Sovietwarplanes

Modeling Soviet Warplanes => Colors, schemes, & research => Topic started by: learstang on May 23, 2012, 05:15:09 AM



Title: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 23, 2012, 05:15:09 AM
It appears that EP is once again at it, this time at least partly against this very site.  Look at this link - http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/lacquers/lacquer_nomenclature.html  One especially interesting paragraph is the following where he refers to this site as "On one particularly ridiculous -- and notorious -- web site [emphasis added], we have a new supposition being touted that the early war, pre-AMT paints for use in VVS camouflage were lacquers "A-19F" green and "AM-26" black over "A-18" blue. Oh, do tell? And based upon which evidence are these claims? Oh, yes, that's right-- none at all."  

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on May 23, 2012, 07:15:03 AM
Hi Jason,
I read the article and found it very boring.
EP is known for the unreliability of his claims that often don't pass the exam of someone that knows the sources that he claims.
Do you remember his delire about Orwell? He utilized photos from the web, not his own ones, although he claimed to have examined nearly every specimen on this world.
Why hasn't he published his own photos? Has he money enough to make chemical exams on any piece, and not enough to buy a small camera to show it?
He vaunted to have passed a lot of time in Russia, but the only proof are the three photos taken in Monino, that are accessible to any tourist.
He vaunted to know Russian, but Russians discomfirm this.
Once he vaunted to have the original negatives of many famous historical photos that can be found on any book, but the photos of his SAFFC are credited to Petrov.
And when he publishes the photos that he uses as a base for his profiles, all commonly available on the web, they often show big discrepancies with his drawings, as the colors of the P-40 of Safonov that are clearly inverted.
Please, Jason, modify your post, I don't want to see insults on the forum even if someone deserves this.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 23, 2012, 08:09:39 AM
All right, Massimo, I have edited my post; it is after all your site.  I had thought that you might like to know what Mr. Pilawskii were writing about this site.  Frankly, if someone were attacking my site and my conclusions (and woe to anyone who tries!), I would make sure that they regretted it.  But that's me; perhaps you're above that - I'm not.  I fight fire with fire.

Best Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on May 23, 2012, 08:53:43 AM
Hi Jason,
you made well to let me know this thing, no doubt. His writing deserved some comments.
About the adjectives as 'moron', 'ridiculous' etc that EP tributes to people criticising him, he never makes their names openly to avoid legal quarrels. So we do. Thank you for having removed the comments that could give this type of worries.
I's interesting to note his ambivalence about who the 'morons' are.
I have not doubts about the first ones of the list.
But, in his delire of two years ago, it was clear that this category included Orlov, because he was denying many points of his work.
At the same time, much of the work of EP is based on a bad translation of the articles of Orlov and Vaklamov of a dozen years ago.
Now it seems that he corrected the translation, with a delay of many years.
Is still Orlov between 'morons', one could ask?
About 'my' site: don't we forget JP Myers. I hope that he'll return to post something here.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: warhawk on May 23, 2012, 05:09:27 PM
I would make sure that they regretted it.

Isn't this exactly EP manner of thinking? Just sayin'
Personally, I would always be open for critic, no one knows everything, nor is 100% right...


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 23, 2012, 05:46:28 PM
I would make sure that they regretted it.

Isn't this exactly EP manner of thinking? Just sayin'
Personally, I would always be open for critic, no one knows everything, nor is 100% right...

Massimo, you're correct about the name-calling; that was unnecessary (and I haven't forgotten Mr. Myers either - however, you're the one who's done the colour research).  Warhawk, I should have clarified that to mean if anyone threw baseless and mean-spirited accusations at my site, it would not go unchallenged.  I am open to criticism; in my ongoing IL-2 book, where I initially based much of my discussion of colours on EP's research, I was persuaded by a couple of gentlemen on this site that it was somewhat erroneous.  I have to admit I didn't take it too well at first - nobody likes being told they are wrong (although I certainly did not call them names), but after examining their research and others that they based their research on, I realised they were correct and changed my book accordingly.

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on May 24, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
Gentlemen,

Pilawskii?s text is not about VVS colours and paints ? he doesn?t know and he doesn?t care about VVS colours and paints?  It?s about his books ? already published and planned for the near future. 

First about the beloved SAFCC:

Quote
May I also point out that the vast majority of the work in that volume still stands, factually, and that (as previously mentioned) the identification of the appearance of the various colours remains unchanged. That both claims may be made in light of the retrieval of so much additional physical evidence since the publication of SAFFC is notable.

I can see no other work containing theories of superior scientific merit on this topic than this.

Then about the new SAFFCC edition:

Quote
These and all other manner of updates and corrections  will be presented in a new, forthcoming work. Publication is tentatively scheduled for 2013, and the book will contain many features not included in SAFFC.

This is all directed to uninformed buyers:  they are expected to buy remaining old books or wait for the new edition.
Mistakes and errors ? who cares?
Insults ? just for fun, those who are insulted are not his buyers anyways?


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: bbrought on July 27, 2014, 07:56:04 AM
And he does it again:

http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Colour_2014/colour_2014.html


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on July 27, 2014, 10:16:55 PM
The collapse of logic... seems that the civilization is close to an end because people no longer trusts his 'research'.
One of the problems with EP is that he claims to be always in first line where a piece of Soviet plane is discovered, but he utilizes nearly only photos of other people, usually without any credit. Nearly no photos of his own. Any researcher would have made lots of photos of such specimens, if he had really seen them.

Quote
Samples of original paint were carefully cleaned and prepared and then submitted for analysis to Akzo Nobel-- only the world's leading authority on aviation finishes-- who scanned these specimens using a spectrometer in their own laboratory.
He writes about Akzo Nobel as if he is a person, but it is not so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AkzoNobel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AkzoNobel)

He vaunts to have the original photos of some planes, as La-5FN n.95. Pity that the same photo, in his own book, is credited to Petrov.
The photo of Yak-9 has already been published in Yakovlev's piston-engined fighters of Gordon and Khazanov in 2002, but there is not written 'EP archive'. Why?

He always writes monologues, but he never posted on forums when he had the possibility to defend his credibility.
This article is an unextricable mix of apparently reasonable things and of arbitrary assumptions, as the resemblance of colors with modern Russian planes, all merged with the known arrogance and arriving to the obvious conclusion that he has always been right to draw planes with colors similar to those of markers.

Any thoughts?
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: TISO on July 28, 2014, 06:00:45 AM
Quote
It is my own view-- likely known by many-- that the internet has virtually destroyed any semblance of mature debate and argument, not to mention rational thought. Alas, the current generation of tablet-wielding know-nothings is awash with those who accept that the truth should be decided by popularity, and that such arcane practices such as the collection of evidence and interacting with the physical world is declasse. Allied to the appallingly anti-social behaviour seen on the 'web in any forum or discussion group one wishes to name, the situation must be hopeless.

Look who is talking. As i reacall he didn't take well me publishing a colour photo (not colorised) of Yak-9 with silver bordered star on his forum during "great silver conspiracy" bruhaha. And i do take offence with tablet wielding.

Just a little note and i know it is hair splitting, but since i work as a licenced PART 66 B 1.3 aircraft engineer (mechanic really but EASA says engineer) and i also run engineering section in our PART 145 and CAMO organisations (title says "engineering manager" but alas it doesn't show that on pay slip) i can hardly let it slide.
 EP uses P/N  in captions to photos for individual aircraft from which artifacts came. P/N acctually means Part Number which is number of an individual part or component, from a rivet or split pin to entire aircraft and doesn't change for all parts or components produced (OK last few numers known as dash number can change but they usualy denote modification/version of the part). Surely he ment (or not) to use S/N as in Serial Number which is individual to each part, component or aircraft.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: bbrought on July 28, 2014, 04:41:52 PM
When I read that article, I assume he is referring to us as the ones who don't have any ability to think. Yet, he is asking us to rely almost 100% on his own evidence that he is unwilling (or much more probably unable) to provide. In all the incredible "research" he has done - he is still unable to post his own pictures of any of the artifacts he claims to have or had access to. I just don't buy the few excuses in that regard that he has made in the past.

I am truly getting ticked off with his personal attacks towards anyone who doesn't agree with him - not just towards the real researchers, but to us "normal" people who don't take every word he says as the gospel truth, and then he plays the victim. In fact, I am starting to wonder whether he has actually seen in person any of the artifacts he refers to, or whether he solely relies on photographs of said articles. More and more evidence seems to point to the latter case. As someone who often photograph aircraft, I can state without hesitation that I have absolutely no trust that the photographs I have taken myself, with a modern camera, are representative of the real thing when it comes to colour. I have taken photographs of aircraft in cloudy conditions where two photographs taken on the same day of the same aircraft and roughly at the same time, but just in slightly different positions, produce such stark differences in colour and even in contrast, that you will barely believe it was the same aircraft. In fact, just today I was looking at air-to-air pictures we took from the chase aircraft during a flight test of an aircraft in a three-tone camouflage, and in some lighting conditions it literally looked like the aircraft was painted in a single colour. Yet he is now asking us to take analysis of black-and-white photographs often taken with unknown equipment, almost always in unknown conditions, as some sort of proof that he is right and everyone else are wrong about WWII colouration. He can spin as much as he wants - it is his statements and "analysis" that I find laughable.

In this article of his, I notice he STILL brings up AII Brown - he is truly convinced that this colour existed and that it was as he describes it.

I find it hilarious that he writes a long section on how other researchers disregard evidence that do not support their theories, and then goes right ahead and dismiss all German colour photograps with this sentence: "German period colour photographs demonstate a wide range of apparent colouration, none in agreement with each other. To my knowledge, no useful analysis can be made of such images." Does he not realise how he just did exactly what he accused others of doing? And what is even more funny, is that the four German photographs he show in the pictures show a remarkably similar green to my eyes, which in the case of the I-16's is very likely AII Green and they also look remarkably similar to my bottle of AKAN AII Green (but obviously nothing like his fluorescent green interpretation). However, according to him, random black and white photographs can tell us a lot more about what AII Green looked like. It also doesn't seem to bother him that the scan of the "AII (suspected) Green" card that he show in the article looks absolutely nothing like any of the pictures of this colour posted in the rest of the same article?

As I said, I am getting more and more ticked off with him. I bought his book a long time ago, and it cost me a lot of money, so I feel I have the right to criticise his inconsistencies - but I guess I am just one of those people "unable to think". At least I can actually understand Russian - in his case I have some serious doubts...


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: bbrought on July 28, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
I forgot to add: It is also rather telling that Pilawskii doesn't include any photographs of the Yak-3 under restoration at Le Bourget. This aircraft probably gives us the best idea of what AMT-7/11/12 looked like when fresh, yet he saw it fit not to refer to this aircraft at all. I think the reason is very obvious: Because this looks absolutely nothing like his colour chips, and looks remarkably similar to the AKAN interpretations, the Albom Nakrasok chips and various descriptions of these colours:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7028/6464947669_30c2fd50aa_z.jpg)


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Troy Smith on July 28, 2014, 06:02:20 PM
well....what do you expect.

interestingly a chap I corresponded with on Britmodeller said he met Pilawskii when he was in the Bristol area, and he apparently did have some  photos he'd not published, though he did say something along the lines of "He thought Stalin was right"....

but enough of that, yes, it's laughable,  in one sectin he uses comparison of BW photos of VVS and Luftwaffe planes,

Quote
[And here is an I-16 finished in AII lacquers next to two similarly painted (RLM 65/70/71) German aircraft, an Fi 156 and Hs 126.
I am no expert in German photography, but even so we can clearly see that the Russian green colour (AII Green) is considerably lighter than the German greens, and similarly the Russian blue (AII Blue) is lighter than RLM 65. Such an observation would be strictly impossible if we accept the Albom claims for any of these paints, but it is in perfect agreement with all of the evidence described in this article.

Did anyone say that the I-16 green is darker than the RLM71, let alone RLM70?  

But down the page you get this

Quote
German period colour photographs demonstate a wide range of apparent colouration, none in agreement with each other. To my knowledge, no useful analysis can be made of such images.

Really, when there is a photo of on an I-16 with a Bf109 in the background,  the colours of which are well known, and look a decent representation of those colours, this is a useful image.  

http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1591.0
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4mmrHuObjZQ/T0C6uri1QSI/AAAAAAAAFWo/MsnrjH95c7E/s1600/Bf+109G-2+28.jpg)


The question I'd like him to answer.  Why do you think the VVS used bright lurid camouflage colours while  NO OTHER WW2 combatants did?  This is where it all goes wrong.
Camouflage  is exactly that,  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage

Quote
Camouflage is the use of any combination of materials, coloration or illumination for concealment, either by making animals or objects hard to see (crypsis)

A brief study of aircraft camouflage of WW2 airforces actually reveals a great deal of commonality,  with use of specific schemes for specific roles, and changes when these changed, the RAF going from a Green/Brown pattern for fighters [good for ground concealment over UK] to green/grey when this was found better for offence from defence and the exact same changes are found in the Luftwaffe AND VVS,  where the ground concealment green/black changes to the offensive grey/grey scheme  with the switch to an offensive role in 1943.

there is of course this thread
http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1071.0

which has some very interesting information and critique of pilawskii's work in it.

PS
I really liked the Spitfire photo
Quote
Next we have a photo showing a Spitfire Mk IX in VVS service. The rear fuselage has been repainted with large areas of AMT-11. The Albom colours would demand that AMT-11 is darker than than RAF Ocean Grey. Such an idea is illogical, it is in contradiction to copious physical evidence, and it does not agree with this direct comparison on the same specimen. On the contrary, the proposed values above for AMT-11 work well.

WHAT extensive repainting?  If has been, why has it still got an RAF serial?

here's the Supermarine diagram
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq186/Garethster/SpitCamo.jpg)

here's the plane 'extensively repainted'
(http://www.thescale.info/news/uploads/russian-spitfire-91-1.jpg)

bear in mind that British lend-lease planes usually were delivered with red stars painted on by the British, not by the VVS, which is why they don't show  overpainting of the RAF roundels as British paint was used.  Photos of this being done are in Red Stars 4

 Deviations from the factory pattern are most likely a result of this.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on July 28, 2014, 11:10:21 PM
It looks like more of the same - Albom is wrong, SAFFC is (and always was) the only truth, more colors extracted from b/w photos.  And more insults for those who question EP's "research".  So, I will not waste my time reading his new brainchild!!!

And why would I correct him?  Eventually, he will say that he had never made up "wood aerolak", "tractor green", "factory green" "Aii light green", that his original AMT-12 was dark green, or that Nadia Bukhanova exists in his fantasy only.
Forums are quickly forgotten, websites eventually disappear, but books last longer.  Pilawskii's own SAFFC is the hard evidence of how wrong he was, what were his real sources and what his interpretation of VVS colors was.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on July 31, 2014, 03:28:42 AM
This text is Pilawskii's third or forth lengthy study about the "Albom Nakrasok" in last 4-5 years.  Why is Pilawskii obsessed with the "Albom"?  Why is he trying so hard to discredit "Albom" as a source of any value?

IMHO, it's a distraction tactic!
Problem with EP's "research" and with his SAFFC book is not in the shade of olive green or shade of gray.  The problems are more fundamental:  he didn't say the truth about his sources and he made up significant part of his book.

Among Russian modellers and aviation enthusiasts, SAFFC author's name is a synonym for an aviation history author who fantasizes and for a foreigner who is ignorant about Russian language, history, geography etc.  He wouldn't have earned this if it was about the two shades only.  I wouldn't have had criticized his work if it was for 2 shades of green and gray only.

Regards,
KL    


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on August 01, 2014, 07:42:54 PM
SAFFC author's treatment of the "Albom nakrasok" only proovs that he isn't a historian, that he doesn't know what historians are supposed to do and that his methods are hopelessly flawed.

"Albom nakrasok" is the oldest known set of Soviet paint chips - it was made only 2-3 years after the end of the WWII.  It was made by the ministry which had controlled paint producers - so it is official.  It is also comprehensive - almost entire paint production of the period is represented in the "Albom".

Every historian would recognize value of such a document; it's simply not possible to study Soviet WWII paints and dismiss the most relevant document.  Albom paint chips may not be perfect, they could be even wrong, but a historian trying to prove that they are wrong has to have a proof of similar "weight" (ie relevance).  So far Russian researchers/historians haven't identified any similar document - at this time there are no older and more comprehensive official Soviet paint chip sets!

So far, EP hasn't answered the most basic question:  WHAT ARE HIS COLORS BASED ON?  Does he have (or has he seen) older official paint chips?  Has he seen official Soviet paint chips of better quality?  Will he ever produce a single evidence from his wast "collection of original paint samples"?  Where is the proof that his samples are better than "Albom nakrasok" paint chips???      


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: DaveFleming on August 07, 2014, 02:34:32 AM

I really liked the Spitfire photo
Quote
Next we have a photo showing a Spitfire Mk IX in VVS service. The rear fuselage has been repainted with large areas of AMT-11. The Albom colours would demand that AMT-11 is darker than than RAF Ocean Grey. Such an idea is illogical, it is in contradiction to copious physical evidence, and it does not agree with this direct comparison on the same specimen. On the contrary, the proposed values above for AMT-11 work well.

WHAT extensive repainting?  If has been, why has it still got an RAF serial?

here's the Supermarine diagram
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq186/Garethster/SpitCamo.jpg)

here's the plane 'extensively repainted'
(http://www.thescale.info/news/uploads/russian-spitfire-91-1.jpg)

bear in mind that British lend-lease planes usually were delivered with red stars painted on by the British, not by the VVS, which is why they don't show  overpainting of the RAF roundels as British paint was used.  Photos of this being done are in Red Stars 4

 Deviations from the factory pattern are most likely a result of this.

The bit about interpreting B+W photos seems ridiculous, but I suspect that Spit has been repainted on the rear fuselage - the star on the fin has the tips overpainted, and a single colour rudder would be very unusual.

That doesn't mean I think the AMT-11 grey is a light colour - there is a peculiar effect that RAF Ocean Grey appears a lot lighter in many B+W photos than the 'real' contrast in tone would suggest, my suspicion is that is down to how the film reacts to the 'blue' element in it. I suspect AMT-11 may be the same.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on August 07, 2014, 08:09:30 AM
Hi,
I see that the repainting on the rudder (and elevators) has put in strong evidence the fabric surface ondulations. It has to be very glossy.
It could be something different from grey.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: DaveFleming on August 07, 2014, 04:07:29 PM
Something I just noticed is there is a 'grey' band on the transport joint, where the tail joins the fuselage, which is a different shade to the grey of the camouflage colour.

This site puts an interesting spin on things:

http://www.thescale.info/news/publish/russian-spitfires.shtml

(http://www.thescale.info/news/uploads/russian-spit-9-port.jpg)


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Troy Smith on August 07, 2014, 04:45:54 PM
Hello Dave

fancy seeing you here ;)

I did post a response to this over on Britmodeller , where there is a thread on a new findings on RLM83
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234939571-rlm83/

In regard to the Spitfire, the rudder is a VVS repaint, but it seems to have been standard British practice to paint out national markings and apply red stars to lend-lease aircraft.  
This is why Hurricanes and Spitfires etc tend to have upperwing stars,  but not on the fin, even though this was not usual VVS practice. Have a look through the lend-lease section, there are some very interesting threads there.


The reason why this got quoted is....because of a posting on the Luftwaffe Experten Message Board [LEMB]
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=9035&hl=

note post #57

as the site is for members,  I'll quote the relevant post.

Quote
This is the last news regarding RLM83 Dunkelblau from Kjetil ?kra and Erik Pilawskii recently visit to Stavanger on the He115.

Regarding M. Ullmann?s RLM83 Dunkelblau we also examined the paint on the Bv138 float at Stavanger. Our findings are also in the report and it is clear to us that this is a new dark blue colour. We suspect it was much more prevalent on maritime Luftwaffe aircraft from late 1943 to the end of the war than is currently known. A sample of the paint was not taken. Pursuant to earlier research conducted by notable Luftwaffe historian Michael Ullman, we believed that this paint represented physical evidence of Ullman?s recently described RLM83 Dunkelblau (Maritime). However, upon returning home I discovered that sufficient quantities of this paint were still to be found on my sandpaper so as to enable me to conduct a Ph test. This was done, and the result was conclusive: 7.6. I am convinced that this is the world?s first recognised surviving sample of RLM83. Mr Ullman will be contacted by Kjetil and myself and we will update this investigation as it proceeds.

my response
Quote
a pH test on paint, gives a reading of 7.6,  proves it's mildly alkaline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

which doesn't seem to prove  anything about the colour to me.

So, is this is this a different kind Ph?  if so, what is it?    what is the 7.6 reading?    

The name 'Pilawskii'  in association with paint tends to start alarm bells ringing with me I'm afraid, and as it says 'Kjetil and myself' it must be Mr Pilawskii.

please see - http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1071.0
and - http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1351.0

The float photos could be a dark blue, or they could be chalked and faded version of 72/73, which are blue hued greens.
A quick look at the chips in the Official Monogram Guide to Painting German Aircraft shows this could easily be a faded and chalked version of RLM72 but without comparison chips or paint chart on the float then who knows.

HTH
T

one of the links is obviously this thread..

response on LEMB
Quote
Troy and others. It is really not that diffuicult if you have the entire report! The Ph-test was done to confirm that it had the same properties as other confirmed RLM paints and was not a point from another source. Other properties, chemcial composition and reflectivity back up this finding. So we know the colour on the bluish float is an RLM paint.
 
As to the hue of this blue paint we found paintsamples that had been hidden under a metal plate and was undeterioriated, which allowed us to give a very good approximation of how this paint appeared. We are still waiting for Mr. Ullmann's comments, but this colour on the float is indeed intriguing.
 
And Troy, if the name Pilawskii starts ringing alarm bells with you, I would urge you to seek other sources than the forum on a website which has a clear agenda against mr. Pilawskii's findings. And please use some sources whose sources is not solely googling the internet! Let me tell you that Eric has more than 20 years of experience studying VVS and other collurs and he travelled the Soviet Union when it was still the Soviet Union and checked the paint samples on old aircraft and archival material there which are now largely disappeared (i.e. sold!) or unaccessible, respctively, in modern Russia.
 
And you can check how many of his protagonist who have actually seen samples of the colours they discuss and have scientific experience in interpreeting black and white photography. I'll be none of them know how specific colours behave on the various types of films used by the Soveits during the war. Eric has this experiences as he has studied it for decades.
 
Kjetil

I don't know if Kjetil read the threads linked here?
Nick Millman, who is a very careful colour researcher makes some points on Britmodeller.  Worth quoting as he makes some interesting points.

Quote
Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:32 PM
"...explain how the Ph level of a paint can specifically identify it's origin as being that of an unknown paint colour?"
 
Yes, I'd like to see that explanation too! It sounds like someone might have been using the bromothymol blue lab test pH indicator of 7.6 to make 2 + 2 = 95,879. There is science and then there is weird science.
 
Underlying corrosion (amongst other things) can alter the pH level of pigment(s) (which is an attribute rather than an identifier) and in fact special pH indicators are now being experimented with to add to specialist paint so that it changes colour to indicate corrosion occurring on the metal beneath the coating strata. Relevant to old floats maybe?
 
FWIW RLM 72 is a Munsell Blue, RLM 73 a Blue-Green...
 
Nick

in response to Kjetil's response, I cross posted due to not everyone being an LEMB member

Quote
Sorry to be harsh but most of the statements quoted are incredible.
 
pH levels would not be unique to RLM paint and as explained above are not necessarily constant anyway.
 
If the chemical composition is known then the pigments should also be identifiable. Pigment identification would be the most important factor to prove an original blue hue.
 
"...we found paintsamples that had been hidden under a metal plate and was undeterioriated"  Being hidden under a metal plate is no guarantee they would not have deteriorated or shifted. An absence of light is not a surety of pristine, original condition and the apparent integrity of a paint surface, even down to gloss, is no surety of its original colour. Did the metal plate provide an air-tight and water-tight seal? What about thermal ageing? Relative humidity? What about hydrolysis and dilational strains?
 
"...scientific experience in interpreeting black and white photography."  The key word there is interpreting.
 
"...how specific colours behave on the various types of films used by the Soveits during the war." How on earth can that remarkable process actually be verified? It is debated even in situations where the photographer is attempting to control the process with full cognisance of all the elements, film and filter type in use and with a GretagMacbeth Color Checker. It is difficult to see how any control conditions could be applied to account for camouflage paint colours subject to manufacturing variance, weathering and inconsistent illumination conditions.

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00bPNU


Quote
Mitch K, on 05 Aug 2014 - 8:34 PM, said:
Reaction between paint constituents and the metal plate itself cannot be entirely ruled out, I would say. Even if the plate had actually provided a hermetic seal, I would be loathe to say the colour is "original" and unaffected.
 
Nick, would a chemical analysis (I'm assuming an elemental analysis) tell you the composition? You'd know the proportions of (say) iron, lead, oxygen etc but not what forms they had been in in the original mix. You could extrapolate, but you've seen where that can lead us  :lol:

Quote

True enough. The composition could still provide clues by extrapolation because the binder and fillers/extenders are usually an identifiable entity and most pigments will have identifiable properties - to a point (e.g. this is not a pigment, this probably is, because you know you are dealing with paint to begin with) - but certainly not as definitive as polarised light microscopy. If you found elements associated with green pigments, say, you might be sceptical that you were dealing with a blue paint. I should be very interested in the composition that pointed towards a dark blue.
 
An intriguing aspect of the assertion made is how the chemical composition referred to could be used to verify that RLM paints had been used. I have a post-war MAP report on German aircraft paints which indicates the composition of paints was proprietary rather than mandated. In some cases the synthetic resins (for example) were supplied without the paint manufacturer knowing what they were. For example Warnecke and Bohm (who made their own 'Ikarol' lacquers) also supplied their own proprietary synthetic resins Nos 600, 200 and 100M to Herbig Haarhaus in order for that firm to make their proprietary Herboloid lacquers and to Gustav Ruth. Both those companies had different ideas about how the resins were made!  I'm not sure how you could be certain of the paint's origin without a really extensive reference catalogue of paint companies and their formulae.
 
The impression given (and this might be unfair) is that the identification of an 'undiscovered blue' has preceded the evidence being assembled to make the case for it. That might rule out an objective consideration of what it might be other than blue. The desire to be first to find smoking guns and silver bullets has much to answer for. But just to clarify, whilst I see no reason that a blue paint as described could not have existed my concerns are only around the methodology being described for identifying it. I have no preference of outcome and we do not have the full picture!
 
Nick

Quote
Nick Millman, on 05 Aug 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:
True enough. The composition could still provide clues by extrapolation because the binder and fillers/extenders are usually an identifiable entity and most pigments will have identifiable properties - to a point (e.g. this is not a pigment, this probably is, because you know you are dealing with paint to begin with) - but certainly not as definitive as polarised light microscopy. If you found elements associated with green pigments, say, you might be sceptical that you were dealing with a blue paint. I should be very interested in the composition that pointed towards a dark blue.

Nick, this is what I suspected - a little better, in fact. I didn't consider PLM (not my field at all, I'm afraid) but did wonder if FT-IR microscopy might be able to tease things out. I know it works extraordinarily well on comparison work on complex multi-layer structures like paint chips/laminates, to identify separate layers.
 
Quote
An intriguing aspect of the assertion made is how the chemical composition referred to could be used to verify that RLM paints had been used. I have a post-war MAP report on German aircraft paints which indicates the composition of paints was proprietary rather than mandated. In some cases the synthetic resins (for example) were supplied without the paint manufacturer knowing what they were. For example Warnecke and Bohm (who made their own 'Ikarol' lacquers also supplied their own proprietary synthetic resins Nos 600, 200 and 100M to Herbig Haarhaus in order for that firm to make their proprietary Herboloid lacquers and to Gustav Ruth. Both those companies had different ideas about how the resins were made!  I'm not sure how you could be certain of the paint's origin without a really extensive reference catalogue of paint companies and their formulae.
But you very much could come up with a "same/different" list, which might be very instructive. The referencelist might not need to be that extensive - if you could identify even a small number of characteristic low-concentration compounds per manufacturer, then modern techniques (LC-TOF/MS comes to mind) could probably address this relatively quickly and easily.

Quote
The impression given (and this might be unfair) is that the identification of an 'undiscovered blue' has preceded the evidence being assembled to make the case for it. That might rule out an objective consideration of what it might be other than blue. The desire to be first to find smoking guns and silver bullets has much to answer for. But just to clarify, whilst I see no reason that a blue paint as described could not have existed my concerns are only around the methodology being described for identifying it. I have no preference of outcome and we do not have the full picture!
 
Nick
Quote
Quite. I have seen this with increasing frequency in my job over the last 10-15 years, and I think it's part of "CSI Syndrome", where people expect tiny pieces of sometimes fairly shonky evidence to always produce unequivocal answers in no time flat. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain that although we can now routinely do the impossible, miracles are still rare and take time!

Quote
Mitch K, on 05 Aug 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:
Nick, this is what I suspected - a little better, in fact. I didn't consider PLM (not my field at all, I'm afraid) but did wonder if FT-IR microscopy might be able to tease things out. I know it works extraordinarily well on comparison work on complex multi-layer structures like paint chips/laminates, to identify separate layers.

Quote
PLM is perhaps the most well-established 'standard' method for identifying pigments although Raman Spectroscopy is a more recent and highly effective development. FTIR is complementary to Raman because the latter will pick up vibrations beyond the capability of the former and intensities are different. Also there are different capabilities for FTIR with some limited in band to the point that they won't "see" certain pigments. However many examinations use both and in one case where fluorescence defeated Raman the IR scans were able to reveal some clues. Subjectively those using PLM often seem to have more insight into the way pigments work once the identification is made, probably a legacy trait from its use in art forensics.
 
Raman is impressive in the way that it is able to provide quite specific pigment identities. The German paints used a variety of blue pigments including synthetic ultramarine (which is a complex sodium sulfate compound), cobalt and even small amounts of anilin blue which is more dye/stain than particle pigment - I have no idea why. Some of the earlier Luftwaffe paints seem more like tinted varnishes which were applied over a brown primer made of zinc oxide, zinc chromate and carbon black but a very successful single camouflage coating was developed using synthetic paints where the only surface preparation to the metal was the application of polyvinyl chloride putty to rivet holes and panels. Herboloid RLM 02 was a complex and sophisticated composition very clearly intended to have anti-corrosive properties and contained chrome green, chrome yellow, a carbon black that had been refined six times ('sechsbrandruss'), a proprietary lead white with fireproofing capabilities and special red and black pastes of obscure purpose. It is also clear that the application techniques and materials for maritime aircraft were quite specific and included specialised anti-fouling coatings. Another clue that 'standard' Luftwaffe practices might not translate to what is to be found on a preserved float.
 
Nick

I have quoted Nick and Mitch extensively as it gives an insight into what actual into paint can involve, and how complex it can be.

Hopefully this kind of analysis can be done on VVS paints in the future.



Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: DaveFleming on August 08, 2014, 12:11:11 AM
I did post a reply there but it seems to have been chopped!

As both a lapsed chemist and a colours obessive, I find these discussions fascinating!


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on August 08, 2014, 01:41:54 AM
I read discussions like this over RLM paints (and U.S. Olive Drab as another example) and I laugh when people say that VVS GPW colours are a "landmine"! Once you discard the rubbish that's circulated from the 1960's and 1970's (and continues to be perpetuated by a few people), such as brown/green and dark green/green camouflages, VVS GPW colours are actually quit simple. The vast majority of the aircraft followed the 1941 directive and then the 1943 directive (although admittedly the 1944 directive involving painting non-fighters in the two-grey scheme seems to have been honoured more in the breach than in actuality - probably had something to do with the war winding down and it being felt that repainting was unnecessary). As one Russian contributor put it on the Britmodeller site when someone talked about how complicated VVS GPW camouflage colours were, he replied that they consisted of six main colours - black, green, blue, tan (or light brown), dark grey, and grey-blue (as AMT-11 was called, although it seems much more greyish than blue to me). Look at a chart of RLM colours sometime - quite a bit more than six colours were used. 

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on August 10, 2014, 09:10:28 AM
Hi,
the discussion is interesting, but looks to have degenerated into personal things.
RLM 83... I've always heard it was green. But are they discussing about the shade, or about the name of the color? I don't think that all the models and profiles representing it as green will need to be modified into blue.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Troy Smith on August 10, 2014, 04:10:36 PM
hi Massimo

M. Ullman says he has discovered documentation showing RLM 83 is in fact a dark blue for use in the Mediterranean, eg on Ju88 on anti shipping.

previously "RLM83 green " was first used to describe the bright late war green, then the dark late war green.  

Now is is being postulated that the dark green is either a green version of RLM 81 brown, or use of RLM71 dark green, possibly old paint stocks, with RLM 81.

I got the He115 report, and passed it onto to someone who is a colour researcher.  Gist of the response

 "It reads like a rather crude and superficial analysis dressed up in the report to appear intimidatingly scientific."

Which made me think of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Quote
The speech is reproduced in the book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and on many websites. Feynman based the phrase on a concept in anthropology, the cargo cult, which describes how some pre-scientific cultures interpreted technologically advanced visitors as religious or supernatural figures who brought boons of cargo. Later, in an effort to call for a second visit the natives would develop and engage in complex religious rituals, mirroring the previously observed behavior of the visitors manipulating their machines but without understanding the true nature of those tasks. Just as cargo cultists create mock airports that fail to produce airplanes, cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that superficially resembles the scientific method, but which fails to produce scientifically useful results.

Following is an excerpt from speech (taken from the book).

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautions,

"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.
"
[/size]

the bold parts Which sums up Mr Pilawskii's work very well.

You need to be a member of the LEMB to read the thread I think, here's the pdf in question though
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m9t5vcqf7hdw0x8/Heinkel_he_115_Paint_Analysis_web.pdf

if anyone would like to see for themselves.  Dave, as a lapsed chemist and a colours obessive  you might find the methods described interesting, comments welcome.





Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on August 10, 2014, 10:29:38 PM
Hi Troy,
interesting.
So, what is the name for the bright green, if not 83?
I thought that there was some German official document listing colors and their use; I expected unconsistencies in the reproduction of the exact shade or in the chronology, but... from bright green to dark green to blue...
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: DaveFleming on August 11, 2014, 02:14:08 AM
Hi Troy,
interesting.
So, what is the name for the bright green, if not 83?
I thought that there was some German official document listing colors and their use; I expected unconsistencies in the reproduction of the exact shade or in the chronology, but... from bright green to dark green to blue...
Regards
Massimo

Bright Green is RLM82 - the correct designation was identified some years back. The thinking now (At least by Mr Ullman) is that what we thought of as RLM83 was actually just a variation of RLM81.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on August 12, 2014, 07:24:10 AM
Thank you Dave.


Title: Scholarship in Color Research
Post by: dancho on March 23, 2016, 02:43:43 AM
The building of plastic model kits as a popular hobby, particularly in the U.S.A,, Britain and Japan, has led to the rise of a sort of pseudo-scholar. These people aren't doing anything truly evil. They are just making a little money from the sale of books, magazines and other "after market" items that are intended to enhance the hobby of model building. But we should always keep in mind that even the "biggest" names among "model kit historians" are not genuine scholars. They do not do work which would pass muster even at Wikipedia. They simply are not true researchers and do not comply with modern academic standards.

It all began back in the seventies, with the publication of books showing "genuine" Luftwaffe color schemes, which were quite different from what had previously been imagined. These books sold well. Then came new books showing "new" and "improved" colors for all types of military aircraft. Many of these books, over the last fifty years, are the product of imagination and nothing more. Authors and publishers know that in order to sell a book you need to have something "exclusive" "new" or "never seen before." Now, model builders, most of whom are not academics and do not understand academic rigor, have grown to expect that each new book will reveal something "new." It's expected that "new facts are always being discovered" and these "new facts" are catnip to model builders. We have to "know the truth" and we feel very good knowing that our model is one of the few "really accurate" ones according to the "latest research."

This situation is not a great tragedy, until someone starts to claim to be a "true researcher" and a "scientist" and uses that designation to promote the same old idea--that of producing books with "new" information for model builders. Then there is a problem. I have never seen a little popular book with the type of scholarship that is required in the presentation of truly new information. Only a few books are produced each decade which comply with respectable scholarship. Pages of notes, references and supporting evidence are required for a "new fact" to be believed. But usually, a "popular" book is just printed out and that's that. It's not a big deal--but we should be very, very skeptical of anyone who claims to "know the truth" because he or she is a "true researcher." Saying "I am a researcher" means nothing. Only years of never making a statement that is not supported by solid data, presented logically and openly, can make a "true researcher." A lack of footnotes and a "hand waving arguments" mean that something is fishy. If it's presented as fun and games, then fine. It's fun. But if this type of "scholarship" is presented as "scientific truth" then warning flags should go up.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 24, 2016, 07:12:51 PM
Hi,
he is still alive on forums with the name NII_VVS. He took part to the discussion about the speed controller of the prop of Yak-1.
I've read his latest article.
http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html (http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html)
He shows  zinc chromate ALG-1 as  nearly white as milk and says that it was employed on wood too. This is sad... despite all the photos of wrecks with yellowish layers under the paint...
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on March 25, 2016, 02:24:55 AM

http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html (http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html)
He shows  zinc chromate ALG-1 as  nearly white as milk and says that it was employed on wood too.


Hi Massimo,

obviously, Pilawskii doesn't know what is ALG-1, and he doesn't know what zinc-chromate was used for... 



I've read his latest article.
...
This is sad...


I read his article too.  So many errors in such a short text - there is a at least one error in each paragraph.  His knowledge about the aviation materials used in 1930-es is abysmal!
and yes, I agree that it is sad that a text with so much misinformation is going to be used as a reference by modellers.

Quote from Pilawskii's page:
Quote
A great deal of confusion exists in the minds of many as to the exact nature of 1930s and 40s Soviet aircraft construction and finish.

with all new misinformation created by the author of the article, confusion is going to be even greater.  Before writing the text, author should have consulted latest books about I-16 or Googled "И-16 Техническое описание"

Regards,
KL 



Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 25, 2016, 05:51:52 AM
Hi Konstantin,
his nickname could let to expect something better.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: JP on March 25, 2016, 09:52:19 PM
... or Googled "И-16 Техническое описание"


But for that, one would need to have a working ability in Russian.

I don't really feel the need to jump in on this.  I remain convinced that he has some kind of personality disorder, having watched one in action for many years.  Basic humanity urges us to take pity on such people, but their offensive behavior precludes it.

All we can do is make the effort to correct bad information where we see it.  I'm a member of a FB group and I've already had to break bad news to people who built before checking their info that they'd committed hours of work to a fantasy.



Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Dark Green Man on March 26, 2016, 02:22:38 AM
you can copy/paste the URL into http://www.online-translator.com  or some other translator program.

sample :

http://www.online-translator.com/siteTranslation/autolink/?direction=re&template=general&sourceURL=http://www.airpages.ru/po/i16_00.shtml


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on March 28, 2016, 11:32:40 PM

... he has some kind of personality disorder, having watched one in action for many years.  Basic humanity urges us to take pity on such people, but their offensive behavior precludes it.


 :D

some of the symptoms:

-  he doesn't participate in forums specialized in Soviet aviation history, VVS models or in Russian forums.
-  he never asks questions, he provides "expert" answers
-  he doesn't rely on books published in Russia in last 10 years, he ignores information from Russian forums (or this forum), he doesn't use period literature available on the web (like I-16 manual)

It looks that his only sources are his own book and photos from the internet...

Regards,
KL


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 29, 2016, 07:02:27 AM
Hi,
Quote
It looks that his only sources are his own book and photos from the internet...
yes, and he always misses to mention their sources. A lot of them seem to be from a 'fantasy site', as he defined it. Of course there is not a problem of copyright, but this looks fully intentional and often intended to suggest that he has a wide archive of his own.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: dancho on March 29, 2016, 05:03:19 PM
I think the most frustrating thing about pseudo-scholars like Mr. Pilawskii is that if they can manage to get a book published they become de-facto "experts" no matter what. No other credential is required for, say, Wikipedia. The idea that publication automatically grants credibility is logically absurd but how is one to dispute it? A book could be a complete fantasy, but if it looks good and has flashy graphics it will be accepted by a certain group of people.

Surely in the future, with electronic media replacing paper, this type of fakery will be more difficult. Right now, I'd recommend to an ambitious young person (if publication were their only goal) that they work hard on developing a "revisionist" theory regarding something near and dear to the hearts of model builders--i.e. color. Then, without the need for research, write a book explaining how all previous works regarding say, USAAF colors from World War II are faulty and this "new" book corrects all the old misconceptions. Fill the book with plausible guesswork and outrageous, unverifiable claims. Then use "guerilla marketing" to promote the book on forums and perhaps a blog. Then publish the book. If a critic shows up, attack them ferociously and personally--but remember, all publicity is good publicity is all you want to do is sell a book (or a several books).

The goal is to become the "sole authority" on the subject. Then you "have it made." This strategy has worked for a number of authors--but Mr. Pilawskii made the fatal error so common throughout history--he underestimated the Russians.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: JP on March 30, 2016, 11:03:26 PM
Unfortunately, his own book enjoys lavishly good reviews on Amazon by people who accept whatever is put in front of them if it looks nice.  There are a few good critical reviews, but most are sycophantic.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 31, 2016, 08:54:28 AM
The book looks nice if one can't see the errors and the fame of the author. I use it only for photos.
It is a pity, because it could be a base for a wide correction, but the author isn't prone to hear at criticisms.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on April 01, 2016, 04:48:30 AM
Someone needs to do a well-researched book in English on VVS colours, especially of the GPW. I'd love to do it, but my plate is a little full right now writing other (hopefully well-researched) books.

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on April 01, 2016, 12:21:19 PM
Hi,
I've proposed it to the address you gave and they looked interested, but they made questions as the number of pages, of drawings, photos etc to which I can't answer without having already done it. Let's see... for now I continue to develop the site to have drawings of other important types as Yaks and I-16s.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on April 02, 2016, 07:09:43 AM
Someone needs to do a well-researched book in English on VVS colours, especially of the GPW. I'd love to do it, but my plate is a little full right now writing other (hopefully well-researched) books.


I did some research, I have very good understanding of camouflage development in Soviet Union between 1920 and 1945 and I also have some writing aspirations.  :)

The book (or books!) I am planning will be quite different from the book Pilawskii made or from books about Luftwaffe/RAF/USAF WWII colours.  I hope to explain camouflage principles, its origins, development, and role camouflage had in Red Army operations.  There is a lot o information available, I just have to put it together...  ;)

Just wondering, is there any interest for such a book??

Regards,
KL


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on April 02, 2016, 02:56:07 PM
Hi Konstantin,
interest to buy it, you mean? I suppose that the interest of many is depending on the illustrations.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on April 02, 2016, 07:12:45 PM

interest to buy it, you mean? I suppose that the interest of many is depending on the illustrations.


Hi Massimo,
of course, if there is no interested readers/buyers there will not be publishers for the book.
You are right, and I am aware of it - the book has to be heavy on graphic side...  are you are interested to participate in this project?

Regards,
KL


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Apex1701 on April 02, 2016, 09:04:11 PM
Hi Konstantin,

Count me in to buy it.

Good luck.

Jean


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on April 02, 2016, 11:03:28 PM
Hi Konstantin,
well, I have the high resolution versions of the drawings for Sovietwarplanes. I suppose that Tapani and Misos would be interested in the same way.
Some important types as Yaks and pe-2 are still missing, but I think that could be made in a year or two.
An important thing would be to find the photos. I suppose that copyrights on historical photos are expired, but the resolution required for printing is higher than for web use.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: dancho on April 03, 2016, 02:10:26 AM

I did some research, I have very good understanding of camouflage development in Soviet Union between 1920 and 1945 and I also have some writing aspirations.  :)

The book (or books!) I am planning will be quite different from the book Pilawskii made or from books about Luftwaffe/RAF/USAF WWII colours.  I hope to explain camouflage principles, its origins, development, and role camouflage had in Red Army operations.  There is a lot o information available, I just have to put it together...  ;)

Just wondering, is there any interest for such a book??

Regards,
KL

A good book on the history of camouflage design and development would be a true breakthrough. Even with all the books that have been printed on "colors" I believe that only a few are scholarly in nature and none are true histories. I would be sorely tempted to buy such a book myself, if only to show support for the brave author!


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: JP on April 03, 2016, 02:27:11 AM
I'm in.  If you want, I could write a forward for it certifying that none of the participants suffers from a personality disorder, and will constructively engage in debate if questioned.  :P


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: dancho on April 03, 2016, 05:57:19 AM
I wouldn't care if the author were mentally ill, as long as the sources for the information are adequately cited, as would be the case in any respectable work of historical research. That way, if the author insists that his source regarding the use of a particular type of paint is a Superman comic, then I'll be able to look at the same Superman comic myself and judge whether the author has made a reasonable deduction. That is the whole purpose of citations--to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind based on the same set of evidence. Unfortunately, the usual thing is for authors of "modelling" books to skip this step. I have a whole shelf of books without a single citation. Lots of nice pictures, drawn by very imaginative illustrators. It's only lately that I'm beginning to see how bogus they really are.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on April 09, 2016, 03:35:01 AM
How bad is the text about I-16 materials and paintinghttp://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html???
Some of the mistakes, errors and fantasies I could pick up
:

Quote
The fuselage and wing root areas were made up of laminated spruce strips, these wrapped around the shape of the unit over wooden formers.

It wasn't spruce, it was birch.

Quote
The wood strips were both secured and impregnated with phenol-formaldehyde resin, this giving the normally light wood an orange-brown appearance.

Phenol-formaldehyde resin hasn't been used in I-16 production,  it was used couple of years later on LaGG-3!

Quote
A strip of hard wood (usually ash) was used to blend in the adjoining wing and fuselage sections.

This strip can be seen only on modern I-16 replicas.  It didn't exist on original I-16.
 
Quote
The fuselage and wing forward sections were then covered in fabric (common linen).

wing forward section was made of metal, metal suraces were not covered in fabric.
Fabric was cotton, not "common linen"!!!
 
Quote
This fabric was impregnated with another type of phenol-formaldehyde resin, being similar in chemistry to that used on the wood strip, but clear in colour [this is may well be the lacquer designated ?17-A Clear? as identified by the NKAP?s documents].

It wasn't phenol-formaldehyde resin - it was clear nitro-cellulose dope!
NKAP didn't exist in 1938/39 when I-16 Type 10 was in production.

Quote
In the first case, the desired military or camouflage finish was applied directly over the fabric/puttied airframe. Generally speaking, A, AE, AEh and AII lacquers all adhered well over such surfaces, and tended to chip away significantly only over dural sheet areas which had neither putty nor primer applied to them. AMT lacquer was indifferent to the types of surfaces to which it was applied.

What is the difference between AE and AEh? In reality there was only one paint type called АЭ.
A, АЭ were not used over fabric.
AMT paints didn't exist in 1938/39.

Quote
The second option was to first finish the entire airframe with a coat of ALG aviation primer.

ALG-1 over wooden surfaces?  Nonsense...

Quote
It was not unknown at some factories, and in certain cases, that part of the airframe would be comprehensively primed, and other areas not.

It did not depend on a factory - those where technologies that all factories had to follow...

Quote
Note that the canopy framing is mostly unpainted. This appearance was quite typical, the paint having fallen away almost completely. Indeed, it was sometimes the case that no attempt was made to paint this framing in the first place.

canopy framing on all open cockpit I-16 was unpainted...


Quote
Another derelict I-16, in this case perhaps a Type 24, shot on AGFA colour slide film. Despite the various colour oddities of this film type, it is manifestly clear that this aircraft was comprehensively primed with ALG-1 at the factory before finishing.

Again nonsense about ALG-1 over wooden surfaces!

Quote
One of the modern I-16 Type 24 replica Warbirds built by Aviarestoration in Novosibirsk ca. 1992. The I-16?s unique construction method is demonstrated here before the aircraft was painted.

modern replica, modern materials... not necessarily authentic...

Quote
Yak-1b production at Factory 292, Saratov, ca. 1943. The uniform over-all appearance of the aircraft in view, except for the rudder fabric surfaces, strongly suggests that these examples have been thoroughly primed with ALG-1.

3rd time nonsense about ALG-1 over wooden surfaces!  Now on Yak-1 in 1943...


IMHO, this text is really bad.  Maybe for a modeller not interested in technical details these errors aren't important?
Regards,
KL


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on April 09, 2016, 06:52:31 AM
Hi,
really bad.
Quote
Maybe for a modeller not interested in technical details these errors aren't important?
If a text is wrong, it's good to find a corrected version, for one who cares. On a modellistic point of view, this becomes important only if one makes a damaged plane, because the milk color that he attributes to primers should be yellowish and can be seen through scratches, as visible on pieces as those of MiG-3 and LaGG-3 in Vesivehmaa (or how it is named) depot.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on April 10, 2016, 02:42:34 AM
Hi,
it should be stressed that drawings Pilawskii made for this page are all wrong - for example wood on his first drawing should be very light, "blond"; not red-brown (as I said phenol-formaldehyde resin impregnated plywood was used later on LaGG fighters.

(http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/type10-port-bare.jpg)

Untreated birch veneer looks like this:

(http://www.junksupply.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/maple_veneer.jpg)

Ikea's bookshelf in birch veneer looks like this:

(http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/billy-bookcase__0252362_PE391155_S4.JPG)

it isn't red-brown...

Regards,
KL


 


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on April 10, 2016, 07:32:21 AM
Hi,
I see. Pity that it's impossible to convince him to correct all these errors.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: KL on April 19, 2016, 01:59:57 AM
Hi,
errors listed in my previous post are bad, but they could be "honest mistakes" - author may have mixed up LaGG-3 and I-16, may have mixed up primer types or may have mistranslated type of wood etc...

Following two paragraphs are by far the worst part of his effort:

Quote

With the airframe thusly covered, various amounts of filler putty were then applied. Special attention was directed at any area where a large joint may occur, or other un-serviceable gaps, and the putty could be applied freely over any surface (e.g. shown here to fill dents in the cowling face) which was not movable. The airframe was then sanded smooth, attempting to obtain the best aerodynamic surface possible.

In some cases, often relating to specific factories, the amount of filler putty used could be quite substantial. This was often the case in early manufacture examples, as the non-skilled work force found their feet and gained experience in mass production techniques. However simplistic, the use of filler putty in this way was hugely effective. Indeed, this method was something of an ideal Soviet solution, costing virtually nothing (in terms of expense) and yet yielding superior results via the application of labour.


Pilawskii is saying that the large amounts of filler putty were applied over the entire airframe to cover up joints, gaps, dents and similar imperfections.  Filler putty was then sanded to achieve aerodynamic shape/surface.  All this because soviet planes were made by the "non-skilled workforce"!!!

It is true that the wooden parts of the airframe were covered with fabric and then puttied and sanded before the painting.  But the reasons for this were different and this was done only over wood, not over fabric surfaces or metal as Pilawskii suggests.

There is nothing about the procedure described by Pilawskii in manuals and similar period literature. There is no evidence of excessive filler on airframes preserved in museums, there is no evidence of filler on wrecks!

In short, two paragraphs quoted above are pure fiction made up by Pilawskii!  He couldn't read about this procedure anywhere,  he couldn't see evidences of this procedure anywhere;  these are his fantasies...

Pilawskii is actually describing something that can be seen in every auto body shop: 

(http://3mcollision.com/media/carcare-images/misc-images/MainPage_Filler.jpg)

(http://3mcollision.com/media/carcare-images/misc-images/MainPage_BodyRepair.jpg)


Soviet planes were crude when compared with western planes.  It's hard or impossible to compare Soviet work force with American or German workforce.  What Pilawskii does is making up a case based on a single cold-war era stereotype (i.e. Soviet planes were crude because they were made by "non-skilled work force" 

... Pity that it's impossible to convince him to correct all these errors.

To accept corrections would mean to admit that he made up large parts of his opus...

Regards,
KL


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Javier Planells on May 24, 2016, 12:30:04 AM
I remember reading somewhere else a review about the T-34 medium tank and the author stated something close to this: "unlike what is commonly accepted in the western countries, soviet engineering was capable of great finesse and care for detail on every part that required it so. I.e. optics, machined parts of turrets and hull, etc."

EP remind's me of some "modeling historians" in my country, always lecturing on colours but never producing a single piece of historical evidence.

All the best.


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: dancho on October 01, 2016, 11:29:39 PM
EP remind's me of some "modeling historians" in my country, always lecturing on colours but never producing a single piece of historical evidence.

It's a common problem, apparently. Pick up a copy of the "respected" books published by Osprey. Where are the citations? Where is the bibliography? Where are the sources? Where is anything to indicate that the author didn't just make it all up?


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 14, 2017, 02:59:29 PM
Hi,
He made a new page on UT-1.
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_1.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_1.html)
Unfortunately, He identifies a prototype of an armed version, not gone into production, with a 'standard' plane with 1940 green/blue  livery, and Soviet civilians with German soldiers. I don't know where He thinks to see red stars, too.
Some feedbacks should be very useful for Him.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: TISO on March 18, 2017, 11:24:24 AM
Quote
A UT-1B likely seen in southern climes, possibly during 1942. Captions for the image disagree wildly, some suggesting evaluation by the VMF ChF, and others that the aircraft was captured and seen in Romanian hands. Attempts to identify the aircraft in background continue, and results in that direction might reveals clues to the nature of this image.
This is well known and photographed s/n 47025 that was used as test aircraft (etalon) in VMAU imeni Stalina on airfield Mozdok in spring 1942. Plane later served as "white 10" in 46.AP VVS ChF.
Who says that plane was captured by Romanians (first time i hear of this)?

And the plane in background are acctually 2 I-16's with non standard camo. So no need to continue superhuman attempts to identify the aircraft in the background. After all 1 minutes of searching i present to you from Airwar.ru site:
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ut1b/ut1b-5.jpg)
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ut1b/ut1b-2.jpg)
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ut1b/ut1b-6.jpg)


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on March 19, 2017, 11:05:34 AM
Hi Tiso,
there is a page on a similar plane here:
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/ut-1and2/tapani/ut-1/ut1bwhite4.htm (http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/ut-1and2/tapani/ut-1/ut1bwhite4.htm).
I've also seen, in recent days, a photo of the plane that is described as a 'standard green-blue one' by Him.  I think that it is preserved in the Yakovlev museum, perhaps with the original livery. I think to remember that it was all red.
Here we see it exposed, I think on Domodedovo air show in 1967 https://aviaforum.ru/threads/arxivnye-foto.11112/page-38 (https://aviaforum.ru/threads/arxivnye-foto.11112/page-38)
Here one can fond dozens of photos of UT-1 captured by Germans in 1941, and can see how was the standard livery of 1941. Silver, red and grey; the only green was on the grass. https://aviaforum.ru/threads/arxivnye-foto.11112/page-39 (https://aviaforum.ru/threads/arxivnye-foto.11112/page-39)
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on June 07, 2017, 02:24:16 PM
Hi,
another page of Him at http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/I15bis_Colour/I15bis_colour.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/I15bis_Colour/I15bis_colour.html)

This time, all the long page is about the fact that the exact shade of green utilized on I-15bis is unknown.
Before reaching  this non-conclusion, He makes at least three errors:

one is to claim that none exhibit of original paint of I-15 bis is available, that is wrong: here is a piece from the Finnish museum
(http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/i15/i15bis/i15bisevolution/I-15bis-fabric-rid.jpg)

another one is to state that the color of the undersurfaces was light blue, while photos show two different colors, silver for fabric-skinned surfaces and light grey for the metallic surfaces;

another one is to insist on the original paint as being satin instead of glossy... but the planes of the photos appear satin in 1941 after having aged three years, having been built in 1938.

Regards
Massimo



Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on June 07, 2017, 05:43:49 PM
That looks like AII 3 Green to me (or AMT-4 Green, depending on when it was painted). Nothing unusual there.

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on June 08, 2017, 06:23:22 AM
Hi Jason,
in my guess, it is the original factory painting of 1938.  Just to determine if it is the usual AII green, in consideration of its brownish look, or a previous shade.
I would give AII green as the most likely, although altered by the underwater environment.
This piece was from a plane that was long submerged in a lake, and then disintegrated in an attempt of recover.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on May 10, 2018, 10:52:20 AM
Hi, a new article from EP
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_spit_uti.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_spit_uti.html)
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Johann on May 12, 2018, 02:43:15 PM
Here it is interesting - what did Piławski operate with coloring La-5F Galchenko in black-and-green camouflage?
And that it pushed him that he was AMT-4/6 and not AMT 11/12 Although even a cursory look at the picture of camouflage will suffice to understand the error.

(http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/ace_aircraft/Galchenko/La5F_early.jpg)


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 12, 2018, 05:40:27 PM
That's interesting; I made a model of this very aeroplane (from the 1/72nd scale AML kit - not a bad kit, in my opinion). Mine was done in the correct two-grey scheme, however.

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Johann on May 12, 2018, 07:02:49 PM
Just wondering where Pinawski came up with that there is black and green? And he as it asks a question why everyone decided that he is gray-gray)))))


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 12, 2018, 08:01:58 PM
Evidently Leonid Galchenko was still flying this aeroplane at the end of the war, as it was supposed to have taken part in the victory celebration in Moscow on June 24, 1945. By then it would have almost certainly been painted in the two-grey scheme. What I can't understand is why an HSU, like Galchenko, at the end of the war would have still been flying not only an La-5, but an La-5F, not an La-5FN. I suppose he really loved this particular aeroplane.

Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on May 13, 2018, 06:33:43 AM
If I remember well, Galchenko had an high rank at the end of the war. Probably he didn't abitually fly, or at least the higher commanders were not enthusiast of this.
Probably he loved his old planes, even his LaGG-3 had a long life and, when it was shot down while flown by another pilot in 1942, it was replaced by a new plane painted to match the previous one (or, at least, I think to understand so after the comparison of the photos and of the memoirs of one of his subordinates that were discussed some years ago).
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: learstang on May 13, 2018, 06:54:23 AM
You're correct, Massimo. Galchenko was a podpolkovnik, a Lt. Col. at the end of the war. I don't believe VVS pilots over the rank of major habitually flew. For example, Kozhedub and Pokryshkin, who were still regular combat flyers and multiple HSU recipients at the end of the GPW, were also majors at the end of the GPW (so were Rechkalov and Ahmet-Khan, I believe). And it does seem that Galchenko did become attached to his aeroplanes.

Best Regards,

Jason


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on June 13, 2018, 08:23:38 AM
A new article of EP, on UT-2 this time.
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_2.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_2.html)

I've not read it, but I see a Yugoslavian postwar plane all in green. For what I collected from former Yugoslavia sources, the planes should be painted in grey, not green. Il-2, Yak-3 and perhaps other ones from the Belgrad museum show clearly grey and blue painting, as all the sources I've read.

Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: warhawk on August 28, 2018, 03:28:54 PM
Quote
"White 11" wears a curiously dark over-all scheme which seems out of character with the light grey livery usually seen on Yugoslav aircraft at this time...

What light grey livery usually seen on Yugoslav aircraft?

Quote
...and here has been interpreted as a dark olive colour which agrees with the available evidence in the image; in fact, it might be almost any shade.

Then why this particular shade? Or why do this machine at all, if You have no reference whatsoever?

(https://i.giphy.com/media/WUGNg3FuhiywU/giphy.webp)


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on October 26, 2018, 09:00:14 AM
Hi all,
I see that He has published a new article on color photos and their manipulation.
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/AGFA_Photo_colour/AGFA-colour.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/AGFA_Photo_colour/AGFA-colour.html)
The article is a strange mix of truth, misconception and ... his own way to think.
It starts saying that most people don't understand about color photos.
It comments some color photos of US planes that seem to show completely different versions of Olive Drab (ignoring that the same photos have a visibly different dominant hue on the sky and background, clearly recognizable and usable for corrections).
Then He continues about the charachteristics of Agfa films, I won't discuss this part.
Continues taking a pair of wartime relatively good color photos of Soviet I-16s, and distorting them by filters to make the green of the plane match to his unlikely chip of AII green; then, having ruined all other shades of the image in his process, makes strange things to recover the red of the stars, and (undeclaredly) repaints the feldgrau uniforms of German soldiers. 
He looks happy with these versions of the photos, despite their unnatural appearance.
So, he did the thing for what he accused other people, to manipulate photos on the base of their prejudices on known colors. Only, he did it worse.
It ends with his typical things on how incompetent is many people today etc.

Regards
Massimo



Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Troy Smith on October 26, 2018, 11:49:13 PM

It comments some color photos of US planes that seem to show completely different versions of Olive Drab

Well, that's because Olive drab varied, a lot, and also faded in different ways, let alone dealing with light conditions. 
eg
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234944613-olive-drab-and-some-confusion/

for example, this is a at the end of the war, but note the parts of the airframe  made by different contractors use different paint, and thus fade differently...

(https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i.imgur.com/GHetx6M.jpg&key=3bf9fce1e68cbe5cff7f71d50ab23d788f6e13f7b482754778dad0317ba50a07)

....   I've not read the linked article as yet, but the above should make the point on OD.

HTH
T


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on October 27, 2018, 06:44:08 AM
Hi Troy,
Looking at the 'paintwork' on the label of the photo, I wonder if this photo is a real color photo or a colorized one. Anyway it's a beautiful image.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: otto on October 27, 2018, 02:17:18 PM
Many years ago I visited the Vigna di Valle aviation museum, near Rome. Some F-104s stored outside had the green of the grey/green camouflage turned brown. I wasn't surprised that paint changed after months or years in the sun and rain (I personally saw an industrial equipment changing from yellow to pink!). But, when I developed the photos, the camouflage was gray/green, no traces of brown. Who was right? My eye or the camera?


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on October 27, 2018, 07:24:06 PM
Hi,
I have seen a strange joke of these colors on a G-91Y stored near Gemona del Friuli. The plane was painted with a layer of gloss trasparent protective over the camouflage. Where there was the gloss paint, the camouflage looked dark olive green and dark grey, more or less as when it was new. Then the trasparent paint started to peel off, and the colors under it had the worn look, dark brown and medium bluish grey. But they didn't change slowly after the peeling off: it seems that the trasparent layer changed their look. I am still wondering how this layer can have changed the hue of these paints, not only the darkness, in so evident way.
Regards
Massimo


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Troy Smith on October 27, 2018, 09:18:57 PM
Hi Troy,
Looking at the 'paintwork' on the label of the photo, I wonder if this photo is a real color photo or a colorized one. Anyway it's a beautiful image.
Regards
Massimo
Hi Massimo
it's original color
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235032857-rlm-paint-chip-chart/&do=findComment&comment=3051064

Quote
Original Colour Photo taken by Lieutenant John Quincy 406th Fighter Group (P-47D's)
and passed to the Roger Freeman Collection

cheers
T


Title: Re: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!
Post by: Massimo Tessitori on May 08, 2019, 02:28:06 PM
Hi all,
a new article from Him, on Soviet colors:
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Colour_Chips/colour-chips.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Colour_Chips/colour-chips.html)
Besides, there is a preview of His latest book on La-7s.
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/Publish/La7PS/page_12.jpg (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/Publish/La7PS/page_12.jpg)
If it is all on this level...

Regards
Massimo