I was going through some of my aircraft photos and realized that at some museums many of the planes have a glossy finish. When the new WWII planes were delivered were they glossy or flat? If they were glossy how long would that last? I know a lot of effort is put into weathering for accuracy but would shiny, flawless finish just delivered, brand new planes be accurate too? Just curious…
It depends on the finish of the individual colour scheme - obviously, late-war USN aorcraft in overall Glossy Sea Blue left the factory glossy - but a lot of paints we think of as matt were, when first applied at least, more satin in finish. This was especially true of Luftwaffe colours. Same with non-camouflaged USAAF aircraft, except for the anti-dazzle panels and similar.Fighters were often olished to make them go faster - a smooth paint finish can add 10mph or more to an aircraft’s top speed, and in air combat, that can make all the difference between survival or not.
While satin paints would eventually weather to matt, a lot would depend on the operational environment. Paint would weather more rapidly on carrier-borne aircraft exposed to salty sea air, or aircraft used in a harsh desert environment, for example, than they would for aircraft flying in the temperate climes of North-western Europe. Against that, a lot of aircraft didn’t last long enough to get weathered before getting shot down. And the material over which paint is applied also matters - paint applied over fabric or wooden surfaces often loooks less shiny than the same paint applied to metal surfaces.
However, on model aircraft, you also have to consider scale effect - the tendency of gloss finishes to look excessive and unrealistic, especially in the smaller scales. Thus many modellers prefer a matt finish where the original was satin or semigloss, and even where the original had a glossy finish, anything beyond satin somehow looks wrong and toy-like.
Finall, remember that museum exhibits and gate guardians are not necessarily reliable references. It’s not unheard of for a gate guardian to be painted with modern, glossy, paints, even though the people responsible for painting the aircraft knew full well that the finish should be matt,because the modern paint resists weathering better, and thus needs to be re-painted less often. From the other extreme, museum exhibits can look vey faded and weathered, having been exposed to the elements for decades without re-painting, while the original would never have lasted anything like long enough to get that weathered.
So there’s no single right answer to your question. If I had to generalise, though, I’d say you would be safer with matt than gloss or satin, finish, especially in 1/72 or smaller. After all, if it does turn out that your model is too flat, it’s only the work of a few minutes to give it an extra coat of Future!
Cheers,
Chris.
I saw an F-4 phantom with a gloss finish one time. I don’t really know if they did come with a glossy finish.
This is the sort of thing I mean. Back in the late 1960s/ early 1970s, when the RAF first took delivery of its Phantom FGR.2s (F-4M), they were finished in a high-gloss camouflage finish of Dark Sea Grey/ Dark Green/ Light Aircraft Grey.
The RAF top brass soon realised that they didn’t actually spend much time at Mach 2, so an ultra-smooth finish wasn’t reallly essential. Since it also didn’t look very tactical, they wer soon repainted in matt versions of the same colours, but still with high-visibility Type ‘D’ roundels. These in turn were soon replaced with lo-vis Type ‘B’ roundels, but these lo-vis roundels could also be found on gloss-finished aircraft, such as Hercules C.1 transports and Victor K.2 tankers.
Confused? You will be!
Cheers,
Chris.
Simple. A shiny glossy finish burns less fuel and flies faster. It is easier to keep clean. Warbirds, especially fighters and trainers are also used for air racing. Flat schemes hold dirt and moisture which leads to corrosion. These restored aircraft are for show just like classic cars, the owners spend a great deal of time making sure they are clean and shiny to keep the crowds coming back for more.
When I was in the Marines in the early seventies, our phantoms were painted a matt “dull” grey and white. The Navy phantoms were painted with the same colors that were gloss. We obtained some of the navy paint and did quick repaints of all our birds. The other Marine squadrons were envious of our shiny F-4s.
I always build mine with the “factory showroom finish”. This mainly because I suck at weathering!! [swg] After all, anything ever built had to be new at one time, right? Getting back to the point of this thread, I worked on Harriers while in the USMC, and they were very dirty and weathered, with a matte/dull finish. But, when new, they had a semi-satin look to them (you had to be there to know what I’m talking about). A lot of Navy birds back in the '60, '70s, and early '80s had gloss finishes from the factory, but these finishes soon faded with use.
But, they’re YOUR models - build them in the way that you think is right. You’ll enjoy them a lot more that way!
Most US WWII aircraft were delivered in a flat finish. Warbirds in museums or on the airshow circuit are not a good reference for this point. While they may have the colors that are close to the original, they are are taken care of much more lovingly than a typical military aircraft. Operations tempo in wartime usually dictated that a high gloss finish was the last thing on the maintainence crews minds.
This pre war TBD shows a low gloss finish on the wings and tail areas, but the aluminum is on the dull side
and these new P-51s on the ramp at North American Avaition factory are a good example of delivery finish from US factories in WWII.
I have read that ground crews would wax the dull colors of P-47s and they would pick uip 15 mph.
I’ve read that too, can you imagine that work?! Some times I hate waxing my car now imagine waxing a whole flightline of 47’s…forget it!
Flat finishes were used to prevent light reflectivity. A glint of light could give the planes postion away whether it was sitting on the ground or in the air.
The VC-25 (B747) aka AF One gets hand waxed completely before each Presidential mission.
In the early days, the only glossy miitary aircraft were special mission or those for publicity purposes. When I was in the AF our KC-135As were flat and rough to the touch. Then the invention of polyurethane paints made everything change. Our Wing Commander loved his newl painted staff car with was painted with Imron that he decided his aircraft should be painted with it as well. The tankers all got shiny and flew several knots faster as well as comsumed less fuel. Now aircraft are painted in this fashion, it makes good sense performance and maintenance wise. Though they found ways to make it less reflective but still keeping the smoothness of the finish.
Also, from late in WW2 ntil well into the 1950s, nightfighters and bombers with black undersurfaces often had gloss or satin undersides or, if thy were black overall, wer glossy or satin. As well as making them ust that bit faster or more fuel-efficeint, it was found that matt black absorbed the light from searchlights and made the aircraft stand out against the night sky, making them more, not less, visible.
In fact, since the night sky ove cities is rarely black, black is not an esecially good camouflage colour for night bombers. The Germans realised this faster than the Allies, which is why many of their nightfighters had paint finishes which were mostly RLM76.
Cheers,
Chris.
Concerning the USN gray over white schemes in the 60s and 70s, the white undersides started out glossy, along with the upper moveable surfaces. The gray was matt. At some point, the gull gray went glossy too. Many photos show new Tomcats in very glossy schemes until the 80s and the move to overall gloss gray and subdued markings. Then the matt schemes and the ghost grays took over.
I agree that a semi-gloss is the best compromise for scale effect of a glossy finish.
Mike
I’ve read of fighters being waxed by the ground crew. But it does not look like the case here on this particularly famous P-47.
This is great! Lots of really interesting info. There are times, after the base coat is done when I am loath to “spoil” the finish with weathering; maybe you need to come from a car model background to feel this way. What’s most interesting is that nearly every combination of finishes has been tried or occurred. Thanks for all the input.