Weathering and bare metal

[Hal Marshman Sr]

Just looking at some show photos over on Hyper Scale. I do wish folks would do a little research on their chosen subject, before they start putting bare metal patches all over an airplane. case in point is Fred Christiansen's (sp)"Rozzie Geth" razorback t-bolt. Fred flew with the 56th FG. They were based in the UK, and for the most part, their machines were pretty well kept up. There are a few well documented birds that are pretty well beat up, but i've never seen a pic of Fred's so badly scuffed up. Another thing metal chippers fail to consider is this, American airplanes received a primer coat before camouflage paint was applied. I hardly ever see any evidence of this on models, it's either the camo paint, or the bare metal. No One shows it just worn down to the YZC primer. Good grief, these planes weren't built by Kawasacki, but by Republic here in the good old USA, and there was no shortage of material, and we employed talented, skilled workmen to build our planes (and workwomen). There was plenty of primer on hand, and our workers weren't young school kids. This is as bad as seeing metal chipping on a German plane's wooden prop, or just as bad, chipping on fabric covered surfaces, like 40 % of a Corsair's wing surface.

[Jennings]

Or rivets all over a Mosquito :)

[Hal Marshman Sr]

Good one, Jennings!

[JRobinsonUSAF]

How about bare metal chips all over a radome!?

JR

[Grey Ghost 531]

Or open panels and radome on an armed aircraft - oh, wait, people do that all the time because THEY like the look of THEIR model.

[Grey Beema]

Completely agree with everything said. I believe there is a trend for generally over weathering aircraft. It is almost that people are modelling others models rather than the real subject. If it ain't in a photograph then it didn't happen....

In my case I mainly model FAA aircraft. I had a recent debate on another forum with someone who had heavily weathered a specific Seafire. They made a grand job and it looked superbly battered which was fine but as I pointed out to the modeller, the aeroplane was less than a month serving with the squadron when the specific event occurred therefore the aeroplane would still be in good condition even with the effects of salt spray and mechanics dirty mitts...

Interestingly the reply was that all aircraft would be in that state... 😨

[11bee]

Other faux pas

- Natural metal aircraft that looked like they are chrome-plated toys. The real things sat out in the sun / rain / snow and were worked hard. At best, they should be a flat, greyish silver color.

- A heavily weathered, faded paint job with immaculate, glossy decals.

- Bombs that are painted an immaculate shade of OD. If anyone has ever seen color pics of WW2 bombs (especially US ones), they are completely beat to crap. They were stored outside in the mud, were kicked out of trucks, sat in outdoor bomb dumps for months, etc. Every pic I've seen shows them faded, scratched up and filthy. Even bombs used on carrier based aircraft were still beaten up before they were loaded onto the CV for use.

- A nicely weathered exterior with a pristine cockpit.

Edited April 15, 2015 by 11bee

[Paul Boyer]

Even worse, folks on hobby forums saying that others are enjoying their hobby the wrong way.

Withstanding this kind of criticism with a contest model is one thing, but let's leave some space for the 99% of builders who don't want to live up to contest-level criteria.

[Drifterdon]

Withstanding this kind of criticism with a contest model is one thing, but let's leave some space for the 99% of builders who don't want to live up to contest-level criteria.

Or gave up on contests because of this very reason.

[TommyP]

Don't forget to highlight every rivet and panel line with a wash too, because we all know that on real aircraft panel lines are visible from a mile off and stand out like the proverbial on a nudist beach...

And also we all know that each and every panel (regardless of the colour scheme and era/theatre) fades from the centre in a uniform patchwork quilt fashion, don't we?

[Hal Marshman Sr]

I wasn't talking about contest level models. Rather I was taslking about a model put on an open internet forum, for the approval of like minded folks. A goodly portion of those 99% non contest modelers still want their work to be authentic, some to a further degree than others. I am in agreement with the idea that there's too much over weathering. This Corsair is the most heavily weathered model I've done. With all the mission markers, this airplane must have been in theater for a goodly amount of time. Info is that it was a USMC bird on a coral strip in the Gilbert Islands (Tarawa/Betio area). It shows a good deal of dirt, discoloring, fading, and wear.. I worked from several photos of the actual thing. The decals are the Tamiya kit decals. The prop doesn't show much in the way of bare metal, as it was most likely a recent replacement. In that area of the Pacific, in 1944, I can't imagine there was much on hand for refurbishment facilities on that tiny atoll.

[Paul Boyer]

That's fine (and a good looking model, too!), but folks who don't weather (or don't weather "properly") shouldn't be criticized, as some in this thread have done. Yes, we all want to do better, but just sniping at someone's model doesn't help make them better. It's more likely going to discourage them. If someone asks for constructive criticism to help them see what they can improve, go ahead; he's asking for it.

[Hal Marshman Sr]

I personally think threads like this one are a good thing. No one on this site's model has been criticized, but various things have been mentioned that a modeler can look at, and possibly put to work on his own stuff. There are guys who don't know that radomes are fiberglass, or many control surfaces fabric covered, or that some airplanes carried molded wooden props. may not be aware that airplanes were primed. and before you reach bare metal, you have to wear through the primer. Might get someone thinking, and thats a good thing. Saying, "Hey that's great" or "You nailed it", etc might make someone feel good, but what does he learn from them. (By the way Paul, thanks for your kudos.)

[Don]

I personally think threads like this one are a good thing...various things have been mentioned that a modeler can look at, and possibly put to work on his own stuff...Might get someone thinking, and thats a good thing. Saying, "Hey that's great" or "You nailed it", etc might make someone feel good, but what does he learn from them...

I agree with this. I have learned a great deal in my years of modeling by having things I did wrong pointed out to me in an educational and therefore beneficial way (i.e. not a snarky, condescending, know-it-all, "I am the expert so listen to me" way that sadly happens a lot on our hobby). But I actively sought out this advice, assessment, critiquing of my builds.

I suppose it comes down to where the modeler posts his/her model and the rules of the website they have been posted in. It also depends a great deal on if the modeler is actually willing, seeking, and/or ready to learn (the old "lead the horse to water but can't make him drink" conundrum). For example, here on ARC we have the "Display Case" where a modeler can post pictures of their build(s) to get some pats on the back, compliments or perhaps some much needed confidence boosting. They (the modeler) are not looking for/seeking critical posts or constructive/destructive criticism. They just want accolades.

On the opposite side, we have the "Critique" section here on ARC. A modeler can post their build(s) in that section with the expectation that they may get a critical assessment of their model. Some comments may be positive, some very fault-finding, while some containing elements of both. But that's what the modeler is knowingly seeking when he/she posts to a "Critique" section or a website where that is acceptable and therefore they should be prepared to accept other modelers assessments of their build (good/not so good/indifferent). It then falls to them to take from those critiques what they choose to improve their skills or knowledge of modeling and the subject matter. Or take nothing at all.

I think there's room for both types/styles of feedback and both serve a purpose. I think what gets peoples dander up is the unsolicited, unwanted critiquing. We are all modeling for different reasons and so long as we are happy with how we choose to go about our modeling hobby then really that's all that counts.

Its all good. My long-winded two cents.

Cheers all,

Don

[11bee]

That's fine (and a good looking model, too!), but folks who don't weather (or don't weather "properly") shouldn't be criticized, as some in this thread have done. Yes, we all want to do better, but just sniping at someone's model doesn't help make them better.

Paul,

How do you feel that someone has been criticized / sniped at on this thread? Most folks (myself included) want to build the most accurate model possible, within the limits of their abilities. But if someone chooses to ignore some of the pointers that folks have provided above, it's all good. It's their model and as long as they are happy with it, that is all that matters. I've done the same thing many times. I've read lots of great tips on ARC but have not used some because it's too much work, I don't have the skill level to pull it off, don't feel it's appropriate for my subject, etc, etc. I'm still just as happy with the finished product.

I thought the purpose of this forum was to provide assistance to folks, which would include hints, tips and suggestions? It seems that in today's thin-skinned world, even something like this is considered inappropriate because, god forbid, someone takes it the wrong way and becomes upset because some mean person "sniped" at him on a modeling forum.

Pretty sad....

[Grey Ghost 531]

Paul,

How do you feel that someone has been criticized / sniped at on this thread? Most folks (myself included) want to build the most accurate model possible, within the limits of their abilities. But if someone chooses to ignore some of the pointers that folks have provided above, it's all good. It's their model and as long as they are happy with it, that is all that matters. I've done the same thing many times. I've read lots of great tips on ARC but have not used some because it's too much work, I don't have the skill level to pull it off, don't feel it's appropriate for my subject, etc, etc. I'm still just as happy with the finished product.

I thought the purpose of this forum was to provide assistance to folks, which would include hints, tips and suggestions? It seems that in today's thin-skinned world, even something like this is considered inappropriate because, god forbid, someone takes it the wrong way and becomes upset because some mean person "sniped" at him on a modeling forum.

Pretty sad....

The "rivets on a Mosquito" was a direct snipe at someone who posted a question about that in another thread. I thought it was inappropriate. That's why I emphasized "THEY" and "THEIR" on my previous post in this thread.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Grey Ghost 531

[11bee]

The "rivets on a Mosquito" was a direct snipe at someone who posted a question about that in another thread. I thought it was inappropriate. That's why I emphasized "THEY" and "THEIR" on my previous post in this thread.

Agreed. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of rivets on a Mosquito but once pointed out to the OP, if he chose to stay the course and build it that way, the criticism should have ceased.

[ST0RM]

Hal, one thing to note is weathering correctly. While I share your sentiments on the original subject, as on your Corsair, the national insignia are not faded to match the rest of the aircraft. It's an often overlooked step. But it does make a difference.

Jeff

[Hal Marshman Sr]

No they're not badly faded, the pics I was using did not show them faded either. I did give them a few sweeps with a fine sanding stick before taking them from the decal sheet, and made sure the panel lines showed through them. A hair too much flash when taking the photos makes the white parts of the model somewhat stark. Ditto the Intermediate Blue on those areas nearest the camera.

[chuck540z3]

One thing that comes to my mind as I read this thread and many others, is that some of those who snipe other modeler's work the most, never post pics their own builds. Before you point fingers, let's see what you've got. My guess is that your models aren't perfect either.

[11bee]

One thing that comes to my mind as I read this thread and many others, is that some of those who snipe other modeler's work the most, never post pics their own builds. Before you point fingers, let's see what you've got. My guess is that your models aren't perfect either.

Out of curiosity, are you directing your comments to anyone in particular (since you specifically reference this thread)? Pretty sure that most of the people who had posted constructive comments on this thread also have had multiple builds here on ARC. I guess I'm just not clear on what your point is. Are you suggestion that one needs to have built a perfect model before they can comment on another build or provide constructive suggestions on how a build could be improved?

If that is the case, ARC is gonna get really quiet in the future.

It's funny - when I posted my first build here on ARC, I had lots of people jump in to flag issues that I missed or provide suggestions on how to improve my project. I was flattered that folks took the time to provide pointers. I guess I should have been p-o'd at them for "sniping" at me.

[chuck540z3]

Out of curiosity, are you directing your comments to anyone in particular (since you specifically reference this thread)? Pretty sure that most of the people who had posted constructive comments on this thread also have had multiple builds here on ARC. I guess I'm just not clear on what your point is. Are you suggestion that one needs to have built a perfect model before they can comment on another build or provide constructive suggestions on how a build could be improved?

You have used the word "constructive" twice about comments in this thread above which I perceive as snipes and not constructive at all, so perhaps we just disagree on the intent of these comments. My perception is not alone, as indicated by Paul below:

That's fine (and a good looking model, too!), but folks who don't weather (or don't weather "properly") shouldn't be criticized, as some in this thread have done. Yes, we all want to do better, but just sniping at someone's model doesn't help make them better. It's more likely going to discourage them. If someone asks for constructive criticism to help them see what they can improve, go ahead; he's asking for it.

I am not going to point out any one individual for their comments, because that would not be constructive and would cause a flame war that I'm too old to care about- and it's not what ARC is all about either. The flip side of my point is that those modelers who do excellent work and share detailed pics of their builds, rarely if ever, criticize the work of others. There's a message in that.

Edited April 16, 2015 by chuck540z3

[Mfezi]

If it ain't in a photograph then it didn't happen....

I disagree with this completely. I'll cite two examples from personal experience: I was on contract conducting flight testing with a certain foreign air force (sorry, I don't think it is a good idea for me to mention which one). This particular air force is rather well known for its immaculately maintained aircraft - if you look for pictures anywhere on the internet, their aircraft look like they just came out of the paint shop. Anyway, we had a snag on one of the aircraft and they had to pull a backup aircraft out of the back of the hangar for us in order to finish the test program. I could not believe my eyes: This aircraft was filthy! It looked like "Spanish school" on steroids. In fact, it wasn't just dirty, in some areas the paint was faded as if it had been standing in the sun for weeks. I expected them to clean it at least, but the guys told me that is how they look after a few days of operations anyway and they assured me that underneath the exterior filth it was in perfect working order and perfectly maintained (which turned out to be true). I still have never seen a picture of any aircraft of that air force on the internet that looked anywhere close to what I saw with my own eyes - and we flew it like that for the rest of the program. And for what it is worth: Although this aircraft looked like crap outside, the cockpit was spotless. I think it is because of the harsh conditions that quickly cause the exterior to deteriorate, but since cockpits are usually kept closed, the same doesn't happen inside.

Second example: A lot of people claim you won't see any open panels on a fully armed aircraft. Besides the fact that some aircraft need a panel or two open during a normal startup regardless of how it is armed, I have, once again, many times in the flight test environment experienced situations where normal procedures were just not possible. For example, sometimes after startup FTI (flight test instrumentation) have to be initialised or activated, requiring panels around the aircraft (very often inside pylons) to be open until the engine had been started. It is not normal procedure during operations, no, but as far as I am concerned if it happened once, there is no reason why you can't model it like that. Add a "cover story" to why it looks the way you depicted it, and you are good. Once again in none of these situations were anyone taking pictures of the aircraft in that state (armed with open panels and people all around the aircraft), because of the security situation.

Want to build a parked Spitfire with its flaps down? Go for it and put a young pilot figure next to the wing with a figure of a wing commander shouting at him for leaving the flaps down. Or put a kneeling maintenance guy next to the dropped flap as he tries to trouble shoot some problem. Or simply state it was left down for maintenance.

As for weathering in general: I feel the trick is to achieve in the end what you aimed for. Well executed weathering will look like a model of a weathered real aircraft. Badly executed weathering will look like a dirty toy. The "art", if you want to call it that, is to make it look like the former and not the latter. In more than 30 years of building models I still struggle to get it right, but I have very high regard for those who are able to do it well.