Joined: April 20th, 2018, 6:42 pm

June 23rd, 2018, 2:08 pm #41

Asked and answered!


... great fun , eh ?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 22nd, 2018, 7:25 pm

June 23rd, 2018, 5:31 pm #42

I'll go with dirty. I got stuck in the you-tube wormhole late one night and just as I'm seeing a Skyraider on deck with its typical exhaust streaks a sailor jumps on the wing with a scrub bucket and took 'em off, I mean they wiped right off! So much for my established knowledge, I'd always assumed those were burnt into the paint.

Flat paint as in the original poster's photos would probably be more permanently stained, the Skyraider was glossy Gull Gray over White, paints which were chosen to be maintainable. 
I'm not retro, my stash got old. ~John Krukowski
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 6th, 2005, 9:01 pm

June 24th, 2018, 12:58 am #43

I weather my one finished model per year very carefully indeed!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 8:48 pm

June 24th, 2018, 2:58 pm #44

Great.  You showed some pictures of heavily weathered airplanes.  Not all of them get this dirty.  If you have A picture of a heavily weathered airplane then, to be accurate, you should build to that picture.  

That being said, if you have A picture of ONE heavily weathered airplane and you build ALL of your subjects to that standard or instance then you are likely over-weathering your airplane.

Cheers

JS
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 22nd, 2013, 2:40 pm

June 25th, 2018, 8:07 am #45

jvenables wrote: Interesting thread discussion but at the risk of being pedantic, it seems to me that few (if any) of the photos attached by respondents are actually displays of "weathering". Maybe it's just me, but I have always considered "weathering" to be the manifestation of alterations to the original finish due to environmental factors, including fading or bleaching of paintwork; streaking from rainfall; stone chipping; abrasion by dust, sand or ice; mud splatters; etc, etc. Effects such as heavy exhaust stains, oil & fuel streaks, etc don't fall into the "weathering" category in my opinion (though I admit I'm at a loss to what term I would categorise them under). Just my two cents' worth... feel free to shoot me down in flames.
Yeah, I can see why you differentiate - the same plane would have the same kind of 'usage' marks (exhaust, oil streaks) in all conditions, but would have completely different 'weathering' depending on where it was located, the specific season depicted (the north of France is muddy and wet in winter, drier and dustier in summer)... But I suspect that most people use the term 'weathering' in discussion to describe any marks that occur when a plane is in service, and hasn't either just come out of a factory or been freshly repainted & cleaned.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 18th, 2013, 11:57 pm

June 26th, 2018, 2:34 am #46

wally7506 wrote: Great.  You showed some pictures of heavily weathered airplanes.  Not all of them get this dirty.  If you have A picture of a heavily weathered airplane then, to be accurate, you should build to that picture.  

That being said, if you have A picture of ONE heavily weathered airplane and you build ALL of your subjects to that standard or instance then you are likely over-weathering your airplane.

Cheers

JS
Not trying to put you on the spot, but precisely this sort of post....telling other builders in condescending/authoritative tone how they SHOULD build their models....is where the discussion always goes sideways as far as I am concerned.

We are building and painting plastic models here....I personally can never figure out why some builders get so intensely concerned about what OTHER builders do.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 8:48 pm

June 26th, 2018, 3:23 am #47

"to be accurate" ... I think that says it all without being too condescending ... and if it is then most of everything that's here on Hyperscale from kit reviews to reference material is too
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 22nd, 2013, 2:40 pm

June 26th, 2018, 11:55 am #48

"Accuracy" is a funny thing though - you could mix up paint to exactly match a colour chip for a defined colour, but if you paint that colour (which is an accurate match) on a 1/72 model, it won't 'look right' at that scale despite being 'accurate', because our preception of colour changes with scale, distance and area. A small patch of colour might look like a greyish light blue, but when you have covered a wall with it, it will appear much more saturated - a definite blue, no longer the neutral colour it was on the small patch. So in order to make the model 'look accurate', you have to lighten dark colours, use brighter blues etc. despite these colours not being 'accurate' in terms of official colour chips etc.
Last edited by AndrewForrester on June 26th, 2018, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 28th, 2016, 6:50 pm

June 26th, 2018, 2:17 pm #49

I thought it'd be fun to post some pics from when I worked in aviation...

Weathered: 220.JPG
Over-weathered: (not my pic, must have saved it off facebook) 1013781_10153752964765391_1261731879_n.jpg
Over-loaded and under-engined if i remember correctly:
00050018.jpg
Over-crowded:
DSCF0318.JPG
Over-worked:
DSCF0399.JPG
Over-fed: 007 (2).JPG
Over-packaged:
DSCF0618.JPG
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 8:48 pm

June 26th, 2018, 6:14 pm #50

Accuracy IS a funny thing!!!!  If you are painting a model the official paint chip (the ACTUAL CHIP) then paint that.  If want to paint a realistic B-17 (for instance) I would deviate from the paint chip and paint a HALF DOZEN shades of OD on the airframe where I noticed variation IN THE REFERENCE PICTURE of the SUBJECT I was trying to depict.  
Quote
Like
Share