Sovietwarplanes
September 16, 2019, 04:33:40 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
  Print  
Author Topic: Polikarpov I-15bis profile  (Read 2470 times)
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« on: October 10, 2017, 10:27:24 PM »

Hi,
here I started work on the profile of Polikarpov I-15bis from the summer 1941:



It this this plane:




This plane is interesting due to the camouflage scheme applied by the brush in the field almost exactly according to the new NKAP scheme from the summer 1941 for fighters:

Moreover, rear (fabric) part of the fuselage is apparantly lighter - seems like overpainted with the new AMT-4 green.

Massimo, you have this plane at your pages with the grey undersurfaces. However, light blue AIIg was introduced already in June 1940. Also the red star on the tail is already without the black circle inside. It looks like wartime repainting of the plane. I also browsed differend Russian pages via yandex.ru and pictures of all camouflaged WWII era I-15bis were drawn with light blue undersurfaces. So I decided to make the light blue undersurfaces also on my profile.
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 09:43:15 AM »

Hi Misos,
nice work as always.
It is likely that you are right about two shades of green. But, if they were so lazy to leave the old paint on upper surfaces, I don't see why they should have repainted the undersurfaces.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 10:43:21 AM »

Hi Massimo,
thank you.

AFAIK I-15 were produced in 1934-37, so yes, originally the should have AII green uppersurfaces and grey/silver under surfaces.

For me, in this particular case, it looks like they tried to follow the new NKAP scheme for some reason as precisely as possible, of course, in the field conditions. Note how precisely they painted black fields over green. IMHO they did not try to repaint whole plane by new green - it would be losing time and resources during those quite hectic times in the summer 1941. They repaint only the rear fuselage because there was a star of the older type, or number, or damage or whatever else. But they probably did not have old paints, but already a new AMT-4. Also note that they painted red star only on the tail, exactly like on the sketch from NKAP scheme.
That is why I think they repainted also grey/silver undersurfaces - with the light blue.

Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 02:23:45 PM »

Hi Misos,
if I remember well the old discussions on the booklet of Orlov, it was pointed that orders didn't require the repainting of the lower surfaces. Anyway none can demonstrate that they didn't it.
One can also see that the black blotches on the nose and wing were sprayed, while the rear part of fuselage is brush painted, so the work was made in two steps.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 06:00:59 PM »

Hi Massimo,
I went through your pages again and here I summarize important dates & events::

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/1940-1941/1940-41.html:
June 1940 and July 1941 - newly built combat planes - gloss green uppersurfaces and gloss light blue undersurfaces.
Already built planes usually preserved their previous marks and painting (dark green + silver/grey).

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/1941-43/1941-43.html:
May 6, 1941 - new directive ordered factories to deliver planes with disruptive camouflage on upper surfaces and light grey undersurface.

End of May - Stalin ordered a commission to trace detailed instructions for camouflage schemes within 3 days. The brief document included two schemes for black and green camouflage, one for single-engined planes and one for twin-engined ones:


20 June 1941 - order to paint all planes with a new standard camouflage within one month. Existing planes with uniform green uppersurfaces had to be added with matt black... Nothing was written on undersurfaces of already existing planes, that presumably preserved the original finish.
Red stars, of plan type or with thin black outline, were now placed in six positions - one on each side of fuselage, one on each side of rudder/stabilizer and one on the undersurface of each wing.

June 23, 1941 - for newly built planes to utilize matt light blue for undersurfaces

July 1941 green AMT-4 and black AMT-6 were codified

August 1941 light blue AMT-7 was codified, and is not mentioned on earlier manuals; earlier AII light blue remained in use in parallel with the darker AMT-7 in the first years of war.

To summarize it for WWII period:
- my I-15bis was buit sometime between 1934 and 1937, so originally it surely had light grey/silver undersurfaces,
- already built planes usually preserved their previous marks and painting (dark green + silver/grey).
- plane was repainted exactly according to the sketch from the instructions from May 1941, even with the red star only on the rudder, it does not fit to instructions from end of June 1941.

So question is - did they repaint undersurfaces with light blue AIIg during those hectic days at the end of June 1941 when it was not neccessary? I do not think so. It could be repainted during prewar time when there still was the time for preparation and mantenance.
In this context I think lightgrey/silver undersurfaces seems to be more probable alternative then light blue AIIg.
Regards,
   66misos

Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 06:10:51 PM »

Hi Misos, I agree.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2017, 08:25:05 PM »

Hi,
the profile of the Polikarpov I-15bis in the camouflage from the summer 1941 is finished:



Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 09:41:28 PM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2017, 08:54:33 PM »

Hi Misos, good work as usual. Just, the camouflage on the nose appears blurried on the photo, as over thew wings.
I wonder if the part of spinner that wasn't painted black  was left in some squadron color, else I can't see the sense to leave it unpainted.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2017, 09:50:05 PM »

Hi Massimo,

thank you for comment. I am not sure about blurried camouflage fields on the nose, so I made a compromise - only a very little burried.

Regarding spinner - I do not know reason or purpose of such painting, but I saw something similiar also on the downed Yak-4:

So I am not surprised and I let it as is.

I already replaced corrected profile above.
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2017, 02:07:42 AM »

Hi,
here is another I-15bis, now in winter camouflage:

EDIT: corrected prifile is in my post below.

Here is original:


Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 04:48:29 PM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2017, 01:19:17 PM »


Hi Misos,
good profile, as usual.
Are the things retaining the skis some springs? Did they stay tensioned even with skis in flight position?
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2017, 03:33:09 PM »

Hi Massimo,

thank you.
I do not know whether it was rubber or strings. IFAIK that front "thing" was elastic and pull front part of skis up, while that rear "thing" was not elastic and has moreless adjusting purpose - it kept skis in the horizontal position, e.g. paralelly with fuselage during flight, something like here:


During/after landing when it touched the ground, rear part of the skis was pushed up and it looked like this - front string tensioned, rear one released:


Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5773


« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2017, 03:39:53 PM »

Hi Misos, this is likely.
Looking at the photo, I've the impression that the brace of the star surpasses too much the hinge line of the tail. Perhaps it's better to reduce the star a bit.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1505

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2017, 04:47:42 PM »

Hi Massimo,

you are right, the star seems to be smaller. I corrected it and here is the final picture:



regards,
   66misos
Logged

PG monster
Full Member
***
Posts: 144


« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2019, 10:43:34 PM »

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/i15/i15bis/tapani/camouflaged/camouflaged.htm

" 'white 56' could belong to 11 IAP"
There were 3 11 IAP: army (Yak-1 only), PVO (MiG-3 only), fleet (different types). Only 11 iap VMF was armed with the I-15bis. Am I right?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  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!