Dirty kits...

[Hurry]

Why are aircraft kits so dirty?

It seems that when aircraft kits are done... they almost ALL have to be dirty...

I understand weathering and aging... that in combat... an aircraft can not be maintained as if it were stateside, paint chipping, faded out paint colors...etc.. are to be expected from being out in the elements... BUT... that being said, the aircraft would NOT have been left filthy even in the combat area...

Ground crews take pride in their work... especially on their engines... cause they know if something goes wrong its on them. Sure, there will be back burn off the exhaust... but it won't stretch half way down the side of an aircraft and every now and then, ground crews would wipe off what they could get off.

The same goes for the gun ports they don't leave powder soot on the leading edges... if they're dirty its from grease and oils used on the weaponry but not from the guns firing... these aircraft were maintain as meticulously as they could be in the field... aircraft even in the combat areas were not tolerated to be left in a state of filth and disrepair...

There WILL NOT be oil left ALL over the side of an aircraft... there will be oil and grease in those place where it seeps from and is used for lubrication but, if an aircraft had oil leaks as bad as some of the models I've seen both here and in my 31 years... I'd swear their engines would have seized before leaving the runway ... lol

When I build my models.. I use actual photos of the conditions and the manner in which the aircraft were maintained... it adds to the realism and it doesn't look... overdone... in the realm of vintage aircraft... I think less is more...

Respectfully,

Hurry

[arnobiz]

Eternal debate... The point is that clean kits easily look like toys, and weathering is fun! Beyhond that each modeller builds kits as he likes

Arnaud

[Shar2]

Conversly, those modellers who build Sea Harriers never make them dirty enough IMHO. The aircraft I worked on looked dirty even after we had cleaned them.

[martin77]

Yeah total agree with the above. In my experience especially in the UK, aircraft do get very dirty, with ground crew walking and climbing all ove the airframe. As for oil and leaks, i think all aircraft leak fluids, especially when parked, so when they fly the airflow streaks the oils down the airframe. I dont build many WWII stuff, but on modern fast jets this is quite common, which doesnt mean they arent maintained to a very high standard, but guns on modern aircraft do leave alot of staining from combat or range firing. And with the theatre of ops for recent years e.g Iraq, Afghanistan, they do take a hit from the elements, sun, dust, dirty air at low level, and harsh winters can all take its tole on an airframe.

[davidelvy]

There WILL NOT be oil left ALL over the side of an aircraft... there will be oil and grease in those place where it seeps from and is used for lubrication but, if an aircraft had oil leaks as bad as some of the models I've seen both here and in my 31 years... I'd swear their engines would have seized before leaving the runway ... lol

When I build my models.. I use actual photos of the conditions and the manner in which the aircraft were maintained...

Respectfully,

Hurry

You make a fair point. However, sometimes the photographs do show a considerable amount of filth. There are plenty of pictures of Spitfires with heavy streaks of oil on their undersides, which on a model would look overdone.

[Giorgio N]

There will always be as many opinions as there are modellers on this matter !!!

Me, I'll look at pictures and try to understand the "character" of the subject: the A-1 for example was notorious for its huge exhaust stains, the Lancaster had the famous 3 exhaust streaks per wing, the F-4s have incredibly dirty undersides and so on. Not adding these is not an error (I mean, these must have been clean at some point in their life) but detracts somewhat from the character of the subject.

Other planes got very dirty in certain situations, like the USMC crusaders in Vietnam (they really were filthy !). And others always seem to be clean, like the F-15. Again, some might have been cleaner and some dirtier, but if the model has to convey a certain idea of the subject, the dirt (or lack of) is something worth adding.

[general melchett]

Have to agree that weathering is one way of stopping the model looking rather toy like. It's a difficult one as it's all down to perception and I think that this is where good research really comes into its own. I just think that most models look a lot more interesting weathered than not but only if done carefully. Certain machines, especially display aircraft in particular are obviously kept pretty well spotless, but others such as operational types working in a harsh environment, (ie desert or middle/far Eastern) with rapid mission turnarounds wont have much time spent on making sure they are nice and shiny, just look at the state of the Gulf War Tornados and Jaguars not to mention the heavies of Bomber Command during the War. The same goes for gloss finishes. I try not to ever use gloss as an overall finish because due to scale, imperfections, scale viewing distance and the fact that a real aircraft is built up of many seperate panels all with seperate reflective properties the end result always seems more satin to my eye than a 'sheet of glass' gloss shine. Just my personal thoughts on the subject...the eye of the beholder and all that!

A good friend of mine was a nav on Tornado F3's at Coningsby and I used to go across there quite often to have a close look at the aircraft on the flight line and undergoing servicing, (funnily enough more so the latter!!) and was amazed at the very weathered condition of most of them. He told me that cleaning them wasn't really high on the agenda, unsurprisingly and that quite often during a stand down the young erks were given a bucket and mop and told to 'get on with it!'...

Melchie...

[Albeback52]

I think The General has made some valid points and, I tend to agree that it is all in the eye of the beholder. All aircraft, at some point in their career will be nice, clean & shiny so, I think it is just as valid to have a nice clean aeroplane as it is to have one with a well used look. For most of my modelling career, I've not bothered with weathering but, recently, I've been experimenting with the Pro Modeller weathering washes. I must admit, I've gotten to quite like them. I'll probably do a mix of "clean" and "dirty" types from now on.

I've (hopefully) attached photos of a couple of attempts. The TU-22 is of course a "what if"

Anyhow, please feel free to comment, criticise & advise. I'm always open to suggestions & advice.

Allan

Edited November 29, 2011 by Albeback52

[Hurry]

I have nothing against weathering perse'... an aircraft out in the elements..(sun, wind, rain...etc..) its not going to have a factory finish...

However, dealing with WWII aircraft... whether it be in the ETO, the MTO, the PTO or the CBI... if they have the time.. they are going to clean/give the aircraft a once over to maintain it in an orderly fashion. They won't leave it in a state of filth... if they can't get it off? Then they can't get it off but, they get what they can.

Regards,

Hurry

[Iain Ogilvie]

Weathering has always been a controversial topic amongst modellers and there's no 'one size fits all' IMHO.

Like others - I try to match (as best I can) what I can see in photo's of an aircraft type - and preferably the specific aeroplane I'm trying to model.

I'm a big fan of less can be more and subtlety in my models.

Here's my recent 109F - was fairly new when it wore this scheme and appeared pretty clean in photo's - some subtle exhaust staining, chipping, boot marks, panel detailing:

And here's a more weathered Curtis Hawk - with weathered decals as per the original (paint faded less under the areas where decals were varnished over) and 'oilier' panels around the cowl and wing root fairings (yes - I really should add some dust/earth to those wheels - far too pristine! ):

As others have said - there are photo's showing WWII a/c looking very dirty and oily and it's nice to have a go at replicating!

But - it's a personal hobby you *SHOULD* build a model to suit you - not others' opinion - but that's just my opinion!

Iain

Edited November 29, 2011 by Iain (32SIG)

[Hurry]

See... now those to me... look realistic... not a toy, not a model... but as if someone seriously shrunk down a real piece of WWII history.

They have the wear from foot traffic, the slight amount of soot off the exhaust... a little weathering from the elements...

I agree, its DEFINITELY a personal hobby... but, to create that realism, less is more...

Regards,

Hurry

Edited November 29, 2011 by Hurry

[Harry Lime]

My feelings on weathering are that it is down to personal taste. I aim for something that looks right to my eye, but that may not be right to another. I've seen some models that I think have been ruined by overdone weathering or by a total lack of it. If there is no weathering, the model just looks too bland and sterile for me. Conversly, if the effect is overdone it looks just as artificial. For me, subtlety is the key to successful weathering as I think it should enhance the overall effect of the model.

Mark.

[Kitkruncher]

I absolutely agree it is down to you to portray what you think is realistic as you see fit. But there is plenty of evidence of war weary aircraft in a mucky state - which if modelled would probably be panned as excessive.

Below is my Airfix Spit XII. You might think that the underside oil/hydraulic streaking is a bit OTT, but it is based on some shots in Airfix Model World March 2011. If you look on pages 47 and 49 (shan't post the pics as not sure about copyright) there are a couple of really mucky underside shots of a XII - these things really did get messy. If anything my rendition is a bit too clean!!. Long story short - it's your model and your hobby - don't let others tell you how it should be

Cheers

Jim

[Iain Ogilvie]

From photo's I've seen of Spit undersides I'd say that looks excellent - not OTT at all!

EDIT Isn't that part of the fun - trying to replicate effects like that!

From http://www.jetplanes.co.uk

Iain

Edited November 29, 2011 by Iain (32SIG)

[Kitkruncher]

I rest my case m'lud. Thanks Iain

[Hurry]

North Africa:

Europe:

Pacific:

I rest my case... clean and maintained even in the field. lol

Regards,

Hurry

Edited November 30, 2011 by Hurry

[Giorgio N]

Hurry, the pics you posted actually show some interesting examples of dirt. Look at the Mustangs and notice the stains on the fuselage sides. Give the same planes another 6 months on the line and those stains might get much worse !

[Starfighter]

Well, all I can say is that I worked on Phantom FGR 2's at Bruggen in the early 70's and our birds used to get pretty filthy and oily , especially underneath. We did wash them fairly regularly, but they still got pretty grubby.

Some sections, especially the tops of the intakes were re-painted with a fairly rough, matt paint where the original had worn away. The only time they looked REALLY clean was when they were re-painted after a major servicing in Aldergrove.

Still. as everyone says, I guess it's just a matter of personal taste, but I like my models to have that slightly "Lived in" appearance.

[Gajman]

Hurry, the pics you posted actually show some interesting examples of dirt. Look at the Mustangs and notice the stains on the fuselage sides. Give the same planes another 6 months on the line and those stains might get much worse !

True, but at the time those pics were taken the aircraft were pretty clean, so there is an argument for building clean as much as there is for building dirty.

Gary

[Giorgio N]

True, but at the time those pics were taken the aircraft were pretty clean, so there is an argument for building clean as much as there is for building dirty.

Gary

Actually there's another argument for building clean: many WW2 fighters did not last for 6 months ! Some sure did but many aircrafts we modeller represent had a short life and did not have much time to get very dirty or even worn.

However even some pretty clean aircrafts as those in the pictures are not that clean if analysed more carefully, as the stain I mentioned show. Some of them are actually not that clean at all..

[Nick Millman]

What's so wrong with models looking like toys? And actually I think they look more like models than toys unless you would also describe aircraft manufacturers models as toys.

Personally I like models that look like models (or toys), even made OOB 50 year old kits. I like weathering too and models that look so real you could see a miniature pilot climbing in and taking off.

But some weathering has its roots more in artistic imagination than in reality, especially those models that seem to have attracted all the soot off a Victorian building. I suppose if you are going to add dirt and grime it should be scale dirt and grime.

[tonyot]

Having looked at all of those photos of real aircraft, every one of them would need the addition of weathering to make accurate models of them! The first P-38 has extensive exhaust staining along the top of the booms which has also spead onto the fins and all have dirty tyres and oily streaks on their surfaces somewhere so I don`t see your point? Maybe home based American based WW2 aircraft which never saw a dirt strip due to miles of concrete and tarmac and had copious numbers of ground crew available to keep them clean may suit your needs but front line operational units, both in war and peace have more pressing needs to meet before they even they even consider cleaning aircraft, especially where British units are concerned, where manpower has always been in short supply and multi tasking is taken for granted! In a British unit if you were caught cleaning your aircraft you would probably get told to go and help somebody else rather than wasting your time, unless of course it was the cockpit plexiglass which was always kept immaculate.

All the best

Tony O

[Dr Evil]

Absolutely, all aircraft will be dirty/weathered, just a question of to what extent and how closely you look. Plus of course grot looks cool!

[turnerdad]

Why are aircraft kits so dirty?

It seems that when aircraft kits are done... they almost ALL have to be dirty...

I understand weathering and aging... that in combat... an aircraft can not be maintained as if it were stateside, paint chipping, faded out paint colors...etc.. are to be expected from being out in the elements... BUT... that being said, the aircraft would NOT have been left filthy even in the combat area...

Ground crews take pride in their work... especially on their engines... cause they know if something goes wrong its on them. Sure, there will be back burn off the exhaust... but it won't stretch half way down the side of an aircraft and every now and then, ground crews would wipe off what they could get off.

The same goes for the gun ports they don't leave powder soot on the leading edges... if they're dirty its from grease and oils used on the weaponry but not from the guns firing... these aircraft were maintain as meticulously as they could be in the field... aircraft even in the combat areas were not tolerated to be left in a state of filth and disrepair...

There WILL NOT be oil left ALL over the side of an aircraft... there will be oil and grease in those place where it seeps from and is used for lubrication but, if an aircraft had oil leaks as bad as some of the models I've seen both here and in my 31 years... I'd swear their engines would have seized before leaving the runway ... lol

When I build my models.. I use actual photos of the conditions and the manner in which the aircraft were maintained... it adds to the realism and it doesn't look... overdone... in the realm of vintage aircraft... I think less is more...

Hurry

,

You serious? Never seen pics of Mustangs, Spits, P-47's covered in oil and grime? Delve deeper, the condition of the aircraft would usually reflect the tempo of operations, some were easier to clean than others, the NMF types being an obvious example but give them 2 weeks operating in the snow, sleet, mud and rain of continental forward operating bases after D-day and during some of the most intense fighting over the Ardennes (among other actions) having clean shiny airplanes became less of a requirement. Of course they could and would have been cleaned at some point to a greater or lesser degree but they did and would get very dirty very quickly. I've hardly seen a belly pic of any fighter, modern or vintage that isn't covered in oil leaks and staining of some degree. I use photos of the real things too and I generally weather quite heavily, I prefer the look and in my opinion if done well just looks more interesting. Well built clean aircraft can look stunning too, I guess it's a matter of taste rather than historical "certainty".

Edited December 27, 2011 by turnerdad

[Scarlet]

I do like to see weathered aircraft, but this can be overdone and needs to be kept in perspective. A gloss finish don't weather as much as a matt finish, fact.

RAF aircraft are washed regularly, some more often than others depending on their role. The Wessex I worked on (SARTU) were washed and sprayed with PX24 (WD40) about every fortnight due to them operating over the sea and so were kept very clean. On the other side of the airfield at Valley there was a full time civvy wash team that washed the Hawks although if the groundcrew had to do the job (on the odd occasion) the job was'nt carried outquite to the same standard as we tended to bottom about with the hosepipes and foam lances!

At my first posting Binbrook I never once saw a Lightning getting a scrub, so most aircraft exhibited a weathered finish of varying degrees.