Gloss, Satin or Matt?

[wellsprop]

Hi,

For your wwii builds do you give the aircraft a gloss satin or matt varnish? I usually use matt as IMO it looks more real. However, I,ve noticed that the models seem a little dull. Would satin pick them up a bit?

What is the most accurate finished for a Spitfire of Hurricane for example?

Regards,

Ben.

P.S. Let the battle begin...

[MilneBay]

Well as most WW2 camo was matt obviously a matt finish is required. But depending on conditions, weathering etc. a slight sheen like an egg shell finish imparts a bit of life. I never use gloss finishes if they are called for because on a model a gloss finish as it comes from the can/tin etc. is just too glossy instead I use a satin finish because it mimics a gloss far better in scale.

[Seawinder]

For British subjects I like to go for something basically matte, but with a little bit of sheen. Not as glossy as satin, but not as matte as dead flat. I've been using Micro Flat from Microscale, which produces that finish out of the bottle. If I'm doing a Japanese or Russian subject and want it a bit less flat, I'll add a small amount of acrylic gloss (generally Polly Scale). If I want to go flatter (e.g. modern American subject), I'll add a very small amount of Tamiya Flat Base.

The answer to your question also depends somewhat on the degree of weathering one is after. A highly weathered surface will be more matte. I tend to keep my weathering fairly subtle, so most of the time I don't really need a totally dead flat, plus the flatter the clear coat, the more danger of chalking.

As MineBay says, I generally use a semi-gloss rather than full gloss for gloss finishes (e.g. late Hellcats).

Cheers,

Pip

[Rabbit Leader]

Regarding Spits and Hurri's I would tend to go for a flat for your early war builds then add a slight sheen for your mid-late war versions.

As above, there are many reasons why you would choose one over the other, however if I recall correctly, when I was a lad I read (and re-read) Michael JF Bowyers "Fighting Colours" and he suggested that the smoothness and glossiness of paints changed as the war progressed.

Anyway - If you search somewhere here in the WW2 forum - I did post a similar topic titled "Is there such a thing as Scale Gloss". There were some excellent replies from the BM membership.

Alclad have a range of about five Aqua Clears that start at Light Sheen to Flat. I reckon you could mix and match these to your hearts content to get the finish your after.

Hope this helps... Dave

[Space Ranger]

Slight sheen. The only dead flat aircraft I've ever seen are those that have sat in the sun and unused for years.

Study photos of aircraft for clues. Virtually all show some degree of reflectance, and in many cases, that of the markings is higher (i.e., shinier) than that of the camouflage paint.

[Edgar]

Wartime RAF aircraft were matt, and that was to stop any reflections betraying their positions while on the ground (it's why propellers went over to black, as well.) At the start cellulose paints were acceptable, but attempts to make them aerodynamically smoother just resulted in a glossier finish; it wasn't until Supermarine found a synthetic paint, which was smooth, but remained matt, that things changed; Aircraft Finishers were instructed to use a (fairly coarse in modelling terms) wet-and-dry paper, to achieve the desired finish, then wash the aircraft down with clean water, which probably accounts for the photos of "glossy" aircraft, which occasionally appear.

Edgar

[Rick Brown]

I use either Vallejo satin for PR/post war aircraft or Vallejo Matt for everything else. The Matt is not totally flat but not as gloss as satin if you get my drift.

Just my personal choice, just looks right for me.

Rick.

[wellsprop]

Matt sound like the best choice to me. The only colour pics I can find of late war Spitfires they seem to be very flight and slightly faded....

[Wez]

Gloss, Satin or Matt finish for WW.2 aircraft, simple question not such a simple answer (although it never is – is it)?

As a general rule here the British and Americans favoured a matt finish for the reasons Edgar specified and the Germans at least earlier in the war, favoured a finish that had a satin sheen to it also, generally, matt paint is more prone to wear than semi-gloss or gloss paint, gloss paint being the most durable however even under the right conditions it too will wear. I suspect the durability of such a finish was one of the reasons the Americans chose Gloss Sea Blue for naval aircraft later in the war.

What you also need to consider is how long that aircraft been in service, where is it being operated and the specific conditions in that environment, what was the operational tempo and what were the prevailing environmental conditions. Additionally, you have to ask yourself how was the paint applied and under what conditions.

Edgar’s answer provides an insight into how the aircraft left the factory however, regardless of what official regulations may decree you can rest assured that these may not have been followed in service (either through ignorance, lack of appropriate materials, operational tempo or by just blatantly being given a sound ignoring).

In service wear will be caused by the crew getting in and out of the aircraft and the groundcrew doing maintenance, the latter is important because the hours spent by the groundcrew’s clothing rubbing across a matt surface will polish it and impart a sheen to it, likewise the act of cleaning up spills will involves rubbing a surface to clean it up which will polish a matt surface and merely spreading oil about will impart a sheen too. A good example of this localised polishing would be around the gun/ammunition storage areas on say a Hurricane, Spitfire or Typhoon, the armourers would have sat or laid across the wing surface, their movement across the surface will have locally polished it. The longer an aircraft has been in service, the more opportunities it’s had to receive localised polishing, an aircraft that has only been in service for a short while is more likely to have a uniform, factory or Maintenance Unit (M.U) finish. Aircraft that have had more TLC lavished upon them will always a more uniform appearance for longer.

Paint would usually be applied with a spraygun at either the factory or M.U, out in the big wide world it may have been applied by spraygun but more likely to have been applied by roller, brush, sponge or rag. This would affect the thickness of the paint applied and how it wears which in turn will affect the uniformity of the colour and its finish.

Aircraft repainted after a change of operational theatre may not have had such careful application of its new colour scheme (time pressure or lack of proper surface preparation), this too would have an effect upon the uniformity and appearance of the surface finish.

Then there’s the good old environmental conditions, sand and dust abrade paint which could make it more matt in appearance, monsoon conditions in Burma and India had a harsh effect on paint coupled with strong fading and chalking of paint caused by exposure to extreme sunlight would also affect the surface finish. Likewise aircraft kept outside will also weather differently to aircraft kept in the hangar.

Another thing to consider is the type of paint used. There will be the official specification for the type of paint used however, if it’s not available locally then whatever’s available of a suitable hue would get used – this means often non-aircraft paint would be used, this may wear and weather differently and certainly take on a different surface finish to aircraft paints.

Remember too that some pilots had their groundcrew polish their aircraft, often beeswax thinned with petrol, this would affect the colour hue and the sheen of the surface finish making it slightly more glossy, the few extra mph gained under combat conditions by this was deemed worth it the compromise to camouflage.

Where am I going with all this? I say paint what you see, not what you think you should see, study as many period photo’s of the type you want to model and look for a trend, better still, study a photo of the actual aircraft you want to model, look for reflections of the other parts of the aircraft on adjacent surfaces (e.g. the fuselage being reflected onto the wing or the fin being reflected onto the tailplane), that would give you an indication of the lustre of the surface finish.

There are plenty of people who will tell you these are what the regulations state so this must be the case, that non-aircraft paints were never used, that groundcrew always followed this regulations for fear of dire retribution etc, etc. However, my comments are based on the experience of being a modeller who just happens to have worked in the field of military aircraft maintenance for 30 years, I’ve seen it, done it and got the t-shirt.

Wez

[AnonymousAA72]

Hi,

For your wwii builds do you give the aircraft a gloss satin or matt varnish? I usually use matt as IMO it looks more real. However, I,ve noticed that the models seem a little dull. Would satin pick them up a bit?

What is the most accurate finished for a Spitfire of Hurricane for example?

Regards,

Ben.

P.S. Let the battle begin...

Michael Bowyer's "Fighting Colours" ca.1975 (is it really that old?) gives this account: ...."With the Luftwaffe rarely over Britain it was decided in 1942 to introduce the 'shiny' Type S camouflage with a smooth and slightly reflective glossy finish......with a spot of polishing it could give up to 10mph increased speed......"

I would though add that most contemporary photo's show a more matt appearance. I'd always suggest looking at as many photo's as you can.

[MrPitotTube]

The restored WW2 aircraft look quite shiney.

[Rabbit Leader]

Michael Bowyer's "Fighting Colours" ca.1975 (is it really that old?) gives this account: ...."With the Luftwaffe rarely over Britain it was decided in 1942 to introduce the 'shiny' Type S camouflage with a smooth and slightly reflective glossy finish......with a spot of polishing it could give up to 10mph increased speed......"

I would though add that most contemporary photo's show a more matt appearance. I'd always suggest looking at as many photo's as you can.

Thanks Bill, I knew it went something like this.. I'm also pretty sure that the RAAF heavily waxed their Spitfires for that extra speed increase it apparently gave them. Although the weather conditions were pretty harsh, there are many published photos of RAAF Spitfires with a glossy appearance. As others have mentioned above - your best to check and double check your photographic references.

Cheers.. Dave.

[Radleigh]

The restored WW2 aircraft look quite shiney.

Gloss paint is more durable, so these shiney warbirds are painted gloss so that they last longer.

[grahamf]

Whenever I see a model in absolutely flat matt it always looks most unrealistic to my eye, I think in reality the paints they used had a slight sheen as its very difficult to spray large areas flat matt as matt paint tends to dry quicker and to get a consistent 'mattness' the paint needs to stay wetter longer. For models I always go for satin.