MEMPHISBELLE

My Feedback: (24)

why is everyone building warbirds that look like they have been washed and waxed everyday of the week. Where are the used and abused warbirds. Remember they were only clean when they left the factory. please post some pics of some properly weathered warbirds. Wes

Steve Collins

My Feedback: (8)

So many of the ones that are weathered are way overdone and look ridiculous because of it. Weathering to just the right amount is sometimes hard to do. So many of us get carried away.

As for me, I don't think I can do it right so I usually show up at the field with "showroom fresh" warbirds.

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

I too like to show up at the field with "showroom shine" warbirds. Eventually all my warbirds will weather themselves from all the oil, dirt, and grass debris present at the field.

barnyard

My Feedback: (3)

I thought the idea of modeling was to model an aircraft that existed at one point in time. I would imagine that all the planes were new at one time and so I say weathering is not needed unless you want to model a well used plane, then feel free to do so. I have seen planes that are well overdone as far as weatrhering.. Also it was regulation to spot paint as needed during WW2, and I am sure every other era after that, at least in the Army (if it moves police it up, if it doesn't move, paint it).. I am sure that a certain amount of wear and tear removed some small amounts of paint, but the military paints thigs for two reasons, either camoflauge or to protect the bare metal from the elements, hence the spot painting. The most frequent weathering was usually fading from the sun and wear around the cockpit from entry and exit. Just my .02...

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

A good reason for not weathering a plane is because the one you choose to replicate is a restored plane and it gets a lot of TLC.. as a matter of fact.. they are really shined..!!That includes painting over the aluminum (to reduce the effects of the weather) with aluminum paint. I have seen several Scale Masters and Top Gun and some of those planes are weathered..just depends on the particular plane... BobH.

Katchmarek

My Feedback: (29)

Phooey...warbirds ain't supposed to be pretty. For every war time picture you show me of a clean, shiney aircraft, I'll show you 100 that are faded, dirty, and worn. As for the restored birds, well yeh, they are kept in pristine condition. Why, for one they are an extremely rare comodity, and last time I checked, these days they price tag is in the millions...and don't forget, they're not making any more of them...unless you consider the repro 262's that are now in existance. I reckon if I had a 60 year old, million dollar + airplane, I'd keep it factory fresh too. But...there's always a but...these models of ours aren't 60 year old, million dollar + airplanes. Take a look at real war time photos, these birds are dinged up, dented up, scratched up, faded, dirty, and for the most part they ain't shiney! American warbirds however, sometimes do tend to be the exception...face it, we cranked em out one after an other....and in general, they saw less action than their German, British, Russian, Japanese counterparts if for no other reason than the shear numbers of them. I guess what I'm saying, is that I like them weathered, and worn looking. I like the one's that actually look like they've been there. But, one of the great things about this hobby, is that each one of us, can build, paint, detail, weather or what have you to suit himself. Just because I like one way and you like another means nothing other than we have slightly different tastes. Well I guess that's my 2 1/2 cents worth.
Happy flying,
Rob Bailey / Pickupsticks

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Rob, point of fact is that many many authentic, fought in the war, planes were Not weathered much at all. By that I mean that they weren't chipped, dented, etc and the reason being that often than not the plane didnt survive very long. A spitfire, for example, had a service life of about 30 days during the battle of brittan (or so I have heard that number touted about on more than one occassion). Lots of planes were shot down or lost in training that had very low hours. There are those that, as the war progressed, did see more and more service.. and they showed wear and tear. And I agree that a weathered plane is often sexier than a clean one.. ALL planes weather if they sit out side for even a few weeks.. anyway.. your right about the options available... makes this a pretty darn good hobby...Regards BobH.

Paul Grubich

My Feedback: (1)

Our historical advisor, Monroe Q. Williams answers this on his page at rcwarbirds. Check out what a real WWII fighter pilot has to say about weathering.

Go here: http://www.rcwarbirds.com/advisormonroe.htm to see Monroes answer.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
Warbirds have been around a very long time, from 1914 to the present. The implication that they were all weathered and beat up is simply not true. It's true that during combat the crews did not have the time to wipe up every little oil leak, but they were expensive, high tech equipment in their day and maintained accordingly. A lot of pilots had their planes waxed to a high gloss to increase speed, which resulted in a gloss appearance. Most of the weathering came from the paint fading from the sun, especially the top of the wings, fuse and stab. Sure, there are examples of ratty looking planes but I can show you plenty of pictures of well maintained ones as well. Also, don't forget that there pre-war Spitfires and Hurricanes, and post war P-51's and '47's that were in military service and were immaculate. In fact, I did a Byron Mustang painted up in US Army colors, Gloss white and OD, that was used in '68 as a chase plane for the Cheyenne helicopter program. It's glossy, scale and turns heads at the fun flys and it sure is different than the usual WWII scheme's.
Like a previous poster said, it's a big hobby and if you do not want to do a weathered paint job, a little research will turn up plenty of "clean" scheme's you can use.
Jon

Katchmarek

My Feedback: (29)

Okay, I admit all warbirds weren't faded, dinged and dented...but I still believe that more were then weren't. Okay, maybe I mis-stated a bit here...I also meant to mention that all warbirds, were not meticuously painted...by that I mean, often markings were applied by hand and were not perfect by any means. I have seen countless hundreds of photos to verify this...especially on German birds. I have seen pics where camo / national insignia, etc. was hand applied by brush and obviously so. The point I was trying to make, is that all warbirds were not perfectly painted and appointed. Ask yourself this, when was the last time that you saw a model warbird that looked like the camo and insignia was applied by a 1/4 scale hand using a 1/4 scale brush? We sometimes tend to make our models too accurate, maybe too perfect would better apply? Granted to the casual observer, most would oooh and aaaah more over a shiney, everything perfectly painted and everything symetrically applied model , than a true front line looking variety.
Okay, since I'm on a roll...another thing that kinda gets me frustrated is that so much emphasis is placed on documentation!
Ya know that automatically disqualifies about 99 % of our possible subjects. I reckon that if someone knows the standard colors, schemes, insigna placement, and the like, they should feel more free to express their personal creativity. Example, I'm in the process of repainting a Bf.-109, since this plane is strictly for my personal enjoyment and not competition, I've chosen to give it a standard delivery scheme....over which I did the camo to suit my own taste. I think that it will look very authentic and chances are that a 109 existed with for all intents and purposes, the same final look. I will post pics when I finish it up, should be within the next week. I think that with a bit of research and 1/2 and eye for detail, just about anyone can do an convincingly authentic finish to a warbird.
Happy painting,
Rob Bailey / Pickupsticks

Paul Grubich

My Feedback: (1)

Almost all real warbirds used in combat were worn, scratched, dented, faded, repaired daily, muddy, etc. The only things that were cleaned were the guns and the mechanical necessities.

My B-17 is very worn and weary looking and every veteren B-17 crewman or pilot that has seen it told me they were glad to see one represented in the condition they remember them to be.

Warbirds were new only on the day they left the factory. If that is the condition someone wants to portray their model, fine. But I would rather show it like it has seen at least seen one mission.

The funny thing is, the more my B-17 gets sunbleached and dinged, the better it looks

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Remember "scale" is the operative word in regards to finish and weathering. Letting normal use in the "flying field" accumulate to what you consider to be weathering is not accurate. In other words, the dirt, scratches and fading will not be done "to scale" and in the same places that it would be done on a full scale plane. I look closely at commercial planes every time I travel. You'll see the little streaks of fading, dirt, water stains, etc. trailing ever so lightly back from all the panel lines, rivets, behind engine nacelles, etc. This doesn't happen in in the field to our models, in 1/5 scale, on it's own. You have to "apply" that type of weathering.

Also, just like Dave Platt says about "scale black" and "scale white", your eye percieves light and color differently depending on the scale at which it is applied. Colors are concentrated into a much smaller area with a "non-scaled" specular diffusion. This means that your specularity on a 1/5 scale plane is the same as it is on a full-scale plane. That should not be the case. You need to simulate the "scaling down" of the surface texture of the metal and paint on your plane, right along with the rest of the components. This means that the "specularity/gloss" of the plane needs to be scaled down (reduced) as well. IMHO, an unweathered, high-gloss warbird model always looks like just that... a MODEL.

Besides, these things were WARbirds... why would you want them to look like they just came off the line and never see any action? At that stage, they're just a plane, not a soldier. The little "eccentricities" of wear and imperfection are what makes a scale model come to life and look believable. Spend some time researching the works of IPMS pros (plastic scale modelers). Look at the award winning planes, figures, dioramas, etc. and see which ones make you say "wow, that looks real." I gaurantee you it will be the ones with the telltale signs of "battle fatigue."

Just my opinion ;-)

Neo

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Ned,
When Dave was doing the scale column at RCM many years ago, he did a survey of what part of building a model the modeler did not like and why. His results showed that finishing (painting) was the least liked because it never came out as good as the modeler had imagined. To Dave and other top scale builders the model is the "Canvass" that they use to create their work of art. An example is Joe Grice's F-100: it took a month to build and 9 months to detail! As Dave says, when the model is complete, engine and radio installed, the time spent on the model is 1/2 done. Many modelers don't have the time, skill, patience, interest, equipment and/or any of the other things necessary to achieve this type of result, hence finishing a model to represent a "new" plane is easier and quicker. Of course, if you're going to enter it in a contest you need to finish it according to the photo's you have of the original, if not, finish it any way you want and let the critics prove you're wrong! The retort to someone criticizing your model is to ask" Let's see how you did yours!" 9 times out of ten that will shut them up.
Regards,
Jon

F-106: Not a pound for air to ground!

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Sorry Neo, not Ned: my old eyes are failing me.
Jon

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Attached is a Picture taken in 1944 of a 78 Fg P-47.. As you can see by the photo the plane looks pretty clean.. in fact they were, because they were repainted from natural aluminum to RAF Dk Green and Sky prior to D-Day. There is subtle weathering on those planes... the word Subtle being key here.. I'm just showing an example of a very typical plane of WWII as something to consider... Regards BobH.

Katchmarek

My Feedback: (29)

BobH, Yup, that jug looks pretty clean...but I reckon it's doing an absolute minimum of 150 mph in the photo, probably much faster than that...which would make it virtually impossible to see any detail whatsoever. I'l like to see some close ups of that very same bird sitting on the ground...I'd be weilling to wager it wouldn't look so smooth then?
Look at pics of aircraft right out of the factory, even prior to paint...they were not as smooth as you may think. There were bumps and lumps all over the place. It was unavoidable, it was the nature of the methods and materials used at the time. Modern aircraft are much smoother because the materials used today are better, as are methods.
I have seen hundreds of WWII warbirds up close and personal...fully restored, static display where nothing much has been done to them except put them on a pedestal and paint them now and then, in various stages of restoration...and guess what, none of them are smooth! Take a piece of aluminum and try to rivet ...what happens, if you know how to rivet it still dimples, if you don't know how to rivet it get pretty ugly. Then take into consideration the stress factors from flying an manuevering at high speeds. Wings and airframes are not 100% rigid, they flex and twist...add some concussion from flak bursts, maybe a few bullet holes...now try to tell me that all this has no effect on the appearance after even a short time!
When I get home tonight, I'll post a couple of pics to prove my point.
Happy flying,
Rob Bailey / Pickupsticks

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Bob,

Maybe we are just debating over our definition of clean vs weathered, and/or subtle vs extensive. I don't define "weathered" to mean beat up, lumpy, dented and looking like it's been through a blender. I just define it as showing some of the normal imperfections, and the normal fading, staining, and "wind marks" (is that a word?) that occur with even a few flights (especially when flown over/near salt water).

While some may say the Jug in your pic is clean, I suppose it is... but I personally see a good bit of what I define as weathering. I can see substantial "staining" around access panels, grime trails flowing behind hinges, and it CERTAINLY isn't what I would call a showroom "gloss" finish like many of the warbird models portray.

Neo

scottrc

Every plane is unique on how it weathers. Areas that will show a lot of wear, regardless on how well taken care of, is the cockpit floor, sides, and foot holds. Other areas are behind the exausts, leading egdes, and access panels such as for checking oil or ammo casings.

Some modelers may go overboard because their weathering is out of scale. The size of paint chips are too big, or there is rust, or the paint just seems too shiney. But be careful when judging these details. Some planes have been know to lose a lot of paint after leaving the factory because the aluminum was not treated properly. When repairs or new metal panels were attached, these were often painted in the field with a spray can, and so would give an off color to the rest of the plane.

A final detail, some warbirds were known to have different colored control surfaces, panels, or even wings because these parts were salvaged from other planes. Again, all planes, especially ones painted in flat, dark, colors will have different hues due to age and exposure to the sun, dirt, and salt.

The airport in my hometown has a Cessna 150 that is Yellow and Red. The top of the plan is almost white and the lettering is faded pink from all the years in the sun. All the paint is gone from most of the rivets and foot holds, and there is two large grey streaks from the gas caps to the trailing edge. The owner uses this plane every day as a trainer, and it shows. If I was to replicate it as a 1/4 scale, yeh, I would also try to replicate those little details as well, to show that not just warbirds weather.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Rob and Neo.. Just a few comments .. Rob, the plane is doing about 0 give or take a few..miles per hour relative to the photo plane.. I don't mean to imply that "smooth" means literally a very flat surface.. I have seen Lots of warbirds myself over the year and I would agree 100% that there is a lot of "Surface Detail" on a warbird.. especially on an all metal one.... When we reduce that plane to 1/5 or 1/6 or smaller.. we must account for the diminished detail that would normally show from the distance where the plane would appear that size to our view... another way of saying it would be that... a 1/5 scale plane viewed at 10 fee would be equal to the full size plane viewed at 50 feet. Some of detail gets starts to get lost in the distance.. one thing we notice is that the plane begins to take on an "overall appearence" leaving the impression of a total look. This is different than standing next to the wing of a full size Mustang and seeing all the bumps and humps (which are numerous) in the skin.. They are still there on our model but less pronounced.. Thats why I think subtle becomes important because we need a scale effect with our models.
And I think we are way more in agreement than our differences lol.. Its very usefull to exchange points of view.. helps me see what others see.. thanks....
BTW I'm posting a picture of a Corsair that I built and weathered.. tell me what ya'll think... Regards BobH.

Katchmarek

My Feedback: (29)

BobH, Hey your Corsair looks real nice. Yeh you got me on the speed bit of the Jug! I'm attaching a pic of the 109 that I am in process of repainting. This is more or less my practice airplane. It is a real nice flyer and looked okay before, but it was done in auto paints and was too shiney to suit my taste. Hmmm...maybe I'll post a before the repain pic as well so you all can make a comparison and let me know what you think. Mind you, I am not finished with the repaint, as you will see, and haven't even thought about weathering yet...this is just an example of automotive paints with a gloss finish vs. flat latex house paint.
Any and all coments welcomed.
By the way, I am really enjoying everyone's input...thanks.
Happy flying,
Rob Bailey / Pickupsticks

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Bob,

That is an interesting picture of a P-47. It shows much weathering. Of particular interest is the dirt and rubbed to a shine flat paint around the ammo bay covers. The ailerons are also quite faded. This picture was taken from a couple of hundred feet at least right? For the low quality of picture and the distance I can see lots of weathering! I think planes in the Pacific theater, carrier planes took a serious beating. Just look at some old Corsair pictures. They operated in primitive conditions from coral runways! I have some pictures of Corsairs with lots of metal showing through the paint!

Forgot to mention all the black on the bottom of the fuselage!

Katchmarek

My Feedback: (29)

Okay, here's a pic of the repaint in progress.
What do you think...remember there are no panel lines or weathering as yet.
Happy flying,
Rob Bailey / Pickupsticks

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Dion, the weathering you mentioned is what I noticed.. Its not real heavy but its noticable. Some fade here.. some fade there.. some dark areas around the gun hatches.. where the rearming would take place.. Under side would be dark where the supercharger is and the exhausts flow.. the ailerons are deflected so that may contribut to their color some.. a different angle to the sun..All in all even though this plane was repainted in the last few months.. it shows signs of the elements and some use..
BTW.. that picture came from the 78th FG web site.. they have a very good web site for the Duxford days during the war... check it out.
Rob.. I think your plane looks very good.. I cant tell by the picture if its shiny or not ..?? but if it is.... you could just spray some satin clear over it.. and then do your weathering...?.. Thanks ya'll .. this has been interesting..! BobH.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

BobH,

What I have found is that the weathering is a combination of environment, type of paint used and type of surface being painted. Take Corsairs for instance, they were painted in flat colors early on in the war and later they were painted in glossy sea blue. Flat colors are far less durable than glossy colors. It is difficult to see much weathering on the glossy Corsairs as compared to the flat colored ones. Also the glossy paint blends the fabric areas very well, makes it even hard to tell if they are fabric. Flat colors provide the airframe and fabric with little protection. I would have to disagree with the aileron deflection and sun angle theories!

It is easy to see the fabric on the ailerons of this Corsair as well as the fabric on the wing!

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Turn to those plastic modelers! They know how to weather a plane!

This Corsair is not showing enough paint chips, but it does show very nice weathering to the fabric areas: