[Closed] Identify the seaplane in Swallows and Amazons.

a lot newer than the setting of the film - cessna floatplane of some description of some description

1:55 for about a second !!

Not a real seaplane but a movie prop ? Cessna like for sure

Here you are OP

I'm gonna guess it is a Cessna 182. But it could be one of their other light singles.

Looks like some sort of generic movie prop (or even CGI). Here's a screen grab

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8408/29455217075_39917e6e3a_o.pn g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8408/29455217075_39917e6e3a_o.pn g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/LSRFQg ]Screen Shot 2016-09-04 at 19.11.42[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesyfeet/ ]-Cheesyfeet-[/url], on Flickr

I won't admit how many screen capture attempts it took to get the plane 😳 EDIT @pied obviously a bit quicker than I

[img] [/img]

By the way a small dinghy would be flattened by the prop wash of a seaplane at anything other than fairly low revs

A seaplane in Swallows and Amazons 😥 FFS

Spoiler Alert: No Titty.

unsure about this, seems to have been sexed up a bit, presumably to try and keep the attention of todays kids more used to Hunger Games et al, think it'll fall between two stools- won't appeal to those who've read the books, won't appeal to the kids.

Shift + CMD + 4 on a Mac - nice & easy.

The dinghy is being towed by the aircraft, but the small white flag on the top of the mast seems to be blowing in the wrong direction considering the movement of the air created by the prop.

...and why is there no spray being created?

Probably a CGI based on a Cessna C-206:

[img] [/img]

I knew they'd changed the name from Titty to Tatty, the children's names are based on actual people, and I believe there were sisters called Titty and Tatty, so fair enough to stop the s****ing at the back, but an attempt to 'sex things up' by introducing some spurious storyline involving ' Captain Flint' and some supposed Russian spies is just bloody ludicrous, and the nearest floatplane to that Cessna would have been a Schneider Trophy race plane.
What a load of bollux.

@piedi nice spot, its called a burgee btw and indeed is "blowing the wrong way" one for IMDB / movie website errors. Was on my iPad, Mini sleeping 😉

@Count Schenider Trophy you say, they definitely missed a trick 🙂

[img] [/img]

In fact, they really missed a trick, in that instead of preposterous Russian spies they'd had Italian spies, much more likely back then, they could have had a Marchetti MC-72...

[img] [/img]

Probably more appropriate would have been the Macchi M-33...

[img] [/img]

This is a model, no photos of original aircraft around, it seems.

It's a Cessna 182 which was painted for the film, UK based and registered.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860650@N02/19438457180

KM

There was loads 'wrong' in the film - tacking round and returning on same tack, heading downwind sheeted in, landing directly downwind, different rock and tree type on 'one' Island, manly shoulders (Pete) instead of of Amazons sailing in background etc.

Still a pleasant film.

Thanks everyone but especially ski99 who nailed it.

Glad I didn't take the children to see it it now. When I was younger I loved all the books and would not want to see them messed about much.

The 1974 on was very close to the book.

I went to see it last week and grew up with the books and, as someone who grew up with boats, mucking about in the lakes, camping and so on, loved them. The film is different, I don't know where the spy story came from, but it's still a good film in its own right and I'd recommend it. Kids who have read the books definitely will.

What bothered me more than the spy story was the fact that some London locations manager had clearly thought that "up north" is all the same and set a lot of it in what appeared to be Haworth and Calderdale, which look nothing like the Lake District.

And the train was wrong.

The 1974 on was very close to the book.

Yep, really enjoyed that one (not seen the new one).

Still a pleasant film.

I think I would agree with that. In an era where children's films, are most often animated or scifi/comic book stuff I found it a refreshing change. I haven't read the books, but did grow up playing in small boats. I doubt it would have made it to the big screen without the espionage angle, and Ransom himself was allegedly a spy of some sort. I think if you watch a film like that and are getting too obsessed with the details like whether that particular model of plane existed you may have missed the point: its light entertainment not a historical reenactment.

The thing nobody considered about the burgee (flag) on the mast with the sea plane is that the flag would be pointing that way if there was a conveyor belt just under the water! Or perhaps weird turbulence effects cause that.

Unfortunately anybody who knows anything about the action being portrayed is always going to be able to pick holes in it; look at the ridiculous action sequences in that idiotic Cliffhanger film with Stallone.

I think I would agree with that. In an era where children's films, are most often animated or scifi/comic book stuff I found it a refreshing change. I haven't read the books, but did grow up playing in small boats. I doubt it would have made it to the big screen without the espionage angle, and Ransom himself was allegedly a spy of some sort. I think if you watch a film like that and are getting too obsessed with the details like whether that particular model of plane existed you may have missed the point: its light entertainment not a historical reenactment.

But it's just not necessary to mess about with the story by chucking in this daft spy business, there was enough mystery about what Jim Turner/Captain Flint, and the theft from his houseboat to keep the entertainment going, and the floatplane is a glaring inconsistency; there is never any reference in any of the books to aircraft, the [i]whole point[/i] of them is the connection to sailing and adventure!
I [i]have[/i] read the books, all of them, in fact I'm reading one of them at the moment, and still enjoying stories set in 1929 onwards, without any re-writing to encompass spurious modern subjects.
The 1974 film managed to keep Titty's name intact, too, although the 1963 BBC series had Kitty instead of Titty, played by Susan George.
Titty was the nickname of Mavis Altounyan, one of the children of John Altounyan, who the Walkers were based on, the name coming from a children's story by Joseph Jacobs, called [i]Titty Mouse and Tatty Mouse[/i], which is why Tatty is an acceptable substitute in the film.

what appeared to be Haworth and Calderdale

Heptonstall, they were filming earlier in the year, interesting to watch

Using a modern Cessna is really lazy though, how hard would it have been for the set crew to go "we should totally use an era correct/vintage seaplane" - theres loads about as well.

My 6 yr old didn't critic the aircraft, the fact that it was Howarth, or the Worth Valley railway, he just enjoyed the film.

I won't admit how many screen capture attempts it took to get the plane 😳

On YouTube vids you can click the gear icon, select Speed, then drop it down to 0.25

Makes quickly grabbing certain frames a LOT easier!