Percival Gull – designed by………….? “Percival – based on a general layout developed jointly with Henderson and Miles as the Hendy 302, and incorporating the Henderson cantilever wing spar design developed in the same airframe.”

Some interesting information from Flight 1930 and Flight 1932, that seems to clearly support the above answer.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%201368.html

DESIGNED by Mr. Basil B. Henderson, the ” Hendy 302 ” is a low-wing
*-‘ cantilever monoplane cabin machine intended for the private owner.
The machine incorporates in its wing construction some unusual and
patented features of which Mr. Henderson is the inventor. It is well known
that with cantilever wings it is more difficult to provide torsional stiffness
than adequate strength in bending, and the Henderson system of wing construction,
here carried out in wood but easily adapted to metal construction, is
designed to give great torsional stiffness. Fundamentally, the system consists
in duplicating the internal drag bracing of the wing and placing one set
of bracing on the upper faces of the spars and one on the lower. The bracing
itself consists, in the “302,” of crosses or ” X ” members of wood, attached by
three-ply gussets to the top and bottom faces of the spars. Thus the spars
and duplicate bracing crosses form a sort of box which is very rigid in torsion,
and experience with two machines has shown that the Henderson system of
wing construction is not only strong but also reasonably light.
The ” Hendy 302 ” is a monoplane of very clean lines. The first machine
was rushed through in time for the King’s Cup Race, and although bad
course-keeping prevented the machine from showing what it could do, the
speed over one stage of the course was such as to demonstrate that the ” 302 “
is very fast, the maximum being a little over 130 m.p.h. Cruising at 1,900
r.p.m., the machine flies at 112 m.p.h.
Structurally, the ” Hendy 302 ” is mainly of wood construction, this
being simple, light and cheap when machines are being built in fairly small
quantities. Mr. Henderson and Captain Percival are now arranging for the machine to be built in considerable numbers, and if later it should be found advisable to produce a metal version there is no great difficulty in doing so.
The cabin of the machine is roomy and well lighted by large windows in
the sides and roof, and the view, particularly from the front cockpit is good,
much better than one would expect. The front seat is far enough forward
to enable the pilot to look over the leading edge, and the taper of the wings
is such that towards the tips they obstruct the lateral downward view to a
surprisingly small extent. The cabin top could, if desired, be removed and
the machine used as an open tourer, but the absence of draught and noise
which the cabin top affords makes it unlikely that anyone would, after trying
the machine, wish to do away with the cabin.
The engine of the ” 302 ” is a ” Cirrus-Hermes II,” completely cowled in.
The smooth and narrow top of the cowling obstructs the view but little, but
if a purchaser should so desire there should be no difficulty in fitting an
inverted engine, either the inverted ” Hermes ” or the ” Gipsy III.” The
petrol tanks are placed in the wing, and fuel is supplied to the engine by
pump.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%200988.html

The ” Hobo ” was built in 1929. Mr.
Henderson’s programme included testing
out the new spar on larger machines, either
in wood or, if possible, in metal, the principle
of the spar design lending itself very well
to all-metal construction. In the meantime,
Capt. E. W. Percival was interested in
machines suitable for private owners, and
was keen on getting a machine to fly in the
King’s Cup Air Race. The next step in
Mr. Henderson’s programme was a two-seater
development of the little ” Hobo,” [B]and
the general ” scheme ” appealed to Capt.
Percival. The upshot was that he decided
to join forces with Henderson and Miles,
they to do the actual design work, calculations,
etc., and Percival to contribute practical
advice out of his long and varied experience
of aircraft at home and in Australia [/B] A
contract was entered into with George
Parnall of Bristol for the construction of the
machine, and work was begun at once, as
was very necessary in view of the fact
that there was but four months in which
to design and build the machine and test
it out in readiness for the King’s Cup Race.
In the experience of every aircraft designer
it happens now and then that a certain
prototype is absolutely ” right ” from the
very start, and when that happens the final
result is always very much better than in the
case of a new type which has to have this,
that and the other altered before it is absolutely
“right.” The “Hendy” 302, as
the new two-seater was called, proved
one of these instances. When it came to
be tested it did all that was expected of it
in the way of performance—or a little better.
It appeared to have no vices, and its controls
were effective over the whole speed range.
In the King’s Cup race, as we have previously
pointed out, compass trouble prevented a
was not ” placed.” Had the same average
speed been maintained as that made good
from London to Manchester, the ” Hendy “
302 would have secured 2nd place. That
was not to be, but those who watched closely
the performance of the various machines
realised that in the ” Hendy” 302 one had
a new type with an obviously good performance.
It could not have beaten Miss
Brown, and so on its handicap could not
have won the race. But had it secured
second place this would have been an excellent
advertisement for the machine. There
is no reason to doubt, however, /that when
the ” Hendy ” 302 is placed on the market
it will find a ready sale, its performance
and general qualities being sufficient to sell it,
even without the advertisement of winning
the race.
The ” Hendy ” 302 is a two-seater, lowwing
cantilever monoplane, with the occupants
protected by a hinged cabin top.

However there does seem to be some differences in the two designs, the photos and drawing in Flight shows the Hendy to be a slightly smaller aircraft at 22′ 10″ and with a wingspan of 35′ and area of 163 sqft, as compared to the Gull at 24′ 8″ and a wingspan of 36′ and a wing area of 169 sqft, and the Gull appears to have been designed from the outset with folding wings, with no mention of that feature on the Hendy?

The following dimensions are taken from 3-D drawings of both types in the 1930 and 1932 Flight Magazine links below.

Hendy 302 – Percival Gull
Length 22′ 10″ – 24′ 8″
Wing Span 35′ – 36′
Wheel Track 6′ 8″ – 6′ 9″
Wing Cord 5′ 9″ – 5′ 10″
Wing Area 163 – 169
Aileron Area 15 – 14
Tailplane Area 15.3 – 16.75
Fin Area 4 – 4.16
Rudder Area 8 – 7.75
Elevator Area 10.2 – 10.4

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%200987.html

Interestingly, the complex wing bracing between the spar in the wing outer panels of the Hendy shown in this page of the 1930 Flight certainly bears some resemblance to the Gull wings as shown in the later photos below, at least in the spar bracing, which is evidence of the Henty cantilever spar design, but that seemed openly acknowledged in the 1932 Flight article on the Gull.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%200986.html

Structurally the Percival ” Gull ” is a very straightforward
piece of work. The fuselage is a ” box ” composed
of light spruce stringers and struts, the whole covered
with a three-ply skin. The cantilever wing incorporates
the Hendy Patent wing construction, which consists of two
main spars braced in the planes of their upper and lower
flanges by a series of lattice ties. This construction gives
a wing which is particularly strong in torsion.

I assume the information for the Flight article on the Gull was provided by, or vetted by Percival at the time?

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1932/1932%20-%200756.html

It would seem clear that Percival had some relationship with Henderson and the Hendy 302, and an that an apparant intention to put that aircraft into production was superceded by the creation of a company by Percival and his investors to build the Gull. The Gull is clearly an evolution of the design layout of the Hendy 302, and seems to have at least the Hendy wing spar design acknowledged in 1932 in Flight.

The Gull folding wing appears to have resulted in some changes to at least the wing outer design, as compared to the Hendy, as the wing and aileron areas, spans and cords are not the same, or even in scale between each type, ie the Gull has a bigger wing but smaller ailerons, and so while the Gull wing may have used the Henty spar design there must be rib etc changes in the Gull wing outers, I think it might be right to claim it as a different wing, while acknowledging spar design from Henty?

Its unclear from Flight if the 1932 Gull prototype actually had flaps, but the flap boxes that lift to allow the wing to fold are clearly in place on the prototype and flight 3-d drawing, and I suspect may have been designed as flaps from the outset? as its a feature acknowledged elsewhere of the Gull series.

Obviously there seems a clear evolutionary design layout link between the Hendy 302 and the Percival Gull along with clear acknowledgement of the wing centre-section design of the spar/bracing structure, if Percival is acknowledged elsewhere in providing the general layout of the Hendy 302, he may consider the Gull to be his own design from that point of view, regardless of “re-design” of the structure.

Features such as the cockpit canopy and rear window may well have been his own design contributions to the Hendy?, it is difficult to prove such details nearly 80 years later, when the principals are departed and such details not recorded.

However in 1930 and 1932 Flight Magazine appeared able to publish such details without any apparant legal challenge or threats, and I assume the details for Flight regarding the Hendy 302 in 1930, and the Gull in 1932, would have been supplied by and/or agreed to by Percival and Hendy in 1930, and Percival himself in 1932?

I have seen private letters in Australia from Edgar Percival on this issue in the 1980’s, but havent seen the correspondance to Aeroplane Monthly quoted by G-ORDY above, ’

Percival’s closing comments stated that between 80 and 90% of the drawings supplied by Henderson had been redrawn and modified in the Percival D.O.

, however with the folding wing and flaps, installation of the two wing fuel tanks etc it is quite believable that any wing drawings provided by Henderson based on the Hendy 302 would be substantially different in the wing outer panel area to the Gull.

Other than Percival perhaps trying to minimise acknowledgement of Henderson’s contributions, I dont see anything inconsistant in the original Flight stories of the 1930’s and what Percival admits in that comment?

As greater concern however is the reliance on the following testimony without apparant question? to argue the “sameness” of design.

The story of the crash in Scotland is correct – that information came from Ron Paine who was working at Brooklands and who helped rebuild the wings – for which there were NO DRAWINGS! They stripped the fabric off the Hendy 302 and copied the structure! Read into that what you will.

“What was never made public at the time was the fact that G-ABUR was almost totally destroyed in a forced landing accident a few weeks before the race. Percival — anxious that the type should be seen in this most prestigious of races insisted that it was rebuilt and the work was carried out with considerable secrecy by Brooklands Aviation Ltd. What is most interesting is the fact that no drawings were available when it came for the wings to be rebuilt and as a last resort the fabric was removed from the wings of the Hendy 302, which happened to be at Brooklands at the time, and the structure was copied exactly in order to manufacture a new pair of wings for the Gull. This information came from Ron Paine, who worked on the Gull at the time, and who clearly recalls that it was only by a stroke of fortune that they could do the work anyway”

If the wing (or wing outer panels) of the Gull had been so effectively destroyed as to render their remains unusable for rebuild or even pattern, it is surprising that a new pair could be built with only reference to the Hendy 302, which were “copied exactly” to reproduce folding wings with flaps, and the very complex lifting flap box?, all features not existing at all on the Hendy 302?

If Flight in 1932 is correct and unchallenged, the Hendy and Gull clearly shared the same or very similar braced spar construction of the Henderson design, but clearly the wings are of differing dimensions resulting in different span, area and cord. If those sections survived on the crashed Gull there would seem to be little need to refer to the Hendy to repair it, if those sections and the wing was really totally destroyed, then all the other unique and significantly different features of the Gull wing (folding flap boxes etc) would have been destroyed also, and could not have been reproduced, even if the complete Hendy Wing was bolted to the Gull fuselage temporarily, let alone copied “exactly” using only the Hendy as a pattern.

I am sure the Hendy wing might provide some good guidance to rebuilding the Gull wing, but it couldnt produce an accurate “Gull” wing without other references, the story seems to have some serious “credibility” gaps to explain, before being accepted as the basis for re-writing history and impuning the “design” or “re-design” claims of Percival?

I wonder if a falling out with Henderson or subsequent concerns of a financial claim arising from the later commercial success of the Gull and the original intention to place the 302 into production, launched Percival into a lifetime of threats of legal defences of his sole design role?, I assume however there is no evidence of him disputing the Flight articles of 1930 and 1932?

I suspect he was rightly proud of his various achievements, and willing to use legal threats when those achievements were challenged without good basis?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Not the way I would put it.

There is a well known Stirling underwater, and whilst IIRC its in fresh water, its very deep – again IIRC 400m plus down – I dont think its been properly surveyed and even if it were, the cost of a recovery operation would be enormous I’m sure. The Stirling is helluva beast to bring up intact from that kind of depth.

Never say never however.

The DH.9 at DX is proof of that – ie no-one knew of its /their existence. The Trenton Halibag shows it can be done. The 109E in Canada shows that these things can even be made airworthy.

One of the most exciting aspects of our hobby for me is learning of new discoveries year on year…

TT

I thought Stirling LJ899 might have been the “well known Stirling underwater mentioned above” ?

“Stirling LJ899 of 190 Sqdn made a forced landing on the lake Store Røgden on the border to Sweden. Of the 18 paratroopers onboard, four drowned.”

http://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/sorkedalen.html

Special Projects Group diving officer Peter Cornish, of
1 Mauria Gardens, Cheshunt, Herts, is trying to locate the
crew of the Short Stirling Mk IV which now lies in 90ft of
water in Sweden’s Lake Rydafors. The aircraft, LJ899,
belonged to No 190 Sqn and ditched in the lake while ferrying
elements of the First Airborne Division to Oslo on May
10, 1945. The crew comprised: captain, FO A. Atkinson
(RAF No 153846); navigator, Sgt K. H. Rundle; bomb aimer,
FO W. S. Long (No 165358); wireless operator, FO H. Ashton
(No 172733); flight engineer, Sgt W. Wright; air gunner,
Sgt W. Flynn. Mr Cornish’s group hopes, using information
supplied by the crew, to locate, recover and restore this
aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%202085.html

Short Stirling MKIV

Två dagar efter krigsslutet skulle en glimt av kriget återigen komma till Värmland, närmare bestämt till Röjdåfors nära gränsen till Norge. Two days after the war was a glimpse of the war once again come to Värmland, specifically cleared to Åfors near the border with Norway. Tidigt på morgonen den 10 maj flög en Stirling på låg höjd över en tullstationen. Vädret var dåligt med dimma och regn. Early on the morning of May 10 was flying a Stirling at low altitude over a customs station. The weather was bad with fog and rain. Flygföraren F/O Atkinson svängde runt några varv för att slutligen flyga ut över vattnet på mycket låg höjd. Flygplanet kolliderade därvid med en tall vid strandkanten och kraschade i vattenbrynet. Airplane Driver F / O Atkinson swung around a few laps to finally fly out over the water at very low altitude. The airplane collided with a pine-taking at the shore and crashed into the water. Flygkroppen bröts av och fyra soldater ombord kastades ut. The fuselage was broken and four soldiers on board were thrown out. Denna händelse var ett påtagligt tecken på befrielsen av Norge som just pågick. This event was a tangible sign of the liberation of Norway, who has just ran. Flygplanet, en Short Stirling MkIV LJ899 från 190 Squadron, hade avdelats för att transportera trupper ur 1st Airborne Division till Norge. The aircraft, a Short Stirling LJ899 MKIV from 190 Squadron, was assigned to transport the troops from the 1st Airborne Division in Norway. I det dåliga vädret kunde man inte hitta Gardermoen, som var den tilltänkta landningsplatsen. In bad weather you could not find Gardermoen, which was the intended landing site. Under försöken kom man in över Sverige. During the trials it was over in Sweden. Militär personal tog hand om besättningen och de överlevande soldaterna, varav två skadats och förts till sjukhus. Military personnel took care of the crew and the surviving soldiers, two injured and taken to hospital. Två dagar senare sändes de tolv oskadade soldaterna från 7th Battalion vid The King`s Own Scottish Borderes, under befäl av major Hart, över till Norge landvägen. Two days later sent the Twelve uninjured soldiers from 7th Battalion of The King `s Own Scottish Borders, under the command of Major Hart, of Norway to the land. De fyra soldater som drunknat begravdes i Torsby. The four soldiers who drowned were buried in Torsby. Deras gravar flyttades senare till Göteborg/Kviberg. Flygplanet skrotades på plats genom att sprängas sönder i mindre delar genom försorg av personal från F7 Såtenäs. Their graves were later moved to Gothenburg / Kviberg. The aircraft was scrapped on site by rupturing into smaller parts by the staff of the Secretariat of the Q7 seats.

FLYING FORTRESS FALLEN IN cleared AFORS

På torsdagsmorgonen störtade ett engelskt fyrmotorigt plan i sjön Röjden strax intill Norsk-Svenska gränsen vid Röjdåfors. On Thursday morning, crashed on an English-range plan of the lake Röjder nearby Norwegian-Swedish border at Åfors cleared. Wermlandstidningens korrespondent såg från den Norska sidan planet irrade omkring tydligen i avsikt att nödlanda. Wermlands newspaper correspondent saw from the Norwegian side plane wandered around, apparently with the intention to make an emergency landing. Av någon anledning tystnade motorerna och planet seglade från Nordväst snett över sjön. For some reason, stopped engines and plane flying from north-west angle of the lake. Mitt för Röjdåfors tullstation törnade planet mot en stor tall. Middle of grubbed Åfors duty station bumped the plane against a large pine tree. Vid den fruktansvärda kollisionen slets ena vingen bort och tallen klipptes av som om den varit en tändsticka. At the terrible collision tore off one wing and pine were cut off as if it were a match. Efter kollisionen störtade det sönderslagna planet i sjön strax intill land. After the collision crashed the broken plane in the lake next to the country.

Några dagar senare i NWT. A few days later in the NWT.

Fyra st. Four pc. dog varav en inte hittades förrän 6 dagar senare efter intensiva dragningar, militären var snabbt på plats och bestämde att planet var för illa tilltygat för att bärga så dom skrotade på det stället med dynamit. died, including one not found until 6 days later after intense spins, the military was quick to spot and decided that the plane was mauled to recover so they scrapped it in place with dynamite. De brittiska flygarna jordfästes onsdagen den 16 maj 1945 vid Fryksändes kyrkogård i Torsby. The British pilots buried on Wednesday, May 16, 1945 at Fryksås cemetery in Torsby.

Kan tilläggas att rubriken på första sidan var felaktigt det var inte en ”flygande fästning” som är ett Amerikanska bombflygplan med beteckning B-17, utan en Engelsk Short Stirling MkIV med nummer LJ899. Can be added to the heading on the front page was wrong it was not a “flying fortress”, which is an American bomber with the designation B-17, but a British Short Stirling LJ899 MKIV with numbers.

Med dom uppgifterna enligt ovan så bestämde vi inom VUEP att åka till Röjdåfors och undersöka saken närmare. With those data as described above so we decided in VUEP going to cleared Åfors and investigate further. Vi åkte början av juli månad 2003 mot Röjdåfors, denna dag så spöregnade det och vi fick en liten känsla av hur dålig sikten bör ha varit den ödesdigra dagen 10 maj 1945. Vi kom fram till sjön Röjden och stannade vid ett rött skjul och som visade sej vara ett omklädningsrum för badande. We went the beginning of July 2003 against cleared Åfors, on this day so DOWNPOUR it and we got a little sense of how bad the visibility should have been the fateful day, May 10, 1945. We arrived at the lake cleared and stopped at a red shed and showed himself to be a changing room for bathers. Som sagt så spöregnade det när vi kom till platsen och vi satt en bra stund i bilen innan regnet upphörde. Vi rekade platsen och hittade snart den avklippta toppen på en tall. As I have said so DOWNPOUR it when we arrived and we sat a while in the car before the rain stopped. We rekade site and soon found it cut the tip of a pine tree. Vi undersökte tallen och såg spår av aluminumrester som satt djupt i stammen och då förstod vi att vi var på rätt plats. We investigated the pine and saw traces of aluminumrester which sat deep in the trunk and then we understood that we were in the right place. Johan, Janne och Anders undersökte botten med dykutrustnuing och fann några mindre plåtrester från Short Stirlingen. John, Janne and Anders looked at the bottom of dykutrustnuing and found some small metal residues from the Short Stirling. Total dyktid var cirka 1 timme, djupet på sjön Röjden var mellan 2-3 meter och med cirka 1 meters sikt. Total dive time was about 1 hour, the depth of the lake Röjder was between 2-3 meters, with approximately 1-meter run. Dan som inte kunde dyka pga förkylning gick efter stranden och letade föremål från flygplanet. Dan who could not dive due to colds went after the beach and were looking objects from the aircraft. Några småfynd gjordes bl a en bakelitknapp som ser ut att vara till en instrumentpanel, men vi var osäkra om det tillhörde planet. Some småfynd were made including a Bakelite button that looks like a dashboard, but we were uncertain whether it belonged to the plane.

Anders har forskat mer om planets öde i Röjdåfors och hittade några intressanta uppgifter: Anders has been researching more about the planet’s fate in cleared Åfors and found some interesting information:

Ett antal trupptransportplan från squardon 190 av typen Short Stirling MkIV avgick från flygplatsen Great Dunmow den 10 maj 1945 med destination Gardermoen i Norge som var byggt av Tyskarna under kriget. A number of troop transport planes from squardon 190 of the type Short Stirling MKIV resigned from the airport, Great Dunmow May 10th 1945 with destination Gardermoen in Norway, which was built by the Germans during the war. Operationen gick under beteckning ”Operation Doomsday”. The operation went under the name “Operation Doomsday”. Vi vet att den 10 maj 1945 var det väldigt dåligt väder med både dimma och regn. We know, on 10 May 1945, the very bad weather with both fog and rain. En signalapparat med namn ”Eureka-transmitter” sänder ut signaler till ankommande flyg, men i det dåliga vädret som rådde den 10 maj kunde inte en klar signal sändas ut pg a dimman och regnet. A signal device with the name “Eureka transmitter” sends out signals to arriving flights, but in the bad weather which prevailed May 10 could not be a clear signal sent pg a fog and rain. Detta medförde att några flygplan pg a den rådande sikten inte kunde se marken från hög höjd, samtidigt som man förgäves försökte att fånga signalen från Gardermoen. Planen fick alltså flyga på låg höjd för att kunna orientera sig efter terrängen. This meant that no aircraft pg a prevailing visibility could not see the ground from high altitude, while vainly trying to catch the signal from Gardermoen. The plan was then flying at low altitude in order to orient themselves for terrain. Jag både tror och gissar att LJ899 efter många försök att hitta flygplatsen Gardermoen snart hade slut på bränsle och var tvungen nödlanda. I believe and guess LJ899 after many attempts to find airport Gardermoen was soon out of fuel and had an emergency landing. Då fick piloten syn på sjön Röjden och bestämde att göra nödlandning där. When was the pilot’s view on the lake cleared and decided to make an emergency landing there. Det skulle säkert ha lyckas om inte planets ena vinge träffat tallen och slagit runt och fick till följd att fyra soldater fick sätta livet till. It would certainly be successful unless the plane’s wing hit one pine tree and beaten around and got the result that four soldiers died.

Ett annan Short Stirling MKIV med beteckning LK297 som avgick i samma squadron kraschade och började senare brinnna. Another Short Stirling MKIV with name LK297 who resigned in the same Squadron crashed and later began to burn. Planet rapporterades som saknad och upptäcktes först den 21 juni 1945 en bit från Gardermoen. The plane was reported as missing and was first discovered June 21, 1945 a piece from Gardermoen. Alla i besättning och samtliga soldater dog vid kraschen. All of the crew and all the soldiers died in the crash. [ läs mer om LK297 ] [Read more about the LK297]

Ytterliggare 14 st flygplan som ingick i ”Operation Doomsday” och avgick från flygplatsen Shepherds Grove hade även de svårigheter att hitta Gardermoen. Further 14 pcs aircraft that were part of “Operation Doomsday” and resigned from the airport Shepherds Grove was also the difficulty of finding Gardermoen. 13 st. 13 pcs. plan vände och flög tillbaka till hemmabasen men det sista planet kom aldrig hem. plane turned and flew back to home base but the last plane never came home. Flygplanet en Short Stirling MkIV med beteckning LK147 störtade en kilometer utanför Gardemoen. Short Stirling aircraft one MKIV with name LK147 crashed a mile off the Gardermoen. [ läs mer om LK147 ] [Read more about the LK147]

Genom olika intervjuer med folk som minns händelsen så ska Stirlingen i Röjdåfors ha sprängts sönder efter olyckan av militären. Skrotdelar från planet blev bortforslad med lastbilar till Torsby järnvägsstation och vidare till flygbasen Såtenäs. Någon gång i mitten av 1970 talet gjorde svensk militär en grundlig städning efter resterna av Short Stirlingen i samband med att sjön Röjden var torrlagd och ammunition upptäckts. Through various interviews with people who remember the incident so as to Stirling in cleared Åfors be blown to pieces after the accident by the military. Scrap parts from the plane were taken away by trucks to Torsby railway station and on to the air base Såtenäs. Sometime in the mid-1970s Swedish military did a thorough cleaning after the remains of the Short Stirling when the lake was dry Röjder total and ammunition discovered.

Anders Ståhl för VUEP 2004-01-05 [ Maila Anders ] Anders Ståhl for VUEP 2004-01-05 [Mailänder]

http://hem.bredband.net/vue/projekt_flygplan_shortstirling.htm

From the dive report above, it seems the lake is only 3 metres deep, and the wreck was blown up with dynamite some time after it ditched after hitting a pine tree on approach, killing 4 occupants – ie “scrapped in place” and the remains were apparantly later fully recovered when the lake was dry in the mid 1970s?

So that still leaves the question – where is the well known wreck in a deep lake mentioned above, and what survives?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

A realistic Full Scale Mock-up in “any material” is an acceptable way to present an extinct airframe or important type beyond the reach of a particular museum, and I am sure a mockup Stirling could be achieved without the need to make female moulds etc.

However such a project can be undertaken at any time, and is best left to the future, with all efforts focusings on the current project to restore/remanufacture as much as can be achieved.

At some time in the future the current project may choose to build a wing etc in FSM methods rather than in aluminium and replicated structure, and that would be an appropriate compromise to consider when the time comes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
I’m sorry Ken but I have been flat out at work (very unreasonable of them – smiles) and am now on a weeks holiday, but will get it done when I return in the week of the 7/12.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.

I have been collecting Anson parts, including fuselage frames, narcelles and engines since the late 1970’s and always had hopes of acquiring a metal wing to add to my now 2x 40′ container loads of mark I fuselage/engine etc parts, although I knew few, if any, metal wings were lying around by themselves and that any surplus wing would probably only arise from the scrapping of an intact airframe.

The only other real opportunity I had was many years ago in the late 1980’s when a UK museum scrapped its duplicate XIX as it was in poor condition and they had not been able to get anyone interested in taking it on. The intention to scrap it was detailed in a UK magazine but by the time I heard about it and made enquiries with the museum concerned I was told it had already been scrapped.

(I can only find reference to G-AGPG at Brenzett in 1994 being in a similar circumstance but that still survives elsewhere so I assume it was another airframe and museum and perhaps slightly earlier?).

This time the Internet and email gave the ability to learn the wings of VS562 were likely to be scrapped due to the lack of sale of the complete airframe at the auction, with the fuselage expected to be retained as a museum piece.

While I appreciate the prototype role of VS562, unless someone had stepped in after the auction to purchase the whole aircraft, or seperately had a need for the cut centre-section and wing outer panels and made enquiries as I had done, they would have likely been lost to the UK regardless.

I much preferred the outcome of them coming to Australia to play a future role in a mark I static restoration than to see them scrapped and have the last opportunity to acquire a set passed up.

The fuselage remains largely intact, and would still allow a museum display around VS562’s heritage as the T21 prototype to be achieved with little if any work, assuming the frame is not as rotten as the engine mounts.

She has obviously had a hard life, the engine mounts and undercarriage legs are very rotten, was it exposed to sea air, or just a very moist environment with external storage? (one main wheel is half returned to powder)

I know the two centre-section halves spent a long time outside on their steel frames either side of the small shed at Maes Artro, was that close to the sea?

Luckily my mark I engine mounts and undercarriage units, wheels etc are like “new” compared to those on VS562, and the centre-section structure is largely only suffering from angle grider surgery rather than any terminal structural corrosion.

The aluminium tops of the main undercarriage legs are virtually corroded through, it is only the cross brace knuckle between them that remains holding the leg in place, I dont think it could hold its own weight.

There is some surface corrosion on the lower skins of the centre-section, but nothing terminal or likely to require re-skinning simply from the corrosion, but there will be a need for various skin replacements or repairs due to hangar rash etc.

The wing outer panels are relatively straight and undamaged, but there is some severe skin corrosion on one lower skin on one tip, as if it has lay on the ground / grass for a while?, and that will need to be reskinned?

The tailplane is reasonable but with some corrosion (where it sat under the fuselage?), although I already have a metal tailplane in better condition and a wooden one in repairable condition.

I know the repair of the centre-section will be a big job, and if able to be done here, could have also been done in the UK to bring VS562 back to life, but as Bruce said, this airframe has been passed around through many hands, and been passed up by many more, and in my opinion was going to be seperated permanently in the near future in anycase.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Metal wings on a MK.1???

Well it is sacriledge I know, but a lot easier than constructing 56′ of new / replica non-flying wooden wing, and its been done twice before.

The former Brain & Brown mark I VH-BAF with the wings of XIX VM375, now in NZ with Bill Reid,
& the RNZAF Museum’s mark I static restoration with the wings of C-19 VL307. (or is that VL352?)

The RNZAF static example seems acceptable to me,

smiles

Mark Pilkington

What exactly have you got of each Ross?

& does anyone know the future owners plans for the dissected winged Anson sold at the auction?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The wings and cut centre-section of Anson T.21 VS562 on their way downunder for an eventual Anson mark I static display outcome, – arrived into Melbourne last week. – thanks for your assistance Ross (& Richard), very much appreciated.

Hmmm Lincoln, Anson – wonder if there are any more unwanted Avro’s in the UK – smiles

Regards

Mark Pilkington

It’s a waste just left there even with a shelter it would be better to do something with it or melt it down and make a aluminum model lanc. lol…….

piston power!
I just say it as it is if your offended don’t look at it!

I’m not sure what is worse, the idea that you really think that, or that you are simply trying to bait people – reaches for the ignore button!

regards

Mark Pilkington