Any ideas on how to duplicate the way fabric looks on the aircraft.
I’ve had success with two methods:
Use a slightly frosted application of a clear flat, then weather it with the faded fabric colors.
Get a piece of very fine mesh, like a No. 200 mesh (20 micron). Saturate it with solvent cement and press it into surface where you want the texture to appear. It’s actually out of scale, but to the eye it looks right.
The real differences were that fabric coverings were generally rivetless and weathered differently than metal surfaces. Trying to add “texture” to them is rather a modeling gaffe.
On actual aircraft, the fabric control surfaces and any other part of the plane look very little different from the rest of the structures. This was a heavy grade, tighly woven cloth, covered in multiple layers of thick dopant, either colored or painted over. If you know what oilscloth is, then you have the idea. It’s a common mistake made by many to try and duplicate a fabric pattern of some sort - it looks horridly out of scale.
The EXCEPTION is that fabric surfaces were not riveted to their framing elements, but were sewn on and then covered with a separate strip of binding cloth, or “tape.” So this means the first step is to remove rivets to represent a smooth surface. The underlying structure should be hinted at with low lying rib lines and small hatches, access panels and other surface details WERE seen over the fabric, so dont remove them.
I usually smooth fabric surfaces prior to painting, often just running over them with the finest grain steel wool. Then once painted I might do it again, VERY lightly, just to subtlely differentiate the fabric surfaces from the surrounding areas. In truth, even this is not needed and is only being fastidious. Did you know the outer wing panels on the F4U Corsair were covered in fabric? Knowing that now, would you have ever guessed? See what I mean?
The best way to portray discrete fabric surfaces, like ailerons or elevators, its to weather them as separate elements. Use paint that is slightly whitened from the surrounding paint, or darkened to show the uneven wear and weathering of these surfaces or the cannibalization that occured in the field between aircraft.
I’ve been an aircraft mechanic for about 36 years and have always felt that the way that kit manufacturers represent fabric covered surfaces leaves much to be desired. To me the biggest clues that a surface is fabric covered is that it sags unlike metal and if you touch it, it flexes. You rarely can see the weave on a 1 to 1 aircraft due to the fact that the weave is so small - to get an idea how small, take a look at a linen bedsheet (it’s basicly a bleached version of aircraft linen). Now if you were to suspend that sheet loosely in space, shrink it with water, and then apply 6 to 10 coats of dope, the weave will all but disappear (the more coats of dope applied, the more the spaces between the strands get filled - I’ve helped restore and recover aircraft in which the cloth surfaces were as smooth as glass before the color coat went on). So my basic belief is that on anything smaller than maybe a 1/16 scale model, the weave shouldn’t be visible (and in 99% of cases, the reinforcing and rib tapes wouldn’t show either). I’d prefer that fabric be represented by the gentle sags you find on the real ones.
Greetings oops; There are several ways of doing replicated fabric. As has been mentioned in previous posts here. It depends on the surface and how its treated. If its overpainted after doping and varnishing yes the weave disappears. There is a texture to WWI German printed lozenge fabric that is unique. Typically wooden skeletal wings have cloth batten attached to the ribs to which the fabric is sewn then rib tapes of coloured or dyed fabric are attached over the staitching. On the underside of the British aircraft during WWI the ribs were whiter than the rest of the clear doped linen undersurface covering due to the several layers fabric attached to the rib cabs. Fabric was not sewn to metal fuselage framing for several reasons. If the fuselage skeletal framing was wooden then yes it was given a similar treatment but not as labor intesive, More often this was a five piece construction into an envelope that slipped over the fuselage and was attached near the engine cowlings. The it was doped, varnished etc.
Of course I have never examined a genuine WWI aircraft, since I wasn’t there. But the technigue for doping fabric surfaces has remained the same since it was developed. Every aircraft I have ever examined that had fabric surfaces had the same look to the fabric, ie, you couldn’t see the fabric itself. You could hear a difference when it was “thump tested” and you could feel a difference, but you couldnt see that it was woven fabric.
There are indeed numerous surface detail differences on dope stretched fabric, like rib taping, the characterisitc dip between ribs and the lack of fasteners. But I would caution you against trying to create a “grain” or weave when modeling fabric surfaces. It will not look correct. The first time you examine a restored aircraft that has them, you will say, “Darn, I shoulda listened to that dahut guy!..”
Quincy, since you’ve “been dere, done dat,” don’t they weather differently? Pictures I’ve seen of P-39’s in service show a considerable difference in the appearance of the control surfaces, which were fabric.
Certainly, in a restored or factory fresh aircraft, that would not be the case, although the aircraft that I have actually seen with fabric portions, the fabric did look different to my eye. Again, that could be the effect of even the slightest weathering. I see similar differences in, say, a car body that is part plastic and part metal. After a week on the street, even freshly washed and waxed, my eye sees a difference. Perhaps this is one reason we are all impressed by a realisitic looking bare metal finish on a plastic model—very hard to get perfect.
I agree that at even 1/16 scale, the weave would disappear, but I think this is like the “panel line/preshading” issue: more a matter of perception than scale correctness.
And dahut, there is no such thing as a modeling gaffe or faux pas. Crituque the model, not the builder. [;)]
The rudder on this C-54 is fabric covered. To me it just looks smoother, an even silver paint finish, no rivets or panel lines. At 1/72, I’ll sand off all the detail, polish it smooth, and paint with silver paint if the a/c is otherwise Alclad, or a slightly lightened o/d if thats the color. Now, I haven’t seen pictures where the fabric color seems faded, more that it reflects more light, or is usually deflected from the plane of the wing, etc.
Nice looking model, bondoman, and your response pretty much summarizes in practice what we’ve said here.
And dahut, there is no such thing as a modeling gaffe or faux pas. Crituque the model, not the builder.
I dont believe that I have criticized anyone, have I? What I would hope is that by telling it straight, I could prevent someone from making a mistake. I utterly disagree that there in no such thing as a modeling gaffe, however. From the American Heritage Dictionary, the word “gaffe”, itself, can be defined as:
“gaffe” - 2. A blatant mistake or misjudgment.
Going by that, I doubt there is anyone here who hasn’t made a gaffe. All gaffe-rs, a show of hands please!
Modeling gaffes are the result of lack of knowledge or just plain screwing up. Unwittingly apply the the wrong markings or paint scheme and you’ve gaffed. Give fabric a fat, visible texture or mess something up in the build? Ooops; gaffe again! It may be unintentional, and there really is no harm done.
But, it happens - ito all of us. It’s okay to admit it and to call it what it is. We’re adults here (or close enough); we should be thick skinned enough to deal with that. But I would like to see it prevented, were possible. The wisest among us is the one who asks first - thus my suggestions in this post about exercising caution when replicating fabric surfaces.
If you want to see an example of a bona-fide, unabashed gaffe by yours truly, committed this very day, simply visit the following thread; scroll to the end.
/forums/24/869419/ShowPost.aspx#869419
Dahut you do realise that we can’t show you our hands right?
The only Gaffe I made was not remembering where my knife and finger were in conjunction with each other. At least my finger grew back.
Dahut you do realise that we can’t show you our hands right?
Oh, of course. That was another of those nonliteral comments, meant in fun.
The only Gaffe I made was not remembering where my knife and finger were in conjunction with each other. At least my finger grew back.
Im glad your finger is okay - how about the knife?
I dunno probably went in the trash a year after that incident. Guess I was unlucky especially since it was a new blade and for some reason every time I change the blade on my Xacto knife the darn thing wants to try and kill me. Or I am just a clutz.
The Battle of the Dictionaries! My Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines both gaffe and faux pas as “a social blunder,” (emphasis mine, —RAM) meaning that the blunderer is socially uncouth. That is always how I have understood it. Polling my literary friends, they concur.
So you understand my interpretation of your remark. Your later post (partially quoted above) makes it clear that no slight was intended to any.
And I quite agree: we learn best from mistakes, misques, accidents, and misfortune. A certain religion asks its candidates for priesthood: “Are you willing to suffer to learn?” No scale modeler worthy of the name could fail to answer that question “Yes, and I have the scars to prove it!” [B)][#oops][banghead]
Oh, and David, I absolutely agree with your sigfile—all of it! [tup]
Back on topic:
The fabric thing is generally over done in models, after WWI. I build worker bee a/c mostly, which have fabric control surfaces up till really recently. It’s a mistake to think that in the US fabric control surfaces would age ahead of the airframe. There were trained airframe repairers who specialized in doping and patching surfaces.
The Lodestar had fabric rudders, which have a cross stitch where they atttach to the rudder post, but no apparent color change.
Quiz: what is the rudder covered with on this a/c?
One thing to realize is that many if not most silver a/c are painted silver, rather that NMF (natural metal finish) so fabric control surfaces on US airforce a/c are not immediately different.
Likewise British and US heavy bombers in WW2.
It is almost impossible to get the same shade on metal as in the fabric covered surfaces unless the new urethane paints are used on modern fabric, or enamel was applied on a dope finish on airplanes repaired or built before the modern paints and synthetic fabrics. Enamel was almost never overcoated on the dope because it makes repairs much more difficult. The reason for the difference is that the paints have to be different formulations. Before the new fabrics which are made tight over the structure by using heat, the dope shrinking in the weave of the fabric is what produced the taughtness in the covering. If you goofed and put the undoped fabric on too tight before doping it could tighten after doping enough to damage the structure. Now that was a major gaffe! Since the metal was painted in lacquer or enamel, and dope was used on the fabric, the process of getting the colors the same was very difficult and seldom achieved. That was nirvana and bragging rights were granted when luck was with the painter and it happened. In addition, if you put enough dope on fabric to really fill the weave, it looked nice when it was new, (and required rubbing down between each silver and color coat) but longevity was reduced because the dope would eventually get brittle enough to “ringworm”, make circular cracks which didn’t look good at all and reduced the tensile strength of the covering. OK and most often done on a show airplane like a Staggerwing, not on a work airplane. The point of all that is that with the number of coats that was applied to a military or work airplane, although you couldn’t see the weave from any distance, you could see a difference in sheen due to the weave of the fabric affecting the reflectivity. Just a bit more flat. Dope, by the way, can not be applied to metal surfaces because it only adheres to itself, or by penetrating and surrounding the fabric fibers. It will just peel off in sheets from a hard surface, so you couldn’t get a match that way.
What you can see on taught fabric is actually additional reinforcing tapes and rib stitching tape, as well as the stitches as fairly course cord is used for that. The tapes are doped on over the fabric in all the areas where the fabric touches the structure as on the ribs. On the ribs after the first layer of reinforcing tape is doped on (2" wide, usually) a rib stitching tape is applied, 1/2" wide , or as wide as the rib capstrip, and about 1mm thick, then the stitching is done. There is a knot at each stitch, but it is pulled to the side of the 1/2" tape and doesn’t show unless a klutz is doing it (another Gaffe). Another 2" tape is doped over the tape and cord, then the silver coats and finally the color coats are applied. Unless there is a fair amount of curvature in the surface being covered, like the top forward surface of the fabric covered wing, the fabric does not draw down between the ribs. On control surfaces it does not do so in a way that you can see it from any distance. It’s just the light playing on the tapes that you see as ribs.
The Battle of the Dictionaries! My Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines both gaffe and faux pas as “a social blunder,” (emphasis mine, -RAM) meaning that the blunderer is socially uncouth. That is always how I have understood it. Polling my literary friends, they concur.
Well, Ross, we modelers are nothing if not pedantic. You literary friends are correct, yet, I managed to find one interpretation of the word that fit, second choice. But you know how it goes; thats all it takes!
AS for learning from mistakes I have only this to say:
“Experience is a good teacher, it’s true. Her one drawback is that she gives you the test… before you’ve had the lesson.”
I’m glad we could come to grips. If there’s one guy I can respect for his scars, it’s you.
John, thanks for that explanation. The human mind is a strange and wonderous thing—sort of like a lumber room, in my case: everything is there, just buried under something else. I now remember that I used to know some of that, but you did a good job “doping” the open spaces in the sieve. [(-D]
As I’ve never actually seen or worked with dope (seen and worked with a lot of dopes, but that’s another thing…[:-,]) at least that I know, how translucent is the binder, if you know? I seem to recall that unpigmented dope had a yellowish cast. —I’m trying to recall from casual conversations with aircraft mechanics from over forty years ago, who worked on aircraft twenty or more years before that…[%-)]
Ross, you’re welcome. Butyrate dope goes to a slightly yellow or amber color as more coats are applied, but it is always transparent. I didn’t use nitrate dope that much but my dusty recollection is that it is a bit more clear. My opinion is that silver dope came into use and was fully understood for its ultraviolet blocking properties only in the late 30’s. If enough silver is not applied, fabric will deteriorate in a short time. I’ve seen it go in 4 or 5 years stored outside.
I used to have an E-Type jag, had it for 20 years. I sold it for two reasons. One was other people got to thinking it was worth a fair amount of money, and finally it reached the point where the money was more attractive to me than the car. The other was I kept getting into the situation when working on it that I would realize I was trying to understand how to do something that I use to do out of instinct. Doesn’t give us the same buzz of accomplishment as figuring it out the first time, does it!
John, maybe if we painted our craniums with aluminum to block the UV, that would help? [(-D]
Okay, butyrate and nitrate. Now a tough one: In a liquid state, does pigmented dope have a “clear” appearance? You can see what I mean if you take almost any modern gloss yellow paint and pour it in a thin stream with light behind it—it will have a clear quality that most other paints don’t.
And what is the apparent viscosity of dope vs. enamel? Nothing specific, just how it appears.
Jets had them too.
