Please identify this plane

Agree that money may not be the only motive. There’s a whole army of people out there producing “images” of the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, UFOs and other mysterious stuff, just because they enjoy the trickery of it all.

That image of the Ki-15 is interesting as it demonstrates clearly what appears wrong with our image. The glare on the Ki-15 is produced on both spats, along the wing edges, around the engine cowling and on the tail. The same effect is repeated on other images posted here ( #170 and #204 for instance). With our image the light seems to come from the same angle but the distinctive bright glare is only on one spat. Not on the wing edge. Not at all on the canopy. Barely anywhere else that it ought to be?

The Ki-15 looks like it to some extent, but so do several other suggestions. As with those there are dissimilarities too. Agreed this might be the source of the colour scheme.

It’s not about money. I know someone who’s actually a straight-up-and-down good bloke in the old aeroplane world who creates photoshop forgeries for fun. He releases them onto forums just for the hell of it, to watch for the response. I am not going to say who because some might not find it funny (I do). If you have been a victim of one of these pranks (Merlin Whirlwind, anyone?) you’ll know who.. It’s harmless, and it gets people thinking and talking.

It happens.

As I suggested a few hundred posts ago…there is a strong resemblance to the civil Ki-15 “Kamikazi”.

Here is a period photo from about the same angle as the original post.
Scroll down to the second photo.

http://www.oldtokyo.com/tokyo-london…d-flight-1937/

As Otis above notes, the it has a well known color scheme, making it easier…almost too easy…for a hoax.

But, I agree with Malcolm above, there isn’t a huge market faking old airplane photos, not like what behind the scenes photos of BoB or Star Wars might bring.

I don’t think it’s a fake or hoax simply because what would be the point? It isn’t as if photos of obscure Spanish? or 1930s aircraft in general are a big money earner.

I have no expertise to add on this subject, but having followed the conversation so far, I have a few thoughts.
People have noticed that parts of this aircraft resemble those of several different companies. You would think that if you were to invent a forged image then you would want to keep everyone guessing. So you would steer clear of having just pure Northrop features because the Northrop expert on the board would immediately refute it. Also a “bitsa” draws in theories from more people. A previously unknown powerful s/e type would also draw most attention.
Those wheels look tiny in those massive spats. The bottom shrouds and tiny wheels look like they have come off a modern light civil type rather than an obviously very heavy aircraft.
It has already been mentioned that there is a resemblance to the Ki-27. The paint decoration we see here is prominent on model kits of that plane! So we have a scheme well known to modellers.
There is obvious glare on the front of the port undercarriage spat which continues onto the wing root. I don’t see this glare anywhere else on the aircraft, even though there are other surfaces where it should also be visible?
I have great difficulty putting together the elements that are hidden behind the port wing. As already mentioned, the rear fuselage seems to be hanging too low compared to the belly. The port tailplane seems to be far too long compared to the end of the fin .It looks a little like the wing has been slapped on top of other elements to hide where they join. If I had means I would have tried to draw an image to demonstrate this.

I was joking about the fencing… but this kind of illustrates what I was getting at. With this erudition available, we can’t identify the type? Either there was a functioning aeroplane designed that escaped all record or there’s something else afoot.

I don’t agree on a point of logic, Meddle, that we would need to know the motive for it to be a hoax.

Just been looking around at old fashioned Radio Antennae and the type of Antenna I was alluding to might be similar to a Bruce Array or Curtain Antenna for Shortwave.
Shortwave could be used for long range transmissions I believe – but I am not a Radio man for sure :).

Also the fencing is interesting.

As I posted first time round – the ‘Fencing’ could possibly be an ‘Aerial’/’Antenna’ of some sort – I have seen similar ones at military installations

Ah, but Garnham-Smythe was famously wrong about the type 3A pre-cast maycrete post turnbuckle mount, which discredits him in the view of all serious students of Allied fencing between 1939 and 1942.

About the aircraft, I just feel it’s peculiar that possibly the world’s most rivet-counting forum has failed to identify it for so long. Also, there are some other ‘tells’. The pitot tube has a droop to it, the letters under the wing appear irregularly painted, and lettering on the cheat line appears to be randon shapes. Any sign of a pilot is conveniently hidden by the angle, and the image is just sufficiently blurred and “noisy’ to disguise the model look.

I’d love to be wrong, and find out more about this attractive type. Also the fencing is interesting.

Beermat…
I wasn’t going to comment on the year of the fuel lorry.
But what gives it away is the concertina wire….it’s not wound anti-clockwise with a double helical twist (as noted in R.H.G. Garnham-Smyth’s book, “Fences and wire of the RAF, 1936-45”, VOL. 2, Putnam, 1972).

I don’t think it is a hoax aircraft either. For it to be a hoax we would have to know the intentions of the hoaxer. We have no information to go on beyond the image itself.

Not beefy enough! The problem with a lot of the candidates suggested: the photo shows a hefty machine and the Vought is sadly just too weedy.

Any chance that it might be the Vought V-143 one-off that got sold to Japan? This had retractable wheels, but could there be a chance that the Japanese experimented with changing it to a fixed undercarriage before they dumped it?

The other thing saying Curtiss Hawk to me is the location and type of pitot head.

I really believe a slightly different angle or clearer photograph would have this solved in short order.

I’m not convinced it’s a hoax, I just don’t see the motive for doing it.
​​​​​​However, I don’t have a better explanation other than with the security of the 30s for a type with military potential, something could have gone unnoticed.

My main point agrees with your statement about it being well-engineered. Unlike some of the earlier comments suggesting some sort of back-hangar mixing of handy spares, there is far more to putting an aircraft like this together than meets the eye, something not everyone on this forum seems to appreciate. Clearly it’s one thing to be a book, airshow and model enthusiast, and another to have spent time around the machines.

..having said that, if this actually was completed, it would look like the aircraft in the photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedell-Williams_XP-34

However, I am wondering whether the ‘perpetrator’ of this model might not also be the source of a clever piece of forgery?

I’m beginning to think the same thing: I’m sure such a beefy, obviously well-engineered type would be well-known among us geeks of the trivia…

Re #237, the tail plane is clearly too high and of a completely different shape. Everything about the aircraft screams Lockheed with an exact match to tailplane shape and the style of cheat line.

If I am not mistaken this is a made-up ‘what if’ model, so doubt the reference material does exist.

However, I am wondering whether the ‘perpetrator’ of this model might not also be the source of a clever piece of forgery? It does look very similar indeed. I know that the photo was purchased by the OP in good faith, and it may have slipped in to a collection a while back?

On the other hand, it has inspired me to look at Curtisses again as the origin of a possible real aeroplane.

A model here built from reference material, with a Spanish connection.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6397.0

That reference material, if it exists, would be most helpful.