Sovietwarplanes
July 18, 2019, 09:23:20 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 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Erik Pilawskii Strikes Again!  (Read 24095 times)
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2014, 07:42:54 PM »

SAFFC author's treatment of the "Albom nakrasok" only proovs that he isn't a historian, that he doesn't know what historians are supposed to do and that his methods are hopelessly flawed.

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

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

So far, EP hasn't answered the most basic question:  WHAT ARE HIS COLORS BASED ON?  Does he have (or has he seen) older official paint chips?  Has he seen official Soviet paint chips of better quality?  Will he ever produce a single evidence from his wast "collection of original paint samples"?  Where is the proof that his samples are better than "Albom nakrasok" paint chips???      
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 07:45:34 PM by KL » Logged
DaveFleming
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2014, 02:34:32 AM »


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

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

here's the Supermarine diagram


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.

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.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 03:31:50 AM by DaveFleming » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5740


« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2014, 08:09:30 AM »

Hi,
I see that the repainting on the rudder (and elevators) has put in strong evidence the fabric surface ondulations. It has to be very glossy.
It could be something different from grey.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
DaveFleming
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2014, 04:07:29 PM »

Something I just noticed is there is a 'grey' band on the transport joint, where the tail joins the fuselage, which is a different shade to the grey of the camouflage colour.

This site puts an interesting spin on things:

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

Logged
Troy Smith
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 379


« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2014, 04:45:54 PM »

Hello Dave

fancy seeing you here Wink

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

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


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

note post #57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HTH
T

one of the links is obviously this thread..

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged
DaveFleming
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2014, 12:11:11 AM »

I did post a reply there but it seems to have been chopped!

As both a lapsed chemist and a colours obessive, I find these discussions fascinating!
Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1746



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2014, 01:41:54 AM »

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

Regards,

Jason
Logged

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

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5740


« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2014, 09:10:28 AM »

Hi,
the discussion is interesting, but looks to have degenerated into personal things.
RLM 83... I've always heard it was green. But are they discussing about the shade, or about the name of the color? I don't think that all the models and profiles representing it as green will need to be modified into blue.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Troy Smith
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 379


« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2014, 04:10:36 PM »

hi Massimo

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

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

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

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

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

Which made me think of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 04:14:42 PM by Troy Smith » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5740


« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2014, 10:29:38 PM »

Hi Troy,
interesting.
So, what is the name for the bright green, if not 83?
I thought that there was some German official document listing colors and their use; I expected unconsistencies in the reproduction of the exact shade or in the chronology, but... from bright green to dark green to blue...
Regards
Massimo
Logged
DaveFleming
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2014, 02:14:08 AM »

Hi Troy,
interesting.
So, what is the name for the bright green, if not 83?
I thought that there was some German official document listing colors and their use; I expected unconsistencies in the reproduction of the exact shade or in the chronology, but... from bright green to dark green to blue...
Regards
Massimo

Bright Green is RLM82 - the correct designation was identified some years back. The thinking now (At least by Mr Ullman) is that what we thought of as RLM83 was actually just a variation of RLM81.
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5740


« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2014, 07:24:10 AM »

Thank you Dave.
Logged
dancho
Newbie
*
Posts: 25



« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2016, 02:43:43 AM »

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

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

This situation is not a great tragedy, until someone starts to claim to be a "true researcher" and a "scientist" and uses that designation to promote the same old idea--that of producing books with "new" information for model builders. Then there is a problem. I have never seen a little popular book with the type of scholarship that is required in the presentation of truly new information. Only a few books are produced each decade which comply with respectable scholarship. Pages of notes, references and supporting evidence are required for a "new fact" to be believed. But usually, a "popular" book is just printed out and that's that. It's not a big deal--but we should be very, very skeptical of anyone who claims to "know the truth" because he or she is a "true researcher." Saying "I am a researcher" means nothing. Only years of never making a statement that is not supported by solid data, presented logically and openly, can make a "true researcher." A lack of footnotes and a "hand waving arguments" mean that something is fishy. If it's presented as fun and games, then fine. It's fun. But if this type of "scholarship" is presented as "scientific truth" then warning flags should go up.
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5740


« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2016, 07:12:51 PM »

Hi,
he is still alive on forums with the name NII_VVS. He took part to the discussion about the speed controller of the prop of Yak-1.
I've read his latest article.
http://redbanner.co.uk/History/surface/I16_surface.html
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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2016, 02:24:55 AM »


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


Hi Massimo,

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



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


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

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

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

Regards,
KL 

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 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!