STAVKA

Do you know, this is not well discussed. The Tech Manual for the Sh-2 only says-- and I quote-- "..the propeller is the same as found on the U-2..." What!? Pretty rubbish there by the usual Soviet detail standards! The U-2 always had a 2.4 m two-bladed wooden prop, but the question is, "how was it finished?". Well, variously... One can see nice laminated wood props in early photos, and also resin-cloth covered props on military versions. Some look to have been painted, additionally. Without a specific photo of your exmple, I reckon you can do a bit as you please here; who will say you're wrong? If you'd like some U-2 prop inspiration, I have drawn a few types here. Have a look. http://redbanner.co.uk/History/trainers/trainers_3.html

Greetings All, Are there any persons on the forum who are capable in the Japanese language? I speculate that the text in this image may describe the LaGG-3 and I-16 aircraft shown, and/or the pilot's details? Is this correct? Can anyone read this text, and does it give any further details such as time, location, or such like? Thanks in advance for any help.

Now, Mike is correct and all this needs to wind down a bit. Jamie, I will take this in the most positive light possible and not as some kind of personal insult. Do you really believe that the various companies I (or our company) works with have no laboratory equipment? Don't analyse using spectroscopy and chemical analysis? World leading companies? And that I have not paid copious amounts out of my own pocket for the same work to be done? I would posit that this sounds incredibly naive, to be honest. And the entire matter of paint analysis starts with the same fact which I repeat over and over and over again... You scan an actual paint sample using laboratory methods. Real things. Not jpgs or other nonsensical non-evidence. That is the basis of the process. I remain perplexed that this topic is still debated. There exists today-- right now-- plenty of evidence if only someone will look at it. Just for one example (of many, many), a Series 20 Yak-1 representing a critical juncture in period colouration has now pitched up at Zadorozhny, on display. This specimen shows evidence corresponding to the 1942 Yak remont and shows paints which many on this thread deny exist, or certainly that they were ever so used. Good, so go test your ideas. Do not refer to my work in any manner, just see and evaluate and think for yourself. But such a thing never happens; we just get more mouse clicks. Or hearsay. Or what have you... The entire matter is spectacularly simple, in reality. Either you can collect and examine and analyse the available evidence, or you can't. Or won't. If you ask me, I have the feeling that the latter two cases are the most relevant to the discussion. As well, I think there is a fundamental misconception going on here based upon social-behavioural factors, not evidence based ones. Proselytisation is not a part of science; this is common in religion or politics, maybe, but but it has no place in rational thought. I am not here to convince anyone; I just point out evidence for examination. If you want to paint your model with dark, muddy, dull, de-saturated shades that look like they were retrieved from a Viennese sewer, then entertain yourself. What's it to me? And moreover, from where does all of this hate, bile and rancour come from? Too many seem to be pathologically disturbed by the fact that I might disagree with their cherished colour ideas. Why!? If you think my work is "wrong", then ignore it. What's the problem? This portion of the matter, I feel, does have an explanation, sadly. For those with an interest in the Behavioural Sciences, reference the phenomenon Shoot the Messenger Syndrome. Has anyone ever been subjected to hatred on the basis of being incorrect? It doesn't happen. But this is just my view, and if you don't agree, then so be it. What, again, is the problem? Why are so many getting wound up to the point of illicit behaviour over this topic?

Amen to that! Thanks Psy06 for the links.

Many other colour controversies mentioned-- no surprise there. Right. I can see this is going in circles, as this thread does with certainty. This image is a perfect example of what too many posters herein struggle with: leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions based upon the misinterpretation of sketchy (one tatty jpg!!!) evidence, in turn just because it fits their preconceived idea of what the facts should be. It would be hard to suggest a more comprehensive failure of the scientific process. Here is a slightly zoomed in version of the very same wing photo, and also a photo of the fuselage from the very same series. These can be found everywhere on the internet; they are not secret or special versions of the images. They have been subjected to a very modest colour correction. This was done NOT to pretend to show some true-to-life exactitude of the colours in view (which is impossible), but rather to equalise the paints in view to have the same relative appearance. This is an obvious and logical thing to do-- if you stood in person looking at the same paints as applied on the two parts of the airframe, they would (and did) look the same. However, in many of these images the same paints do not have the same appearance. Why? This can happen for many reasons, including (but not limited to): changes in ambient lighting, changes to the camera's settings, operator "irregularities" and so forth. And these all relate only to the image when taken. Subsequently, these photos are routinely hacked to death by photo manipulation software, so that by the time one downloads the same they illogically do not agree in any way. The colour correction ("equalisation") was done to remedy these manipulations and problems. [However, allow me predict now that there will be howls of derision and accusations of some kind of forgery... just wait.] In the first case, I find it rather amusing that the remaining scraps of authentic AMT-7 colour on the fuselage have been scrupulously ignored. I presume this is so as certain thread posters scramble in panic with the colour sliders in Photoshop (which they don't really understand), desperately trying to get this paint to resemble the darker French paint (the more I look at it, the more I am convinced this lacquer is a primer) on the wing. This attempt will fail as it isn't the same paint nor colour, unless of course one engages in a deliberate re-colourisation fraud, and then they'd have to hope not to be caught out. Following the blue arrows, if one looks closely they should (now, perhaps on some monitors this will be impossible, and if so bear with me) be able to detect three tiny spots of the same colour on the wing. These are located-- in the paint stack-- BELOW the darker French grey and BELOW the national stars. Thus, they are in the correct physical location for AMT-7 and have the correct light blue colour of AMT-7 and match the same paint found in its original location (making up the 'ramp' feature of the fuselage colour demarcation). This paint is unquestionably AMT-7 Blue. The lighter French paint is shown also (green arrow) to confirm the colour calibration. Looking carefully, one will see that the darker French grey is still present ON TOP OF the star marking's white border in more than one place. What does this tell us? The same darker French grey is also present on the fuselage ON TOP OF the original AMT-11/-12 camouflage high up the fuselage side. What does that tell us? This darker French grey does not have the correct colour (much too dark and grey); it therefore cannot be AMT-7. This darker French grey does not agree with any photographic evidence of AMT-7 anywhere on any film type; it therefore cannot be AMT-7. This darker French grey does not appear physically in the correct locations so as to be AMT-7; it therefore cannot be AMT-7. Do we get it now? It is wrong on every count-- it is not AMT-7. Personally, I find it disturbing and exceedingly typical for this thread that many simply accept without question any alleged "evidence" which they prefer. Look what happens with the very same posters when I submit evidence which they don't fancy. Why is it that all evidence is not treated objectively nor properly? The Modern World, right there, can't give a better example. Furthermore, they draw conclusions from one scrap of alleged evidence. One!! Not even evidence, but a photo which they mistakenly believe shows it! Incredible... Can we stop this circular nonsense, please? It is simply a fact (unpopular, apparently) that in order to estimate the colour of any paint, one must look at the paint to see its colour. Not a photo, not a description, not a rumour. Can anything be more logical? I don't see how.

Tbolt, you've gone cmpletely beyond the usual reply there! Superb! A lot of effort no doubt, too, so thanks for that. I have to agree that the later kit is much better in detail and technical execution. Surely a new mold? Or improved, anyway. Listen, when you get ready to work on this thing, please do shoot me a PM. I am thinking to have you compare the details and shapes even more closely to some of my drawings. I'd be really fascinated to see how/if they match. My initial impression is favourable, but...

That's the one.... "Yak-9D" even... Kuznetsov work on the Yak-1 is nice. You'll have to compare his scale drawings to mine to see which you prefer. In detail, there is not so much between them. I have not yet seen the Kagero version, but I would submit vis a vis the Monograph version that my treatment of the early series I-26 and Yak-1 shows a fuller grasp of Stepanets' work, but I suppose I would say that! We'll have to see in the new version if he elaborates on the details for the various Oblegchennii versions, or no, as well. Again, deep digging into Stepanets required to sort out that mess. I did not know that Kuznetsov is doing a Yak-7 book-- that should be good. Looking forward to it. I am sorry to say that I have never seen Viktor Bogatov's drawings of the Yak-9, either. I'll have to try to track them down. This is turnming into an interesting little thread!

John, I am sure that "White 17" is generally held to be a Yak-9, but that is quite incorrect. It is absolutely a Yak-7B. Tbolt, by all means you'll want to refer to modern scale drawings for any VVS fighter. The 'old batch' drawings dating ca. 2000-2005 were good then, but now are dated. You can make an authentic Yak-9 from Leipnik's scale plans, but for other versions... hmm.. a bit trickier. I am aware of no one besides myself who has made a comprehensive implementation of AT Stepanet's book (Yak Fighters) in combination with the many subsequently discovered TOs (Tech Manuals) and Remonts (Repair Manuals). I know that sounds like cringing self promotion there, for which I apologise unreservedly. BUT, even so, I submit that a quick examination of Yak-9 In Profile & Scale Vol. 1 would answer those questions, and more. I am hoping that these new tranche of drawings will see a reaction from model companies as happened in 2005-2010.

[laughter] and another! I have conspired to push "send"... Any road, I started talking about upper surfaces, but the matter was lowers. So, let me correct and clarify. The LOWER surfce of the wing adjacent to fuel cell cover has the paint stack = ALG-1, AMT-7, Gris Bleu Claire (my assumption, no expert on French lacquers) and a darker grey. Priming with ALG-1 being absolutly typical Saratov practice. Some parts of the fuselage (some might know that the wing is not from the same aircraft) have a paint stack of seven layers in places. I have doumented the evolution of several ex N-N Yak-3s in profile, and this level of re-painting was actually not especially unusual. The re-painting of tactical and unit markings was particularly bewildering. Sorry, a typo of "AMT-1" there for ALG-1. Apologies. There are small areas of actual AMT-7 still visible on the fuselage, and you can dig for it on the wings. That was the state of preservation when I examined it.

Firstly, my apologies for a brain cramp.

Ah, thankls for that. I have just searched on Modelsvit and indeed I see a couple of Yak-9 kits. Tbolt, could you elaborate on your kit when it arrives, perhaps? Cheers

Jamie, Your technical understanding of colour values is very good, and I do not wish to insult your intelligence nor fail to respond thoroughly. However... "I've no wish to put words in your mouth, but would I be correct in surmising that your website renders are not, therefore, the result of converting objective measured colour coordinates of your conclusion into RGB by mathematical calculation but rather the result of eye-balling it until you believe the RGB render looks most like the real thing? i.e. that would render the render (no pun intended) useless for any colourspace evaluation? Is that correct?" Yes. As I have written relentlessly over the years, I do not regard digital colour samples as having any true legitimacy. Therefore, no I do not go such effort and trouble as you clearly do regarding a colour-space evaluation. Those chips-- clearly labelled as what they are (gross approximations)-- are indeed eyeballed values on my (very well) calibrated monitor. I have now clocked that you would disagree vehemently (I suspect) with my 'disregard' for digital colour, and you are entitled to that hypothesis by all means. If I insert my own colour value into CIElab equivalency, I get the following: CIE-L*ab = 91.899 -26.131 -11.595 CIE-L*Ch(ab) = 91.899 28.588 203.928° CIE-L*uv = 91.899 -42.665 -14.140 CIE-L*Ch(uv) = 91.899 44.947 198.336° You might notice that in SAFFC I tried to give digital Pantone values (using some software I purchased), and that was a complete failure. Less said about that the better. I continue to search the larger paint manufacturer chip catalogues for good matches, and if/when those are ever found I will post it on my web site. Referring to many other respondents in this thread, I actually do agree that good approximation is sufficient for modelling. It is my own belief that the average person looking at a good RGB chip may likely be able to mix a useful colour by eye. Some can't, fair enough. But, until or unless actual paint is mixed to the values I specify, I can not and do not guarantee any specific level of authenticity. Now, however, may I ask how would you transmit the idea of a colour-- let's pick on AMT-7, shall we?-- to me, therefore? You've said that your renders cannot be used for colour matching. Very well, if I want to replicate your idea of the colour AMT-7 here at home, say by mixing some paint, how would you direct me to do this to a result you find to be satisfactory? Oh yes, one last bit before I forget: Yak-3 resto. When examining physical evidence the first thing one encounters is what I call the 'paint stack'. Literally, this is the (usually) several layers of paint on any surface. This dark colour you see on the wings is not the paint sitting on the surface (or, actually on the primed surface, which is ALG-1). It is the third colour in the stack at the inner wing panel, upper, near the fuel filler cap. Digging below you'd find a layer of Gris Bleu Claire, then AMT-7, then AMT-1. The paint in view was debated as either Gris Bleu Fonce, or a primer whose name I don't recall. Mobile phone snaps of artefacts often leave much to be desired.

Greetings All, [Firstly, an apology if this thread is a duplicate; I did attempt a search on the matter but that failed, likely my own incompetence to blame there...] I wonder if anyone has actually got their hands on this new Arkmodel Yak-9 kit (1:48) or have seen it with their own eyes? I was a bit worried when the box top shown to me featured an artwork of HSU Stepanenko's Yak-7B. Oh dear... But, one can't always judge a book by the cover, and so forth. Looking at the thing, can anyone suggest how well they have done with the model? Is it clear which line drawings were used to create the mould? Any other details worth sharing? Thanks for any help or comments.

Well, as we see from the assembled comments, colour interpretation is not so easy. Not to change the subject at all, but you'll find the same types of disagreement in all national genres of colour work, even with Luft material. In that case you have two different methodologies-- both perfectly valid scientifically-- resulting in two sets of interpretation. Can I tell anyone which is "superior"? No. Can I guarantee that my methodology in VVS paint analysis is definitively superior? No. At least it is scientific and based upon reality, not some kind of provably irrelevant and corroded post-war jpg chip samples. As regards the example photos put forward, I should remind you that if a picture of said thing has appeared on the internet, rest assured I have already been there in person, examined the specimen and taken samples. The Yak-3 resto at Le Bourget is a classic. I presume you [respondant] mean to tell us that the dark blue-grey colour on the wing is "AMT-7"? You would be very wrong. As well, many documents are known regarding these paints from Soviet records. None so far have helped to any degree. Even the exact formula for AMT-4 has been found (years ago in fact). There have been countless attempts by various person in Russia to mix batches of paint according to these instructions, all with variable results [by the way, none of these result in a dark green, which according to the pigments described is quite impossible]. Even so, debate continues. Alt-92, you seem to be accusing me of avoiding some question? I reject that claim categorically. Could you explain, please? All of the analysis that has been done on period pigments has been spectrographic in nature as far as I am aware; there is no equivalent to Dr Bokelman in this area of study. Perhaps if such a chemist launched into an equivalent study of the pigments, themselves, people would be happier? I have no idea. If any such person is ever found, get them to work. I also find the claim that my colour specifications are "too bright" to be interesting, not least in part because it is so common. You should know from my own work and that of the Samsung labs (years ago) that it is not possible to exactly replicate any colour digitally, nor to match such a colour across any two digital devices. Any digital approximation is a rough equivalency at best, and even then 'best' can be quite poor. One thing I can say with certainty is that virtually no one on the internet has a properly colour calibrated monitor. In virtually every case you'll find that most persons have their brightness setting at 100%, as this makes it easier to watch films and play video games. Most have never heard of a colour calibration, let alone could they perform one. It is impossible to colour calibrate one's monitor with a brightness setting of 100 in virtually all cases. Moreover, one must start the calibration with the correct colour temperature setting for your device and room lighting situation. If-- or rather, when-- this is not done the results will invariably be colours which look bright and hypersaturated. Hmmm... does this sound familiar? I will also tell anyone that this exactly why discussing digital chips on any colour topic is a waste of time. Go and find some real evidence in the real world for a change, and perhaps you'll find your ideas on this topic will evolve? Lastly, interpretation means "interpretation". Please do bear this mind rather than launching into attacks, insults and other childishness. IF someone were to modify any of my own colour specifications in a way that would minimise the saturation and darken the hue to the maximum degree which can be substantiated by the physical and photographic evidence, then so be it. I am sure that I would not agree with the resulting colour, but at least it would be scientifically plausible. That, in my opinion, is the minimum standard which can be accepted, and if your own work does not achieve that level, rest assured that I will point it out and object to it.

Sorry for the delayed response, I am dealing with some hypertension and anger management issues just now. Calm, calm. Mr Psy06, your idea that there exists some kind of secret mystical "document" revealing all is fanciful and untrue. There is no Great Conspiracy here, not by me nor anyone else. You seem to be asserting that the analysis of paint samples from various old machinery is effectively impossible, something which will come as a profound shock to those professionals who conduct this activity on a daily basis in various industrial applications around the world. I must repeat here something which I do so often: simply because you do not understand some procedure, this does not render it "illegitimate". Jamie-- I don't think the photos I posted show something different. The problem with photographic evidence is that the interpretation of such requires enormous experience and expertise in period photographic emulsion and chemistry. It is not something which can be done accurately by an amateur. I have written extensively on this topic across my web site, something which you'd note if looking about. The short answer is easy: the colour I chose matches the physical evidence I have collected. You might be interested to know that, as well, I have been assisted in some analysis over the course of work for Warbird Colour by very large and expert companies such as Akzo Nobel. They dot not, I assure you, blindly accept some RGB value from me. Rather, they received some flakes which I sent and we subsequently agreed an appearance for AMT-7 for use on a project. It is basically identical to my chip. Troy-- Apologies for my poor formatting, I am not very experienced with fora. You wonder why I have avoided the public for the last 15 years? I believe that any fair-minded person will agree that a 20 year hate campaign directed at me, personally, is sufficient reason. However, enough is enough, and now I have returned-- if for one thing-- to end this sickening hate bile. That will happen, let me assure you. As for the rest... I'd like to relate a little story (100% true, by the way), if I may be allowed, which should shed a better light on my own perspective regarding the criticism and complaints regarding my work which are doing the rounds than any long-worded explanation. I sometimes draw artistic profiles of the P-51 Mustang, and I sell a few. Over the last ten years not a single month has ever gone by-- and often more frequently than that-- in which I have not received some form of communique (email, post, etc) from one of our NewGen darlings which is virtually identical to the following: "Dear Mister, Your profiles of Mustangs are rubbish. I wish you would stop making them as they are an embarrassment. I have been to many air shows in my life, and even two this year. Every Mustang I have ever seen clearly has TWO seats and two pilots, but your drawings all have only one. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Your research is a joke. You obviously need to watch Wings Over Whatever on the Discovery Channel or Hooray For Mustangs on YouTube to find out what they were really like. Stop ripping off people with these fakes. --Timmy" I suspect that virtually every person on this forum will crack a wry smile and grasp the totality of the error and self-delusion inherent in this communication. Some might interpret this stuff as youthful naivety, and some perhaps as childish petulance. Whatever the case, we can observe that it is profoundly ignorant. However, what many do not see-- and perhaps cannot appreciate-- is that I regard the complaints of these various Internet Luminaries identically to Timmy's email, with exactly the same level of self-delusion, hubris and irony. And so, too, do the various private owners, museums and other collections around the world with whom I work, who view these vile internet postings with categorical disbelief. Just a little food for thought.

Major, that's a sweet little model there, and coming along nicely. As regards its painting, allow me to suggest another option. Andersson's book on early Soviet aviation says that L-737 (if indeed this is the machine you are doing) was registered between 1931-33. If this is so, the aircraft is too early for lacquer AEh-9 Grey; that family of paint was introduced starting 1934. The State company Dobrolet purchased quite a lot of French aviation lacquer and this was used in Leningrad for production of the Sh-2 up to the introduction of their own indigenous lacquers (AEh and so on). For me, I would prefer a dull aluminium dope resembling any French aviation lacquer of this type ca late 1920s. Any road, carry on and looking forward to this one.