learstang
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2011, 01:31:38 AM » |
|
I have the magazine, Konstantin. The articles are interesting and well-written. However, once again, our old friend "Mr. Brown/Green" makes his appearance in a profile of an arrow(?). They have a three-view of "Red 28"; the straight-winged winter-camouflage two-seater, which correctly has the 37mm cannons, but incorrectly has the brown/green camouflage showing through in places, and has a metal-fuselage. It appears that the myth of the brown/green camouflage and metal-fuselage are harder to kill than Count Dracula. In addition, "Red 28" has the bort at the wrong angle, and the later style rear gunner's canopy. It makes you wonder if artists even bother to work from photographs. Also a flight of IL-10's is wrongly identified as "A formation of Shturmoviks over Russia in May 1943.". Well, at least they call it the "Shturmovik", and not the "Sturmovik", "Stormovik", etc. They also use the bogus designations "IL-2M", IL-2M3", and mention the apparently non-existent torpedo version, the "IL-2T". It does have a nice cutaway drawing of the arrow that appears to be accurate (and it's labelled in English!). Even here, however, its entry for item 113 states "Rear fuselage aluminium alloy frame structure, replaces all-wood rear fuselage of earlier models". Wrong, of course, as not only is this arrow not identified as a postwar example, some of which did indeed have retro-fitted metal rear fuselages, but a version with the all-metal fuselage would not have had an internal D/F loop, which this cutaway example does. In other words, the coverage in this magazine is typical Shturmovik fare, facts, photographs, and useful information interspersed with annoying (and seemingly indestructible) inaccuracies.
Regards,
Jason
|