Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agracier]

Here are a few skins for the Fokker D-XXI in Spanish Republican colors. I can't guarantee anything regarding complete reliable veracity on this scheme, but it's been copied from other sources. And even if there is reasonable doubt if this plane was ever really used in that conflict, it's always fun and handy to have a few in the right scheme anyway, this plane is such an wonderfully agile opponent.

Download
http://www.mediafire.com/?xbp3uetb7kjl49t

[SAS~Le0ne]

I am a regular customer of your exelent work, many thanks

[juanmalapuente]

Excellent skins Agracier. I also saw those profiles and the CF-001 that we already had in game, they are mostly product of imagination but beautiful anyway.
Fokker D-XXI did fly during SCW, but no picture has been found yet. 50 planes were being built in Spain under licence of which at least one was tested with four Shkas in the wings and a M25 Russian engine. It was flown by lieutenant Mariano Palacios. Apparently never entered in combat. Very probably the prototype ended also in Spain (Howson, Laureau) and some authors say that a second Spanish D-XXi was completed after the first one crashed.
The Spanish militar pilot and aircraft historian Juan Arraez says that he met personally De Vries, the Dutch engineer that was helping Spaniards to mount the D-XXI and by his testimony and some others of direct witnesses afirms that camouflage used was an ochre base with russian green patches, similar to that of the Spanish made I-16.
I personally never saw a profile with the "correct" camouglage and few with the correct engine adaptation, but when you compare profiles with pictures of those planes that were photographied in detail, you can realize that artist usually don't pay much attention to fine detail and, sometimes, they don't even look at the pictures

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The Spanish militar pilot and aircraft historian Juan Arraez

Sorry to say, but Arraez is a person who lies more than talks. He's not military pilot, he's in fact "shoemaker". But I don't blame him trying to say he's a "military pilot"... XDDDD As Spanish say, "you take sooner a liar than a lame".

afirms that camouflage used was an ochre base with russian green patches, similar to that of the Spanish made I-16.

Lie over lie, Spanish made Moscas were green painted and his mistake about a post-war Mosca painted in camouflage taken like a real Republican one only deeps in his lie and the fact that if Arraez is a serious researcher I'm Duffy Duck . That's not the only "mistake" (lie) from Arraez, he have a great collection. Check your sources please.


So coming from who come that affirmation I believe NOTHING. We don't know how D.XXI was painted, but until a source available overall green as standard Republican fighter pattern is the most probable. But, artistic licence as this is a "what if" skin is allowed.

S!

[juanmalapuente]

Sorry Agracier for hijacking your post to discuss another topics,  but after a long day with work and my little daugthers, I finally got some time to answer properly. I hope to provide some clarifying information.
First of all, Thanks a lot, Manowar for the good advice. It's always a good practice to go back and check the sources.
For historical data, I give good credit to Howson and Laureau (despite the make their mistakes sometimes, as all we, humans)
For aircraft details and paintings I always go first to the pictures (when available) or to movies. They have the problem of the black and white (except for the nazi propaganda colour movie "Defensores de la Fé")
I also love to read the original witnesses memories which sometimes are really descriptive, like those of Maluquer or Tarazona.
About the Moscas made in SAF 15, I would want you to read what you can find in L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole de Patrick Laureau (sorry, they are photos of the books, not scanned images, since I don't want them to get ruined):


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ah, yes! and there's a picture:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Yes, I know, you could say this is the postwar one you talked about, which may be you saw in this other picture appeared in an Arraez article (Aviones recuperados en el Sureste):


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You could say it was repainted in the captured mosca style but...why would they keep the red band in fuselaje and the red wing tips? It's obviously a just captured mosca of the Hispano made ones.

Not clear yet? You need more pics?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And one with the winners in their not-postwar uniforms:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Additionally there's this appeared in World Aviation in Spain, The Civil War, 1936-1939 of Miranda & Mercado:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

About Juan Arraez, I don't know if he's a Shoemaker. I know that he has written a good ammount of really well documented articles, such as:

El heinkel-59 en la GCE appeared in Cuadernos de aviacion historica 6 (really good)
 
La aviation de chasse de la république espagnole 1936/1939 in a special number of Avions (hors serie 3)
 
Aviones recuperados en el sureste  appeared in Historia militar

And books such as:

Le Polikarpov I-16, Éditions Lela Presse, 2001 with Cristophe Cony,- Michel Ledet, D. Y. Louie y Victor Kulikov,

Academia General Del Aire: Cronica De 50 Anos, 1943-1993

Los Cazadores De La Legion Condor

Heinkel He 70/170. "Blitz" in collaboration with Rafael A. Permuy Lopez, Lucas Molina Franco

Saeta y Supersaeta

And his constant contribution to: Enciclopedia de la Aviacion Militar Española

I, myself, am neither a pilot nor a historian, I'm biologist. Since you like traditional Spanish sayings, there is this other one that I think is very appropiate now:
"Shoemaker, go to your shoes!". So I rely in people that has done a huge work for a really long time and has a lot of references to provide. Meanwhile, I keep learning and reading about this topic which I consider very interesting, keeping all politics aside, so if you have better sources of information, please share them with all us.
By the way, a last picture...of the shoemaker  :


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I'm the one who have to give my apologize for trying to say the truth in public, I should realized this would happen. Sorry but I'm very tired of this kind of "researchers" (Arraez) and his enormous amount of crap. I simply can't allow his bullshit to be spread around here and can't allow anybody on this forum to believe anything coming from that human waste. Juanma, you simply don't realize by far who this man you are talking is, what he call "research", and the enormous amount of lies he have said along the time and go on saying now.

Sorry to say your, very long enough, post is nothing but false. Not your fault, I have to say. You have no real proofs of what you are saying because you only repeat what others say, and those others have not any proofs on that because it's simply false. You cannot show same supposed sources you believe without any critical spirit and expect I would say, "ohhh, you were right, sorry I was mistaken". Really you expected that? Really?? You expected I don't know what sources are you naming??? and you expected I'll not respond to you? I can only say...  ROFLMAO XDDDDDDDDDD

For historical data, I give good credit to Howson and Laureau

Ok, you don't do well, Howson is very far outdated, we can take his info but with very much care. And, if Arraez is a liar, Laureau is the father of all liars... Because Laureau we have to fight today with a lot of the lies said about SCW. We start very bad, sorry to say.

For aircraft details and paintings I always go first to the pictures (when available) or to movies

Good, me also, after lots of disappointments right now I believe nothing but what I can see, or read on official documents. BUT, you have to know what are you seeing my friend, and you can't read what others say and believe without any critical criteria .


Ok, lets look your "sources"...

I would want you to read what you can find in L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole de Patrick Laureau

Ah, yes! and there's a picture:

Yes, I know, you could say this is the postwar one you talked about, which may be you saw in this other picture appeared in an Arraez article (Aviones recuperados en el Sureste):

You could say it was repainted in the captured mosca style but...why would they keep the red band in fuselaje and the red wing tips? It's obviously a just captured mosca of the Hispano made ones.

Not clear yet? You need more pics?

And one with the winners in their not-postwar uniforms:

Additionally there's this appeared in World Aviation in Spain, The Civil War, 1936-1939 of Miranda & Mercado:

Well, yes, that's a good collection of photographs on the same aircraft... I have all of them also, they are on the net, or many books. I would go point on point but I'll explain directly, no more waste of time needed on the subject. First liar was Laureau, he "found" (or rob it ) that photograph 40 years ago, without any more info on it, and he though "that should be one of the last Moscas, probably a Hispano one". OK, in this case I can't blame him for thinking that on those years. But he doesn't search more than that on the theme, and later authors only repeat after him same mistake. Miranda did, but Miranda books have 20+ years for now, same case, I cannot blame him for thinking that 25 years ago, and thinking Laureau say that knowing what he was saying. Problem comes with Arraez, he say that even today... and the bad part is right now he knows the truth, but simply he don't say it. Why??   That's not any Republican aircraft, that's not, and I can say, any so called "Hispano" Mosca. That's simply a captured type 10 Mosca, repainted for a propaganda movie in 1941. You can see on youtube some parts of it, Mosca "attacking" a Do-17 filmed from rear gunner for example, and a low pass of Mosca with a (also repainted) Bf-109 Emil 3 behind. You know the movie I'm talking about, it's presented some times as "real SCW footage", but Mosca don't fire, gunner don't fire, 109 don't fire, and Mosca pilot in a real combat would not pass perfectly over the camera on the ground for better filming... Moreover, look at all those photographs you posted, don't you see a strange thing? Look at Spanish flag on tail, don't you see nothing strange? Yeeesssssssss, while a B&W photograph it's evident, there are not purple on it!!! Colours on the flag are red, yellow, red, that's a Spanish post-war flag!!!! As film was to be done on B&W they probably though there wasn't a need to paint the real purple flag so it'll not be visible. Ther a re also another "mistakes" they did on this repaint, like fuselage band being too thin, wing tip red also  on incorrect wide, or the lack of code. But it's needless to look for anything more.


Juanma, this is not a competition on who is right, or wrong, I can be mistaken like anybody, but if anything I have learnt is don't let others to think for you. As said, I only believe on what I see, but you have to know what are you seeing .

S!

P.D.: if you want to know more scary stories about Arraez and his methods I'll tell you, on PM. He's nothing but an awful person, and worst researcher.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

What I mean, may be it wasn't well explained. You can research about anything and be mistaken, that's human and anybody tells you have to do it perfect. But one thing is being mistaken because the sources available you have or wrong logics or whatever, and other thing is telling stories about something knowing that's false or directly stories you think off . The first is human and understandable, the second... well may be it's also human , but it doesn't tell any good about the researcher and the kind of person he is. Sadly Laureau and Arraez are in the worst second kind.

S!

[juanmalapuente]

Well Manowar, this is taking too long. About the national red and yellow flag in the fin, I've seen even profiles depicting it. It's something very well known that colours appear completely different depending on the quality of the B&W film used. There are many places were this is discussed, but you can see an example in the piece of photo of another mosca in Laureau's book.
All the story about the propaganda movie is very interesting, but you only provide your own conjectures.
I wish you would share those correct and contrastable sources that you don't mention, meanwhile, everybody is outdated (BTW Howson published a revised edition of Aircraft of the SCW in 2003, I guess It's too old) or mistaken, or a liar, everybody but...who?
I'm sorry for starting this, I shouldn't may be, have mentioned any sources in the beginning since I just wanted to speak about the skins. This is only a game.   
I don't know these people in person as you seem to do, I only read and compare, some people give data and some other...adjectives. The moment you have a better reading to recommend me, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Well, think what you want, not my problem if you are not able to see the pictures clearly shows the same aircraft , but...

but you only provide your own conjectures

My own conjecture? it's a known story (even Arraez know it), but as he doesn't publish it you probably will not believe... that's sad. It's like being so football fan you can not admit when your team have a bad play .

And yes, I know all of them, in person some of them. And I'm not a researcher myself but I live with them everyday... you know nothing about internal things on them... Arraez has the poorest reputation among researchers. And it's a fact he's banned on all Spanish archives... because his ability to stole documents and photographs... Although may be you don't believe because it's not published. You know nothing mate.

S!

[juanmalapuente]

I never said it wasn't the same plane. Well I'm not replying anymore since you don't recommend me any trustfull source and you seem to be taking this personally...I guess I deserve some adjectives already
Actually I thank you for your good intention, trying to save me from this Arraez person who apparently is...devil 
I'm sorry for you if you have to live with these awful people everyday. Hope you get around them. 
 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Thank you , and yes, you come into that world thinking it's you passion and it's gonna be wonderful... then real life and real persons hit you on the face...   And also yes, sadly those persons do it an awful world. It's also saddest out of Spain researcher don't fight between then, but collaborate without any prejudge about colleagues and person of that kind are only marginal. But that's the country we have, and that's how we do it.

Only one more comment. One thing you seem to misunderstand is not everything that was wrote on a book is true because it's on a book, anybody can write a book, and anybody can say on that book what he wants, true or false... Will you believe simply because it's on a book? What make it true, or not, is the person reputation, first, and the work behind the facts presented, second. Without one of them there's no research. Laureau and Arraez have non of them, and you don't realize how many hurt they have done in many senses.


It's not against your person directly, it wasn't my intention at least, and I don't think anything about you . If you deserve anything only you know... XDDD

S!

[juanmalapuente]

I had promised myself not to reply again, but I like more the tone of your last post (the mid paragraph could be improved) so I'm answering. I wouldn't like to start being enemies so soon, we should know each other a little more before... (not as much as you know Arraez, please)
It's not I don't like to get involved in this kind of discussions, It's that I feel It's a little unfair with Agracier to keep on arguing about something remotely related to the topic of his post, but just this last one and this IS the last.

Well, no, obviously I don't believe everything is written on a book Nowadays, even Belen Esteban could write one  And, as I already told you, they are not my only source for this topic. What should I believe more? Blah, blah talking in a forum or blog?
Actually I would, If the bloggers would give me TRUSTFUL REFERENCES. I asked you repeatedly for something better to read, but you keep your infalible-superb-sources secret for yourself 
But when you are used to research (in my case not historic but biologic) you are used to check the references of the authors, comparing and looking for those original ones available (that's why I read books 40 and even 75 years old about a topic that happened...let me remember...oh, yes! 75 years ago. I've been reading even L'Espoir of Malraux, my friend, and guess what: It is a novel).
You have already said that many authors are copying each other from generation to generation (Molina Franco, Permuy...) and that's usually for two reasons (I'm not counting the lazy ones that only want to full easily their books): because they are quoting some trustful older reference or because they are quoting testimonies of people who has already died.
When you check credibility of the authors which is what you are worried about, you have another factors, such as editors, other authors sharing the publishing, universities and other more or less respectfull institutions. And these people you hate...are not desacredited by many other important people apart from you (Laureau has published in 2001 his nice Condor book...yes, I know, also full of lies )
I'm not going to dig in the archives myself so, by now, if you don't give me another alternative, I'll go on with my old fashioned method of reading and comparing and...of course discarding what I consider wrong: Beevor captioning communist meeting in picture of Ortiz, Carod and rest of anarchists, Pedraza saying that BT-5 wheels where painted in white, Romero saying that Italians broke the front in Fuendetodos on 8 march 1938 when they where regulares and Foreign Legion on 9 march...the list is unending (I can myself be mistaken...Can't you?)
This post is lasting for ever...but it's the last, I swear!
That's why (and because I didn't want to keep arguing) I bited my tongue when you mentioned such things as width of red band in fuselaje, wing tips length and lack of code for the mosca in the pictures... 
Republican painting of aircraft was FAAAAAAR away from standardization: there were all kind of lenghts, widths and colours, sometimes they put codes and very often they didn't, you just have to check the pictures (BTW, Laureau mention this just below the text I marked  ), it wasn't only for the moscas (have a look to the skins I made for Swordfish as Spanish vildebeest)
OK, Ok, I'm starting again...Bad boy 
I wish our discussions were only constructive and I hope to argue with you again about other topics in friendly terms and, don't worry, Arraez never was my idol, nor I consider him infalible, It's just I haven't found enough mistaken stuff of him yet to put their works in the pile of menure  (no, personal opinions are not enough, I need data) eh, eh, keep cool  just joking.
If you need to say last word, I don't mind. For me, we'll be still good (our country is not so bad, after all)