MovieChat Forums > Dive Bomber (1941) Discussion > British aircraft that refuels at base

British aircraft that refuels at base


I wonder, what is the british aircraft that is flown by the ex-Navy pilot who is ferrying aircraft for the RAF? It is supposed to be a fighter, but I find it a little hard to believe that an open cockpit, fixed gear plane would be a first line fighter in 1941, maybe a fighter trainer. Anyway, it does not look like any british or allied aircraft that I can recall. It sort of looks like the Italian MC-200, but what would that aircraft be doing in RAF markings?

reply

There were a number of "holes" in this film, and the "RAF" plane was one of them. This plane wasn't British, and it wasn't a fighter. The length of the fuselage suggests that it was a airmail plane from the early thirties, and the cowling suggests that it may have been a Boeing. My guess is that Curtiz would not have looked far for some plane that had a "modern" look, but was different than the Dauntlesses that were so prevalent in the film. I would be willing to bet that every plane came from the San Diego area, and can't imagine the producers footing the bill to import a plane from Europe. Given the plot of the story, maybe Tim, the wash-out pilot was hired to run mail for the RAF. Perhaps there was more genius to the plane selection than is readily apparent.

reply

Greetings, have enjoyed all of the comments on this important and excellent film; but one aspect requesting confirmation -- the dive bombers actually filmed were, I believe, Northrop BTs not SBD Douglas Dauntlesses; the BTs had been in the fleet for a few years while the Dauntlesses were almost brand new and I suspect that the Navy would not have been too keen on all sorts of aerial shots of their most sophisticated, state-of-the-art dive bomber; clarifications and confirmations would be very appreciated; Fly Navy! on behalf of John B. Howland, WW II Navy SBD Pilot

reply

Won 1776

The dive bombers most seen are Vought SB2U Vindicators. Replaced in the fleet by the Douglas SBD Dauntless. Marines flew Vindicators at Midway. They were obsolete and faired poorly against the Zero.

reply

I looked up this listing because the same question had been nagging me. That decidedly 1930s-ish "British" plane looked out-of-place in a 1941, and I've always wondered what it was. Seeing my very own question being discussed here prompted me to do some extra research, and I think I've come upon something. Just working from memory here, but the plane in the movie bears an uncanny resemblance to the 1933 Kinner B-2 Sportwing. Check out: http://aerofiles.com/kinner-b2.jpg

The only difference I can see is the canopy, which would have been simple to remove. In fact, the plane in the film has no leather padding around the cockpit rim, which it almost certainly would have had, had it been designed as an open-cockpit machine. This gives it a vaguely military look, and to me suggests a studio chop-job.

Otherwise, it has all the other details: fully spatted undercarriage, a two-bladed prop; a pinch-waisted engine cowling with prominent bulges for the cylinder heads...even the odd-external bracing.

reply

The "RAF" plane in the movie is a Ryan ST sport trainer fixed up with a fake radial cowl (Note how the prop is off center in the cowl because of the plane's inverted in-line menasco engine). The cosmetic work was done by Paul Mantz's whose company did most of the aerial photography.

reply

They probably picked the Ryan ST and painted it up as a British fighter plane as it would have been difficult to get a real Spitfire or Hurricane from the Brits, as the Battle of Britain was reaching a climax as this film was being shot here in the U.S.. The film, Captains of the Clouds, was another technicolor film akin to Dive Bomber, except shot in Canada at their Commonwealth training schools and featuring Fairey Battles, AT-6 Texans, Lockheed Hudsons with a Waco or two thrown in. If only there was an equivilant German, Japanese, or Russian film shot at the same time!

reply

Well done, Mark457! Your identification of the "RAF fighter" as a Ryan ST is accurate. For the many years - since the 1950's - that I've been a fan of 'Dive Bomber' I knew it was a Ryan ST with the Menasco engine, and with its forward tandem cockpit faired over, so I could never figure the application of the faux-cowling with its (also phony) rocker box blisters, especially since the ST's inline engine cowling profile much more closely resembled the profiles of the RAF's two actual frontline fighters, the Hurricane and Spitfire, of the day. With the phony radial cowling the ST does resemble the five-cylinder Kinner-engined Ryan PT-22 trainer - which was essentially an ST re-engined with the underpowered Kinner radial whose lack of oomph had the unlucky instructors and students who had to fly it giving the PT-22 the nickname "Widowmaker."

reply

Thanks to all of you for the identification. I just watched Dive Bomber for the first time a couple of days ago, and was going crazy trying to identify that "RAF fighter". The best I could come up with was the French Dewoitine 500, but now looking at pictures of the Ryan I see that the Ryan is it.

reply

Happy to find this post as we watched the DVD (great print!) last night and wondered what the aircraft was. Cheers.

reply

Couldn't they have found a P-40 and painted it in RAF colors? It would have made sense, because as far as I know no Spitfires or Hurricanes were being built in the USA, but the RAF was certainly buying P-40s.

reply

Pretty sure that the P-40 was known as the 'Kittyhawk' in RAF service.
Only problem with having one of those show up was that it would make all those Navy bi-plane fighters look like antiques. And I'm sure that wouldn't have made the Navy too happy.
Even a Brewster Buffalo from the Marines would have looked more modern. Plus, the Buffalo actually did serve with RAF and Commonwealth forces.

reply

Man, I think you hit on it! I bet the Navy wanted to make sure their planes looked better, and that's why they picked the RAF plane they did. Even though, as you so correctly state, the F2Fs and other USN planes were obsolete even in 1941.

reply

Thanks to the clarity of the DVD, it is possible to see from tail markings that the biplanes are Grumman F3Fs, rather than F2Fs. Picky, picky, picky...

reply

Not that I was paying that close attention, but it seems to me that refueling isn't the time for Joe and Tim to smoke...

reply

It was great seeing all these colorful pre-war aircraft in action.

Is there an aircraft expert out there that would care to list ALL the aircraft seen in this film?

Thanks,


***Does anyone else find it ironic that in a film titled "Dive Bomber", not a single bomb was dropped or even seen?! Not even in practice.....weird...

reply

.........The British aircraft looked to me like Boeing P-26 Peashooter; so named because of the gunsight protruding from the windshield. The low wing opened cockpit pursuit plane was developed for the Army Air Force in 1932. A number were sold to China, several South American countries as late as the fifties,but there is no evidence they were ever used by the British in real life..........The P-26 was still in the USAAF inventory in 1941 when this movie was filmed. In December of that year, during the invasion of the Philippines, it was used effectively against far more advanced Japanese aircraft.

True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

reply

The RAF "fighter" looked to me like a Miles Magister trainer with a dummy radial cowling fitted.

reply

Mark457, was the Ryan ST manufactured by the same company which manufactured the 'Spirit of St. Louis'?

Thanks.

rdb.

reply

Yes!

JS (A proud San Diegan, who remembers seeing a perfect replica "The Spirit", at an Aviation museum near San Diego-Lindbergh Field. They changed the name to something more "Up-to-Date", but nobody uses it except those who work there...and then, only "Officially". If you keep your eyes open, you can also spot Point Loma Lighthouse and what used to be the old Navy Hospital.)

.






I do hope he won't upset Henry...

reply

[deleted]

From what I remember the Royal Navy had some pretty god awful fighter aircraft as they had thought a nimble naval based fighter with the performance of a land based one was all but impossible and focused their efforts on large long ranged types, so seeing that crappy wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

It wasn't until they adapted the Spitfire to naval usage and started to import F4F Wildcats that the Royal Navy actually had something comparable to land based fighters.

reply

[deleted]