Weather Fading Effect

[Sky Pilot]

I want to achieve the effect of weather fading of the paintwork on my models. I use acrylics almost exclusively.

Any tips or hints would be greatly appreciated.

[Graham Boak]

Go visit those of the aircraft museums in the UK that keep a significant number of their aircraft outside. Newark is one example, Sunderland is another. Look at the appearance of the finish. This won't necessarily tell you how each of the WW2 paints changed, but will give you a good impression of the effect you are looking for.

For an idea of WW2 paints, look at all the colour photos you can find. Due warnings about the absolute value of each colour reproduction, of course, but you will find ones that demonstrate the effect of aging/weathering.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Graham Boak

[Jim Kiker]

Hi SP,

If you are in luck, Nick will weigh in at some point; he is an expert in the science of paints and can provide some great technical background. Meantime, the first thing I will do is caution you about following what other modelers do instead of trying to figure out how to do it for yourself. Why? Because some modelers go for current fads rather than attempting to replicate an effect based on pictures of actual aircraft. For example, pre-shading panel lines and then using extremely thin layers of color is very fashionable just now. It's tough to pull off, but looks great when done well. The problem is, when you look at pictures of most aircraft, you will not see darker hazy areas around each and every panel with lighter centers; that sort of effect has its place, but it doesn't occur very often in real life in my experience. "Breaking up the broad surfaces of color" is, in my view, an artistic choice much more often than an attempt to replicate the real world. Others will disagree, and that's fine for them; a lot of what you get out of the attempt to weather a model is based on what you want to get to.

The next thing I would recommend is to look at lots of pictures of your chosen subject, being careful to look for pictures of specific aircraft, in specific locations, at specific time frames, for clues about how that plane would have looked. For example, Corsairs in the Pacific theater in 1943 had significantly different fading and wear patterns from an RAF Spitfire based in England in 1944. Despite this, some modelers tend to apply the same weathering techniques to everything they build to the point that every model they complete looks as if it has sat in the tropical sun for six months. Not, in my opinion, very realistic.

Third, when you think about weathering you should think about how the whole aircraft weathered; I've seen plenty of models with a heavily weathered airframe, yet the markings appear pristine and the canopy has all the shine of a well-maintained modern warbird. The best effects strive to create a sense of realism, where you can almost smell the gasoline and oil.

So, how to get there? To paraphrase the old joke, practice on some scrap model pieces and see what works for you. The joke was: "How do I get to Carnegie Hall (or Royal Albert Hall)?" "Practice!" For example, you might paint a wing in basic paint, add a national marking with a decal, seal that with some gloss clear, and then try using a very thin tan-gray paint mix to lighten the colors and gray them out a bit. The first time you may wind up with a tan-tinted mess, but the next round you will begin to figure out HOW thin an over-covering of paint needs to be for your paints and airbrush in order to make the finish look bleached out.

One fairly simple technique is to lay down you base paint and let it cure, then slightly lighten that base color, thin it a bit more than normal, and spray that over the model in streaks. The idea is be somewhat random, so you get areas of lighter and darker color. In general, the top of the fuselage and the upper wings will fade more that the sides of the fuselage, and certainly the lower surface paint will hardly fade at all. This type of streaking should be done from front to back on the wings (due to air flow), which will simulate dust and dirt being blown over the surfaces as well as simple fading. And note that you're trying to make broad strokes, so try this from further back than normal to give you softer edges; this works best then the eye doesn't really see the "edges" between the lighter/darker areas, just that the tone of the paint surface has variations in it. also note that when you airbrush, you can easily get too far from the surface and the paint starts to dry before it lands; so again, some experimentation is required on scrap pieces before trying it on your latest project.

This is a complex subject to understand but not really difficult; paint varies from one batch to the next, how well it was applied varies, different pigments will "chalk" (develop a lighter, washed-out appearance) more than others, and aircraft sit and move through different environments. For these reasons a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to weathering rarely produces realistic effects. So experimenting and practice will be your best teachers. Look for models that strike you as really looking the part and ask the builder how he/she did it, and be prepared to listen to a hundred different ways to get to ten different results; it's just the nature of the beast!

While most of what I've written is general rather than specific, I hope this helps, and remember your results will vary from almost everybody else's, especially while you are figuring out how to do it with your paint and equipment.

Good luck, Jim

Edited January 14, 2016 by Jim Kiker

[Troy Smith]

excellent summation from Jim,

remember some combat aircraft had very short lives, and never got very weathered!

for colour Spitfire photos, I recommend Etienne Du PLessis flickr stream

https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=8270787@N07&q=spitfire

though WW2 in Colour,where many of these found, can be got for 1 p and post from Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Airforce-World-War-Colour/dp/1860198287

HTH

T

[MIkeMaben]

http://www.migjimenez.com/en/35-the-weathering-magazine-series

[Fernando]

Hi, Sky Pilot,

In addition to what has already been said.

For a general weathered aspect, it usually works to paint an irregular base coat to start with. Instead of painting a solid, flawless colour coat over your primer (and preshading, if you are so inclined), paint it "mottle fashion", until all the surfaces are (un)evenly covered in small mottles. If you want a more dramatic effect, lighten just a bit the colour and go for another random mottling. If you consider you have overdone this, go for a thin, full colour top coat. Consider that light differences in the colours look more accentuated before the clear gloss/flat coats, which tend to soften every colour effect.

Just one warning: Try not to go for that ridiculous "Fighter aircraft dumped somewhere near Tokyo, 1946" look many people skilfully achieve.

HOpe that helps

[Sky Pilot]

Hey people

Many thanks for your informative and helpful responses. I shall shortly be putting my understanding to the test - softly, softly catchee monkey.

[vince14]

Here's a great build from the SAAF Forum which shows what can be achieved for replicating an aircraft that has been left outside for a long while;

http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5973&sid=199baf28b76506879e273f42a06de48d

[Alan P]

Sorry if this sounds a bit churlish, but are you trying to achieve a specific effect for a heavily weathered or abandoned aircraft, or are you trying to replicate the fashionable "weathered" look that appears on most models?

If it's the latter, then it's an easy effect to achieve as linked and mentioned above. But as Jim's first paragraph says, it has absolutely nothing to do with weathering and more to do with aesthetic effect and modelling trends.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Alan P

[Sky Pilot]

Hey Alan

I know exactly what you and the others here mean. I've learned one hell of a lot these last few months. To little is much better than too much.

Thanks

John

[Duncan B]

The first question to ask yourself is are you trying to create a scale replica that if scaled up would be true to real life or are you allowing yourself some artistic licence with the aim to create a visually interesting (but not necessarily) wholly accurate model while having fun?

If the former then obviously you will be addressing all the other compromises that will have been made to produce a plastic scale kit so will probably never ever finish anything. If the latter then you are free to try any techniques that you wish while accepting that the end product would not scale up to fool anyone but will be pleasing to the eye.

Of course these are the 2 extremes of opinion on making scale models and most of us actually fall somewhere in the middle taking care to get some features as accurate as possible while accepting compromises in other areas. I am a great fan of what I call the Spanish school of model painting which tends to feature heavy weathering, wear and more artistic processes for producing a varied colour scheme. I am fully aware that this doesn't tend to produce a very accurate scale finish (and might be considered to be a fad by 'serious scale modellers') however there can be no doubting that it tends to produce a very interesting finish and can provide hours of entertainment for the hobby modeller. The hobby is a source of entertainment for me so I'm happy to wear that tag.

If you are interested in learning more about this style of painting then I can highly recommend Diego Quijano's blog or his series of books produced by Mig Jimenez, volume 4 deals exclusively with weathering techniques.

All the above is my opinion only and is not intended to criticise anyone else's opinion on this hobby as we all do it for differing reasons.

Duncan B

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

As Duncan says, there are many challenges in the way of achieving a true-to-life effect. This photograph of a B52 illustrates that a relatively uniform coat of grey paint to the observer reflects all manner of shades due to rippling of the skins, and that in my personal opinion is the elephant in the room with weathering effects. A solid colour on a model looks completely unconvincing on almost all models of metal aircraft, because the skins of metal aircraft are hugely complex surfaces in reality whereas models are moulded as perfect surfaces.

https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/b-52-stratofortress-cockpit-920-9.jpg?quality=94&strip=info&w=920'>https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/b-52-stratofortress-cockpit-920-9.jpg?quality=94&strip=info&w=920

The skins of metal aircraft reflect light in all manner of directions and in real life, nothing ever fits perfectly either causing more shadow and reflection differences. The best the majority can achieve with modelling is to break up the uniformity of the paint a bit and settle for something that looks pleasing.

"Real modellers" need to replicate the skins accurately before they'll get far with painting a convincing representation of a real aircraft IMHO.

[Graham Boak]

I think you've picked a very bad example for your argument there - except of course if you want to do a B-52 standing on its wheels. The forward fuselage of a B-52 extends well ahead of the forward wheels, and when static it does bend down rippling/buckling the fuselage skins. This does not appear on other aircraft with much less overhang, and disappears on the B-52 in flight. Aircraft skins are much smoother than this - particularly if we consider the thick skins of modern fast jets, but even to a lesser extent on WW2 types. You can sometimes detect a much slighter effect, particularly around lines of rivets, if you look at an acute angle with the light in just the right place. You are unlikely to see anything similar at a reasonable distance under normal lighting conditions. Yes, an aircraft in service will acquire a number of dints, although anything noticeable in small scale (and not at the back end) will probably affect the performance of the type and in practice will often be filled and smoothed when time allows.

I entirely agree with your comment that it is very difficult to paint a convincing representation of a real aircraft. This is something the more baroque extremes of the so-called Spanish school (we used to refer to the Verlinden school) fail to do. If you stand on the aisle at a model show, glance at the show table and can say "That's been done using the Spanish school techniques" then it is overdone. Re the aesthetic argument - ok, send it to the Tate Modern. That doesn't mean to imply that the techniques shouldn't be studied, for they can be used to more subtle effect - I think the Tokyo 1946 comment holds regardless of your chosen technique!

[GordonM]

Just to add my point of view, beware the static outside display aircraft as a complete guide to how an aircraft looks. I've been to Duxford hundred of times since the first flying display took place shortly after the filming of Battle Of Britain. Whilst the aircraft outside show what exposure to sun and weather does, bear in mind there are significant differences on for example the Victor due to sitting constantly unmoved for years. Yes you can see how an un-repainted aircraft will go, however 30/40 years of static display (some might say neglect) is totally unrealistic for any aircraft in use, it is obviously an effect taken to extremes!

[Red five]

I have to agree with others. Even though I like the look of a heavily weathered aircraft I won't do it myself unless I have a picture of the model I am making that shows it. I do, however, congratulate people if they achieve that heavily worn look (and I recently got jumped on by somebody on a message board who was offended that I congratulated the modeler). I'm slowly working on a DH88 1:32 scale and that shows a few paint chips on the mud guards and wear on the propellers plus a few exhaust stains and oil leaks but that's all I'm doing. No paint fading for a month in service.

So go for contemporary photo and do what they show you.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I think you've picked a very bad example for your argument there - except of course if you want to do a B-52 standing on its wheels. The forward fuselage of a B-52 extends well ahead of the forward wheels, and when static it does bend down rippling/buckling the fuselage skins. This does not appear on other aircraft with much less overhang, and disappears on the B-52 in flight. Aircraft skins are much smoother than this - particularly if we consider the thick skins of modern fast jets, but even to a lesser extent on WW2 types. You can sometimes detect a much slighter effect, particularly around lines of rivets, if you look at an acute angle with the light in just the right place. You are unlikely to see anything similar at a reasonable distance under normal lighting conditions. Yes, an aircraft in service will acquire a number of dints, although anything noticeable in small scale (and not at the back end) will probably affect the performance of the type and in practice will often be filled and smoothed when time allows.

I entirely agree with your comment that it is very difficult to paint a convincing representation of a real aircraft. This is something the more baroque extremes of the so-called Spanish school (we used to refer to the Verlinden school) fail to do. If you stand on the aisle at a model show, glance at the show table and can say "That's been done using the Spanish school techniques" then it is overdone. Re the aesthetic argument - ok, send it to the Tate Modern. That doesn't mean to imply that the techniques shouldn't be studied, for they can be used to more subtle effect - I think the Tokyo 1946 comment holds regardless of your chosen technique!

I chose a B52 because it's a very obvious example Graham, and most people do tend to model aircraft sat on their wheels afterall ...

I could find examples all day as virtually all metal types display irregularities which cause subtle distortions. This is another excellent / bad example - a polished B29 fuselage which reflects the view behind the photographer albeit in a distorted, ripply way.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/7/1/1371176.jpg'>http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/7/1/1371176.jpg

The B52 shows very obvious skin distortion hence why I chose it, but even the indentations from rivet lines on far stiffer skins scatter light. To try to capture these effects in paint would only work if a) the painter was world class and looking at the model from a single perspective with a fixed intended light source.

[heloman1]

Remember guys, it's not all weathering, it's oxidisation of the paint surface. Yes, work on the said subject, it's environment all contribute to it's patina/surface finish. Paint on modern day aircraft today is far superior to that used in WWI and progressively WWII. WWI it was more a case of stretching the canvas to achive a taut skin and less on camouflage and the markings. WWII was more about hiding amongst the vegitaion to avoid air attack. Brown and Green might be good on the fields of an English countryside but don't do much for your aircraft at 30,000 feet against grey clouds or blue sky.

When I served on 845 NAS in the mid sixties. Each Friday we would wash the cabs with NAVEE and keroseen. We'de get a nice matt finish, getting rid of the ditrius of the weeks flying and maintainance. Far more matt than the original paint finish from the paint shop (Westlands). Then, we're get a very large 50 gallon drum of hydraulic fluid, red in colour and with some rags and we'de wipe the cabs with this as an anit-corrosive measure. So Matt Sand and Spinach with a nice rub with red hydraulic fluid, became, hardly the original spec?

Look at modern US Navy jets in particular.All the panel edges have a brush applied paint finish. Obviously to keep corrosion to a minimum due to the intence salt atmosphere the aircraft opperate in and are maintaenanced in.

So, not in every case are you able to look at the original and dare say a museum pieces are hardly reperesentaive.

So what to do, look at photographs? See where the subject wore or, weathered if that's the term you chose to use. Wartime is a time for action and not spit and polish. Maintain, fly, come back re-arm fly again, come back...

It's all subjective and a I dare to say, there aren't too many orignals around for comparisson.

So what to do? Do what you have with the reference at hand. If you are pleased with the result, then that is all that matters. If it puts a smile on soemone elses face then mission accomplished. You are never going to please everyone all the time. Yourself, however is another matter...

Enjoy your modelling.

Colin

[Mike]

We should really be concentrating on telling OP how to weather, not whether he should, and whether he should do it one way or the other. It's his model, and entirely up to him whether he follows a realistic or artistic style of weathering. It's his hobby, and it really shouldn't upset us if he's not enjoying it exactly the same way we do

There are a lot of techniques for weathering, depending on what you're trying to achieve. Sun bleaching just needs a little fading of paint oversprayed after the initial coat, and you can add some streaking using your airbrush too if you're careful. Chipping can be accomplished by the hairspray technique* for deductive chipping, or by using a brush or sponge to add paint in an additive method. Streaks, rain-marks and oil are usually done with oil washes, enamel washes or pigments. Dirt and grime a combination of the same. The washes and filters can be home-made or bought from any number of companies that have moved into the weathering arena to make some money

* Google hairspray technique paint chipping to come up with buttloads of tutorials on that subject. Mig Jimenez, AMMO, AK Interactive, Ultimate, Vallejo et al will all come up with plenty of how-to videos, and AMMO even have a series of books that cover aircraft and tank modelling from A to Z I'm going to be reviewing the first of the AFV series and Vols.3 & 4 of the aircraft series soon.

[Tail-Dragon]

_{For myself, I will glosscoat, decal, glosscoat again to seal the decals, pin wash with oils, flat coat - then - I will start to fade and weather with pastel chalks (ground to a powder on sandpaper). You are weathering on top of the decals, so you blend them in. I find that the markings are almost always to bright, and glaring, and need to be toned down to fade into the background more, and any dirt, streaks or chips would be on top. I fade the paint with light grey (or blue-grey) chalk blobbed erratically with an old brush (or streaked in the direction of the airflow, if appropriate) and then worked in with a soft brush. If your not happy with what you achieve, you can wipe it off with a damp cloth - when you are happy, seal with another shot of flat coat.}

_{Dirt, footprints etc are obviously browns, exhaust brown, black and greys - liquid trails can be done with a prismatic pencil.}

[Sky Pilot]

Hey Up Mike. Who is OP ? Do you mean me ?

[Basilisk]

Lots of good advice. But at the end you have to experiment until you come up with a finish YOU like as weathering is a very personal thing. I suggest to buy this book to start with.

I am not a great fan of the "Spanish school" which is just over the top for my taste. The same with the black panel line washes. Streaking is another popular thing I am not keen about as rather unlikely on an active airframe. At the end it depends a lot how old the airframe was and where it was used.

I personally do like filters and the oil dot method of adding modulation to the paint.

In addition to color modulation, working with matt / satin / gloss variations can also add nicely to the weathering effect.

Have fun with experimenting.

Cheers, Peter

[Miggers]

Another good book is "The Art of Weathering" by Martyn Welch.

Although primarily aimed at railway modellers,there are some very,very good techniques that can be applied to

any model to give any level of weathering from mild to wild.

[Fernando]

Hi, basilisk,

"Experimenting with gloss/satin/matt variations" would immediately prompt the "uneven shine in surfaces" statement by judges. Points would be immediately taken!

I have to say that I am "immediately prejudiced" against the so-called "Spanish School". The technique they display is really amazing, but the results, from the point of view of a "reality check", can be argued. That said, my observations on the two examples provided in your post would be:

- A naval aircraft is seldom as weathered as the F6F in the book's front page, for several reasons. First, the enviroment is "cleaner" of dust than an airstrip (though probably not of oily grime). Second, the aircraft "sleeps inside" (down the hangar deck) at least part of the time, diminishing sun fading. Third, the crew cleans it often, to keep the corrosive salt out.

- The Spitfire looks much, much better. I guess those tiny colour dots are then faded away in the direction of airstream. The effect on the outer wing panel, where that has presumably been done, is very nice. However, in the PC screen looks so subtle that it really makes me wonder if it is worth at all (quite the opposite to a normal "Spanish School" effect!) But then... what are those shiny blobs around the gun muzzle holes protecting tape meant to be? Glue? TMK, the tape was self-adhesive; even if it wasn't, did the crews (who performed that operation previous to every flight) just smear the glue over such a bigger than needed area? it looks like it detracted at least one mph per gun! Also... would not the tape (and the glue!) catch powder residue as guns were fired? Then, why they are showed clean? And no residue in the cartridge exhausts on the wing's underside (presumably they could have been added later)? All the gun covers do fade evenly in exactly the same degree? Even those on the roundel? Finally... did the ground crew wear mountain footwear or was the wing root attacked by a grinding machine tool? Uh, additionally... were the exhaust stacks burnished bronze?

I do not want to sound like "a pompous bottom", but we are talking about someone regarded as a genius and a guru of weathering, so the bar should be set at the highest level. Of course, a picture showing exactly the effects performed on the models would overthrow these objections.

Fernando

Edited May 30, 2016 by Fernando

[Cookenbacher]

The wing roots on in service Spitfires are most often worn as shown on Peter's Spitfire, unless the reference pic was snapped immediately after a repaint.

[andym]

"Finally... did the ground crew wear mountain footwear or was the wing root attacked by a grinding machine tool? "

As mentioned above this was very common:

http://www.ecardmodels.com/media/wysiwyg/Images/Dave_Winfield/Spitfire/Spitfire_MkIIa_RCAF_411Sqn_DB-R_P7923_or_P7926_Digby_England_July_1941DickAudet3.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/Spitfire_Australian1_zps0be30650.jpg~original

HTH

Andy

Edited May 30, 2016 by andym