paladin

My Feedback: (9)

I've stood by and watched modelers put dark streaks coming from the guns and the exhaust of their models. In both world wars they used smokeless ball powder, it would take thousands of rounds to get a faint grayish white powder stain. More importantly the guy that had to reload the guns would step in the powder stain leaving foot and hand prints then wipe it off. Next those exhaust streaks, this has to assume burned oil or excessive heat that burns the paint. For radials and inverted v engines I could buy this anything else that is a engine on its last legs. So why? What am I missing? What is the reasoning behind these scale details?

Joe

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

for guns it would be unburned gunpowder. as for the engines when they used WEP or any AUTORICH settings
lots of unburned fuel ie: black sooty smoke will settle on the fuse following the airflow pattern over the wing.

ProScaleRc

It's funny you just mentioned that. I recently started building plastic model kits again. Back in my youth I won 2 state competitions and one national competition, so I would think I have an eye for detail. With this said I purchased two model magazines and was shocked with the amount of "over weathering" that has somewhat become the norm.

I can't believe that on a 1/72 or 1/48 plane modellers add in panel lines using indian ink. If you scaled down a real plane there is no way you would see real panel lines at that size. One particular (very popular) magazine had a plane on the cover where the panel lines were airbrushed on; in real life the panel lines would be about 5 inches wide. And the paint flakes/chips on it, OMG, if you scaled them up they'd be a paint chip 2ft across.

Then they make warbirds look like they have fought a thousand wars. Modellers need to keep in mind, most fighters didn't last past 10 sorties because they were shot down... and the ones on the ground were actually looked after quite well.

I agree with what you are saying Joe, modellers these days definitely over do it. The way I do it is, if you can't see it in a real photo, don't add it.

Just my 2 cents.

ticketec

My Feedback: (2)

You know when you go to the airport to catch a flight overseas and you look out the window and see all those nice shiney airlines parked row after row and then think, " why do people over weather their models?" Think again. Have you ever seen an aircraft up close? I mean really up close?

I work in full sized aviation and and tell you without shadow of a doubt that those things look good from 60-70meters away, but in reality they are really quite dirty!! paint does chip, the second you start removing panels the paint chips off the screws. you finish the job, hands dirty, you pick the panel back up, put it back in place, install all the screws and then wipe the panel down and it ends up with grubby marks all the way around the panel. Then you seal the panel up with sealant, (blacky/grey in colour) and job done. This happens all the time and most airliners see the re-painting facility every 6 years if the airline is diligent. That's a long time between paints. But the most important thing to remember is that they are highly maintained and looked after aircraft!!!! they are washed every few weeks and cut and polished on average every few years, and it takes less than a week for them to start having paint chipping from screw heads, streaking from over lube'd flight controls etc. All this from companies who pride themselves in keeping their fleets looking as good as they can.

Have you seen a military aircraft up close? I have seen F/A-18 in heavy maintenance and honestly, they look shocking!!!! The one's I was around were Spanish airforce aircraft, but even the Aussie ones which don't fly all that much and are pretty well looked after are pretty tatty up close! I'm not talking about one aircraft they take to airshows which have just left paint facilities and they baby, I'm talking about operational airframes. The US have a slightly more disposable approach to their aircraft so have a look up close to one at an airshow next time.

A good mate of mine was a painter in the Australia airforce. He used to say that the most dis-heartening thing for him was wheeling a freshly painted aircraft out and giving it back to the "black-handers". He says it would look like it have never been painted so quickly that it's not funny.

All this, during peace time, when there is plenty of time to try and keep them clean, nobody is raiding your airfield and the aircraft doesn't have to be fueled up, bombed up and turned around so that it can fly 3-4 sorties a day, and plenty of time during painting to ensure the best job is achieved, with modern high technology paints being used.

I also build and complete with plastic models and I must say that most of the time, I don't believe they are over weathered. Competing these days is extreamly hard. Lots of these guys take weeks and months researching the history of the particular aircraft they are modelling. There were many, many, many aircraft that saw well over "10" missions. maybe during the BoB the average might have been so, but the war lasted much longer than just the BoB.

In order to get true perspective on how much weathering is too much, it's vitally important to study real war time pictures of the aircraft in question. German aircraft towards the end of the war would have great big sooty stains down the sides of them because they were burning synthetic fuels. Look at a wartime picture of the top of a lancaster wing lots of exhaust staining there too.

The one thing to also realise is that a warbird as you see them today is a highly pampered, loved, and maintained beast, often finished in a satin or gloss finish to ease maintenace and keep them looking nice. i.e. nothing like the life they would have lead back in their day.

SO all in all, I think that if you do some more research, you will start to uncover just how worn and "un-loved" wartime aircraft really were. I have attached a picture from the squadron signal "Aillison engined P-51's". Now this is a pretty low quality scan of the book, but just have a look at the gun staining from the 2 .50 cal's on the wing, and just how faded the paint works is aft of the bars-and-stars. On the second aircraft in formation, look just how badly the exhaust staining really is. Now this was literally the first picture i came across, there could be 1000's of pictures that could be posted to re-inforce this point!

Thanks

Dave

carlbecker

My Feedback: (3)

IMHO weathering is a art. Done well it can really add to the realism. Over done is worse than none at all. Panel lines and rivets are in the same catagory. Looking at real planes up close and pictures of real planes I can see exhaust, gun powder, oil stains and paint chips. The restored Bucker Jungmeister at the Fighter musuem in Pungo Va has a dented cowl, and scratch marks for the duz fasteners plus some dirt. It can be viewed from 1".

Moggy

My Feedback: (9)

Exhaust stains and cordite streaks are detailing not weathering. The effect of the weather will vary upon the geographic area of service. Aircraft serving in the humidity and heat of Burma will weather considerably different than one of lets say Europe. The effects of the weather on the aircraft are usually fading/oxidation and dirt. Detailing also consists of chipping of paint in high traffic areas and the wear and tear on other high usage areas such as panels. Most modelers fail to reproduce what I consider the most important aspect and that is "scale color/colour." We go to great lengths to get the exact colors and then paint them on lets say a 1/5 scale model without taking into consideration "observed color". Scale color is observed and measured over a scale distance. A model painted with full-strength colors appears too dark to look authentic. To your eye, a 1/48 aircraft viewed from 12 " away is the same as a full size aircraft 48 feet away. Obviously, the distance effect will cause the colors on the full size aircraft to appear to have a reduced tone than the same full-strength colors viewed from a foot away. This effect holds true to a half mile or so, which is about the maximum distance, in scale, you would view a model aircraft.

naval flight officer

Speaking as someone who currently flies in "warbirds" US P-3Cs. I can tell you that we fly them all the time and when they are overseas they go to the wash rack every 28 days or so. In the dust of the Middle East and east Africa they turn pinkish brown have darker brown streaks where oil leaks occur. From the nose to the MAD boom, wing tip to wing tip. I have to believe that we have it better than those who flew off grass and mud fields and were under the threat of attack all the time.
Adding details to things such as panel lines and chipped paint I think is often over done but definitely soot, dirt and oil leaks are very prominent at least on our aircraft and we do our best to keep them clean given our op-tempo and conditions.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

heres a good pic. you can see all the mud, staining, wear, scratches, dings, pretty much a typical
warbird in WWII. washed and pampered warbirds were not a high priority. Tunsnia in the spring...

irocbsa

My Feedback: (12)

Oh my, that thing is filthy! I was worried that I was overdoing my weathering but some of these photos have reassured me. Here's a few quick shots of the CMP 109 I'm finishing up.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

nice!

heres another pic. notice the exhaust staining goes up and over the entire wing cord,
then all the way along the bottom of the fuse almost to the tail. also note the missing
wheel covers. they often removed those for muddy/snowy conditions. a well worn G-10.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Looking nice. Keep going, you're about half way there.

dvs1

To back this up, I have been on MCAS Miramar many times and up close to the Green knights F/A-18 Hornets and it blows me away as well as to the status of the operational
ready to go planes. They literally have 6 ft. X 6 ft. catch pans underneath half the birds to catch all the hydralic oil that constantly leaks from them. Even funnier the general concensus of the groiund crews is f _ _ _ it fly it. The pilots dont complain about it either. They just complain if their is trouble with flight controls, avionics, and if the throttle wont go to full AB.

So I agree there can be alot of streaking on aircraft.

As to the streaking from the .50 BMG guns on WWII aircraft what some dont realize is depending on how well the guns are lubricated, some oil from the action and barrel will
be discharged causing streaking, nut much though.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of period aircraft pictures from library books, my own collection, and also the internet (a wealth of resources for the WWII era of aviation). I also like to watch training and other movies from the time. I don't agree with your appraisal of aircraft appearance, as it applies to this era at least. They were 'rode hard and put away wet'. Modern aircraft are much cleaner in general, but during WWII, there was no time for "pampering". An accumulation of filth and soot was inevitable. The true to scale builder will, as noted by others, consider the individual subject, the theater it was assigned to, how long it was in the fight, and the nature of it's work, to accurately reproduce it's appearance,

Details like panel lines, rivets, access panels, stenciling, etc, is another story. I agree that this can be way overdone and out of proportion. Drawn on panel lines are of course not scale looking. I think they are merely a simple way to add some basic surface detail to an otherwise blank 'canvas'. Picasso is a well renowned painter, but his abstract renditions of people and things is hardly realistic looking, but nevertheless considered 'art'. These simple attempts at the 'art' of modeling war birds need not be looked down on. The ARF manufacturers are notorious for this approach to 'scale'. It can all be improved on though, as we have seen by even some posting here.

Any attempt by others to improve the looks of their warbirds in action is appreciated by this modeler. The shiny new looking war bird with kill markings under the canopy, sporting glossy fresh paint on a spotless fuselage and wings, is far worse looking to me than drawn on panel lines and oversize rivets.

G-Pete

...to display an airplane in a combat/field situation.


BTW: there is no weathering "over-doing"

G-Pete

PS: You can over-do straight panels - there is no such thing as straight panels.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

I agree. We tend to agonize over getting the surface flat and smooth when glassing, and they were anything but.

G-Pete

Wait 'til you see my next bird....

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Keeping this one under wraps are we.

Can't wait to see it.

Meschmidt

My Feedback: (15)

Knowing Pete there's no tellin' what he's gonna do. Hammer marks? Real bullet holes? Flak damage by using firecrackers? Paul ( p.s a few "weathered" arf's in my gallery.)

FireBee

My Feedback: (34)

Two good looking giant scale corsairs.

Which one looks real? Sorry, I mean more accurate to the period? I mean more scale?


Last photo is an inflight shot. Agree Dave in that every photo tells a story study the details and model what you can see. Notice the second corsair in the formation (#8).

Why does it starboard elevator leading edge have so much wear and tear when the lead aircraft (Ira Kepfords #29) shows differently?

Also notice #29 has heavy wear on the wing roots and rudder fin when #8 does not. Same day in the same Pacific island area.

FireBee

My Feedback: (34)

Moggy,

Dave Platt was the first I recall noting what you said about coloring and scale effect. I dont recall exactly he said but it was Ssmething like 1% white for 1/4 scale and 3 % for 1/8th sized acft. I no longer have his books "Scale in hand Series" but he does offer CDs now.


Below is another source of info I had from 2003 article on Plastic models. Perhaps it could be of use.

"Real colors and scale effect
Federal Standard codes given in the charts refer most often to the shade of the original color. Original color shades used on a small scale model will make it appear to dark, and have too much contrast. This phenomenon is commonly known as scale effect on color.

To avoid this, the shades should be lightened by mixing in a certain amount of white. Ian Huntley, a well-recognised authority within aero colors, arrived at the following guidelines (published in Scale Aircraft Modelling vol 5 nr 10):
Scale Add % of white
1/32 7%
1/48 10%
1/72 15%

Repost pic as it never seamed to open before.

R,
Mike P.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

in regards to # 29.. judging by those 16 jap flags, I'd say it was caused by debris from exploding jap planes,
chipping the paint, then prop wash & wind took care of the rest.

the stab on the other looks to be from hands from ground crew pushing the plane into whatever position.
just a guess though...

heres a very good pic of some closeup detail. enjoy...

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

BTW, Starboard is right, port is left. The way I remember this because' left' and 'port' both have 4 letters.

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

Oh come on guys... yall are saying their is to much "weathering". I've seen photo's of warbirds that have looked better than one of the airplanes I have flown previously(it has since gotten a new paint job). I'll also try and get a photo of the exhaust stains and oil leaks on the nacelle's of a few of our airplanes with less than 50 hours since their last wash. They do get dirty, and they get dirty pretty quick! Oh, and if your wondering.. YES it is a warbird in the photo.. its a U-21.. google it

Moggy

My Feedback: (9)

Mike

David Klaus had a great book IPMS Colsor Cross-Reference Guide which will help everyone in their quest for color reference.