Miles types. There are a lot more excellent photos of the pre-war (and wartime) types around, the Mew Gull section of the book in particular I felt to be particularly thin, and hat on the Q6s. Still, it is better than what we’ve had in the past, Percival types have been woefully under represented in print up to now.

It is just that I could quite happily take a razor blade to my copy and use the last 2/3 of it for lighting fires with, or some other useful purpose. 🙁

I think it is an excellent work: to be fair, it isn’t so much a truncation as that there isn’t really a lot that can be said about the small handful of pre-war aircraft built that isn’t said inside. Whereas the post-war types were built in large numbers and served for a long time, hence requiring significant space. To criticise it for covering every individual airframe’s history is rather missing the point of Air Britain publications.

The book does indeed contain drawings of the different Gulls, the Vega Gull and other Percival aircraft. It is specifically stated that considerable work went into these drawings, because “existing technical drawings of almost all the aircraft types were substantially incorrect”. What this means with specific reference to the Gull family I cannot personally judge, but I suspect they are as good as you are likely to find.

The first third of the book is great, then the rest of it is cluttered up with those nasty tin aeroplanes that Percival, later Hunting, and then BAC made after the war. A wasted opportunity, a shame they didn’t split the coverage in the same way as for their excellent series of Miles books rather than cover all types on one volume. The amount of space wasted by individual histories of every Prentice, Prince, Pembroke, Provost and JP airframe produced severely limits the value of the book to me, as the sections (and photo coverage) on the pre-war types is severely truncated as a result.

OK…thank you very much for your opinion. Are in the book any good 3view drawings of the Gulls 4-6 or Vega?

The first third of the book is great, then the rest of it is cluttered up with those nasty tin aeroplanes that Percival, later Hunting, and then BAC made after the war. A wasted opportunity, a shame they didn’t split the coverage in the same way as for their excellent series of Miles books rather than cover all types on one volume. The amount of space wasted by individual histories of every Prentice, Prince, Pembroke, Provost and JP airframe produced severely limits the value of the book to me, as the sections (and photo coverage) on the pre-war types is severely truncated as a result.

I would buy the book anyway if you have any interest in Gulls. It is really excellent.

Can anyone help me to locate some accurate 3 view drawings of the Gull 6? I need drawings with fuse and wheel spat sections etc. Any help would be much appreciated as I am having a model of Jean Battens Gull made….

There is a book they claim to have some 3 views inside. I would buy one, but I have no idea how the 3 views look like.

https://www.air-britain.co.uk/actbooks/acatalog/-ON-THE-WINGS-OF-A-GULL–Percival-and-Hunting-Aircraft-187.html

Does someone have the book? Could by please let me know your opinion? Thank you..

Can anyone help me to locate some accurate 3 view drawings of the Gull 6? I need drawings with fuse and wheel spat sections etc. Any help would be much appreciated as I am having a model of Jean Battens Gull made….

Gullology.

Thanks Planemike and Snoopy.

So would you agree with my assessment of the 3-views?
1. Gull Six (G-ADPR)
2. Vega Gull (it has the centre panel on the windscreen)
3. Gull Six

Yes. 🙂
As an aside, when the Vega was introduced, it more or less coincided with the availability of DH’s VP airscrew for the Gipsy Six Series II motor and this combination was normally fitted to the Vega to maximise it’s excellent performance. The bigger spinner and nose-bowl are the give-away. Although the prop was probably optional, most Vegas, if not all, were fitted with it. Most Gulls were produced prior to this and consequently most were not so fitted. (This was because the earlier Gipsy Six had a different, tapered, solid crankshaft. To retrofit the prop would have meant an engine change, a new nose-bowl, airscrew and spinner. A small fortune, even in those days…!) If you are looking at photos from awkward angles, it’s worth noting that the Vega had also been cleaned-up externally, so you’ll find that quite a lot of the excrescences on the outside of the Gulls are absent. After comparing a few photos it becomes easier.
There is an excellent section on the Gulls and the Vega in Silvesters book, but watch out for errors. 😉

Thanks Planemike and Snoopy.

So would you agree with my assessment of the 3-views?
1. Gull Six (G-ADPR)
2. Vega Gull (it has the centre panel on the windscreen)
3. Gull Six

Spot The Difference…

The extra span of the Vega came the wider centre-section. This was to keep the wing-loading down at the increased max designed weight. The modest widening of the fus’ can be seen in the centre glazed panel in the windscreen of the Vega, which is easy to spot, especially head-on. It’s only the late Gulls that can be confused with the Vega. Earlier gulls had a different canopy and u/c anyway, which is a dead give-away. very late Vegas had a blown windscreen, very, very similar to the MkI Proctor.
The basic Gull was derived from the Hendy, and in fact, the Gull prototype, as originally built, was virtually indistinguishable from the Hendy.

Yak……….

Been having a look at the sources I have to hand. Unfortunately my IT skills do not stretch to putting up photos and diagrams. (Must try to master it one day !!!). Can quote sources if required.

There are some definite differences between the Gull 4/6 and the Vega Gull. Quite a few of these centre around the cockpit area. The Gull 4/6 is essentially a three seater with seats in line but slightly offset. The Vega is a four seater with a 2 + 2 layout. Rear seats being a bench. Most of the Gull 4/6s had fully glazed canopies, although the prototype G-ABUR started with a solid roof but it was replaced with a fully glazed canopy. The Vega Gull have a solid section running down the centre of the glazing.

The span of the 4/6s is quoted as 36′ 2″ against 39′ 6″ for the Vegas. There was not much of in increase in fuselage length. 24′ 9″ V 25′ 6″.

Think it worth remembering that development tended to take place as the aircraft were being built resulting in many differences between individual aircraft. An individual series of a/c tended to evolve. Indeed they were often “customised” (hmmmm, not a 1930s word!!) for individual owners.

Hope this has helped a bit…..

Planemike

Thanks Avion Ancien, just read through that!

I’m still struggling to tell the Vega and the Six apart in the drawings.

From comparing the 3-views (spans and lengths) and looking at the cabin details it would appear that the one labelled “Gull-Six” is a Vega Gull and the one labelled “Vega Gull 6” is a Gull Six! :eek::rolleyes: I’m pretty sure the one with the G-ADPR reg is a drawing of a Gull Six.

Sound right?

The aircraft I’m particularly interested in is Jean Battens Gull G-ADPR.

You might find something useful at http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=106357.

Vega.

One thing that I omitted to mention about the Vega was of course the wing-folding, which was a feature that was carried-over to the Proctors. The mainplanes folded backwards to rest either side of the fus’. Not a two minute job however. One rarely sees photos of Proctors in RAF service with the wings folded, unless they were is storage, when that feature was obviously very useful. An old pal of mine owned a Vega before the war and was a big fan, he stated that whilst the Vega was nothing special to fly, it was a fantastic workhorse. Unlike many light aircraft, it had speed, range and carrying capacity which could all be utilised together. After the war, the move to all-metal aircraft that were not as vulnerable to our wretched climate meant machines like the Vega faded from the scene, yet, even today, the Vega can beat the pants off a lot of much more modern aircraft AND it’s wings fold. The aforementioned friend was asked to demonstrate a later Proctor during the war. He trundled off on his take-off run but got rather a nasty shock, as he hadn’t realised just how much less performance than the Vega it would have. He got a much closer view of the boundary hedge than he’d anticipated…. The RAF had of course loaded all sorts of gear into the type, as was their habit.

One little mystery that I never really got to the bottom of was the cooling. This was never a problem on the Vega, even in hot climes. This was not the case with the Proctor, which underwent many modifications to the cowling and had the addition of an oil-cooler to boot. It can’t have been just the weight.

After the war, the market was flooded with ex-RAF Proctors, so those Vegas which had survived impressment soon went out of service. Most of the Proctors were scrapped, owing to glue problems in the 1960’s. The UK only has one airworthy Vega now, and I think that was a re-imported example. I think G-AERD(?) went off to an Australian museum a few years back. A bit of a pity, because it was airworthy as I recall. In fact I think most of the surviving pre-war gulls that are airworthy are in the antipodes.

For me, the Vega is the quintessential pre-war British light aircraft, beauty and functionality combined.

As a slight aside the Jean Batten reference is interesting in the light of this item on the NAM website!

A little more information which may be helpful (or confusing!!!). The Percival Gull was produced in three versions:
D.1 with 130 h.p. Cirrus Hermes IV
D.2 Gull Four with either 130 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Major
or 160 h.p. Napier Javelin
D.3 Gull Six with 200 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six

The Vega Gull was developed from the Gull Six. As has been said the Vega Gull was a full four seater where as the preceding Gulls had been three seaters.
The Vega Gulls were powered by either 200 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six or
205 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six Series II.

The Proctor was developed from the Vega Gull. Produced as the Proctor 1, 2, 3 & 4. The Proctor 5 was, as has been stated, essentailly a new design (postwar). The main power plant used for the Proctor series was the 210 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Queen 2.

Planemike

…and don’t forget the single PROCTOR VI, built 1948, c/n AE140, powered by a 250 hp Gipsy Queen 31 😉

Thanks guys… I seem to have worked out at least one source of the confusion:

The aircraft I’m particularly interested in is Jean Battens Gull G-ADPR. In some places this aircraft is referred to as a Vega Gull when it was actually a Gull Six.

She flew the Atlantic in G-ADPR in November 1935, while the Vega Gull prototype first flew in the same month.

Beryl Markham flew a Vega Gull however.

Just to add to the confusion there is a P.28 Proctor I (also mislabelled as a Proctor III) flying as ZK-DPP in New Zealand that “has been modified to look like a ‘Vega Gull’ ” … even though G-ADPR wasn’t a Vega Gull…….. :eek::eek:

That’s without even looking at the available 3-views, one of which is labelled a Vega Gull 6… :rolleyes:

I have what seems to be an accurate Gull Four drawing, so I will have to compare the wingspan of that to the others, as it was the same wing as the Gull Six. I’d guess any 3-view that shows a wider fuselage and greater wingspan will be a Vega Gull…

A little more information which may be helpful (or confusing!!!). The Percival Gull was produced in three versions:
D.1 with 130 h.p. Cirrus Hermes IV
D.2 Gull Four with either 130 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Major
or 160 h.p. Napier Javelin
D.3 Gull Six with 200 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six

The Vega Gull was developed from the Gull Six. As has been said the Vega Gull was a full four seater where as the preceding Gulls had been three seaters.
The Vega Gulls were powered by either 200 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six or
205 h.p de Havilland Gipsy Six Series II.

The Proctor was developed from the Vega Gull. Produced as the Proctor 1, 2, 3 & 4. The Proctor 5 was, as has been stated, essentailly a new design (postwar). The main power plant used for the Proctor series was the 210 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Queen 2.

Planemike

Vega Gull and Proctor here for comparison.

As Snoopy7422 says, the big difference was that the Vega Gull offfered a wider fuselage allowing two side-by-side front seats and dual controls.

Proctor Mk V in particular was effectively a different aeroplane. Designed for military communications use, a lot heavier and more ‘functional’ than the graceful pre-war Gull.