Second flying Sturmovik – Russia

My issue stems merely from the fact that there seems to be a perpetual ‘never happy’ brigade. I’m of the camp that would rather see a historic aircraft flying in an inaccurate paint scheme than see one in a wholly accurate scheme relegated to the back corner of a dimly lit museum somewhere. In an ideal world every historic aircraft would be flying in the correct scheme, but that is the fairly small cherry on the top of a complex and relatively rarely baked cake. The fantasist in me wishes that VTTS painted 558 in anti-flash white, with a black radome, for the last year of flying. That would have, in my opinion, looked better than the high-gloss all over camo scheme. However the difference is that 558 flew, howled and inspired thousands. There are static and (nominally) ground-running Vulcans with better paint schemes out there, but they inspire a tenth of the number of people.

In fairness I’m irked by the scheme NH904 (G-FIRE) wears in the US:

Meddle said…”and you lot are complaining about the paint? ” re read the posts, one person complained about the paint. The responses were thoughtful and not complaining.

A lot of time was spent on the camouflage. The wings had remaining paint, as did the front end. This was on the airframe and visible Also photos from Il-2’s from the same factory and period and aircraft within the same construction block (3300 aircraft) were also looked for. Without a wartime photo of 1872452 we’ll never know 100% how accurate. I am not sure either whether the colours are AMT-4 Green, AMT-6 black and AMT-7 light blue or not. Even so, a lot of photographic research was undertaken and I believe it is as accurate as it could be. They are getting better. They have added the serial number and stencil so they are getting more historic. Congratulate Boris and the museum on what they have achieved.

I will also add that there is a Russian 46thShAP web page showing aircraft/pilots and the style of the numbers applied.

Looking at everything, I agree there might be an error on the red star. I think this was suppose to be just a white outline. Not sure why and how the additional thin red outer came to be added.

Red 20 of Zavod 18 and of 46ShAP is shown on this web link. I am still trying to find the 46ShAP web page. Also seen Red 21 so the style of number is correct.

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/il-2/il2-camo/il-2m/il2m-early1943.htm

A flying IL-2 is a lot better than one static in a museum, no matter how accurate the markings are or not.

It makes me wonder what else that company has waiting in the wings!

So an aircraft has been recovered from a lake bed in 2012, and returned to flying condition by June 2017…. and you lot are complaining about the paint? :highly_amused: You couldn’t make this up.

Anyway, the message appears to be that the warbird scene is healthier in Russia than it is here.

Thank you NII_VVS for your insights. No one is making some big claim here that the markings are authentic – my statement that it is painted in its “original markings” alluded to the fact that the plane was reportedly originally “red 19”, as it is portrayed today. I could understand/see that these colors aren’t accurate for how fast the Flying Heritage Collection (now FHCAM) had theirs repainted into very different colors (what I understand to be authentic), not long after it arrived in the US.

Good to see another flying tribute, especially a rare breed. As for the scheme, most of the public do not know, they appreciate the aircraft as flown and shown. Your comments as an expert are valid but will be overwhelmed by the speed and sheer scale of how online media devours the initial news. If the person compiling the press release decides not to cover the aspect of the depiction which you highlight then thats a deliberate choice. We are not the sponsors of the build. As Jeepman suggests, make your self a consultant to the restoration team in question.

Consider early British and American warbird restorations 20/30 years ago and colours and schemes were equally questionable. My feeling is that demand for pinpoint accuracy will increase over time as the warbird movement in Russia matures and grows, just as it has elsewhere.

Perhaps you could offer that restoration shop your advice. Access to accurate information on colours and schemes would give them a competitive edge as others came into the marketplace

Only the complete purists would lose sleep that this Sirmovik was not in totally authentic camouflage. If I’d invested millions of roubles in preserving aviation history, I’d also be entitled to paint my fleet as I wish.

I understand your point of view completely. Indeed, many Warbird owners would celebrate that view heartily, as this is exactly how they operate their own aircraft. The famous quip, “And what colour is your Spitfire, then?”, says it all…

So be it. It’s well known that I am a signed up member of the Roundel Police and the Colour Police, and I make no apologies for that. It is what I do for a living. These facts likely prejudice my outlook to some degree. Fair enough– you can chose to disagree with that approach in a very reasonable way.

However, what we cannot have are inaccurate, dubious or indefensible claims made about historical authenticity. That crosses a line; and it is this behaviour– not Warbird owners indulging their own sense of style– which I find to be reprehensible and unacceptable. Paint your Spitfire as you like, but do not subsequently claim to the world that it is “historically accurate” and looks like the day it rolled out the doors of Castle Brom. These claims are not just spurious but deceitful, and deliberately so, and I think we all know what that relates to in legal jargon.

An aviation enthusiast might ask, “What is the harm in these claims, after all? Big Deal”. I’ll answer that easily with a common criticism levelled at me and my work countless times by the New Generation (Millenials? Is that the right word? I have no idea..): “All of your profile and other artwork and historical work on N.A. Mustangs is wrong. I have been to many air shows and all Mustangs clearly have two seats, not one like yours. It is obvious that you don’t know anything about this subject and should just disappear with your mistakes.”

Just absorb that for a while, then contemplate the importance of historical context and authenticity.

NII_VVS, I was interested in your viewpoint. I regrad you as a serious authority of the Soviet Air Force and your post shines a light on the authenticity of this and previous aircraft. I agree that it is important that the degree of authenticity is made clear. Disappointing, then, that the article I read about the FHCAM example did not, as you indicate, paint the full picture. Mark Sheppard, I welcome your views on this matter.

Now, with the wind taken out of my sails I shall return to reading about Soviet re-engineering of the Hurricane’s weapon system.

I’d be delighted to see the Sea Vixen fly in Red Bull colours if it meant that it would remain airworthy long term.

Only the complete purists would lose sleep that this Sirmovik was not in totally authentic camouflage. If I’d invested millions of roubles in preserving aviation history, I’d also be entitled to paint my fleet as I wish.

For my part I’ve never considered an Orenburg Yak a restored WW2 warbird. Even as a child I knew they were built in the same factories but 50yr later and thus not original.

I’m very pleased to see another Il-2 fly, especially one to be based in its homeland. Wonderful news, and big thanks to John Terrell for the information shared about this project.

Err… no.

Listen, I am delighted, personally, that we have another VVS aircraft of the WW2 era in a flyable condition. But, let is not launch into unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole here. This aircraft is a Warbird, not a museum specimen.

In the first case, the appearance is quite inauthentic. Aviarestoration paint all of their Warbirds, sadly, with the same surplus S-38M Olive, Sky Blue and Black Air Force lacquers from the 1970s. These do not have a similar appearance to any wartime (GPW) paints, and therefore do not correspond to any authentic colouration. The camouflage pattern on this machine is thoroughly dubious and not in agreement with any other known example from the photographic record. I dare say that without a supporting photo, this pattern cannot possibly be regarded as historically authentic.

Moreover, the national star insignia are of the incorrect type for the period, being an attempt at outline style (sometimes called Victory Type) stars, and are the wrong colour (the Soviets did not use an orangey-red colour such as Western countries did). The style of the “19” was taken from another two-seat example; we have no way of knowing what the original font looked like.

To, therefore, celebrate the appearance as being “painted in its original markings” is a bit OTT, in my view, and indefensible. Likewise, in terms of construction this is not some exact reconstruction, but a replica with many, many differences to an authentic Il-2 (and in particular to a Series 72 machine from Kuibishev, which is what the production number indicates).

We can and should appreciate this as a great Russian Warbird– which is what it is. Sadly, whenever one of these types of machines makes an appearance– be it an I-16, a MiG-3, an Orenburg Yak or an Il-2– we are at once bombarded by quite ludicrous claims of “historical authenticity” and “realism”, all of which are absolute nonsense. I presume that these claims are made because they can get away with them, so limited is the Western understanding of these aircraft, but honestly these claims are quite stupid and should stop at once.

Any road, all that said, it looks lovely flying in the air. And we can always hope that Mr Zadrozhny might one day re-paint it, along with the rest of his collection.

SeafuryFan: the collection of aircraft you saw were in the GPW Hall at Monino.

That’s an amazingly long control stick in the video clip. Fantastic achievement.

An indication of a growing Russian aircraft preservation movement. A salute to comrade Zadorozhny! I wonder if it was his museum that featured on the Hurricanes Over Russia documentary? There was footage of a wide range of Soviet treasures in a hangar so clean you could eat off the floor. Exciting times for Axis enthusiasts!

According to the Russian-based Wings of Victory Foundation, which helps to fund and promote Russian warbird restorations and flying operations (such as this IL-2), the number of planes that can be found in Russia and restored to flight far outnumber the amount of collectors that are willing/capable to pay for them at this time, so it is a fantastic achievement when a plane like this, in Russia, is made operational again. This IL-2, the second now flying, is owned by the largest warbird collector in Russia, Vadim Zadorozhny, who also owns (flying) two Mig-3’s, one of each of the Polikarpov fighters, a Yak-3, and a preserved/static Yak-1 (recovered from the same lake that the IL-2 was pulled from). Zadorozhny is also rumored to possibly own the ex-MARC A-20 Havoc, currently under restoration to fly at Aero Trader (A-20’s of course had a big part to play in the Soviet AF during WWII).

This IL-2 (cn 1872452) is painted in its original markings, as it was when last flown by pilot Valentin Skopintsev and gunner Vladimir Gumyonny with the 46thShAP Shturmovik Assault Regiment. Having only flown three combat missions, it was forced down following action with Luftwaffe fighters on November 25, 1943, with the aircraft belly-landing on the frozen Lake Krivoye. The crew survived, but the aircraft, going to the bottom of the lake, remained there until it was rediscovered in 2011 (a search that originally began by family members of the original pilot, having heard stories of the event growing up) and the aircraft was recovered the following year. The restoration was undertaken by Boris Osetinsky’s Aviarestoration company, that also restored the FHCAM IL-2. As opposed to what the Warbirds News article states, the first flight was actually last Thursday, on June 15th.

Note that, while the FHCAM IL-2 operates with a left-turning Allison, to mimic the direction of rotation of the original Mikulin engine, this second IL-2 operates with a conventional right-turning Allison (looking from the pilot’s perspective). There are also some unique/authentic production differences between the two, such that while the FHCAM IL-2 has the later rearward-swept wings, this second IL-2 has the earlier “straight” wings.

Here is some news coverage filmed of the aircraft flying yesterday: http://www.1tv.ru/news/2017-06-21/327416-v_novosibirskoy_oblasti_podnyalsya_v_nebo_otrestavrirovannyy_entuziastami_samolet_vremen_velikoy_otechestvennoy
(In one of the parts of the video, a rather large hole is shown in one of the lower nose panels of the aircraft, which is the spot where a projectile entered/damaged the engine during the engagement it encountered back on November 25, 1943. The bit of the film where the host is showing some writing on the nose, as I can understand it, the writing details the servicing of the engine, and the presenter says that there was a spelling error in the original writing/stenciling, but they decided to keep it as it was for the sake of authenticity.)

Well that was out of the blue! Makes you wonder how many other projects are underway in Russia that we don’t get to hear about!

Oh my word!………….:D

Excellent 🙂