On my first Luftwaffe model, a cheap Revell Me-262A1, I finished it with a floquil flat coat. However, looking at various pictures and movies, it seems like the aircraft are slightly shiny. Would satin or matt be more appropriate than flat? Or is Matt the same thing for flat? Can anyone explain the differences and which is used where?
Thanks!

Ion,
I usually use flat coat on my kits, unless I can tell from a photo that they had a gloss finish. Now Matt and flat are the same thing. Now f you find a nice Clear Satin or semi-gloss et me know as I'd love to several kits in Satin over the matt finishes. Glossy is what most restorations are finished as so for movies and whatnot it's what ya get if they are using real birds. For actual aircraft it went by period and country The US Navy for instance switched between gloss and fat finishes several times. Most british aircraft seem to have satin or glossy finish to them. and my favrite were the Japanese who had a nice glossy finish at the start of the war to what appears to be flat to minimal paint all together. Is this a nice mud puddle yet???? Now the Me 262 in the smithsonian in DC suposedly has its original paint finsh it's Semi-gloss or Satin, yet photos on stormbirds.net seem to be flat. Don't know for sure. I've yet to see an original lftwaffe paint job, Again all I have seen are restorations and replicas. So aside from the US Navy, RN, RAF who were more clear in paint names, I go with what looks right. HTH STUG




P.S. Here's a fun way to say flat/matt from WWII Royal Navy/US Navy paint standards Non-Specular. Of note, I just checked some RLM colors I have for my models and they are semi-gloss, However, the same colors from another company are flats. Again it's anyones guess. Fitzer Help!!!!!!

Interesting. Since you mentioned the smithsonian Me-262, I remembered I had some pictures of my own from WPAFB museum.






They do look more flat than satin (the nose on the Me-262 looks a bit more shiny) but then again their undersides aren't very blue either, so who knows...

Thanks!

Hi all,

My guess is that it depends on the color. The 109's with the yellow nose/tail, the yellow is glossy while the camo is satin. Now that is just from the ones I've seen in museums and who knows if they got it right! I bet aircraft generally received gloss or semi-gloss. Even black and white pics show a reflection of light on the paint that you would generally not get with a flat. Another consideration is flat paints create more drag on air flow, a gloss coat or semi may give an extra few MPH/KPH or better fuel burn. That's not as important today with mid-air refueling.... But then I've been drinking my bath water again and might be wrong!

All of the references, that I've seen, say satin finish, with only very early a/c in matt. British a/c were the same, though, because the only reference is to Sky (type S,) everyone assumes that the others were matt. Not true; all paints were S(mooth) finish, apart from RDM2 Special Night, which is a whole thread, on its own.
Edgar

I ususally go for satin finish.

An interesting discussion. Several years ago, I saw a photograph of a F6F sitting on a carrier deck. It was a 1/48 model/dio. I'm not sure but I think it was on the cover of Fine Scale Modeller Magazine. What struck me is that the paint on the Hellcat shined as though the sun was reflecting off it. I realized then that many of the flats we use give a 'heavy' look. Perhaps 'luster' is a better word than shined. In any case, it reflected light, which I'm not sure many of our flats do. Many armoured vehicles do too.
I think it's a scale effect. If our flats were spread out on a large metal surface, they too would have more reflectivity.(Is that the right word?)
Metal is smooth, and therefore shines. Our flat paints are too rough for the small surfaces they cover. I think satin, or semi gloss would be more realistic even if the original were painted with 1:1 scale flats.

Would somebody please explain to me what the H*** I'm trying to say?

luftwaffe finnishes were in fact a semi flat paint , they had a slight sheen to them . although of course they weathered to a full matt over time . an accurate finnish would be an ' eggshell ' . this is only apparent on the full size airframes and is much reduced in model form of course . i would go for satin on a ' new ' aircraft , and weather it according to it's use / age . only aircraft that were regually hangered would retain their original finnish for any length of time . service aircraft often weathered very quickly in the field .

Hi
I tend to go for a satin or eggshell finish for a 'as new 'aircraft, and agree a more genuine matt finish, if its been operational, would be more accurate.

Humbrol matt clear, in the aerosol cans, is not truly matt in my experience, but has a very slight soft sheen to it when it dries. I don't know if the same can be said for the tinlets however. Even if its the same stuff in both, the spray may be affected by propellants etc. It's not a bad compromise, it's almost full matt but has just that slight lustre.


Cheers
Peter

I've just put Humbrol matt enamel varnish on brushed on from the tin and it is really glossy. More so than the semi gloss you get with say, Future or Klear. You might have to thin it quite a bit. I've bought some acrylic flat coat to try to rectify this.
just my 2d

For me, regardless of whether the original was matt or semi-gloss a scale model in our scales should be matt. It's simply because when you scale something down you should also scale down the "lustre". Otherwise the finish seems to draw attention for having a toy like appearance. This goes hand in hand with shades of colour- they really need to be lightened for smaller scales or it looks too dark.

That's why most US Navy aircraft finished in Gloss Sea Blue never seem to look as good, as models, as those in the earlier satin blues- even gloss colours should only be done with a slight shine. But most people do them in full gloss.

In summary, what i'm saying is that when you scale something down, everything gets scaled down including the lustre, otherwise our eyes pick it out and get drawn to it as something not quite right. Always trust what your eyes are trying to tell you and not what your brain is trying to make you think!

Andrew