You know what, I’d say green and blue = shadow, red = shadow (of fuselage) plus oil. Dark bit on tail = shadow (rear fuselage)

So if the two engines and wing shadow are over the fusalage and port wing, where on earth is the the far heavier fusalage shadow?

Um.. over the wing and tail surfaces in question?

And on further inspection there are two darker areas directly behind the engine, if a shadow were being cast it would all be the same level.

Not at all. Look at any shadow. You can still see variations of light/dark inside the umbra, all visible in ambient light (otherwise all shadows would be completely black). And I’m not denying that in this case this is caused by oil and/or soot staining.

This is brightening up a dull morning at work – forgive the pun.

Soot / oil traces.

Look inboard of the nacelle, the leading edge is quite light yet the side of the nacelle is very dark.

If it was a shadow there is no way there would be that light area.

Moggy

I think the light area there is just relatively oil and soot free – like the upper fuselage – but still in shadow – if you look carefully there is still a faint divide between bleached out and non-bleached area of skin, where the shadow falls. On the cowling and behind, it is quite heavy staining accentuated by not being bleached. I suspect the image has already been manipulated by darkening the bleached upper wing area, making the shadow there deeper.

A Google search indicates that this would be the “Northolt Station Flight”, flying three Britten-Norman Islanders, their role being described as electronic intelligence gathering – ’embassy and anti-terrorist surveillance’.

Islanders are ZF573, ZH536 and ZH537.

I expect the guys in dark suits and shades to be waiting for me when I get home!

Got to be honest, it’s the whole ‘right people’ and ‘wrong people’ thing that puts others off the historic aviation world. A clique is only a good thing to the minority – the clique. Maybe I’m naive – is there a genuine reason for secrecy – would the interests of the wider historic aviation community be damaged if all of it knew the serials of aircraft under restoration, and if so, how?

A lot of people on here are involved, as I am, in actively working towards restoration, preservation and/or conservation. And yet there’s still an ‘us and them’ thing seemingly happening here, which I’m sure many of us would like explained. I’m not attacking anyone, and please don’t shoot me down when I ask this, I just genuinely (not in a snide way) feel there’s a gap in my understanding.

I’m confused, Starfire – I can’t find the additional content anywhere. I must be using the wrong internet again.

I did find this though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/CngWUrn0QmuY1R4XpU-zWA

EDIT – Oh, I see, one has to do the quiz first.

Thanks blan73, and welcome to the forum! I expect you have a lot more interesting stuff to share – don’t worry about detailed histories, I expect they’ll find an audience here.

So it would appear that there were at least two laminar flow / low drag winged Hurricanes. The one my plans refer to – with wings (plural) specially manufactured by Armstrongs – was flown in 1945, according a reference in the 1946 document I linked to earlier.

It looks like the modifications to the starboard wing blan73 describes were applied to a different aircraft, at a later date.

Sycamore’s photos show the PORT wing, and that wing being of considerably modified – indeed exotic – profile, as per the AW factory plans (dated 1944) that I hold. Coupled with the serial matching that of the two reports cited here, both of which refer to wings (plural) this would suggest that this is the earlier aircraft.