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
The fuselage and wing root areas were made up of laminated spruce strips, these wrapped around the shape of the unit over wooden formers.
It wasn't spruce, it was birch.
The wood strips were both secured and impregnated with phenol-formaldehyde resin, this giving the normally light wood an orange-brown appearance.
Phenol-formaldehyde resin hasn't been used in I-16 production, it was used couple of years later on LaGG-3!
A strip of hard wood (usually ash) was used to blend in the adjoining wing and fuselage sections.
This strip can be seen only on modern I-16 replicas. It didn't exist on original I-16.
The fuselage and wing forward sections were then covered in fabric (common linen).
wing forward section was made of metal, metal suraces were not covered in fabric.
Fabric was cotton, not "common linen"!!!
This fabric was impregnated with another type of phenol-formaldehyde resin, being similar in chemistry to that used on the wood strip, but clear in colour [this is may well be the lacquer designated ?17-A Clear? as identified by the NKAP?s documents].
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.
In the first case, the desired military or camouflage finish was applied directly over the fabric/puttied airframe. Generally speaking, A, AE, AEh and AII lacquers all adhered well over such surfaces, and tended to chip away significantly only over dural sheet areas which had neither putty nor primer applied to them. AMT lacquer was indifferent to the types of surfaces to which it was applied.
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.
The second option was to first finish the entire airframe with a coat of ALG aviation primer.
ALG-1 over wooden surfaces? Nonsense...
It was not unknown at some factories, and in certain cases, that part of the airframe would be comprehensively primed, and other areas not.
It did not depend on a factory - those where technologies that all factories had to follow...
Note that the canopy framing is mostly unpainted. This appearance was quite typical, the paint having fallen away almost completely. Indeed, it was sometimes the case that no attempt was made to paint this framing in the first place.
canopy framing on all open cockpit I-16 was unpainted...
Another derelict I-16, in this case perhaps a Type 24, shot on AGFA colour slide film. Despite the various colour oddities of this film type, it is manifestly clear that this aircraft was comprehensively primed with ALG-1 at the factory before finishing.
Again nonsense about ALG-1 over wooden surfaces!
One of the modern I-16 Type 24 replica Warbirds built by Aviarestoration in Novosibirsk ca. 1992. The I-16?s unique construction method is demonstrated here before the aircraft was painted.
modern replica, modern materials... not necessarily authentic...
Yak-1b production at Factory 292, Saratov, ca. 1943. The uniform over-all appearance of the aircraft in view, except for the rudder fabric surfaces, strongly suggests that these examples have been thoroughly primed with ALG-1.
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?