Sovietwarplanes

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

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

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

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

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

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:


Then about the new SAFFCC edition:


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?

And he does it again:

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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)

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,


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

But down the page you get this


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


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

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.

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.

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    

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???      

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.

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

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)

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.


my response

one of the links is obviously this thread..

response on LEMB

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.


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






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.
 




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.

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!

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

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

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

[/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.

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.

Thank you Dave.

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.

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

Hi Massimo,

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



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:

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 

Hi Konstantin,
his nickname could let to expect something better.
Regards
Massimo

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.

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

 :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

Hi,
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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Konstantin,

Count me in to buy it.

Good luck.

Jean

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

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!

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

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.

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:


It wasn't spruce, it was birch.


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


This strip can be seen only on modern I-16 replicas.  It didn't exist on original I-16.
 

wing forward section was made of metal, metal suraces were not covered in fabric.
Fabric was cotton, not "common linen"!!!
 

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.


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.


ALG-1 over wooden surfaces?  Nonsense...


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


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



Again nonsense about ALG-1 over wooden surfaces!


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


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

Hi,
really bad.
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

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


 

Hi,
I see. Pity that it's impossible to convince him to correct all these errors.
Regards
Massimo

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:


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" 


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

Regards,
KL

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.

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?

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

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)

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

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

That looks like AII 3 Green to me (or AMT-4 Green, depending on when it was painted). Nothing unusual there.

Regards,

Jason

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

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

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)

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

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)))))

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

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

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

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

What light grey livery usually seen on Yugoslav aircraft?


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)

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

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

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

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?

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

Hi Massimo
it's original color
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235032857-rlm-paint-chip-chart/&do=findComment&comment=3051064


cheers
T

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

Hi,
I had a look to the latest page of Him at http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Update_2020/Recent_Updates.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Update_2020/Recent_Updates.html).
One of his 'discoveries' is that the plane 01 of Popkov was a La-5FN, and not a F as, according to Him, everyone described it since the beginning of time.
Now, look this topic of 2007:
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=201.0 (http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=201.0)
All previously existing profiles, decals sheets etc show it always as a La-5FN!
Where is his 'discovery' then?

There is something Rechkalov's P-39 42547, He 'discovered' that the plane had machine guns on the wings.
Compare to this page of Misos:
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lendlease/p-39/misos/rechkalov/rechkalov.htm (http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lendlease/p-39/misos/rechkalov/rechkalov.htm)

A third comment of Him is about Yak n.930:

Now I had a look to the well known book Red Stars of Geust, Keskinen, Stenman, of 1995, and the photo of plane 930 is there, uncropped. The wingtip is visible and so it was 25 years ago.  I can't see light glares on the nose.

I am not so expert of Yaks, but the tip and the position of the navigation light seems of a Yak-9  to my eye.

What to say?... Nothing more, it's better.

Regards
Massimo

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/the-russian-spitfire-completes-her-flight-testing.html (http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/the-russian-spitfire-completes-her-flight-testing.html)

(https://www.scramble.nl/images/news/2020/october/Warbirds_Spitfire_PT879_2.jpg)

By Warbird Colour, 
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/WCS/wcs.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/WCS/wcs.html)



(https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/comment_forum/2020/10/29/9-PT879%20Airframe%20Assemblies%2017%20March%201998%20image%20Peter%20Arnold%2001a_zps7v4afwns.jpg)

seems  the legacy continues.....

That 'AMT-4' does seem a bit bright to these tired old eyes.

Regards,

Jason

Ah, but it does match the profiles here  ;)
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_spit_uti.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_spit_uti.html)

Yes, indeed. At least he's consistent! It's a pity I don't trust him more, as I like those post-war trainer two-seater VVS Spitfires he has profiles of. I wouldn't mind doing one of them.

Regards,

Jason

Not the greatest reference here: http://www.redbanner.co.uk/WCS/example/example.html

Even the photo of the original aircraft on the last picture shows clearly, that it was painted with standard two-tone camouflage :-[

Cheers,

AaCee

Hi,
the discussion on Him is continuing with new posts on Britmodeller.
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235085135-russian-spitfire-flies-again-and-the-legacy-of-a-certain-researcher-on-markings/page/2/#comment-3930004 (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235085135-russian-spitfire-flies-again-and-the-legacy-of-a-certain-researcher-on-markings/page/2/#comment-3930004)
Regards
Massimo

I was interested to see that, according to Mr. Pilawskii's little rant on his site, that I am one of your 'Disciples in Error', Massimo. And here I didn't even know that you had any 'Disciples'. That he mischaracterised the nature of my correspondence to him is to be expected.

Best Regards,

Jason

hi Jason,
I haven't fully read his latest rant, but usually He doesn't write the names of the Silly and Bad Guys he is referring to.  Yes, there is an explicit attack to the 3 shades camouflage for Il-2, so it's likely that this involves your book.
Regards
Massimo

That "Desciple of Error" is just too tempting not to use as signature

Hi,
some comments on a recent article of Him at http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html).
Many of you already know it after the thread on Britmodeller at https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235074348-any-idea-what-these-amt-numbers-are/ (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235074348-any-idea-what-these-amt-numbers-are/), after that he made close a previous thread https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235085135-russian-spitfire-flies-again-and-the-legacy-of-a-certain-researcher-on-markings/page/2/#comment-3930004 (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235085135-russian-spitfire-flies-again-and-the-legacy-of-a-certain-researcher-on-markings/page/2/#comment-3930004)

Well, one has certainly the right, and even the due, to defend his own research in public, and someone hoped that some more things about his sources and methods would have emerged.
Unfortunately the most part of His posts there can be resumed in 'I am The Resarcher, I know all the real chips of wartime planes as preserved now, all other people are fools believers in dogma, interested only in 'likes' etc.'. These posts irritated some people that gave just a moderately critical answer, but all this gained warnings by the moderators of that forum, rightly willing to avoid a burst. This limited their possibility to answer to Him with the same freedom He had taken.
The only punctual thing that He wrote on these posts was that the darker layer of blue on the undersurfaces of the stripped Yak-3 in Bourget was a French layer of paint, and an underlying lighter layer was found demonstrating that AMT-7 was much lighter and saturate, according to His chips.  Unfortunately for him, I asked to Mr. Arnaud of the museum of Bourget that executed the stripping of the paint, and he disconfirmed this, saying that the 'dark' AMT-7 was the real original paint, just as expected by 'Nakrasok dogma's believers'.

Let's go to the article at http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html).
The title is 'Dead on Arrival, The End of "1948 Chip" Dogma In Our Time'. Very dramatic, I wonder why One that has so much dramatic sense to transform a boring question on old chips of paints into an historic revelation is losing His time to write of old paints instead of writing novels.
I have read the article only in partial way because it is full of self-promotion and denigration of the other researchers and of the whole world. I haven't psycological competence enough for discuss this.
What is the new revelation of the article? That some Soviet document of september 1948 said that the colors of planes had to be reformulated.
His interpretation of this is that the colors as AMT-4,7 etc visible on the Nakrasok alboom of 1948 had nothing to see with those in use with those of 1941-45. Besides He wrote that those colors, being no longer in use for planes, were for any other use as cars etc.
Now, the chips of colors in question are in the pages of Nakrasok alboom dedicated to planes, not to cars or what else. The A of AMT, AGT, A-xx is for Avialak. How can one sustain that they were for cars?
The document of September 1948, even supposing that it is authentic, is about the complete reformulation of the way to paint planes, not to the change of some shades of existing colors making them more grey or darker. In facts, the Soviet planes as MiG-15 started to be left in natural metal or painted in silver just after that year.
So, the Nakrasok still depicted the colors as in use few years before. Making such a book should have required much more than a week. Planes with these colors still existed in 1947-48, and the paints too at least as old stocks, even if the painting instructions of the planes had already changed.
If this was the revelation of the article, I would say that was very poor.

The most evident thing is the table where He compares His own chips to those of the Nakrasok: the chips that He attributes to Nakrasok are altered and darkened, probably taken by a bad photo; who has seen good images of those chips compared to other known chips of modelling paints or FS chips knows that the real colors aren't so dark. So He utilized just a darkened image to try to demonstrate that the colors of Nakrasok are too dark.

Any thoughts?

Massimo

Massimo, about the use of paints. As you know, with the help of several colleagues from BM, it was possible to establish a correspondence between the factory markings of paintwork materials of the 40th circa and modern ones. It turned out that the original Soviet assortment of paintwork materials is still being produced in modern Russia. The whole hitch is in pigments, for which no solid matches have yet been found. What is important, in the description of modern paintwork materials, which are chemical analogs of AII and AGT paints, it is clearly indicated that they are for aviation purposes.

Thank you, maybe it is possible to make some test to see if/how the bonder changes its shade with ageing.

Having been the recipient of Mr. Pilawskii's bile in one of his articles (even if he did not mention my name), I will post the following from his conclusion on the Alboom Nakrasok - 'I can only conclude by mocking such pathetic, low-life "persons". You've been found out yet again, and have failed yet again (as always); better luck next time.' No true historian would post such an attack on people who disagree with him. Mr. Pilawskii is a master of projection - he rails against 'dogmatists' whilst displaying a dogmatic fervour and defence of his own 'findings'.

Regards,

Jason

Hi,
there is a new article of Him on the colors of polar aviation.
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Aviaarktika/Arctic_Colouration.html (http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Aviaarktika/Arctic_Colouration.html)

He writes that their usual color before and briefly after the war was yellow... who knows?

(http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/mark-colors/polarairlines.jpg)  This is a recent example.


I think to remember a walkaround of that plane with photos of the old chipping paint under the wings, and I remember it as orange.
Here is one that I found on Google: https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/model/Tupolev%20ANT-4 (https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/model/Tupolev%20ANT-4)

I think that orange paints fades up to yellow; the medium blue visible on some photos seems a light brey-blue in the one that he has taken.

Yes it was not the original paint but a restoration, but what it proves is that orange paint can turn to yellow with the age.

Massimo

I just tried to access the Red Banner site, but with no success. I certainly hope nothing has happened to the site - what a terrible and incalculable loss to aviation research!

Best Regards,

Jason

About what contained, I wouldn't be too displeased. The worst thing is that it is indicative of the bad time we are living now.
Regards
Massimo

I got in with no problems - maybe you've been banned, Jason! :D

Massimo's remark about the bad times we're living in reminded me of this - scroll down and read "Conclusions"!
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html

John

Hi John,
it has refused the connection again. Maybe your computer has visualized a cache version?
Regards
Massimo

I don't know - I can access the main page, and then go from there to the page for which I posted the link above, but most of the others are not accessible. It's strange!

John

Interesting. Just now when I tried to access the Red Banner site, I received a message about it being a 'brand new site', and to try again. Perhaps, if I am lucky, I have been banned!

Best Regards,

Jason