Warbird Information Exchange

No. As has been said by others, doing so is not like combining parts of a plastic model kit.

Landing gear could have been added from another type. Lots of machinists were around in those days for field work and repair

Landing gear could have been added from another type. Lots of machinists were around in those days for field work and repair

But why?

Just my .02 cents but something about the photo just says "model airplane" to me. Not a small plastic model (which probably did not exist at the time anyway) but a large model, possibly something built for a movie or some other purpose. Like something found in a Smilin' Jack comic turned into reality.

The wings and landing gear smack of BT-13 to me. Yeah, a few details are different (like landing light placement), but this is (IMO) what you'd get if you put spats on a BT-13 and modified the fuselage (or put BT-13 wings on a custom fuse).

This is it...

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1050

Maybe.

Again, why?
Seems like a lot of work for a then cheap and common type.
Unless it was a Hollywood prop...but then they would have used a model...And if type was a "big" enough picture with the budget to do that, someone here would have seen it.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Massive and extended discussion on FlyPast with offerings of planes that I had never even heard of thrown around like confetti, plus all the more obvious types that maybe somehow made it to Spain. The suggestion was that the photo was from the Spanish Civil war.
It was a really interesting thread and I learned a lot but my recollection is that it remained unsolved.

_________________
Chris Mellor

I think this is why it has to be a prop or a model: so far all scenarios would need lots of money (apart from model or possibly movie prop) and so straight away the argument falls down since it would have generated publicity and been well-known. This is a really 'beefy' looking machine and suggestions like BT-13 just don't cut it. To get from a weenie like a BT-13 (all things comparative) to this bruiser (new fuselage, engine, wings and gear) would be beyond the realms of common sense. If there were such a thing, I'd suggest it's a lost Granville Brothers design, but since there aren't any gaps in that history it also doesn't work.

Canopy is wrong, but I still think it's a Northrop of some sort.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I've seen this one come and go several times on Facebook, here and flypast. Never come to a firm conclusion but the closest I've gotten is in the Lockheed family.

Lockheed Sirius: matches our subject aircraft well with the only problem being the landing gear. Attach points are further aft and the inboard bracing present on the Sirius isn't present in the subject airplane. Otherwise the canopy, cowling, wing profile, tail profile and tailwheel match well. Other discrepancy is that the subject airplane seems to be silver (assuming polished aluminum?) and the Sirius was an entirely wooden airplane.

Lockheed Altair: A later variant of the Sirius, typically with retractable landing gear. Early SN's did have fixed gear though - the same as the Sirius. The Altair typically had a metal fuselage which might help with the "polished aluminum" appearance of the subject airplane. Landing gear is still wrong though.

_________________
Ryan Pemberton
www.pembertonandsons.com

The landing gear are attached at the front of the wing with a bulbous fairing. The width also suggests Curtiss-Wright. Not a CW-22 Demon but the earlier fixed gear like a CW-18. The gear, wing, and cowling are close to a design by Curtiss-Wright. The Tailwheel design and placement of the landing lights in the wings are also clues.

Sure looks like a Gamma variant to me; two were sold to Japan as the Northrop BXN (couldn't find a photo); could this be one that was later modified in Japan? The landing gear looks like an improvement over the bulbous wheel pants of the other Gammas.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

While I don't disagree that it looks like something CW could have built, it does not appear in Peter M. Bowers' Curtiss Aircraft book.

Nor does it appear in the Japanese aircraft Putnam book.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.