Lawrence of Arabia

have seen this movie four times, and have yet to figure out if that 'Turkish'/'German' plane is the real deal or a good fake. anybody know what it was.

as it will be arriving at my doorstep anyday now, this question sorta popped into my head.

I thought it was made up to look like a Rumpler, with those curious wings, what was it 'supposed to be'... and was this airplane perhaps an anachronism? the production crew for LoA seemed to have done pretty good work overall, for a highly 'artistic' interpretation of history... thoughts about the plane, or the movie?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Totoroman:
The Rumpler is in reality a DH Tigermoth with some rework and modifications.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

that makes sense. I figured there was no way it could have been a real German aircraft from the period, some 50 odd years removed from 'the other side.'

there wouldn't have been a shortage of Tiger Moths and it was probably better than the Rumpler it was supposed to be.

The Rumpler C.1 used in the middle east by the Germans and Turks was a fine airplane. On more than one occasion in Palestine, 1 Sqdn AFC thought the Germans had Halberstadt fighters while in acuality they were fighting Rumpler C.1 2 seaters from FA 300.

Marlon Schultz

I do know that it apparently had excellent high altitude performance, and that Rumpler produced a very odd looking car in the 1930s which had the same drag coefficient as the Lexus... which obviously came out later... a funky car that looked (as you might have guessed) like a recon plane without the wings. I know this is supposed to be about airplanes... but I always thought it would be cool to get a hold of one of those Rumpler cars... I even think the driver/passenger arrangment was like a two seater-- can't remember if there even was a passenger seat... but if you guys haven't seen the car, it's pretty wild. unfortunately I can't give you any great book references for finding it. somebody at the Art Institute of Seattle showed it to me after they learned I liked old airplanes.

I just figured, in reference to the Tiger Moth, that since it was a later design, and produced in such greater numbers, and purportedly very easy to fly, that it was probably the better plane (if only by virtue of having been made with the additional beneift of more water under the bridge, so to speak.... I didn't say that the Rumpler was a bad airplane... if it came down to choosing between an RE8, a DFW, or a FE2b and the Rumpler line... I'd probably go with the Rumpler...

forgive me for replying to my own post, but I got it delivered to my apartment this afternoon and just popped it in straight into my computer. great film. now that I look at it... it was blatantly obviously those were Tiger Moths, the engine cowlings just give it away... and there was a scene in which we witness a bomb explosion, but no bomb is visibly dropped. so even in a masterpiece like Lawrence, you'll still get a lot glitches and the like. I found it very interesting that Steven Spielberg said that movies like that will probably never be made again... because now people would insist on making everything digital to save money... and that when that train gets blown off the rails, it wouldn't be the same now... because back then they really blew a train apart to get that scene... or the fact that sometimes they could only get one take in a given day because they had to cover up the tracks in the sand... no wonder it took 285 days of shooting to complete. although I think to myself, can anybody really believe that Alec Guiness was an Arab? I always found that to be a bit of a stretcch... but he was good... and I find myself impressed by Anthony Quayles performance as Colonel Brighton... I think a lot of that movie can be understood when Allenby declares (in response to Feisel and Dyrden) that he's no politician but a merely a soldier doing his job, as Colonel Brighton -- the only real soldier left among them, leaves the room in disgust... Dryden sarrcastically quips, "Yes, so you keep saying." that scene still gets me every time.

[mike_baram]

Let's not forget Mel Ferrer as a Turkish officer....even a small role can be miscast.

Lawrence is a great movie - great point about the digital vs. "reality". So far the digital while impressive and opening up a lot of options for movie makers (who otherwise couldn't afford to make epics anymore) just isn't up to the same level. I love the scene at the well - with the figure riding in - heard Lean actual brought in different colored sand and laid it out in long lines converging on the distant figure to focus the eye - I wonder if anyone takes the time to think things through like that any more ?

A bit of an aside but my favorite all time miscast was Edward G. Robinson in the 10 Commandments - great campy old film but he totally cracks me up. It's like casting Johnny Gotti to play Judas Iscariot.

John G.

Dear T.M.,
Dryden, if I'm not mistaken, was played by Claude Raines. He was a Captain in the Great War, on the Western Front. On one occaision, he was buried alive in a bombardment, and (obviously) had to be dug out. As for his magnificent voice? Supposedly, it's characteristic rasp was the result of being wounded in a gas attack...

It is interesting to think that the Rumpler C.I when it arrived outperformed in speed and altitude the leading fighter aircraft of the day, namely the Fokker E series, Pfalz E series, and most anything the British had, except for the Nieuport. Of course as a larger and heavier aircraft it couldn't outmanoeuver the Nieuport, DH2, Bristol Scout C-D, but the speed and altitude more than made up for that in late 1915 early 1916. I like reading about how Flieger-Abteilung A 300 Pascha did on the type in Palestine. Quite an adventure! It is interesting to also see how the airframe was sound enough to adapt the design to the single-seat Rumpler 6B1 and 6B2 floatplane fighter.