Hi All
I'd like to say right away that I am not seeking to start a row but rather to make a sensible case for less weathering.
I see a lot of fantastic models which for me appear overweathered.
This started when I inherited literally dozens of photos of FAA aircraft (mainly Sea Furies and then Whirlwind helicopters) which my father had flown in the 1950s.
All these aircraft look as if they have just come out of the paint shop!
Now I know that this was peacetime and these are naval aircraft {though often based ashore) and not Luftwaffe aircraft operating from a muddy field on the Eastern front ,however some points still apply.
1 Panel lines.
If you look at restored aircraft of the 40s you will see that the skins seem well applied, nicely let in and riveted. The panel lines are barely visible from10' away.
When I look at references of wartime aircraft , even with obviously well worn airframes I do not see the "jigsaw" of panels that I see on many models.Is there something wrong with my eyes?
2 Weathering
I believe most wartime aircraft were well cared for in the field. Researching the Ju 87 recently I looked at dozens of contemporary photos.
One aircraft showed a significant exhaust stain. This was over a white winter distemper. Obviously attempting to clean it off would take the temporary paint off aswell. All the others showed signs of having been cleaned and were basically in a good clean state.
I've attached a few photos below and,yes, that bloke is polishing that Bf 109s wing! Yes, you can see the kill markings on the fin reflected on the tailplane!
That spitfire doesn't look too shabby either.







I'd like to repeat that I'm not trying to upset anyone. I'm sure there are photos of absolutely filthy aircraft out there. I just think that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Cheers

Steve (running for cover!)

Hi Steve

you can run but you cannot hide ...

IMO weathering is a matter of taste .. the models are artistic expressions from different people. Often discussed is panel lines. I like to accentuate them because it shows the structure of the aircraft. Plain painted models look boring and sometimes toylike to me. OTOH I do not like when people take black for that job .. I am also not a big fan of the preshading stuff .. might be me failing on this technique

Another point to discuss is "when and where" ..e.g desert or dusty eastern front air strips compared to a aerodrome probably with concrete runway in Holland or Sitzkrieg vs. fast advancing troops and operating on potato acres just behind them.

I think your pix are from JG 54 in East Prussia before the attack against the USSR or when re-equipping with a/c on a similar location...

It is a can of worms and I do not want to go into great details. My credo is "suum cuique" if the modeler likes it, it is o.k. and if he/she asks for a comment I will express my opinion ..

all the best

Steffen

Hi Steffen

I absolutely agree that everyone should do what is pleasing to them. I personally like to aim for a realistic finish. For me this precludes stark panel lines and some other weathering. As I said I have seen some absolutely fabulous looking models (artistically) that look unrealistic to my eye. Of course those modellers may well not have been looking for a "realistic"effect! They can certainly do a better job than I can.
I am certainly not averse to a bit of shading. One flat colour,particularly on a large surface like an underside, is very boring.
By the way,I have pretty much given up preshading as the minimal or negligible resultant effect was not worth the effort. Of course this may be due to my bad technique!
Post shading and fading is one of my favourite parts of a build.

Cheers

Steve

Weathering , this could rock the boat . I agree with Steffen and Steve . It's all about the modellers taste . How they see the subjects in their minds . I'll be quite now

Its a question of taste, that is true, and everybody should do it the way he/she likes it.

For me personally, it seems so easy to overdo weathering. Some aircraft come with seamlines as if the real thing would have gaps of several centimeter between the panels, or have rivets which would in reality be heavy M24 bolts.

I suppose that it is the effect that one wants to achieve. I personally am not familiar with weathering techniques and always "scared" to ruin a model by overdoing it. Mostly i use pictures of the real thing as basis and rather apply less than more weathering

I'd like to add my two cents worth, with the confession that I haven't attempted much in the way of weathering because I'm afraid of messing up a paint job which i worked so hard to finish.

As with many things in life and in particular in art, I abide by the maxim that 'less is more'

Even so, a model without a little weathering, fading, and feature highlighting look a little flat. The eye doesn't have much to grab onto.

In a way, I guess, a model is a 3D painting. There are realists, classicists, impressionists, and so on.

As for myself, I'm a classicist - I like my models to look as if they were in a museum.

In which camp do you belong?

Well I,m definitely a realist. My late Dad flew the Sea Fury VR930 which is now with the RNHF.I have one model of the aircraft done with reference to photos taken at Halfar (Malta) in November 1953 by him. According to his log book he flew it in from HMS Glory.I made my own decals etc and weathered the model lightly to match those references. I have another model of the aircraft as it is now (or was before its engine troubles) in its original livery. This is very glossy and effectively unweathered to match photos I have of the aircraft taken at Yeovilton.

I'm glad the concensus is "each to their own"

Cheers

Steve

If you look through enough photos, you will find examples of heavily worn aircraft still in service. The demands of the field often overtook cleaning and re-painting duties. I have some interesting photos showing heavy oil seepages around the engine, heavy paint chipping around the cockpit area, matted and sun-bleached paint with visible fading, fuel spill stains on aux tanks and around filler caps, quick patch jobs on shell holes, panels taken from other planes with different paint, and all the hallmarks of a heavily weathered model. Something that is not often depicted is the battered look of thin metal sheets - German planes often had rippling and waving in some of the access hatches in addition to considerable panel gaps. Panel lines vary considerably, probably due to the construction methods (remember German stuff was basically cobbled together in the later years of the war, sometimes it was sabotaged by shoddy construction or rags stuffed into fluid passages).

Under ideal conditions (ie not constantly flying out to intercept or being in heavy combat) aircraft were routinely cleaned, polished and repainted - especially the planes of high-ranking aces. A glossy paint finish was ideal when possible to maintain minimum wind resistance. But in the realities of the battlefield this was often not possible, and paint became faded, poorly touched up, and the aircraft became dirty all round.

A rule of thumb, if you want to maintain realism - the later the war, the less they cared about cosmetics. And some of the dirtiest aircraft I've seen belonged to the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Weathering is a matter of taste, but it is not "wrong". It's just selective in its references. We have similar debates around armour. The best-looking models use the least-realistic weathering; they look like they have been sitting in the elements for 10 years. But they look fantastic and will win awards.

Hi
However we finish our models, we are all up against the sme problem:- because our models are so small ( perhaps 1:48th the size of the real thing ), one layer of paint on the model would equate to a layer 48 times as thick on the real plane.
I remember one superb build on the internet - it was an Albatros DIII - where the fuselage stringers looked like real wood, and the engine on it's own was so realistic that only the crocodile clip holding it up to the camera gave the game away.
However, when it comes to the weathering, some are overdone to the point that they look like the paint has been slapped on by an eight-year-old. ( sorry guys ! ).
Well done to everyone who has posted a superb model, whether pristine or weathered.

Hi Steven,
First, build what pleases you. Period.

Second, understand that there will almost alwayds be an exception to any rule. Model Railroad Craftsman magazine used to have a monthly article That Ain't Prototypic!. It would spotlight photographic proof to refute someone's "that was never done" decree.

Third, decide if you want to model fact or romance. Accurracy and authenticity, or artistic license.

With that in mind, my models reflect my belief and experience that today's modeling conventional wisdom of shaded and highlighted panel lines is way overdone. This is coming from my background as a trained fine artist / commercial illustrator, almost 30 years as an 3,000+ hours airline transport pilot aviation professional, and 40+/- years studying and actually flying this stuff.

I believe the over weathering is a result of looking at modern military aircraft. USAF fighters' average age is 15-18 years. Even the B-2 is about 15 years old. Some TTB (Tankers transports bombers) are older than I am! This equals a lot of time to get dirty, grimey, repainted, touch-up, etc.

WW2 aircraft generally did not last long enough to get so badly worn. We all see the pix of heavily peeled japanese aircraft. There are reasons for that that I will address later, if desired. We see heavily weathered USAAF and USN aircraft, too. Reasons for that, as well. But most operational aircraft with even a lot of missions do not show the panel line wear that is pontificated by today's modelers. Some panel lining is so shaded that they look like they are quilted instead of flush (yes, and lap-skinned) rivetted.

Enhancing detail, color fade, color shift, i.e., scale effect, all have their place, but in my opinion are way overdone.

Now, back to my 17th month of NOT modeling...
Fred

The overdoing it was kinda my original point. As you say many aircraft did not survive for very long and those that did would surely rack up the hours,particularly on an engine, that would recquire a major service.
I recently saw a lovely pink PRU Spitfire. It was finished with the quilted look you describe and sported a flat finish. I have read that such units actually filled panel gaps and polished the airframe to a high gloss finish. I guess a few miles an hour could save your life when your only option was to run away!
I hasten to ad that this was not a bad model, just not to my personal taste.
Cheers
Steve

Just my opinion here, as for myself I do very little weathering for reasons similar to Fred Rick; I am afraid of ruining the finished paint job I worked hard at applying. Having said that some weathering at times can add something to the aircraft. One thing I would NOT do is pre-shading. I know that is going to get some people upset at me but it dosen't make any sense to me.

Real aircraft aren't pre-shaded along the panel lines. I understand what the desired effect is, I just don't think it adds that much to aircraft. Just my thoughts. Hope you do what makes you happy. Although less is more in most cases I think. All the best. Russell.