John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #75 on: January 04, 2008, 05:17:23 PM » |
|
calling that one a Douglas Bomber... HA HA what a laugh!
And everyone thought *I* had problems distinguishing between Il-4 and DB-3 (or even Potez 175)! Maybe "DB" = "Douglas Bomber"? Maybe a throwback to propaganda lies which tried to convince the rest of the world that Russia could not design her own modern aircraft, would have been overwhelmed by the Nazis without Lend-Lease support, blah, blah, blah? What *is* a "Douglas Bomber", anyway? A converted DC-2? A B-23 Bolo? Not exactly a big part of the VVS's equipment list in 1941 (or *anyone's* equipment list!), and yet I've seen twin-engined Russian aircraft photos on ebay.de identified as "Douglas Bombers" numerous times! John
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Renato71
|
|
« Reply #76 on: January 04, 2008, 06:36:48 PM » |
|
Oh, yeah, I knew you were talking about these Been looking for them on my PC, but could not fount them... Well, it is IL-4 As for "Douglas", I think they were thinking this was A-20 Douglas/Boston, but at that time everybody were missinterpreting Soviet aircraft. If I remember correctly, when I-15's appeared in China they were called "Curtiss" by Japanese. Cheers
|
|
|
Logged
|
Renato
|
|
|
Dark Green Man
|
|
« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2008, 06:49:57 AM » |
|
Maybe a throwback to propaganda lies which tried to convince the rest of the world that Russia could not design her own modern aircraft, would have been overwhelmed by the Nazis without Lend-Lease support, blah, blah, blah?
John
Yes , it is a pity that some people are still in the Dark Age !
[/color] "Douglas", I think they were thinking this was A-20 Douglas/Boston, but at that time everybody were misinterpreting Soviet aircraft. If I remember correctly, when I-15's appeared in China they were called "Curtiss" by Japanese.
Cheers
ditto ! (see above)
[/color]
|
|
|
Logged
|
"when we lose the right to be different, we lose the priviledge to be free"--Charles Evans Hughes
|
|
|
Renato71
|
|
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2008, 09:59:14 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Renato
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #79 on: January 07, 2008, 11:29:27 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Massimo Tessitori
|
|
« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2008, 06:04:46 PM » |
|
Hi, interesting photos of miG-3. This is already drawn in my profiles as Overposed 14, and it's known to have black bands on the tail. I supposed that they were on all the plane, but these photos seem a convincing demonstration that they were on the tail only. I think that I'll modify the profile. Massimo
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2008, 06:29:51 PM » |
|
Hi, interesting photos of miG-3. This is already drawn in my profiles as Overposed 14, and it's known to have black bands on the tail. I supposed that they were on all the plane, but these photos seem a convincing demonstration that they were on the tail only. I think that I'll modify the profile. Massimo Thanks, Massimo - I'm glad my contribution might be useful. I thought I had seen this aircraft somewhere before, but I believed it was in a photo. Maybe a thorough check of avia-n-aero might turn up another image? It's really a great site for Barbarossa-era photos - I wish I could contact the site owner and thank him! John
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #82 on: January 08, 2008, 11:28:08 PM » |
|
Aha! Here's another photo of a MiG-3 which could be "Overposed 14", from avia-n-aero, as I hoped: http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=19&parent_id=19&photo_id=5581&countdisplay=&start=0There are some other images of a MiG-3 with the numeral 28 seemingly chalked on the fin which look suspiciously similar to Overposed 14... I'll try to get time to hunt for more, after dinner and my daughter's homework are done!? John
|
|
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 11:34:09 PM by John Thompson »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #83 on: January 09, 2008, 03:11:28 AM » |
|
Well, I didn't find any more images which are definitely "Overposed 14"; this one, maybe? But I can't see that lovely Russian birch tree in the foreground in any of the other photos: http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=19&parent_id=19&photo_id=4673&start=0Despite a lot of similarities between that aircraft and "White 28", at this point, I think they are two different aircraft, unfortunately! I was hoping that the "28" marking might have been chalked on as some kind of (perhaps) salvage operation identification, but other photos show the marking was probably much more permanent in nature. What fooled me was the similarity between the ebay.de image (I'd suggest anyone who's interested should save it soon, before it vanishes off ebay): http://cgi.ebay.de/045-Orig-Foto-Flugzeug-Jaeger-Winter-Ostfront_W0QQitemZ170183799998QQihZ007QQcategoryZ15504QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem...and these two, from a-n-a: http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=19&parent_id=19&photo_id=4488&countdisplay=&start=0http://www.avia-n-aero.ru/photo.php?category_id=19&parent_id=19&photo_id=4487&start=0Details like the twisted position of the right main wheel, the undamaged prop blades, the dangling panel under the wing centre-section, and of course the missing wings made me think these might all be photos of one aircraft, but other details (trees in the background, etc.) are different. Oh well...? John
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Massimo Tessitori
|
|
« Reply #84 on: January 09, 2008, 01:42:31 PM » |
|
Hi John, I've redrawn the profile of 14 and I'll upload it soon with 3 photos. One more photo showing the intact fuselage was sent to me from mr. Peczowski of Mushrooms a pair of years ago. The fuselage was still intact and a red star was visible. It is somewhere on my hd. n.4 and n.28 are not the same plane, even if some photos are similar because of the perspective. There is a profile of 28 too in my page. Massimo
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Massimo Tessitori
|
|
« Reply #85 on: January 09, 2008, 09:14:26 PM » |
|
Hi, I've uploaded the new version of the profile overposed 14, plus photos of two interesting models: the fine MiG-3 white 54 of Libor Jekl, already seen on the forum, and a MiG-1 converted from an Hobbyboss MiG-3 made by Uwe Borchert, a particularly fine model. Have a look to the Updates page. Massimo
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2008, 05:17:16 PM » |
|
Hi Massimo! Looks good - thanks very much! John
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marluc
|
|
« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2008, 07:25:59 PM » |
|
Hello everybody:
I want to congratulate Libor and Uwe,both made an excellent work in their Migs.Libor?s Mig paint scheme is quite attractive and Uwe?s convertion and painting? is very well done.Massimo,I like your article of "Overposed 14",thanks for sharing it.Best regards:
Martin
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Massimo Tessitori
|
|
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2008, 09:04:57 PM » |
|
You're welcome. Aesthetically speaking, the interpretation with the camouflaged tail only is more interesting, but I didn't dare to propose it immediately, two years ago, because I suspected that the reflection of the surface could have hidden the camo all over the plane. The images from the front-side seem to demonstrate the absence of camo on the fuselage sides. Massimo
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Thompson
|
|
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2008, 12:08:12 AM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|