Anyone able to add anything to this picture?

[233SQN]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/702x960/hurri_ea1d87b9fcb1121f0b776198d5b6f1c52fcfbebf.jpg

Folks.... this picture regularly crops up on our local history FB group (the Hurricane is above the Gillette factory, on the Great West Road Hounslow). Is it genuine or a clever early style cut and paste?

[DaveReidUK]

Looks genuine enough to me.

Hurricane I L1683, presumably photographed while it served just up the road with the Northolt Station Flight, hence the absence of squadron marks.

[treadigraph]

Looks real to me too - prop blur is what I look at and I can't spot any obvious cut out. Wonder what it was shot from?

[longer ron]

Looks Kosher to me -
Presumably the photo was taken on the same sortie as this pic,interesting photo as one can see the Wing Fabric Panting/Ballooning and also the original gap between the Prop Spinner and Cowlings

https://i.imgur.com/6LL1gM5.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Extra points for identifying where it's flying over in the second photo. :O

[Aneas]

I go for the 'cut and paste' option.
The tip of the prop is clearly visible on the lower blade, but not even a hint of it for the upper blade - in fact the houses below are very clear where it should have been shown.

[longer ron]

Not cut n paste Aneas - late afternoon/early evening sortie with low sun.

[washoutt]

Shouldn't the first picture be turned 90 degrees clockwise?
It doesn't seem to be a paste-and-cut photo, the shadow of the (setting?) sun thrown on the fuselage is in the same direction as the shadow of the rectangular wall on the ground.

[DuncanDoenitz]

My money is on "genuine", for exactly that reason.

With focal-plane shutter moving from top-to-bottom on the camera, the lower edge of the image is always taken a few centi-seconds before the upper part, which is why props "of that era" often appear to be bent.

On the S&L photo, the lower blade is captured at an acute angle in its (RH) rotation, so appears short and has a high rate of movement relative to the camera, so is more blurred. By the time the upper part of the image is captured, the prop has moved on, the upper blade is more perpendicular to the camera, and has a lower rate of movement so is less blurred.

In the original, "climbing", image, my guess is that it is shown rotated by 90 deg anti-clockwise, so "up" is actually to the left of the frame as displayed. (Imagine how you would be holding the camera to capture the image from the student-seat of the training aircraft or station-hack that the subject is formating on). Hence, the apparently-right side of the image is taken earlier than the left, which accounts for the apparent bending. As the camera is now front-and-right of the subject, and due to the pitch of the blades, the right-hand blade is also relatively flat to the camera so is clearly seen whilst, by contrast, the left blade is leading-edge on, so is less clear.

[PDR1]

I go for the 'cut and paste' option.
The tip of the prop is clearly visible on the lower blade, but not even a hint of it for the upper blade - in fact the houses below are very clear where it should have been shown.

This is a common artefact of the way the shutter sweeps across the frame, so different parts of the photograph are actually taken at slightly different times. You often see a similar effect with images of moving propellers taken square-on, where the blurred blade(s) appear to be curved.

This pose of shot was pretty common - there are similar ones of many aircraft of this era. EVen in the last few days before we closed Kingston the walls of the front office block (and the mezzanine behind it overlooking the shop floor) had many similar photos of Hawker Furys, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Hunters etc. The aeroplane is an original very early model Hurricane Mk1 because it has the fabric-covered wing (1st 600 aircraft only) and 2-blade fixed-pitch wooden "Watts" propeller (only the first 435 according to Wiki). I was even wondering if it was the prototype K5083, but I don't think so because that seems to have spent its whole life in plain aluminium dope. The top picture doesn't appear to have the ventral fin extension (introduced from 61st airframe to aid spin recovery), but the one in the 2nd picture does have it so if they are indeed the same aeroplane then that laces it somewhere between the 61st and 435th off the line - probably built some time in 1937. It certainly lacks the "battle" modifications like the rear-view mirror.

So I would suggest this could actually be a publicity sortie in which the RAF is showing off its latest high-performance fighter taken some time in 1937/8. The photograph was probably taken from something like a Hawker Hart or Demon - something fast enough and aerobatic enough to do a formation loop but with an open rear cockpit for the intrepid photographist to hang out and get a clean shot.

€0.0003 supplied,

PDR

[PDR1]

Having just looked that up I discovered that the fabric-covered and stressed-skin wings were fully interchangeable at 1st line, having identical mountings, winging/plumbing and weight/CG. Indeed it seems there were many cases where operational needs to maintain availability resulted in aircraft flying combat missions with one of each because it's what they had in the stores at the airfield - I never knew that.

Every day is a school day...

PDR

[treadigraph]

Extra points for identifying where it's flying over in the second photo. :O

Northolt Aerodrome across the top of the pic with the "Polish War Memorial" roundabout on the A40, as I think it's now known (Bryan Wolfe and the Capital Flying Eye!), top right. Housing Estate under the right wing is early development between Hayes/Hillingdon with Yeading Brook under the nose - I should be walking along there (Hillingdon Trail) some time when I tackle the London Spiral Walk!

[DaveReidUK]

Shouldn't the first picture be turned 90 degrees clockwise?

The camera is pointing more-or-less vertically downwards, so you can rotate the photo any way you want and it will be equally valid.

[treadigraph]

Just been looking at the maps a bit more, now realise I'm actually quite familiar with Gillette Corner as I used to regularly visit Westlink House, another classic 1930s Art Deco building a few hundred yards to the east and on the other side of the A4 - we generally got a train to Brentford, but a couple of times I went to Syon Lane instead as it was less far to walk in the rain!

[DaveReidUK]

Northolt Aerodrome across the top of the pic with the "Polish War Memorial" roundabout on the A40, as I think it's now known (Bryan Wolfe and the Capital Flying Eye!), top right. Housing Estate under the right wing is early development between Hayes/Hillingdon with Yeading Brook under the nose - I should be walking along there (Hillingdon Trail) some time when I tackle the London Spiral Walk!

Thanks.

Here's the estate on GE (with a few more additions!):

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x520/hurricane_background_26defa2e1af6fe33b9b8649ba1372842ee1ecb9 e.jpg

[EXDAC]

I'm waiting for someone to use the tower shadow to deduce the day and time the picture was taken. The attitude of the aircraft should also be deduced from the wing shadow on the fuselage.

[DaveReidUK]

I'm waiting for someone to use the tower shadow to deduce the day and time the picture was taken.

Definitely a Thursday ...

[treadigraph]

...about tea time.

[ChrisVJ]

Not up to the usual Pprune experts analysis. Did not tell us what the pilot had for breakfast!

[treadigraph]

I thought everybody knew what an RAF pilot demolished for breakfast circa 1940. Or even 0700... and none of this hash brown nonsense!

[PDR1]

Shouldn't the first picture be turned 90 degrees clockwise?
It doesn't seem to be a paste-and-cut photo, the shadow of the (setting?) sun thrown on the fuselage is in the same direction as the shadow of the rectangular wall on the ground.

That would surely suggest that the aeroplane is flying over the top of the sun (looking at where the shadow of the wing lies on the fuselage). The Hurricane was a big step-up in performance when it was introduced, but I've never seen it suggested it could fly THAT high...

PDR

[DaveReidUK]

...about tea time.

Yes, the Gillette factory is definitely casting a five o'clock shadow.

[treadigraph]

Daylight shaving time?

[B2N2]

I’m questioning the orientation of the picture.
Wondering if the original may have been


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x702/8c0f7b69_6d5f_49df_aac0_5b5f6848c1a4_4e4748557254f64cf4b837b 0d20f0a8975d084fb.jpeg

[EXDAC]

That would surely suggest that the aeroplane is flying over the top of the sun (looking at where the shadow of the wing lies on the fuselage).

Well to me it suggests a fairly low sun angle and aeroplane that is pitched up and rolled left. To deduce how much pitched up and how much rolled left one would first need to know the sun angle. Hence my suggestion of starting with the tower shadow.

I tried all 4 rotations of the image and 90 deg clockwise from the published image makes most sense to me. Mid to late afternoon spring or autumn is as far as I got but, at that time of day 45 deg pitch and roll seems more than enough for that shadow.

It's along time since I lived in UK and I've become used to sun angles in Arizona so I could be way off. I'm sure some of the current or retired photo analysts would come up with a much better answer.

[treadigraph]

The shadow cast by the tower on the Gillette Building appears to actually be a gap between saw-toothed roofing in a kind of quadrangle behind the front block of the building, the whole area is in shadow. Agree it's a very low sun angle, looks like very long tree and house shadows around the tailplane and under the wing. Google (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4832629,-0.3260576,136a,35y,324.61h,47.85t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)...

The tree shadows - if that's what they are! - look like they may be bare of leaves, late autumn, winter or maybe spring then!

[DaveReidUK]

At the risk of stating the obvious, all we seem to be debating is which way up the photographer happened to be holding the camera.

None of the four possible orientations of the photo make any difference to the orientation or trajectory of the aircraft, given that we can see both the ground and, by deduction, the direction of the sun.

Try it next time you're at the airport - take a picture of a departing airliner with your camera upside-down, and see if the passengers notice any difference. :O

Next, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ...

[EXDAC]

Try it next time you're at the airport - take a picture of a departing airliner with your camera upside-down, and see if the passengers notice any difference.

My views on photographic composition may be a bit old fashioned. I prefer the sky at the top, ground at the bottom, and features that are vertical to appear vertical in the image.

Had I taken the photo with the camera upside down, and there are good reasons to sometimes do that with an SLR, I would simply have rotated the image when I got home. The passengers would also have been unaware of this second inversion.

[B2N2]

At the risk of stating the obvious, all we seem to be debating is which way up the photographer happened to be holding the camera.
...

Well at least you’ll be starting the discussion from the right perspective.
Might make it easier to spot discrepancies if it is indeed a fake.

[longer ron]

I really do not think it is a fake B2N2
I think your orientation in post #24 is probably the correct one - looking at the shadow angles.
They are lovely pictures and the low sun must have been uncomfortable for the Hurri Pilot formating on the camera aircraft.
In times gone by - the photographer would always have been credited with the shot - nowadays of course all we find out is the copyright holder :hmm:

[longer ron]

Yes, the Gillette factory is definitely casting a five o'clock shadow.

I like that one Dave :)
Interestingly (or otherwise) - one of my school teachers (from 50+ years ago) had the nickname of 'Gillette' - he always had the Desperate Dan type blue chin LOL

[washoutt]

Fabuleous discussion here. This is exactly the reason, how mankind got the wheel, electricity and the covid vaccins. This is science before your eyes. Great reading!

[Flyingmole]

Here's the same area today, courtesy Google Earth. As someone mentioned, you can see that the line in the roof of the factory is architecural. The top of the picture is North so the sun in the Hurri photo is shining from the South-East, and therefore it's a morning shot in winter rather than an afternoon shot. (That is, if I remember my O Level geography correctly!!!)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1256x738/gillette_factory_today_9a932f2b7a75abc12469b75a669c2e58464fe 477.jpg

[Flyingmole]

Just realised: the Google pic I posted does not have North at the top: it is Nor'west. That means that the sun in the Hurri photo is around due South, so probably midday in the middle of winter.

[DaveReidUK]

Just realised: the Google pic I posted does not have North at the top: it is Nor'west.

Hmmm. I think you mean it's oriented with Northeast(ish) at the top. :O

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/344x308/northeast_6d8eee7a7381514c8f9227d5b0fc52de61587b0b.jpg


If it's any help, the dual carriageway heading out of the bottom of your photo (the A4/Great West Road) has a heading of 265° true at that point, as GE will confirm - in other words, within a gnat's of due West (the clue's in the name).

Your photo needs rotating by approximately 60° CW to put N at the top.

[deja vu]

Can't be England, look at the weather

[GBOAA]

I've passed Gillette Corner many many times!

[sycamore]

But no close shaves.....




hat ,coat,..taxi...

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

So I would suggest this could actually be a publicity sortie in which the RAF is showing off its latest high-performance fighter taken some time in 1937/8.

Both pictures show the Type A1 roundel which as everyone knows ;) was on all camouflaged surfaces from 1937 to 1939 ... March 1939 IIRC




... ok I looked it up on Wikipedia, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned the markings

[longer ron]

Obviously not too many members of the 'Roundel Police' on here Mr Aaaaaargh :)

[DaveReidUK]

Both pictures show the Type A1 roundel which as everyone knows ;) was on all camouflaged surfaces from 1937 to 1939 ... March 1939 IIRC

Some of us are too young to recall March 1939 ...

[chrises9]

The photo in #4 appears in "The Hawker Hurricane" by K.K.Mason - published in 1962. So unlikely to have been photoshoped. The caption reads: "This in-flight view of L1863 taken during test, shows the new Rolls-Rpyce exhaust ejector stubs. Note also the flight effects on the wing fabric."