Jump to content

Excess weathering


Recommended Posts

I've noticed some models of Navy aircraft have ,what seems to me, too much paint chipping. I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but would a Navy aircraft flying off a carrier have a lot of chipping on the prop and leading wing edge?

I'm asking because I just bought a F4U 1 Tamiya kit and I'm doing a little advance planning on the paint scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Navy or Marines most Corsairs eventually became land based. There was some issue with the Corsair on carriers that made it much easier to operate off of land. Once they attained the islands enough to build air strips they moved the Corsairs there. I can't remember what the issue was though.

Try to find pics of the actual plane you're building and see how it looks. Obviously early on it would have less chipping if you don't want to do the chipping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Navy or Marines most Corsairs eventually became land based. There was some issue with the Corsair on carriers that made it much easier to operate off of land. Once they attained the islands enough to build air strips they moved the Corsairs there. I can't remember what the issue was though.

The issue was the length of the nose blocking the pilot's view during carrier landings. This was overcome by the Brits by making the approach in a long sweeping port turn. Once that technique was introduced the US Marine Corps and Navy began to operate Corsairs off of carriers-the Marine Corps units being primarily based on Escort and Independence type carriers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true enough, when the Corsairs first arrived in the Pacific, they were not authorized for carrier use, and both Navy and Marine units were island based. . Eventually, the problems were fixed, further units, both Marine and Navy, were operated quite nicely off carriers. A lot depends on which Tamiya kit you have. If it's a -1 Birdcage, most of its operations would be off islands. I believe most of the -!as were also so deployed. The F4U-1D was well suited to carrier use, and many squadrons operated them quite successfully from carriers, and would not have the paint chipping associated with use on dirt, coral, or marston matting strips. This is of course rule of thumb, and I'm sure exceptions can be found. Hal Sr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roberto,

If you plan to build yours as a Marine F4U (most of em WERE Marines in the early days), the planes were in all likelihood land based. The Blue Gray as well as the Non Specular Sea Blue upper surface colour tended to chalk and fade heavily, and the upper surface of the wings at the root of the fuselage close to the oil / air cooler inlets tended to quickly weather away down to bare metal in extreme cases.

The fabric-covered sections of the outer wing panels could and often did fade as well. Plus the fuselage aft of the cowl flaps and the upper fuselage tended to be streaked with oil and fuel residue as a result of fuel spillage from repeated re-fuelings.

It was common for the inboard leading edges of the wings to have scratches and chips in them as a result of coral dust, pebbles etc. blown back by the prop wash, and the paint very often wore away from the leading edges of the blades near the tips.

Paint chipping along the outer leading edges was not nearly as common, but the famous "No. 122" was an exception and an extreme example of this.

The above are just generalities regarding typical F4U Wear patters. As others have said, its a good idea to consult photos of the model you intend to build, or at least a photo of another plane from the same squadron to serve as a proxy. No 2 Corsairs weathered quite the same way, and determining the degree of fading of the paint requires artistic interpretation, since very few colour photos of an early Corsair in a wartime environment exist.

Hope that helps,

david

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed some models of Navy aircraft have ,what seems to me, too much paint chipping. I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but would a Navy aircraft flying off a carrier have a lot of chipping on the prop and leading wing edge?

I'm asking because I just bought a F4U 1 Tamiya kit and I'm doing a little advance planning on the paint scheme.

Best bet is to refer to photos of your subject. As a very general rule of thumb, land based Corsairs tended to be beaten up more severely than those on CV's. Especially early versions flying from front-line bases. Many of these bases were constructed from crushed coral which did a number on props and wing leading edges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find about 98% of models to be over-weathered (regardless of where the real thing was based), and especially over-chipped. Yes, paint does chip off of airplanes. But it doesn't chip off in nice even little flakes all over every panel line like a lot of models you see. The current vogue of making models look like Tammy Faye Bakker's makeup, to me, reflects people building models who haven't taken the time to study real aircraft, how they operate, and how they actually weather. They're doing "modern art" versions of historical artifacts instead of trying to replicate how the actual historical artifact actually looked in history. Sort of like the F4U version of Eduard Munch's "The Scream".

Tammy_Faye_MSNBC.jpg

120503_Exp_Scream-EX.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

Edited by Jennings
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find about 98% of models to be over-weathered (regardless of where the real thing was based), and especially over-chipped. Yes, paint does chip off of airplanes. But it doesn't chip off in nice even little flakes all over every panel line like a lot of models you see. The current vogue of making models look like Tammy Faye Bakker's makeup, to me, reflects people building models who haven't taken the time to study real aircraft, how they operate, and how they actually weather. They're doing "modern art" versions of historical artifacts instead of trying to replicate how the actual historical artifact actually looked in history. Sort of like the F4U version of Eduard Munch's "The Scream".

Tammy_Faye_MSNBC.jpg

120503_Exp_Scream-EX.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

I'm not sure how you could make any aircraft as ugly as Tammy Faye short of dipping it in a vat of acid. I just may leave the gigantic eye lashes off mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was the length of the nose blocking the pilot's view during carrier landings. This was overcome by the Brits by making the approach in a long sweeping port turn. Once that technique was introduced the US Marine Corps and Navy began to operate Corsairs off of carriers-the Marine Corps units being primarily based on Escort and Independence type carriers.

It was more than that, the other problems were the starboard wing stalled early and the main gear oleos pressure settings caused too much bounce on landing. These problems were fixed by placing the stall strip on the port wing, which caused that wing to stall at the same time as the other. The oleo pressures were adjusted to minimize the bounce.

Yes, the Brits perfected the landing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I second Jennings feelings re artistic overweathering. One thing I believe in, if you reduce the size of an item, you need to reduce the effects. I particularly get a kick out of for instance, an airplane like the P-47M, which only saw service for less than 2 months, being weathered to a fair thee well, and faded like it had flown in Africa for 3 years. Hal Sr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy answer - refer to your reference, and replicate that amount of weathering. If you aren't using a reference, apply as much (or as little) as YOU want. It is YOUR model, and YOU are the one who has to look at it for the term if its (or your) natural life (whichever is the lesser). That's how I approach that question. Others may not, or do not, have the same approach.

George, out..................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy answer - refer to your reference, and replicate that amount of weathering. If you aren't using a reference, apply as much (or as little) as YOU want. It is YOUR model, and YOU are the one who has to look at it for the term if its (or your) natural life (whichever is the lesser). That's how I approach that question. Others may not, or do not, have the same approach.

George, out..................

I second that - use reference to give you ideas bud, but do what makes you happy unless you build for others rather than yourself...Oh and if you do build it for yourself, be sure not to post it in the critique section because you'll be crucified.

Edited by jugjunkie
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am "hooked" on Heeeavy weathering...but...I base all my "work" on photos of the Real subject...if it is to much..is to much...if it is a litltle...ok I'll weather it ...a little!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more than that, the other problems were the starboard wing stalled early and the main gear oleos pressure settings caused too much bounce on landing. These problems were fixed by placing the stall strip on the port wing, which caused that wing to stall at the same time as the other. The oleo pressures were adjusted to minimize the bounce.

Yes, the Brits perfected the landing.

All those fixes were in, by the time VF-17 left for the Pacific on Bunker Hill. They'd traded the birdcage models in for the -1A before they left. A major reason why they were pulled from the CVG and sent to the Solomons as land-based was logistics. VF-17, at the time, would have been the only Corsair squadron in the fleet which otherwise was equipped with Hellcats. Rather than add the logistics support into the pipeline to support one squadron of a different type A/c aboard the boats, they were sent to operate off land bases where the supply system was already supporting Corsairs.

The F4U-2 night fighter detachments in mid-1944 were a special case, where the unique capability offered apparently justified the additional supply burden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, weathering is a bit like stage lighting for a play: if it calls attention to itself, it's overdone.

Cheers,

Pip

This^

Besides researching how the real deal looked, when I add weathering, my rule of thumb is when I think "maybe just a little more"... STOP! you've done enough. It's very easy to add 'a little more' and 'a little more' and get to the point where you've gone too far.

Another trick is to stop every once in a while during the process, take a step back (literaly) and have a look at what you've done. When you're at nose length and adding weathering techniques, it's easy to lose track of the big picture...

Just my 2 cents.

Marc B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...