Sovietwarplanes
September 20, 2019, 03:23:51 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
  Print  
Author Topic: Il-2s of 1942  (Read 15525 times)
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2014, 07:36:31 AM »

Hi Konstantin,
this is true, but the information comes from a veteran (via Timoshenko) and I think it is reliable.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
xan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 457



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2014, 01:58:25 PM »

I think I read somewhere that only red, black, white and silver were officially approved for tactical numbers...
this is true
Do you know Massimo and konstantin more about that ? is there an official decision about that?
Massimo, in the picture, is it clear that it's not white paint? could it be silver?
Who is Timoshenko?
have you other examples of blue codes? I think I saw a profil of P-39 with blue code, but I'm not sure...

Xan

« Last Edit: May 02, 2014, 02:01:26 PM by xan » Logged

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


« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2014, 09:14:11 PM »

Hi Xan,
Timoshenko is known as Tora on Russian forums. Maybe you could contact him.
Light blue is described by a veteran, I think the pilot himself. I don't see reason to doubt of his words: light blue was easily available; besides it's easily distinguishable from silver on a curved surface.
Unfortunately I haven't photos of wrecks with light blue numbers, only this photo of a postwar plane.

Regards
Massimo

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


« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2014, 09:29:10 PM »

Aren't we talking about tactical numbers?
Red, blue and yellow for spinners are known.  Inscription may have been written in any bright colour, but tactical numbers were most likely red, black, white and silver.

It's quite clear why blue wasn't an official colour - how would blue number work on blue undersides?
Logged
xan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 457



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2014, 10:51:00 PM »

Timoshenko is known as Tora on Russian forums.
With pleasure
Light blue is described by a veteran, I think the pilot himself. I don't see reason to doubt of his words:
I have the greatest repect for the veteran. Despite of that. What says a veteran is not necesserely true. He can have forgotten or mix two different remind.
For exemple Roland de la Poype my Normandie niemen great heroe spoke about the tricolor spiner of the yak-1 in the first campaign they did, wich is impossible because tricolor spinners appears during the second campaign with the yak-9, for exemple.
What a veteran says is an important element, but not an evidence.
If we can it's intersting to confront this testimony with other information, it's the fundament of the historical approach.
And in this case it's written anywhere thet tactical numbers can be only white black red or silver, it's intersting to confront the different element.
Massimo, I'm not judging your conclusion at all, I would just like to confirm it ...
You have the pic. in that pic, is the color evidentely darker than white? could it be red or silver?

Xan

   
Logged

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


« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2014, 10:39:40 AM »

Hi Xan,
the color is more or less as the skin of the pilot. If i wasn't told that it was blue, I would have drawn it white as usual. What was visible of 13 seem more or less the same shade, even if i wasn't told explicitely that it was blue, and now the veteran has died.
Yes, could also be wrong, but with what elements should I go against?
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2014, 10:57:36 AM »

Hi,



Il-2 red 55 of N.G.Stepanyan, 57 PShAP. VVS KBF, Baltic/Leningrad area, date unknown (presumably 1942).

The photo shows the central part of the fuselage, the red 55 with white outline and the star with white outline that suggests a plane built by Z.18. The underlying camouflage is unrecognizable, but the plane appears oversprayed with faint blotches of white washable paint, partially extended over the markings.
On the drawing, the presence of the intake filter, aiming lines and VV-1 is merely hypothetical.
Thanks to Vitaliy Timoshenko for the informations and the image.

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


« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2014, 12:28:07 AM »

Interesting photo; so far I have seen only the cropped version showing Stepanyan and very small part of the canopy.

Massimo, profiles are good but top view gives an impression that the plane was intentionally sprayed in small white blotches.

IMHO, plane's upper surfaces were originally completely covered in white (in autumn 1941) and then next spring (1942) white MK-7 was removed.  That is when Stepanyan and the plane were photographed (after the temporary MK-7 was removed).   So, the plane should have blotchy/smudged appearance. It should have white paint remnants all over its top side (no large areas completely cleaned of temp white).
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2014, 08:21:00 AM »

Hi Konstantin,
my impression from the photo is that the white was sprayed in faint blotches, not that it has disappeared for having been washed. The ground too looks snowy.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2014, 10:17:27 AM »

Hi Massimo,
yes you are right, the photo was taken in winter.  Ground is completely covered in snow....  In that case there should be significantly more white colour on the plane, especially on the wings.  Few isolated blotches would be ineffective on white background.

Since you have one photo, you can make analogies with other 57 pshap KBF Il-2s





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


« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2014, 11:57:32 AM »

Hi, Konstantin,
I think that the way of blotching is clear enough on the photo. I can't understand if it is diffused on all the plane, but photos of different planes don't help much.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2014, 06:40:52 PM »

I think that the way of blotching is clear enough on the photo. I can't understand if it is diffused on all the plane, but photos of different planes don't help much.
Hi Massimo,

If the blotching is so clear (and it isn't!), why didn't you extend the same type of blotching on wings?  What was your reasoning behind the assumption that the wings were almost "clean"?

There are few problems with your interpretation:
1.  Photo is far from good quality and being reliable.  Remember how Misos made dark green blotches on Suhov's P-39 based on a poor quality photo?  Then the better quality photo proved that there was no dark green on rear fuselage.

2.  Blotching wasn't required (for what I know) and if it was intentionally made that would be a questionable "non-standard" scheme.  What was required for winter was a solid white "protective" scheme.  In the field white paint was applied unevenly and it quickly weathered into blotchy appearance - IMHO that is what have happened with Il-2 No "55"

3.  If photos show 57 shap KBF planes in field applied winter camouflage scheme, those photos are an evidence.  If 2 such photos show that the temp winter camouflage was uneven solid white, than your Il-2 No "55" had high probability of being originally painted in uneven solid white.  Not in few ineffective white blotches.  Grin

Instead of a questionable "non-standard" scheme, make your Il-2 No 55 look what we know was very common - "a weathered/uneven field applied protective winter colouring"  Smiley

Finally, another photo of Stepanyan in an Il-2 single-seater, again Leningrad, 1942 - it could be the same Il-2 No 55.



IMHO, it's an another proof that it was "weathered/uneven field applied protective winter colouring".  Not "few useless white blotches"  

Regards,
KL        
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 08:02:48 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2014, 08:58:35 PM »

Hi Konstantin,
for me, the photo is absolutely clear, and shows sprayed blotches, not a cancelled uniform white layer. They are well different. And then, why should them have deleted the white layer if there was still snow?
I don't see any resemblance between the plane 55 and the uniformly painted one.  Probably this latter is the same of the photo of the canopy, but I don't see evidence that it was the same of 55, not even repainted, even if the pilot was the same.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2014, 09:09:57 PM »

Hi Massimo,
how about the wings?  why not the same blotching?  Why is half of the port wing devoid of blotches (i.e. unpainted in white)?  Why are wing blotches larger than fuselage blotches?  Why is spacing between wing blotches larger then the spacing between fuselage blotches? any reasons, any analogies?

for me, the photo is absolutely clear, and shows sprayed blotches, not a cancelled uniform white layer. They are well different. And then, why should them have deleted the white layer if there was still snow?

I said weathered in my second post, not cancelled.  Clearly nobody would "delete" white camouflage if the snow was completely covering the ground.  Use the same logic; why would they leave large parts of the wing un-blotched/un-camouflaged if the snow was completely covering the ground?

Regards,
KL  
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 09:20:15 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2014, 06:56:39 AM »

Hi Konstantin,
a white camouflage can give visible traces of degrading: chipping, darker stripes where it is subject to wearing, white paint more abundant in recesses etc.
The photo is of good quality, particularly the version I have received that is larger and uncropped, and I don't see anything of this. So I am confident that they are sprayed blotches.
About parts not visible in the photo, they are merely guessed.
Anyway I did this after having seen a lot of winter painted shturmoviks, and I am convinced that there is improvisation and not an unified template under this plane.
So, a further photo of 55 (or at least of a plane that could be 55) would be highly welcome, but photos of planes that are visibly different don't help much.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  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!