Aircraft and weathering

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

Hi guys! Awhile back there was a big controversy over weathering in the “Armored” area. Many beautifully done, heavily weathered tank models were determined to be, in reality, overkilled on the chipping and banging up.

What about aircraft? Particularly the WWII era craft… Were their paintjobs as rugged as the old tanks? Did they chip and weather heavily during their days of glory?

Seems to me that if the Sherman or Panzer didn’t give in to the chips, perhaps the same would be said of the Corsairs, Messers, Zeroes, etc…

What sayest thou?

2

The OD used by the Army, blue used by the Navy and green used by the Japanese faded very fast. My uncle told me that when they got their new P-38’s the paint was a clean OD color and after a year they had faded to a brown color.

Many Japanese aircraft were painted over bare metal with no primer and the green did not last very long. It would come off in patches.

3

Just based on the photos I’ve seen of the aircraft in the various theaters, a lot seemed to depend on the weather conditions, local geography, and the availability of spare parts, paint, etc.

For instance, aircraft in the Pacific were constantly having to deal with the corrosive salty air. In the CBI, supply availability was always an issue, so maybe painting repaired damage was always a problem. I can imagine operating in the desert in North Africa could play hell on equipment. (OK- I KNOW the desert can play hell on military equipment… another story…[;)]). The ETO meant a lot of long flying sorties- tough on engines and so forth.

Another factor could be unit morale. You can tell a lot about a unit by how their equipment looks. Even if resources are meager, a unit with high morale will generally do a better job maintaining what they have.

Anyway- that’s just some of the factors that can effect how the real aircraft look. There’s certainly tons more, from where they were located right down to the types of paint used and a dozen others I’m sure.

When it comes to models, I guess (in the meager amount of time I’ve been back in the hobby) what has really jumped out to me is the value of research. That’s what you really have to look at- how did the real planes look?

Then, you’ve got to balance it with what you as a modeler like. When I built kits as a kid, I dry brushed the heck out of every leading edge on every surface. Every prop blade was darn near half silver. Why? Not realism- it was just cool to me.

I’m sure some guys go for complete accuracy, others might go for a clean OOB build, others might just say “This is what I like and that’s why”.

I’ve seen some that if I were building it, or comparing it to real photos, I’d say it’s underdone or overdone or not realistic. But it ain’t my kit, and it don’t detract from the fact that it is still a darn fine model. (I’m sure some folks looked at recent pics I posted of a P-51A office and thought “Did he leave ANY silver in the bottle?”)

Personally, if someone thinks something I do is overdone- OK, great. It’s up to me to look at what I built and say “You know, you’re right- thanks for the helpful tip.” Or conversely, I might just as well think “Ah, I like what I did” and simply say something like “Thanks for looking at my work.”

As long as people keep it civil- c’mon, it’s a hobby. Keep it fun! The great value I’ve found on these forums is the friendships that emerge- and I think most folks on here truly appreciate the work others do, regardless of skill level or realism, etc.

So paint chips or no paint chips- I just like seeing a model that someone put together and we can talk about and encourage each other.

Man, what a boring response I just wrote… LOL

4

Most certainly, aircraft paint weathered, airframes got dirty, they got oil and petrol stains on them, exhaust staining and heat damage streaked the nacelles or fuselage…but I’m sure that extremely few operational aircraft were neglected to the point where they looked derelict.
Pilots are a funny bunch…they seem reluctant to risk their lives in an aircraft that hasn’t been properly maintained and would therefore be considered unsafe. Go figure…
Part of the normal maintenance procedures would be to wipe down exterior surfaces, polish canopies, etc…just to keep them tidy. Some did it better than others - a morale issue was mentioned above - but the vagaries of the elements and available resources ensured that after any appreciable time in theatre, very few operational aircraft looked factory fresh.
By all means, weather your models. I find that often “less is more”.

5

My father told me that they used to take their A-20s on low level missions over the ocean and they would come back with most of the paint stripped off the bottom of their aircraft. If you’re looking for something different, he said that sometimes on low level missions some ships would come back with pieces of trees stuck in their wings. One came back with a church’s cross in his wing.

6

When I first built Monograms B-26 “Flak Bait” I was surpised to see the shape it was in after the 200th mission. Lots of paint missing, weathered and dirty. I ended up cutting off about 175 mission symbols off the decal and built it fairly “fresh”! So, research your topic and paint accordingly or as the “spirit” moves ya! It’s your model your building not the “peanut gallery’s”.

7

I agree with just about everything that has been said so far. I tend to overdo my wheathering a little, but then again, I want my planes to look like they have been hard at work, not sitting at the airshow. To me, these planes make history hauling butt to defend our ground troops, or protect the fleets from airborne threats, not parked on concrete as a display, so that is why just about all mine are a little dirty, or a lot I guess [:D]

8

I agree with what everyone has said so far also. Sometimes it just depends on how much Yuck and Muck your travelin’ thru’ and how fast or slow your doing it for each paticular piece of equipment… The high dollar go fast private stuff I’m familar with today…Hangared and washed regularly. And the A&P’s wear gloves. No dents No dings or No job…[8D]

9

Wow! Can you imagine having a church’s cross stuck to your plane? Talk about barnstorming!

Interesting how things can vary… I forget the aircraft have different factors such as high speed, low flying, marine air and all that…

Thanks for all the feedback…

10

I forget who, but one of the members on the forum has a phrase in his signature, “Build what you like, like what you build”. I think that applies to weathering. Unless you’re building for a show, weather to your heart’s content.

11

Nothing boring about it jwb. I couldn’t agree more…we’re one big happy family here on the forum!

12

I’ve heard of people who put statues of Jesus or Mary on their dashboards, but that’s taking it to extremes! [:D]

13

Or don’t weather, if that’s your heart’s content. [:D]

The best answer to the original question is to do some research and see what the photos show.

There’s really no hard and fast rule on how airplanes should look. I’ve been collecting F-14 photos from the Navy’s web site (Navy.mil) so I can see how Tomcats have looked over the past few years. Not surprisingly, the “CAG” planes look pretty nice, and the rest are pretty dirty – but not nearly as dirty as some models I’ve seen.

Regards,

14

I’m looking at my copy of “Steichen At War,” a coffeetable-book collection of photos taken by the great WWII photographer Edward Steichen. They are large-format, extremely sharp black-and-whites, all taken in the Pacific Theater, some on carriers, others at island airstrips. All kinds of aircraft, all different lengths of service, different years of the war. I see very little weathering–a little on wing leading edges, virtually none on props or nacelles, none of the wing-walk scuff marks we love to dry-brush. The Navy and Marines, at least, seem to have taken pretty good care of their airplanes.

Stephan