Jump to content

Gunsmoke stains on Spitfire leading edges


Test Graham

Recommended Posts

It's platinum... I did read an article that stated the "value" of the roads in terms of platinum deposits once, but I can't recall them now :sleep_1:

Thanks, Mike, I'll try and remember that for next time! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Enthusiasts of weathering on WW2 aircraft often add significant staining from the leading edge machine gun positions. It has been pointed out that although staining can be seen from the cartridge ejection slots, the nature of the Browning gun means that such staining would not appear at the leading edge, and is not visible in photos.

I refer you to pages 59 and 60 of Wojtek Matusiak's new Polish Wings 15: Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX 1944-45. It's a good book if you like Spitfires. If you like late war Spitfires in Polish squadrons, it's a great book. On these pages there are seven photos of MH674, RF.A, which the author describes as "extremely dirty", and shows dark streaks underneath the wing, both from the ejection slots AND from the leading edge openings. The artist of the adjacent profile clearly disapproves of this, for he has left this detail off his artwork!

I feel that the term "extremely dirty" should be qualified "for a UK-based Spitfire": I'd say it was only "somewhat scruffy" and there are photos showing a lot worse on overseas Spitfires. However, in adressing modellers of Spitfires that appear to come out of a coal mine, it'll no longer be possible to claim that stains from the leading edge never happened.

Hi Graham and All,

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I wanted to say thank-you Graham for mentioning the book Supermarine Spitfire IX 1944-1946, Polish Wings 15 by Wojtek Matusiak. I am very glad you brought it up since it encouraged me to purchase that one as well as Polish Wings 13 which covers the same during 1942-1943. I have now just received both of those books and on a first cursory look I am very impressed by the contents of both. The photographic content being especially terrific with the 1942-1943 one running to 96 A4 pages and the 1944-1946 one running to 80.

As to weathering as shown in the above mentioned books, significant exhaust staining on older and almost new Spitfire Mk. IX aircraft based in England and elsewhere seems a rather common sight, that said they certainly weren't always left dirty so sometimes the same airframe is shown in both clean and grubby states.

Also worth noting is the fact that the appearance of exhaust staining on a photograph is often very dependent on the lighting of the subject during capture as to wether it is visible or not as exampled below;

Same_0001.jpg

A larger 2250 x1800 pixel version of the above image can be found here.

Please note that the Spitfire MH635 RZ-U as shown above in a variety of images all captured by the same photographer during the same flight, only shows significant exhaust staining in the top left inset picture. All the other shots do not show this staining significantly at all.

So again just to second the praise for this book I will add the same encouragement to purchase these books as Graham did, or if you are not inclined to purchase it ask your local library to add them to their collection.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear and read the correct "weathering" and/or correct "color" arguments all the time. Most of the time I shake my head and move on. As a veteran of a "police engagement" several decades ago, I had the opporunity to see various pieces of armor, various aircraft and an occasional naval vessel, both my side and theirs. What I can tell you from experience is everyone is right. Some were extremely weathered and just downright nasty. Others were as fresh as when they came from the factory. As far as colors go, some were the exact shades of color as the federal standards recommended. Others were painted with local supplies or whatever color came somewhat close and that made do. All in all, I do not believe I ever saw two pieces of machinery that were exactly colored the same or had the same degree of wear. The barrel of my AK4 looked significantly different than any of my companions but all were issued at the same time. Likewise, every Huey I ever had the pleasure of taking a little jaunt in looked different than the one I had previously been ferried in. Most of the times the interiors, including the instrumentation were significantly different. And, I do not believe there were over 150 different variants in the area to explain why they were all different. I guess what I am trying to say is that both sides and the middle grounders in this cheery little argument are correct. Some things were heavily weathered and had a beat down look and right next to them was the same item looking pristine and factory fresh. Surrounding them were the same vehicles, etc., all in different stages of wear and tear with different shades of the same basic color. I remeber using house paint that was "borrowed" from a Cambodian store that was used to paint a Huey 30 minutes before it took off. The object was to get a close match. It also received some very interesting and unique personal touches to its paint job that weren't standard colors. And, because the paint was not dry prior to lift off, it acquired some very interesting textures on the way to and on the way back from its destination. So, how bout we appreciate the building skills, the painting skills that someone took the time to exercise on an aircraft they thought looked correct. Because, that shade of SKY used on your Spitfire matches at least one of the thousands that were produced. Okay, off my soapbox, let the fur fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the (lack of) staining aft of the longest inboard gun barrel; should serve as a lesson for those who add long streaks behind cannon barrels on a Spitfire (and that's underneath - on top would be even less.)

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoorah, the old "accuracy vs style" chestnut of worms, been a while since that one did the rounds.

I'll be up front - I like weathering, all that building lark just gets in the way of the real fun part for me which is dirt, grime, chipping, dust, staining... Looking at how the hobby has yet again be redefined by people like Mig Jimenez, Michael Rinaldi, as well as home grown talent like Spence and Marcus Nichols, has opened up new approaches, techniques, products. Is like a whole new hobby for me, something to learn over again. And like any new style or technique in this hobby, and here we can go back to Francois Verlinden and Shep Paine's groundbreaking work in the 1970s, people will seek to emulate what they see other modellers doing. And there's the rub. For some - a minority admittedly - the perception of effect over accuracy becomes a bit of an issue.

Yes, weathering is an exercise in style. Techniques like pre shading, chipping, washes et al are not strictly "accurate" because no one comes along and does that to real aircraft or tank, but rather its a personal interpretation of how environment and wear impart a look.

Let me be frank: I don't give a rats bottom how other people finish their models. Really, its just not that important to me. Why would it be? What perhaps is important is that people are making things, they are buying models, they are having fun and they are sharing that experience. Sure, their models might not be to my tastes or how I may do things - I'm sure my my approach is equally not to other's tastes - but in all honesty w h o c a r e s.

Well seemingly a few do, so the solution, as ever is to lead by example, set a bar for how they think it should be done, explain technique and effect in relation to real life examples, demonstrate, inspire, share, so that tomorrow's generation of modellers are not committing sins against accuracy in the name of style. Alternatively they could form discussion board for like minded souls away from all these laissez faire modellers with their inaccurate weathering. I'm guessing there might not be much to look at, but hey, plenty to read.

We need innovation in technique but then we need that emulation to a some extent, that way people find their own style. Otherwise we'd all be stuck making models like it was Airfix Magazine in the 1960s. To use a musical metaphor, lots of bands start out emulating their heroes before finding their own voice (save Noel Gallagher, obviously).

And let's ponder this folks - another thread that will no doubt resurface about how we encourage tomorrow's generation of modellers, and are computer games/the internet/skiffle bands killing the hobby? Well, if we start discouraging people from sharing their work, we're doing a pretty good job ourselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoorah, the old "accuracy vs style" chestnut of worms, been a while since that one did the rounds.

I'll be up front - I like weathering, all that building lark just gets in the way of the real fun part for me which is dirt, grime, chipping, dust, staining... Looking at how the hobby has yet again be redefined by people like Mig Jimenez, Michael Rinaldi, as well as home grown talent like Spence and Marcus Nichols, has opened up new approaches, techniques, products. Is like a whole new hobby for me, something to learn over again. And like any new style or technique in this hobby, and here we can go back to Francois Verlinden and Shep Paine's groundbreaking work in the 1970s, people will seek to emulate what they see other modellers doing. And there's the rub. For some - a minority admittedly - the perception of effect over accuracy becomes a bit of an issue.

Yes, weathering is an exercise in style. Techniques like pre shading, chipping, washes et al are not strictly "accurate" because no one comes along and does that to real aircraft or tank, but rather its a personal interpretation of how environment and wear impart a look.

Let me be frank: I don't give a rats bottom how other people finish their models. Really, its just not that important to me. Why would it be? What perhaps is important is that people are making things, they are buying models, they are having fun and they are sharing that experience. Sure, their models might not be to my tastes or how I may do things - I'm sure my my approach is equally not to other's tastes - but in all honesty w h o c a r e s.

Well seemingly a few do, so the solution, as ever is to lead by example, set a bar for how they think it should be done, explain technique and effect in relation to real life examples, demonstrate, inspire, share, so that tomorrow's generation of modellers are not committing sins against accuracy in the name of style. Alternatively they could form discussion board for like minded souls away from all these laissez faire modellers with their inaccurate weathering. I'm guessing there might not be much to look at, but hey, plenty to read.

We need innovation in technique but then we need that emulation to a some extent, that way people find their own style. Otherwise we'd all be stuck making models like it was Airfix Magazine in the 1960s. To use a musical metaphor, lots of bands start out emulating their heroes before finding their own voice (save Noel Gallagher, obviously).

And let's ponder this folks - another thread that will no doubt resurface about how we encourage tomorrow's generation of modellers, and are computer games/the internet/skiffle bands killing the hobby? Well, if we start discouraging people from sharing their work, we're doing a pretty good job ourselves.

Excellent post Jonathan, I could'nt agree more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This weathering is clearly overdone...

F6Fbottom.jpg

Nice of them to crash that so we could get a good look at the underside.

Nice pic find

Julien

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoorah, the old "accuracy vs style" chestnut of worms, been a while since that one did the rounds.

I'll be up front - I like weathering, all that building lark just gets in the way of the real fun part for me which is dirt, grime, chipping, dust, staining... Looking at how the hobby has yet again be redefined by people like Mig Jimenez, Michael Rinaldi, as well as home grown talent like Spence and Marcus Nichols, has opened up new approaches, techniques, products. Is like a whole new hobby for me, something to learn over again. And like any new style or technique in this hobby, and here we can go back to Francois Verlinden and Shep Paine's groundbreaking work in the 1970s, people will seek to emulate what they see other modellers doing. And there's the rub. For some - a minority admittedly - the perception of effect over accuracy becomes a bit of an issue.

Yes, weathering is an exercise in style. Techniques like pre shading, chipping, washes et al are not strictly "accurate" because no one comes along and does that to real aircraft or tank, but rather its a personal interpretation of how environment and wear impart a look.

Let me be frank: I don't give a rats bottom how other people finish their models. Really, its just not that important to me. Why would it be? What perhaps is important is that people are making things, they are buying models, they are having fun and they are sharing that experience. Sure, their models might not be to my tastes or how I may do things - I'm sure my my approach is equally not to other's tastes - but in all honesty w h o c a r e s.

Well seemingly a few do, so the solution, as ever is to lead by example, set a bar for how they think it should be done, explain technique and effect in relation to real life examples, demonstrate, inspire, share, so that tomorrow's generation of modellers are not committing sins against accuracy in the name of style. Alternatively they could form discussion board for like minded souls away from all these laissez faire modellers with their inaccurate weathering. I'm guessing there might not be much to look at, but hey, plenty to read.

We need innovation in technique but then we need that emulation to a some extent, that way people find their own style. Otherwise we'd all be stuck making models like it was Airfix Magazine in the 1960s. To use a musical metaphor, lots of bands start out emulating their heroes before finding their own voice (save Noel Gallagher, obviously).

And let's ponder this folks - another thread that will no doubt resurface about how we encourage tomorrow's generation of modellers, and are computer games/the internet/skiffle bands killing the hobby? Well, if we start discouraging people from sharing their work, we're doing a pretty good job ourselves.

I couldn't agree more, what a good response :thumbsup2:.

I also think that if the way another modeller has built and finished off a model, sends you over the edge, then perhaps some people are standing too close to the edge. It's only glued together and painted plastic at the end of the day isn't it?

If an individual builds and finishes a model his way what's the drama?

If a modeller is after total accuracy for his models, great go for it, if a modeller isn't after total accuracy, great go for it.

If the 1/48 scale Spitfire pilot complains about the unrealistic gunsmoke stains on his 1/48 scale Spitfire wings.........then I guess we will all be screwed :thumbsup:

Cheers,

Devo

Edited by Devo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the (lack of) staining aft of the longest inboard gun barrel; should serve as a lesson for those who add long streaks behind cannon barrels on a Spitfire (and that's underneath - on top would be even less.)

Edgar

Look at the photo again - it's actually more of an inverse effect. The outboard MG (almost flush with the wing) had the most stain, while the far inboard MG (sticking furthest out the wing) has a stain pattern beginning closer to the shell ejection port. Your point is still valid, though - a long-barreled cannon will probably not have gunpowder stain patterns starting at the leading edge. But there will probably be something, at some point....:)

Byron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more, what a good response :thumbsup2:.

I also think that if the way another modeller has built and finished off a model, sends you over the edge, then perhaps some people are standing too close to the edge. It's only glued together and painted plastic at the end of the day isn't it?

If an individual builds and finishes a model his way what's the drama?

If a modeller is after total accuracy for his models, great go for it, if a modeller isn't after total accuracy, great go for it.

If the 1/48 scale Spitfire pilot complains about the unrealistic gunsmoke stains on his 1/48 scale Spitfire wings.........then I guess we will all be screwed :thumbsup:

Cheers,

Devo

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we only can model a snapshot in time. We might build a model which is heavily weathered and 'dirtied', based on a real photo. But if we had been modeling the same aircraft say, two months earlier, it might have looked pristine. Or, if we modeled the same aircraft six or seven hours after the 'dirty' shot, after the maintenance crews had re-armed and cleaned it up, it would look totally different. USN Skyraiders are a perfect example of this - they would practically always look a whole lot less worn when they took off than when they landed again....

There was that fellow about a year ago who modeled the crashed F-100 with the dead US pilot draped over it - it's somewhat close to a staged N. Vietnamese photo. But if the modeler had built the model to represent it say 8 hours earlier, it would have been intact, and sitting on a runway. Which is right? Both.

So, I'm basically saying that I agree with you - it's just a snapshot in time....:)

Byron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to gun stains, there are some really good plctures in Alfred Prices 'Spitfire; A complete fighting history' which show some really grubby gun staining on the leading edge.

I do like the look of an aircraft that has been ridden hard and put away wet. While we are talking Spitfire weathering, I've noticed that they tend to spew oil and crap from the oil cooler right back to the tail wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a Mk.XII, photographed in (at least) 1945 (black spinner, no tail band) three months, or more, after it saw active service, and possibly relegated to training duties with 595 Squadron, on post-war army cooperation (yellow l/e stripe possibly deleted?) Of interest, as well as the thick oil stains, is that, even though there are stains emanating from the cannon ejection ports, there are none on the wings' leading edges.

Edgar

Edited by Edgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep just like that Jonathan! If I left that little clean patch in the middle and entered a kit like that, an IPMS judge would probably ping me for having inconsistant weathering...wait a minute, I'm an IPMS member....oh god, it's happening, I'm becoming a self hating IPMS member.......AARRRRRGGGHHHHH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a Mk.XII, photographed in (at least) 1945 (black spinner, no tail band) three months, or more, after it saw active service, and possibly relegated to training duties with 595 Squadron, on post-war army cooperation (yellow l/e stripe possibly deleted?) Of interest, as well as the thick oil stains, is that, even though there are stains emanating from the cannon ejection ports, there are none on the wings' leading edges.

Edgar

Also interest, to me, is the fact that it appears (from this photograph at least) that these aircraft were not kept as clean as some people have suggested on here in the past. Accepting the photograph, was taken "in (at least) 1945", then we might expect that groundcrew would have more time to keep them spruced up.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interest, to me, is the fact that it appears (from this photograph at least) that these aircraft were not kept as clean as some people have suggested on here in the past. Accepting the photograph, was taken "in (at least) 1945", then we might expect that groundcrew would have more time to keep them spruced up.

Cheers.

If it were a frontline aircraft I'd agree, but a Spitfire XII? In 1945? Relegated to a training hack? I doubt that beyond its airworthiness and reliability it ever got much attention from a mop and bucket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't confuse tracer(rarely used, despite what Hollywood would have you believe) with incendiary; tracer contains a material which burns off as the round travels, affecting its trajectory, while incendiary usually has a ball-bearing nose, which is forced into the inner charge, so that it explodes on impact. If a pilot has tracer, and adjusts his aim to allow for its trajectory, it's possible that he would miss with everything else, while incendiary explodes on impact, with a bright flash, which tells him that his aim is correct.

so what was the purpose of tracer then Edgar? I always presumed it was as an aim adjusting tool...interested to know

not doubting what you say, just curious. There is lots of WW2 footage ( thinking Pacific theatre ) where there is loads of tracer & also a well known camera gun footage from a Spitfire ruffing up a Bf110....cheers Rick

Edited by sinnerboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were a frontline aircraft I'd agree, but a Spitfire XII? In 1945? Relegated to a training hack? I doubt that beyond its airworthiness and reliability it ever got much attention from a mop and bucket.

It wasn't, and isn't my intention to get involved in a protracted discussion about my previous post, which is "off topic" re "gunsmoke on leading edges".

Therefore I'll pass on responding to the above comments, other than to say that we have no idea what role that particular aircraft fulfilled at the time the photograph was taken. In his analysis of the photograph that was only one of a number of possibilities that Edgar suggested.

The point I will make is, as a previous poster has already stated, a photograph captures a particular aircraft at a particular moment in time. If that photograph had been taken a day, week or even later, then it may have appeared quite different, even "immaculate". Who knows?

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interest, to me, is the fact that it appears (from this photograph at least) that these aircraft were not kept as clean as some people have suggested on here in the past. Accepting the photograph, was taken "in (at least) 1945", then we might expect that groundcrew would have more time to keep them spruced up.

Cheers.

When we speak of keeping an aircraft clean we always have to keep in mind that some dirt does not affect performances or reliability and some does. Oil streaks and general dirt on the belly of an aircraft is of no detriment to any of these on most types and there are plenty of pictures showing heavy stains on spitfires in the same areas.

Any dirt that could affect the aircraft effectiveness as a war machine would have been cleaned pretty quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We build models - they aren't real! They're generally plastic with little bits of this and that and some acrylic or enamel paint on them to make them look nice. They don't do what the real thing does, or did, and if you stand on them they break. You paid for it so build it how you want or stack it in the loft with a load of others. If you do build it and want people who will always say nice things about your work show your Mum (unless you're L S Lowry)but if you want to risk anything else put it on RFI but be prepared to stand your ground.

It's a hobby and it's supposed to be fun - isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We build models - they aren't real! They're generally plastic with little bits of this and that and some acrylic or enamel paint on them to make them look nice. They don't do what the real thing does, or did, and if you stand on them they break. You paid for it so build it how you want or stack it in the loft with a load of others. If you do build it and want people who will always say nice things about your work show your Mum (unless you're L S Lowry)but if you want to risk anything else put it on RFI but be prepared to stand your ground.

It's a hobby and it's supposed to be fun - isn't it?

Hear, hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...