Sovietwarplanes
May 24, 2019, 01:39:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forum replaces the old sovietwarplanes.com whose domain has expired in January 2017. It has been updated with the posts of the year 2016.
The new location of the site 'Sovietwarplanes pages' is at http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Ivan G.Romanenko. I-16 White 71? 13th IAP VVS KBF, 1941  (Read 8242 times)
barneybolac
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 320


« on: April 27, 2012, 12:15:50 PM »

Since this is only a partial photo it is hard to know exactly what this aircraft would have looked liked.

The profile seems slightly off with the white wash compared to the photo.

Thoughts on this profile & any other information on this plane.

http://airaces.narod.ru/winter/romanen.htm




« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 10:25:08 PM by barneybolac » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2012, 02:22:37 PM »

Hi Barneybolac,
the camouflage shown in the photo looks more complex than on the drawing. I think to see small black stripes, and the light part on the rear fuselage looks made with two different colors.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2012, 12:05:38 AM »



Since this is only a partial photo it is hard to know exactly what this aircraft would have looked liked.
... seems slightly off with the white wash compared to the photo.
...any other information on this plane.

Ivan Romanenko was 13th iap commander only til August 1941.  Comment under the photo says: "Probably, September 1941" - It wasn't white winter camouflage...

Following photos of the same 13th iap VMF were taken before the war in 1940:



your I-16 may have looked like those above.  Then, in summer 1941, all pre-war markings (fuselage stars, top wing stars, tail numbers etc.) were overpainted and new black camouflage fields were added. Finally, tail stars and the new fuselage numbers were painted...

Thoughts on this profile...

(Lime) "Green - Dark Gren camouflage" and cyan undersides point to a certain author and a school of thinking that's generally rejected by those who have basic understanding of Soviet aviation history...

KL
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 12:34:25 AM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2012, 07:58:57 AM »

Hi,
Trying to list only known colors, I could hypothize:
base color, AII green (appearing dark)
mottles: AMT-4 (appearing a bit lighter; interestingly this color covers the top part of the unpainted fastening coil on the cowling)
thin lines: black
color under '71': AMT-1 or similar brown
lighter color behind 71: unknown, perhaps light grey  or some beige.
As an alternative, one could hypothize the use of some shades of grey on the green base, if the plane had to operate on the sea. But it's only a guess.
Certainly it's not a winter scheme.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
barneybolac
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 320


« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2012, 03:17:32 PM »

One books explanation?



Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2012, 08:04:51 PM »

I-16 "White 71" was black-green!!!

- AII Dark Green never existed
- AEh-9 was oil paint for metal planes like SB
- AMT-1 appeared on service planes only in 1943

most important (relevant) - June 1941 order required green planes to be camouflaged with black patches.  There are so many excelent photos that clearly show I-16s camouflaged according to the order in summer 1941.  The pattern varied but it was always black-green.

It's naive to believe that 1941 planes were camouflaged for fun, or to make them unique.  If other I-16s in the same area (Baltic) and in the same time (summer-fall 1941) were black-green, whay would Romanenko's I-16 differ?
Logged
barneybolac
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 320


« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2012, 10:26:34 PM »

Would the Aeh-9 Grey be accurate for that lighter colour? If not what would that colour be?

It looks like in the second photo the same lighter colour is on top of the wing as well as the the two lighter shades on the fuselage.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 10:30:04 PM by barneybolac » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2012, 10:59:25 PM »

Hi,
one can't deny the photographic evidence that the plane was painted with many different shades. Yes, there are many photos of black and green I-16s but none of them is n.71.
AMT-1 was included in standard schemes in 1943, but existed since 1941.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
mholly
Full Member
***
Posts: 117


« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2012, 04:46:35 AM »

Quote
AMT-1 was included in standard schemes in 1943, but existed since 1941.
True it was ready for use in 1941 but it doesn't mean it was actually supplied to factories and/or PARMs.
That would have required issuance of proper orders which did NOT happen until 1943, as per contemporary Russian research.
Application of some other brown paint cann't be 100% excluded but one would need much more to confirm it than
just single b&w picture.
Cheers,
Mario
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2012, 07:54:52 AM »

Hi Mario,
there are some photos showing some lighter colors occasionally applied before August 1943, both on some bombers and fighters. Of course, it could be another color, or mix of colors. AMT-1 was indicated as an hypothetical possible explanation in absence of other more likely known colors.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2012, 08:17:15 AM »

one can't deny the photographic evidence that the plane was painted with many different shades.

"photographic evidence", "photographic evidence", "photographic evidence"...

Photographic evidence lead to so many wrong conclusions: there was no "Manchurian influence", Germans didn't repaint wrecks in the field, there was nothing extraordinary with VMF (Navy) camouflage practices in 1941.  Navy planes were camouflaged same as VVS RKKA planes - black-green.

One can't deny different shades of gray on that photo.  Nobody can tell what colour each shade represents.  Cool
Can anybody tell (using Pilawskii's badly underexposed photo only), was grass under Romanenko's parachute green or yellow???  Or it's snow??.... in August??? Shocked



Why do you asume only gray or light brown for rear fuselage??  Is there any logical explanation why would they use gray or light brown???  "Manchurian Influence"Huh  Grin Huh
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 08:42:42 AM by KL » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2012, 08:38:20 AM »

Quote
AMT-1 was included in standard schemes in 1943, but existed since 1941.
True it was ready for use in 1941 but it doesn't mean it was actually supplied to factories and/or PARMs.
That would have required issuance of proper orders which did NOT happen until 1943, as per contemporary Russian research.

In other words:  AMT-1 was formulated in 1941, but its production started in 1943.  AMT-1 wasn't required/needed by VVS before summer 1943.
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2012, 02:17:35 PM »


Please, try to use your own eyes, and tell me if this plane could be camouflaged with black and one green only. The photo is excellent in its central part.
I am not interested into Manchurian influence, and I don't know what the colors were. They just can't be two colors only.

About the production of AMT-1, here is what Hornat wrote, that is practically a translation from Orlov:
'As early as February 24,1943, a Major-General Losyukov submitted a sample of what he considered to be a more appropriate scheme, consisting of irregular fields of AMT-4 green, AMT-6 black and AMT-1 light greyish-brown'.  
Photos of the plane (a Yak-1) are included both in his book and in Orlov's book, and one can see that the brown was brushed on a factory sprayed green-black plane.
If AMT-1 wasn't in production, one could ask where Losyukov found it in February 1943.
Besides one could ask what is the light color appearing on some planes before 1943. Many Yak-6s, for example, featured a three colors camo before the summer of 1943.
It could also be a different color, but are there better proposals for it?

Regards
Massimo
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 04:17:06 PM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2012, 07:12:41 PM »


Please, try to use your own eyes, and tell me if this plane could be camouflaged with black and one green only.

Please, try to use some logic in addition to your eyes!  What one sees and the reality are not always the same.

There is nothing unusual on that plane in front (or to the left, towards the center of the photo) of the number 1:  it's a green plane sprayed with irregular black fields.  To my eyes, black paint looks glossy, except at the edges.  It could be still wet???

Two green paints were possible at the beginning of the war:  old AII Green and new AMT-4.  Although their colours look very similar to our eyes  Roll Eyes, spectrally those two paints were different.  Hence they would look different on some film types.    

The photo is excellent in its central part.

Exactly!!! Photo is screwed up at corners and towards the edges!!!!

- What is going on with the shadow towards the left wingtip?
- What is going on with grass in both left and right lower corners? It disappears?
- What is going on with the road to the left?  Does it glow, or it's covered in snow??

This discussion is about that lighter  triangle to the right of number 1.  After I used my eyes again, I think it should be ignored as unreliable...  It could be a result of anything:
- Photographer may have masked edges and corner to accentuate center
- It could be poor positive development
- It could be poor photo reproduction or poor scanning
- And many, many other reasons

Cheers,
KL  
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 07:45:13 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5694


« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2012, 08:52:47 PM »

Hi,
there are many criteria to distinguish a defect of the photo from a real characteristic of it:
- variations of exposure of the photo during the development of the print due to the angulation of the light of the lamp bring to a gradual change in darkness, exactly as the background, in particular on the lower right corner; the print becomes gradually less exposed to the lamp of the device, so remains lighter;
- vice versa, the light triangle after n.71 is well delimited by the number itself and by the thin dark stripe, that is a real characteristic of the camouflage and not a defect of the photo because it ends sharply at the contour of the number itself. There is not a gradual lightening of the fuselage sides; one could have confirmation of this by observing the nearby shadow of the roof that is regular enough.
- thin black stripes are observable both on the rear fuselage sides and on the cowling, and they end sharply where they find a detail as the number  or the cowling ends; vice versa, no any of these stripes is visible on the background, so they have to be a real characteistic of the plane; these stripes are by far thinner than the bands of the regular black-green camouflage;
- the detail of the men is very good, without blotches or other defects; why should the part relative to the plane be so full of defects to alterate its camouflage completely, but not its details, shadows or numbers?
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!