Sovietwarplanes
May 20, 2019, 08:40:44 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 3 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!  (Read 22730 times)
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1733



WWW
« 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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 08:05:43 AM by learstang » Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5692


« Reply #1 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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 07:20:53 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1733



WWW
« Reply #2 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
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5692


« Reply #3 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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 09:40:03 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
warhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 284



« Reply #4 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...
Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1733



WWW
« Reply #5 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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 05:51:00 PM by learstang » Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #6 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?
Logged
bbrought
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90



« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2014, 07:56:04 AM »

And he does it again:

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

BA Broughton
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5692


« Reply #8 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

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
Logged
TISO
Full Member
***
Posts: 234



« Reply #9 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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 06:14:05 AM by TISO » Logged
bbrought
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90



« Reply #10 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...
Logged

BA Broughton
bbrought
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90



« Reply #11 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:

Logged

BA Broughton
Troy Smith
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 378


« Reply #12 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



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


here's the plane 'extensively repainted'


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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 06:13:54 PM by Troy Smith » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #13 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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 11:52:02 PM by KL » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #14 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    
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 05:47:32 PM by KL » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
  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!