Hi all
I am a relative newbie when it comes to modelling. I am putting on finishing touches on one of my models, and I was wondering, which final clear coat should I be using for an aircraft finish? Flat (matt) or semi-gloss (satin) ? I’ve read about different people using different ones, and I suppose it is all a matter of preference, but which one would you say looks better and more realistic? Any comments welcome!
Depends on what you’re modeling. Aircraft tended to be glossy or semi-glossy when new, paint over time and exposure to the elements became pretty flat. Tanks, definately flat.
I am building a BF 109D, flown by Werner Molders during the Spanish civil war. Since I am going to put kill marks on it, I suppose it will have to look well-used, so a flat finish would suit it better, right?
I would definately go with flat as the Spanish blistering sun and hot climate were brutal on paint and aircraft finishes. Hopefully you can post some pics, are you building the Classic Airframes kit?
No, the Academy one. I think you posted some replies for my other topic - early BF 109 details, the one on red trim tabs! [:)] I’ll try to post some photos once I’m done (which should hopefully be soon).
Good luck to you too! [tup]
Thanks, I’m just about done with the interior of mine. Just need to do the instrument panel and seatbelts. I figured out you were doing the Academy kit when I replied in your other thread. [:)]
So what is the best thing to use for a flat finish?
I use Tamiya Flat Base X-21 mixed with Future. Depending on how flat I want to go I vary the ratio.
For a very flat finish I would use 4 parts Future to 1 part Tamiya flat base.
For eggshell or semi-gloss would go 5 parts Future to 1 part flat base, or 6 to 1. The more Future you use with the base the glossier the finish will be.
If you use Tamiya Flat Base don’t go any less than a 4 to 1 ratio, otherwise you’ll wind up with a chalky looking finish.
When you say “Future”, do you mean Future Floor Wax? Sorry, I’m new 
Vivian
Yes, Future Floor polish is just clear acrylic. Welcome to the forums! [snWcm]
You will want to put your markings (waterslide?) on a gloss surface before you matt everything. The decals will sit better in a gloss surface. Also, be sure to mask your canopy before the matt finish is applied. You will want for the canopy frames to match the finish of the fuselage but not the glazing!
I use Testor’s Dullcoat from a rattle-can… Also use rattle-can Treehouse Acrylic clear flat… For aircraft that are finished in gloss colors, like the P-61, I ovecoat the gloss black with a satin finish to scale down the gloss… Unless it’s a highly-maintained operational aircraft in the vein of the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds, or airshow-warbird, even a gloss finish shouldn’t be that glossy… When guys do the high-gloss finishes on models, it makes them, to my eye anyway, look like die-cast toys…
I don’t like Testor’s Dull coat as it will leave a white cast under certain humidities. Others have reported the same problem. But their flat enamel doesn’t seem to be similiarly affected.
On WWI aircraft, the older machines had a semi-gloss finish along the front sides. Castor oil was a lubricant and sprayed along these sides. The build up was shinier. It was also why most of the pilots were glad that the missions took less than an hour. this is something I learned at Old Rhinebeck.
Mike T.
You can vary the flatness of paint by how you apply it. Putting on flat paint with a very wet coat makes it go towards semi-gloss. Likewise putting gloss on very dry makes it more a semi-gloss. One can thus, for instance, with flat paint or clearcoat make vertical surfaces semi-gloss and horizontal ones that weather faster more of a flat appearance. Tops of fuselage and top surfaces of wings and tail weather more than fuselage sides and all bottom surfaces.
Make adjustments of paint flow and pressure while you airbrush.
I don’t have that problem, since my place is air-conditioned, but I did notice that problem with Dullcoat over certain brands of enamel… Haven’t run into it in years though…
True that… Not all “emergency landings” in WW1 were due to combat or mechanical problems, lol… The probalem wasn’t so much with radial and liquid-cooled engines, but with engines like the Le Rhone, Clerget, and Oberussel, their oiling systems were “total-loss” systems. That’s why there was a cut-out on the bottom of the cowl in aircraft like the Sopwith Camel and Dr 1, to direct the majority of the castor oil-mist down under the fuselage…