Yes or no to Weatherd/Distressied Model Airplanes (1 Viewer)

[ivanmoe]

Thought I'd poll the group on this subject. Adding plausible weathering to a model can be difficult and expensive. Doing it consistently, so that all the models in a production series appear more or less the same, is likely even more challenging. Please feel free to express your thoughts on the subject after you vote.

-Moe

 

[ivanmoe]

So, I'll kick this off. I voted "In general, No," because I've seen more bad embellishment than good. However, John Jenkins does it very well. Hence, my vote. I'd prefer to keep this positive, BTW. So, please try to cite examples of successes (rather than abject failures). Below, the underside of a Jenkins' triplane. Note the wash that highlights the ribs in the wings and the faux mud aft of the undercarriage:

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Have to say, with the exception of the excellent job that JJD does on his aircraft, I don't much care for weathering because it is not done very well in most cases. I also like my die-cast aircraft, such as my yellow-wing collection, bright and clean looking. I don't mind a little exhaust discoloring but paint flaking is very difficult to do well and I prefer the paint left untouched. -- Al

 

[uksubs]

For me I don't like plane that look brand new and like a bit of weathering

 

[ivanmoe]

Have to say, with the exception of the excellent job that JJD does on his aircraft, I don't much care for weathering because it is not done very well in most cases. I also like my die-cast aircraft, such as my yellow-wing collection, bright and clean looking. I don't mind a little exhaust discoloring but paint flaking is very difficult to do well and I prefer the paint left untouched. -- Al

Hi Al,

I agree with your comments about exhaust stains. One of the strengths of this approach is that the stains can be reproduced fairly consistently. With some of the more complex techniques, such as the application of washes, the manufacturing challenges likely become more problematic.

As you are aware, Jenkins does a lot of work with what are apparently pigmented mediums. For instance, it sometimes goes to considerable lengths to "dirty things up." A couple of years back, I had a laugh over the pic below with another JJD collector:

Clearly, Jenkins has gone to considerable lengths to create the illusion of dirt and grime on the surface of the wing and roundel. The irony at the heart of our amusement was that the both of us had devoted many an hour to keeping our models clean. Now, we were buying them "filthy" off of the shelf! I have no idea, whatsoever, as to how Jenkins is able to do this so well, so consistently. And he's not talking, either!:wink2:

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Hi Al,

I agree with your comments about exhaust stains. One of the strengths of this approach is that the stains can be reproduced fairly consistently. With some of the more complex techniques, such as the application of washes, the manufacturing challenges likely become more problematic.

As you are aware, Jenkins does a lot of work with what are apparently pigmented mediums. For instance, it sometimes goes to considerable lengths to "dirty things up." A couple of years back, I had a laugh over the pic below with another JJD collector:

Clearly, Jenkins has gone to considerable lengths to create the illusion of dirt and grime on the surface of the wing and roundel. The irony at the heart of our amusement was that the both of us had devoted many an hour to keeping our models clean. Now, we were buying them "filthy" off of the shelf! I have no idea, whatsoever, as to how Jenkins is able to do this so well, so consistently. And he's not talking, either!:wink2:

-Moe

Some of my preference for the dirty JJD aircraft is the obvious skill and realism he brings to the work but it is also seated in the fact that WW1 aircraft were never clean. The airfields were grass or dirt, the maintenance facilities were crude and make-shift, and the storage for the aircraft was very basic. Mostly, it was the aircraft themselves, made out of fabric and propelled by motors that threw oil and fuel everywhere, that just drew dirt to themselves. It was impossible to have a clean WW1 aircraft, thus my affection for the JJD technique. Later aircraft, such as my yellow-wings, might have had fabric but also had a lot more time to devote to keeping clean (indeed, it was a point of pride with the inter-war USN) and improved facilities for maintenance and storage. As to WW2 aircraft, I simply prefer the metal aircraft cleaner, with less weathering. -- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

For me I don't like plane that look brand new and like a bit of weathering

You are by no means alone in your preference, so be at ease. Depending on the model and the environment that it occupies, weathering could be viewed as something of a necessity. For instance, consider attempting to model the aircraft below:

In the setting above, I'd be hard-pressed not to acknowledge that a degree of weathering is warranted. I suppose the more appropriate question in this instance would not be "weather or not," but rather, "how to weather, and by how much?"

Let me acknowledge that my life doesn't revolve around building models. I also have to admit that I don't have the skills to pull something off like what's pictured above. However, I know some fellas that really do know their business. On more than one occasion, I've seen them start out in pursuit of a difficult rendering like that, only to quietly can the whole project when they weren't satisfied with the outcome. Months or even years later, they sometimes resurrect the corpse and attempt to save it. I'm mentioning this because I believe that it's important to entertain the notion that it's not one bit easier for a manufacturer to weather a model than it is for an individual. This is particularly true when we consider the fact that many models from TS-models have production runs in units of several hundred, or more.

To my way of thinking, there are some fairly serious requirements for a manufacturer which wants to do justice to an aircraft model, with weathering or without:

1) The "builder" has to bring it's manufacturing processes into alignment with the rendering challenges involved in a particular build.

2) The "builder" has to properly research the model in question. This may sound obvious, but I'm sometimes shocked at how poorly researched a model appears to be.

3) The "builder" has to insure that adequate resources are devoted to production of the model. If costs rise along with the fidelity of the model, so be it.

A lack in commitment in any of those three areas is almost certain to lead to disappointment, at least in my case. We know that it's doable, because of the Jenkins example. The price-point may have to rise above Jenkins floor of $200, but I, for one, can live with that.

-Moe

 

[ivanmoe]

Later aircraft, such as my yellow-wings, might have had fabric but also had a lot more time to devote to keeping clean (indeed, it was a point of pride with the inter-war USN) and improved facilities for maintenance and storage.

Hi Al,

You are, of course, exactly right. The carriers didn't spend much time at sea, and the pilots flew just enough to stay sharp. Peacetime appropriations didn't allow for more. Maintaining the force was everything, and sailors had to be kept busy. The focus on manicuring ships and planes was the perfect regime for making it so.

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Hi Al,

You are, of course, exactly right. The carriers didn't spend much time at sea, and the pilots flew just enough to stay sharp. Peacetime appropriations didn't allow for more. Maintaining the force was everything, and sailors had to be kept busy. The focus on manicuring ships and planes was the perfect regime for making it so.

-Moe

It is impossible to find any period or phase of history I like more than WW1 aviation and the WW1 French Army, but USN aviation, from inter-war through the end of WW2 would come close. Gotta love those Wings of Gold.:wink2:^&cool -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Depends on who is weathering the aircraft. I voted no because of some of the recent weathering to aircraft. I am not sure that factory weathering can be done to the standards that many collectors wish for or, so it seems.

JJD may be the only exception to the norm as their WWI aircraft are well done
Mitch

 

[zblang]

I like weathering since I am completely untalented to do it myself and don't like the plane to look brand new. That being said, at one point all of these planes were pristine and new. I just think pristine looks fake in a dio

 

[6th Wisconsin]

I like some weathering /distress on most planes (agree that JJD does a fabulous job), but on some models, such as a nice silver WWII model, less weathering appeals. One thing I don't love is black lines, but it hasn't kept me from making a purchase.

 

[ivanmoe]

One thing I don't love is black lines, but it hasn't kept me from making a purchase.

I feel obligated to chime in here, as there's more than one way to render those "black lines." The shading can be introduced with a darkened linear undercoating which conforms to a model's panel lines prior to the application of (a) topcoat(s). They can be the product of a diluted "wash" being poured over the surface until the applicator is satisfied with what's been introduced into the model's surface detail. Finally, they can be painted directly into the surface channel in question. Excluding the Jenkins' models that I've made reference to, I believe that TS-makers rely most frequently on the last of three techniques.

-Moe

 

[ivanmoe]

Well, it appears as though the "weathered faction" has carried the day. I followed the voting yesterday, and was somewhat surprised when the tally was 6-1, against weathering. However, the opposition rallied and went on a 9-0 tear! Thanks to everyone who voted. Take pride in all your TS-treasures, be they muddy or clean!

-Moe

 

[Gunn Miniatures]

I feel obligated to chime in here, as there's more than one way to render those "black lines." The shading can be introduced with a darkened linear undercoating which conforms to a model's panel lines prior to the application of (a) topcoat(s). They can be the product of a diluted "wash" being poured over the surface until the applicator is satisfied with what's been introduced into the model's surface detail. Finally, they can be painted directly into the surface channel in question. Excluding the Jenkins' models that I've made reference to, I believe that TS-makers rely most frequently on the last of three techniques.

-Moe

We are working on different weathering techniques and less black lines, so stay tuned!
Best Vicki

 

[theBaron]

I understand the objections people have made. In the scale modeling world, weathering is often overdone, and especially, panel lines are shaded to a ridiculous degree. A widely-held opinion about this is that this is what judges expect to see on models in competition. For my own builds, I want my model to look realistic, and I use as many photographic references as I can find. So, a Mustang in the ETO might have faded OD and some staining, but generally, the ground crews worked pretty diligently to keep their aircraft clean. And an F4U in the Pacific could be heavily faded, with chipping and sand-blasting from sand kicked up by prop wash. And depending on the date and campaign, the aircraft might show a lot of patching and repairs--maybe a part that's a slightly different color, because it was replaced with one from a different aircraft. And a F3F would be spotless.

I don't mind if a ready-made model is weathered, as long as it's realistic, but many of you are correct, too often, it's overdone.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Gunn Miniatures]

I understand the objections people have made. In the scale modeling world, weathering is often overdone, and especially, panel lines are shaded to a ridiculous degree. A widely-held opinion about this is that this is what judges expect to see on models in competition. For my own builds, I want my model to look realistic, and I use as many photographic references as I can find. So, a Mustang in the ETO might have faded OD and some staining, but generally, the ground crews worked pretty diligently to keep their aircraft clean. And an F4U in the Pacific could be heavily faded, with chipping and sand-blasting from sand kicked up by prop wash. And depending on the date and campaign, the aircraft might show a lot of patching and repairs--maybe a part that's a slightly different color, because it was replaced with one from a different aircraft. And a F3F would be spotless.

I don't mind if a ready-made model is weathered, as long as it's realistic, but many of you are correct, too often, it's overdone.

Prost!
Brad

Can I ask, could an aircraft appear too clean?
Best Vicki

 

[ivanmoe]

Can I ask, could an aircraft appear too clean?
Best Vicki

Hi Vicki,

Aircraft were brand-spanking-new at some point. As time passed staining and corrosion occurred. The advantage of depicting the former over the latter is that we know what a new one "should" look like. The difficulty with depicting one that's stained and/or corroded is that we're reduced to imitation of effects that are suggested in photos, frequently images in black and white. Even color photos can vary wildly in tint from snap to snap of the shutter. For instance:

So, which one is closest to the real deal? Well, we have an advantage in this instance because we can go to the Federal Standard color charts and pick out the appropriate shades of blue and gray. This is the great advantage of rendering aircraft models as "factory-fresh."

On the other end of the spectrum, we find this:

It's basically the same type, an F4U Corsair. However, in this instance, we really don't know what those colors are. It's heavily stained and corroded. Note the tires on the wheels. That's coral dust on them, I believe. I don't think that the FS color charts have an entry for that material. In other words, a whole lot of guesswork is involved in rendering a replica in so distressed a state. I've seen examples that are awfully cool, but the rendering has to be taken with a grain of salt. I'd also note that I've seen a whole lot more bad "weathering" than I have good. At it's best, I'd suggest that it would also be difficult to do uniformly/consistently across a production run of the same replica. Finally, it would be disingenuous of me not to note that there's a middle ground between these two extremes, I just don't know if I can convey what that might be without the use of my hands!

-Moe

 

[theBaron]

Can I ask, could an aircraft appear too clean?
Best Vicki

Yes, depending on the context. You wouldn't expect to see an F4F or a TBF from Henderson Field in August 1942 in unfaded blue-gray over gray, as if it just arrived from Bethpage, for example. But Moe makes good points about the difficulty of reproducing weathering effects across an entire line of ready-made collector's models. Probably it's best to error on the conservative side of things and not overdo it on your product, and let collectors weather their own or request special one-offs from the factory.

Prost!
Brad

 

[damian]

I said no
Most weathering looks terrible