Sovietwarplanes
September 23, 2019, 04:38:11 AM *
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
  Print  
Author Topic: Winter camo on Galchenko's LaGG-3  (Read 26524 times)
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« on: October 15, 2012, 03:34:48 PM »

Hi,

I am just before applying the winter camo on my kit of Galchenko's LaGG-3 Early in 1:48.
Basic camo example is on the www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com and this one repeats on the every other profile and/or kit painting instructions:

This winter camo is similiar for winter 41/42 and 42/43. Only difference is "space" for victory stars on the left fuselage behind canopy and white stripe on the left canopy window.

I tried to collect all possible photos and screenshots from videos:

and result shows a bit different white patterns.

As Massimo's profiles are similiar for winter 41/42 and 42/42, I also took all pictures from both winters and applied them to Massimo's summer profile. I hope there is no problem with copyright.
Here is the result:

- white patterns are painted according to the pictures,
- yellow patterns are only estimated because they are either not visible (right wing) or there is light reflection (left wing),
- white areas seems to be painted by hand brush, not airbrushed.

Any comments and photos correcting or confiming my observations are more than welcome. I would like to avoid to paint another nonsense camo after my I-16  Smiley
Thank you in advance.

Regards,
     66misos


Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2012, 06:21:51 PM »

Hi Misos,
your work looks interesting, my recostruction of the pattern on uppersurfaces was based on the black repaintings of the spring 1942, but the screenshots show well some parts as the tail and right leading edge.
On the left side, the available photos  are thought to be of the following winter. I suppose that we can take them in absence of different indications, even if it's not guaranteed that the pattern was the sam,e, where not coincident with the summer pattern.
I suggest to assume faded black, that is dark grey, instead of dark green on the pattern.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2012, 10:30:10 AM »

Hi Massimo,
thanks for reply. However
Quote
Posted on: October 15, 2012, 06:21:51 PM Massimo Tessitori 
...I suggest to assume faded black, that is dark grey, instead of dark green on the pattern...

is interesting. This is what I did first - black/green camo. Even kit box art is black/green.
But there was a lot of discussion whether it is green/dark green/black or only green/black or green/brown/black etc. And your profiles preffer green/dark green/black version.

So I finally re-airbushed green over the whole kit and then freehand airbrushed very diluted black over it. Results is somewhere dark green and somewhere almost black - basic patterns according to your profiles.
I used AKAN acrylics.

Here are some pictures of my kit after gloss coat prepared for decals and further steps.
I appologize for picture quality. I made them with my mobile phone before I left to my work this morning Smiley




I am not sure I have patience enough to repaint it again to green/black.  Angry
Massimo, didn't you consider to update some of your profiles at your mig3.sovietwarplanes page?

Regards,
     66misos

Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM »

Hi Misos,
thinned black over green is credible, I would leave it so.
Yes, there are many pages of the old ones that could be modified. I'll do it some day.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2012, 04:55:52 PM »

thinned black over green is credible...

I would be interested to see a proof for thinned/semy-transparent/transparent black paint.  Roll Eyes  Black paint on the LaGG-3 fragment preserved at Vesivehmaa is solid matt black.



Green-dark green camouflage scheme never existed.   Smiley

Regards,
KL
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 06:01:15 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2012, 06:10:26 PM »

It's only one possible explanation. Let's keep in mind that the plane of Galchenko has not a standard painting, was subject to many repaintings and it is even possible that it came out of factory with a solid green livery, as shown on some profile of a plane of the same unit of which I haven't photos. The piece of plane preserved in Veesiveehma is not the same one, and has a recognizable factory pattern. Thinned black over green was described on some piece of TB-3 in some museum, I don't remember if Finnish or Monino.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2012, 07:40:04 PM »

It's only one possible explanation. Let's keep in mind that the plane of Galchenko has not a standard painting, was subject to many repaintings and it is even possible that it came out of factory with a solid green livery, as shown on some profile of a plane of the same unit of which I haven't photos. The piece of plane preserved in Veesiveehma is not the same one, and has a recognizable factory pattern. , I don't remember if Finnish or Monino.

"Thinned black over green on some piece of TB-3 in some museum" is less relevant than LaGG-3 fragment in original factory colours.

I agree that Galchenko's LaGG-3 may not have been painted in standard June 1941 scheme.  But your web page doesn't provide any other paint options, your starting point is field applied Green-Dark Green scheme.
I also understand that at the time when page was created (in 2005), Green-Dark Green scheme was considered as plausible thanks to the "research" of a certain author.

Regards,
KL
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2012, 08:55:13 PM »

The question with Galchenko's plane is not only a question of pattern, I think that it was delivered before the war in green and then updated on the field. So, a fragment of LaGG with the factory camouflage is not more relevant than other fragments.
It is possible that the first bands were black and later faded, but look at the fresh black repaintings: they are not overposed to the supposed faded black bands, but largely  to green. So, shades of black become very abundant. It's not impossible, of course, but it should at least leave some doubt.
Green-dark green camouflage is not between the standards, but to say that it never existed is a different thing, also because it was described by some veterans on interviews about La-5 and Pe-2. Are they wrong? Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2012, 09:06:53 PM »

Hi KL,
there is a profile of LaGG-3 series 1 "White 54" from the same 145th IAP flown by cpt. Alexandr Zaicev in the Osprey book "Lagg & Lavochkin Aces of World War 2". This "white 54" has overall green camo without any black bands or blotches.

When looking at b/w photos of Galchenko's plane several different colors can be distihguishable. Green plus something else. And that "something else" does not resemble nothing like standard NKAP scheme, nothing like black bands visible on latter Yaks or Lavochkins.

I do not say that Soviets used highly diluted or thinned black or special dark green color. I just think they used standard black sprayed in the field conditions over green applied in the factory, but at least in this Galchenko's case they improvised a bit in terms of shape and number of black layers during the war outbreak chaos.
Sprayed color is translucent (visible on the overpainted red star behind the cat on the rudder of Galchenko's plane) and it requires several layers/coats to be saturated. Very same like kit airbrushing. But because of modeller paints and airbrush characteristics it is easier to use the color a bit more thinned, e.g. more translucent than in real life.
My goal (and I think also their goal) was not to paint nice dark green, but to break overall green with black areas, but sprayed fast, not enough layers, resulting in something between black and dark green.

Regards,
     66misos
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 09:10:37 PM by 66misos » Logged

KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2012, 09:59:00 PM »

The question with Galchenko's plane is not only a question of pattern, I think that it was delivered before the war in green and then updated on the field. So, a fragment of LaGG with the factory camouflage is not more relevant than other fragments.

It is obvious that Galchenko's LaGG-3 wasn't painted in standard June 1941 scheme...  It's a question of paints that were used in factory before the war and in the field in 1941/42.  AMT paints are very likely used at one point.  Vesivehmaa LaGG-3 fragment is the largest and best preserved specimen of the Black-Green scheme so it is relevant for this plane.

Vesivehmaa fragment shows (or proofs) that AMT paints were not transparent, even when sprayed very thinly.  As I mentioned before, black AMT-6 paint is solid.  Same with Yak-3 in Paris:  dark gray AMT-12 camouflage is sprayed very thinly, but it's not transparent.
Those are the facts.  Fading, transparent paints etc are only your guessing.

Regards,
KL
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2012, 12:00:17 AM »

Hi KL,

I do not mean that those colors were principally transparent like some modern automotive colors. I just say that if not sprayed carefully enough or not in several layers, they did not cover backgroud enough, e.g. looked translucent.
If color is sprayed in one thick layer then wet color creates drops and flows away/down, especially on the vertical surfaces. That is why it is recommended to spray one thin layer, let it dry and then spray another layer etc.

Also article "Painting of newly-built Soviet warplanes, June 1941- September 1943" at http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/1941-43/1941-43.html says: "...The directive said to repaint the upper and side surfaces of silver and grey planes with two layers of green, and then to add the black stripes..."

Here are examples when (re-)painting was not done carefully enough:

1.) the red star behind the cat on the Galchenko's plane:


2.) particularly red outline over different background (from P-39):


Regards,
     66misos

Logged

KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2012, 01:43:12 AM »

I just say that dark AMT paints had very good coverage - today they would be sold as "one coat" paints.  Vesivehmaa Lagg-3 fragment represents a vertical surface and I am pretty sure black AMT-6 was sprayed as one coat.

If color is sprayed in one thick layer then wet color creates drops and flows away/down, especially on the vertical surfaces. That is why it is recommended to spray one thin layer, let it dry and then spray another layer etc.

For what I know, no such recommendation for AMT-6...



You should note reflection of cat's paw on the horizontal stabilizer - this may indicate glossy AII paints...



Your P-39 is preserved at the AAA museum in Tusula.  White disc is probablly filled with blue-green oil paint - this paint is not relevant for wooden LaGG-3.
Gray-green border around the red star is a mistery paint - this paint can be seen on several fragments in finish museums, both metal and fabric...

Regards,
KL
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 01:44:45 AM by KL » Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2012, 02:22:26 AM »

Hi KL,

yes, you are right, Galchenko's early LaGG-3 is quite glossy, also on this picture:


I used AKAN AII Green and AII Blue as a basic and then thinned AMT-6 for upper surface dark color.
I am just finished applying decals and going to sleep. Here is 2:21AM now  Wink

Regards,
     66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2012, 08:35:55 AM »

Hi,
the general look of the plane is semigloss.

I think that the original paints were AII, then the add-on later ones perhaps were the same, even if it's a bit strange because some repaintings should be of late 1942.
I's interesting to see that the square area covering the numbers is not the darkest one, and certainly it is not faded, although it's likely the latest repainting  visible on the photo. So it's not absurd to think that it could be some shade of green, maybe obtained by mixing paints.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2012, 09:19:18 AM »

Galchenko's LaGG was glossy (more or less):





I would try to avoid mixed paints theory - anything is possible when you start mixing paints.
KL
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  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!