FS aproximation for AII Green and question for Massimo re AMT-4 FS references

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Mario,

Continued "challenging" of VVS standards and "discovering" new ones based on b&w pictures is NOT a research, with all due respect.

I don't agree with this. All the sources of informations have to be utilized, not only written ones. For example, the discovery that many mixed construction planes were painted in aluminium on fabric parts and grey on metallic parts is all due to photos. Yes, there are exhibits in museums showing grey metallic parts and aluminium clothes, but it wasn't obvious that they were from the same planes and this was a standard.
I suppose that the text of Orlov and Vaklamov themselves is widely based on photographs, exhibits and interviews aside of written documents.
The exhibits themselves have their own limits, both due to their age and to their limited number, so the color found on a piece could have been misidentified and erroneously attributed to a vast number of planes. The information can be considered reasonably sure only if all the ways of investigations (textual documents, exhibits, photos, reports) have a good degree of coherence.
Regards
Massimo

[mholly]

Hi Massimo,

All the sources of informations have to be utilized, not only written ones.

I cann't agree more. But analyzing b&w pictures is the least reliable source out of all.

the discovery that many mixed construction planes were painted in aluminium on fabric parts and grey on metallic parts is all due to photos

I'm not sure what or whose "discovery" are you talking about. V-O wrote about it in 1999.

I suppose that the text of Orlov and Vaklamov themselves is widely based on photographs, exhibits and interviews aside of written documents

Well, your supposition is not quite correct. Of course they used (and published!) photos , as any other researcher would, but decisive part of research was done from period documents and extant relics. You don't seem to be convinced by their methods and results though.
Mario

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Mario,

I'm not sure what or whose "discovery" are you talking about. V-O wrote about it in 1999.

In which part of the text? I don't remember to have read this there. However their profile on Aviakollectia is of uniform color.

Well, your supposition is not quite correct. Of course they used (and published!) photos, as any other researcher would, but decisive part of research was done from period documents and extant relics. You don't seem to be convinced by their methods and results though.

I'm not contesting the method of them. I disagree with the dogmatic reading of this work, as of any other work. There are still things to make clear, but if one supposes that all has already been written there, it won't be possible to. Maybe, Orlov himself will extend or correct some parts one day, or maybe he'll explain some things in a convincing way. But why should us only wait without doing anything?  It would be good to contact him to ask if he has already an answer to some things, but not to ignore doubts.
Regards
Massimo

[mholly]

In which part of the text? I don't remember to have read this there. However their profile on Aviakollectia is of uniform color.

Aviakolektsyia page 4 table of paints applied during 1937-40 period.
Same table is on page 26 of the original M-Hobby article just stating TUs in addition.
AE-9 (gray) was an enamel, AII al. (silver) was a nitro-cellulose lacquer. Enamels were applied to metal surfaces, nitro paints to fabric and wood.
These are proven facts directly related to the actual schemes, a/c types etc. This has been discussed here hundreds of times but I'm afraid that confusion persists. Color profiles are artistic expressions, have nothing to do with color science and aviation history. Besides V-O didn't create them.

I disagree with the dogmatic reading of this work, as of any other work. There are still things to make clear, but if one supposes that all has already been written there, it won't be possible to. Maybe, Orlov himself will extend or correct some parts one day, or maybe he'll explain some things in a convincing way. But why should us only wait without doing anything?  It would be good to contact him to ask if he has already an answer to some things, but not to ignore doubts.

I don't quite recognize "dogmatic reading". To me it's either reading, understanding and accepting (fully or to a certain degree) or reading and not understanding. "Things to make clear", "explain some things", "answer some things"... But which ones Massimo? You need to be specific. What's stopping you to log-in on scalemodels.ru and ask Orlov? I did have my doubts and did just that (asked him) and he replied satisfactorily. How could he ignore doubts if he doesn't even know they, and what kind, exist?
Btw as far as I know Orlov din't say that his work is definite and no more research is necessary. On the contrary. I agree, why should we wait? We are all free to do our own research then. But research, not a guess work! We've had more than enough of it from Mr.P. I for one would love to research but have no conditions for it. Until new information surfaces, either from Orlov or some other researcher, I trust, respect and am grateful for what has been published by V-O.
Cheers,
Mario

[KL]

I'm not sure what or whose "discovery" are you talking about. V-O wrote about it in 1999.

In which part of the text? I don't remember to have read this there.

Use of silver and gray in late 1930es, spec on undersides, was described in M-Hobby 09-1997 - 14 years ago, probably for the first time.  IMHO, "Discovery rights/credits" should go to V&O.

Few of us trying to figure out VVS colours are limited in many ways:  there is language barier, we are all far from archives, museums and wrecks, there is a general leck of information (+ there is a lot of misinformation) in English language literature.  The only way for us to move forward is to cooperate.  Statements like

for what I know, both the most reliable textual source (Orlov) and the images agree on this point. This is enough for me.

will not help us to work together.

Your preference is "photographic record".  that's OK, but you have to accept limitations of that method - for example, you can not tell colours from b/w photos, even determining how shiny was the paint is problematic.

Continued "challenging" of VVS standards and "discovering" new ones based on b&w pictures

well said, I also see this as a problem.  
  
Cheers,
KL

[Massimo Tessitori]

Aviakolektsyia page 4 table of paints applied during 1937-40 period.
Same table is on page 26 of the original M-Hobby article just stating TUs in addition.
AE-9 (gray) was an enamel, AII al. (silver) was a nitro-cellulose lacquer. Enamels were applied to metal surfaces, nitro paints to fabric and wood.
These are proven facts directly related to the actual schemes, a/c types etc. This has been discussed here hundreds of times but I'm afraid that confusion persists

I've the automatic translation of those tables. The translation  of the whole text of Aviakollectsia is still deplorably rough because someone promised to correct it years ago, but didn't.

Sv.ser. (svetlo seryi) Light gray Around 1937 Nitro-lacquers
AE-9 Light gray Around 1937 Enamels
AE-8 Silver 1938-1939 Enamels

So, this says that there were both nitro and oil light grey, and, I would add, both oil and nitro aluminium. If you add that nitro paints can be used both on fabric and on primed metallic surfaces, this led to the conclusion that planes could well have been of solid color, both grey and silver.
The first drawing of an I-153 with fabric surfaces in silver and metallic surfaces in grey was published, I think, on Scalemodels.ru not too much time ago; for what I know, none wrote that the same thing was valid for R-10, UT-1 and 2.
The discussion from which emerged that this was valid for the undersurfaces of planes with solid green uppersurfaces as I-15bis and many I-16 was made, for what I know, on this forum, and based only on photo. For what I know, all previous written sources write only about silver or only about grey, not about the use of both on the same plane. If I'm wrong, please find any of them.

What's stopping you to log-in on scalemodels.ru and ask Orlov? I did have my doubts and did just that (asked him) and he replied satisfactorily. How could he ignore doubts if he doesn't even know they, and what kind, exist?

You certainly know that I don't write Russian and he doesn't write English.

To me it's either reading, understanding and accepting (fully or to a certain degree) or reading and not understanding.

So, one that citicizes an assumption is one that don't understand.

But research, not a guess work! We've had more than enough of it from Mr.P. I for one would love to research but have no conditions for it. Until new information surfaces, either from Orlov or some other researcher, I trust, respect and am grateful for what has been published by V-O.

I esteem Vaklamov, Orlov and all those that made researches publishing their sources and conclusions. It's different for those that want to discourage researches.

Your preference is "photographic record".  that's OK, but you have to accept limitations of that method - for example, you can not tell colours from b/w photos, even determining how shiny was the paint is problematic.

all sources have their advantages and limitations.
Photos are limited for a quantity of factors: being in b/w, uncertainties on the film and filter, etc. But are available in quantity and allow crossed comparisons. Besides, they represent real planes, not planes as they should have been.
Documents are important  as standards sources. But they represent aircraft as they should have been. I's not sure that they were applicable to all situations. Besides, it's not sure that there is any document following to the known ones saying different things.
Specimen and wrecks are important, but it's not clear how they were altered by time. Besides, in some cases they are unique and don't allow cross-comparations. Some reconstructions of a color are based on one specimen that could have been misidentified. I know that one does what he can do, but they can't be considered sure. Besides, there are specimen that show unexpected colors.
Reports of veterans are easily imprecise... but how can be we sure? They have seen and flown things of which we have only seen photos and drawings.

The comparison of all souces raises many doubts that should be the starting point for some attempts of investigations. Denying it will prevent from clarifyig them.
Regards
Massimo

[John Thompson]

Guys, come on - let's get back to real research instead of arguing about details which I think basically you all really agree on. This is a great forum and web site, one of the best if not THE best, and personally (and for whatever little my opinion may be worth) I value the efforts of all of you. I hope no one is offended, but this back-and-forth bickering is embarrassing, and needs to stop.

Regards to all,
John

[learstang]

I think you hit the nail on the head, John!  This does seem to have degenerated into a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (answer - 87).  Instead of slagging each others' research methods and opinions, let's see photographs, drawings, colour chips, translated excerpts of Orlov's (and Vakhlamov's) works, etc.  We're not talking about the meaning of life, folks, we're just talking about colours.

Regards,

Jason