Over Weathering

[StephenLawson]

One of my early 1/48 scale dioramas concerned the machine of Ltn. Immelmann and depicted the mechanic standing on a saw horse wiping down the port wing stain with kerosene and preping to sand the area. The restriction of modeling as Shep Payne put it is that a scene can be incomplete if you don't apply a little cause and effect and show more than just one action. It this case a returning machine is cleaned up. but the kerosene alone would not do the job.

Then take for instance the Russian MS "N" as mentioned earlier. Our member MikeW has in the past spoken his mind about Russian maintenance being less than stellar. Photographic evidence aside anything else is just an interpretation by the modeler.

As always...I just build for ME. I just like to put the "build on a shelf where I can look at it from time to time.

One thing that does concern me is a/c you see in museums. Many of them in Gloss. When asked why...they are easier to keep clean in Gloss.

[Ginger.]

I was always told taught to aim for a 'tired' rather than decrepid look, apart from the SE with the big G on it, as that's always spic and span.

[PeterL]

Originally Posted by Ginger.

I was always told taught to aim for a 'tired' rather than decrepid look, ....

You won't go far wrong with that approach Ginge. Used rather than abused, that's the thing. It is every soldiers duty to keep his weapon, in this case his aeroplane, in a clean and servicable condition. A little dirt on the tyres is fine, wheels caked in mud is over doing it. Oil stains would be investigated as a matter of course. Rigging wires were regularly greased as part of routine maintainance. Engine overhauls were far more frequent than now and cowling panels must consequently have taken a few knocks, but they would have been kept clean. Then as now, good workshop practice demands a place for everything and everything in its place, with no place for dirt and grime. The Flight Sergeant would see to that.

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by Ginger.

I was always told taught to aim for a 'tired' rather than decrepid look, apart from the SE with the big G on it, as that's always spic and span.

Is that with or without the wings? As often as she has been dunked in Zillibeker Zee it has no reason not to be clean.

Hello all,

I always try to study the photographic record, particulalry when modelling a specific plane.

I have indeed seen photos of Moranes, Bristols and other types with chipped paint. Some of those early RNAS float-planes had horribly stained fabric - many had relatively long lifespans. But these are not the norm.

However, when one does come across a photo showing the undersurfaces of a plane, it can reveal a fair amount of dirt. I wonder if dirving one's car at 50 mph through a muddy field would prove to be a comparable experience?

Regards,
Paul

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by PJFisher

However, when one does come across a photo showing the undersurfaces of a plane, it can reveal a fair amount of dirt. I wonder if dirving one's car at 50 mph through a muddy field would prove to be a comparable experience?

Wot? Like this you mean?

This French Naval Sopwith Triplane was not very old, ok I accept the French mechanics might have been a bit sloppy, but this shot does show how extensive the exhaust/castor oil residue could be. There is even a grubby French mechanic adhering to the stuff!!!

Mike

[Tim West]

I find it hard to believe that worn or dirty planes are a rare occurence......in any era.

I worked as press helper for a few summers as a kid and when it was slow it was my job to clean the press. If anyone has ever cleaned a web press, then you know it is a dirty mess. And when you were done it was still a dirty mess. You focus on operational pieces rather than the aesthetic of the press. I can see this being the same for WWI combat aircraft.

Just because a plane was dirty or worn does not mean that it was not well maintained. I would imagine that crews cleaned what needed to be to keep the machines running well but I doubt they would have been spotless.

Again, it seems that either approach is just as valid as the other. There are photos that support both views.

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by MikeW

Wot? Like this you mean?

There is even a grubby French mechanic adhering to the stuff!!!

Mike

Actually that is a great photo. The dirt left from the wheels on the lower wings is a great example of operational wear that probably after time just would not come clean. This may have become "perma-dirt" with in a few weeks, not years.

Another great example of a dirty plane is Frank Lukes Spad 13. Now that is a "over weathered" piece for sure

[jtisch]

I am at a bit of a disadvantage here because I haven't seen these "over-weathered" models, at least not all of them.However, having flown R/C models for over 25 years, I have at least a little knowledge about castor oil.
My very first "gas" powered model was powered by a "leaky" Taiwanese engine with home brewed fuel mixed by my father, a long time modeler, and contained about 20% castor oil. Let me tell you, that model was just about impossible to keep clean. Rubber bands turned into slimy snakes, covering seams were penetrated, and even with window cleaner or other detergents, you could never completely get rid of that "sticky" feeling. This was a model covered with plastic film and sealed with epoxy in the engine compartment.That is the good and the bad of castor oil. It is a superb protectectant and lubricant, but like a bad house-guest, never seems to go away.These days I don' t know of any RC airplane fliers who use all castor lubricant(some use a synthetic/castor mix) and no RC helicopter pilots who use it. They would rather have their engine bearings rust than have to clean up semi-burnt castor oil gunk.

Now, imagine that gunk being spewed out of a leaky rotary engine onto a fuselage of doped fabric. A plane that might have flown 2-5 times a day, into combat. IMHO, if it has a rotary engine and has flown, it needs at least a little evidence of that.

PS: Inline engines are another story