Whether to weather

StephenLawson · 27 April 2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecww1

For me the best way to simulate castor oil weathering is to use Testors rubber (in the small square glass bottle) mixed with Testors clear gloss laquer and some regular enamel thinner to give it a watery wash. The clear gloss helps it to look like oil, should be shiney, not dull when dry. I use a thin wash over the engine cylinders, and a little thicker inside the cowling and on the bottom of the fuselage on a rotaty powered aircraft.
Don't forget, this castor oil was only used in rotary engines, so any German fighter powered by a Mercedes/BMW would not use the castor oil, but a standard oil, which probably would not be the brown color. Floquil oily black mixed with clear gloss and thinner is best to use for a wash on inline engines.
Dave

Lets also remember that the Germans were hard pressed to use substitutions for oil at the end of the war. These details can be found in the Aircraft pretty easily. It only here that we would be concerned with the hue of burned oil or its exhaust stains.

Rittersbach · 28 April 2006, 04:14 PM

Greetings all,

One point of interest that I have always felt is forgotten when weathering is the airscrew. I have seen countless builds that are weathered field machines and look fantastic only to have the airscrew look pristine varnished wood. I understand about showing off that beautiful prop but it looks out of place on a weathered model. I mean, think about your ceiling fan in your house. After about a week of many rpms, it gathers dust, oils and bugs. I know they were wiped down and kept as clean as possible, but stains on the leading edge remain.

happy modeling!
ritt

Ross_Moorhouse · 28 April 2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rittersbach

Greetings all,

One point of interest that I have always felt is forgotten when weathering is the airscrew. I have seen countless builds that are weathered field machines and look fantastic only to have the airscrew look pristine varnished wood. I understand about showing off that beautiful prop but it looks out of place on a weathered model. I mean, think about your ceiling fan in your house. After about a week of many rpms, it gathers dust, oils and bugs. I know they were wiped down and kept as clean as possible, but stains on the leading edge remain.

happy modeling!
ritt

Here are some pics of WWI props I took at the Bankstown Airport Museum a few year ago…

Of course age has changed the varnish but I agree that things like the varnish would start to loose it's shine. This would come from the friction of the air passing over it.

Trackpad · 29 April 2006, 10:23 AM

Hi,

IMHO, weathering is a requirement if the subject has seen more than a few days' service. Dust, dirt, mud, oil spills, fuel spills, exhaust and gun residue and so forth will happen. If the idea is to produce an accurate representation of a heavily used subject, I just can't see NOT weathering. Key, though, is understatement: when you know that you need just that extra touch...STOP! As mentioned elsewhere, this is a scale model, so keep the weathering in scale. I use a combination of washes, drybrushing, pastels, and airbrushed colours, all minimized, to produce the effect. Hope this helps. Best to all!

Ross_Moorhouse · 30 April 2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviators6

to me is anything that will distract my attention from the aircraft itself to the weathering. i do favor weathered a/c over 'clean' birds, it is as if i'm painting a picture on a assembled piece of plastic instead of a canvas. i want to create a visual impact within the form of the airframe (am i making any sence?)
in a way weathering has shown that you have done your research for that particular bird. i studied Voss' F.I for a month trying to get it right. replicating weathering details shows that you have invested a certain amount of time into research

The amazing thing about this build is that it's 72nd scale... http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Fab...ex.html#Fokker

StephenLawson · 4 May 2006, 01:26 AM

The Camouflage finish on the previously posted F.I 103/17 makes it easy to understand why slivery-blue could be a long distance intrepretation.

Now concerning the application of weathering. Some great points have been raised. The main thrust seems that it should fit what your trying to portray. Generally that is;

1. Factory fresh condition.
2. After recent unit or personal markings applications.
3. Service at the front after a few weeks.
4. Service at the front during continued activity such as a large series of battles.
5. Service at the end of its career after the afore mentioned activities.

The amount of weathering, damage and etc should reflect a machine at a specific point in its operational career.

As always its up to the modeler to choose but when is it too much? Is it possible to do too much? What are some ways that you can visually tell the story of an aircraft by its condition?

5 May 2006, 03:57 AM

Personally I think dirtying on aircraft is overdone and over-rated. Lets face it most WWI a/c were not around that long between accidents and combat losses. OK there can be some oil staining especially on rotary engined a/c but I would have thought mud spatter from a recent landing would have been wiped off fairly quickly to avoid damage to fabric or wood. Surely a more important question is finish, matt, satin or gloss. This would have varied from factory to factory and year to year at delivery and then there would be changes due to fading in sunlight, the fine abrasive effect of airflow over the surfaces, and any repairs. But no RAF/RFC ground crew man worth his salt would allow HIS aircraft to be seen dirty, especially if the SWO started life in the Brigade of Guards. Some paint chipping may be allowable around maintenance inspection hatches but even that would be touched up when time allowed. A grubby a/c suggests a poorly maintained a/c and a slovenly groundcrew. I do not see a pilot risking his life in one of those. Also a bit of spit and polish might gain him a few precious extra mph. Any way you look at it minor wear is all you should expect to see.

StephenLawson · 5 May 2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPCharlwood

Personally I think dirtying on aircraft is overdone and over-rated. Lets face it most WWI a/c were not around that long between accidents and combat losses. OK there can be some oil staining especially on rotary engined a/c but I would have thought mud spatter from a recent landing would have been wiped off fairly quickly to avoid damage to fabric or wood. Surely a more important question is finish, matt, satin or gloss. This would have varied from factory to factory and year to year at delivery and then there would be changes due to fading in sunlight, the fine abrasive effect of airflow over the surfaces, and any repairs. But no RAF/RFC ground crew man worth his salt would allow HIS aircraft to be seen dirty, especially if the SWO started life in the Brigade of Guards. Some paint chipping may be allowable around maintenance inspection hatches but even that would be touched up when time allowed. A grubby a/c suggests a poorly maintained a/c and a slovenly groundcrew. I do not see a pilot risking his life in one of those. Also a bit of spit and polish might gain him a few precious extra mph. Any way you look at it minor wear is all you should expect to see.

There is no doubt that the nations involved all seem to have a stringent set of policies, rules and procedures concerning aircraft maintenance. But, during high operational situations such as Operation Michael or the final offensive of Aug. 20, 1918 both sides of the line were on the move and patrols increased up to six operations a day. Every day til the war's end. Images we have of aircraft turned in at various depots during this time showed a marked increase in wear and repair. Some couldn't be repaired effectively and were left where they stood when the call to relocate was issued. Exposure to the elements did have its effects. The longer a machine was at the front the more of the factory gloss that was lost overall. Even aircraft with rather short service life spans were problematic.

Alan Toelle historian, author and Fellow to the NASM, has said that even the Spad XIII airframes purchased by the Americans spent an avaerage of 30% of their front line service life in repair status. This is specifically related to the radiators and over heating. Thus causing oil pumps to fail and etc. New Fokker D.VII airframes were written off due to bad landings where the bungee chords failed. This particularly was related to poor or substandard shock cord materials. So poor manufacturing practices can cause weathering of sorts as well.

StephenLawson · 7 May 2006, 05:55 PM

Greetings all;

In my most recent 'bout of building I have been focused on a doing a few Fokker D.VII types. In a review for the Fokker Dual Combo I decided to do the

Jasta Boelcke scheme from the Eduard kit #8133. I built this kit with the intent to show a wornout bird that may have been turned over to the British at Nivelles Belgium at the End of the war. This began strictly an experiment in staining and "over" weathering. Feel free to comment.

Rittersbach · 14 May 2006, 08:56 AM

One other thing about weathering that I have always liked, and I'm sure has been covered at one point on this forum, is the fact that whatever aircraft you are building, that build is what You want it to be. If you want it to be a fresh delivery from factory to a Jasta, then build it that way. Obviously, this build would be relatively clean and free of oil and grease. If you want it to be one of the last offensive drive aircraft then it would be weathered more. The beauty of personal builds is that it is Yours to "image" whatever scenario you choose for it.