Weathering/washes

[colsom]

I'm part way through a 1:72 Hasegawa Kawanishi type 94 with ALF. This is my first kit since I was in my teens, 40 odd years ago. I've got a lot of the plane built but haven't attached the top wing yet as I want to have a go at weathering. A lot of the panel lines protrude on the wings. They look almost like the old rubber powered balsa kits I used to fly as a kid where the wing covering stretches  and shrinks over the spars after being doped. It may well be that this bi plane was cloth covered and doped. I have painted the kit with Humbrol enamels but would like to have a first try at weathering. I have watched lots of videos but very few cover enamel weathering/washes. A couple I did look at on YouTube showed the modeller giving his kit several coats of clear varnish first. (I used Humbrol Gloss No.35.) The video showed the guy mixing black paint and thinners, covering the model and then wiping it off straight away. It looked ok. I tried it and succeeded in stripping the wing of gloss coat and most of the paint. Tried again with an extra gloss coat but with the same result only worse. Where am I going wrong please?

 

Thanks,

 

Colin.

[Giorgio N]

You have to use a wash based on a paint that is thinned with something different from the thinner used for your gloss coat. If you're painting with enamels, then your wash must be based on either acrylics or oil paints. This is the most important thing to keep in mind, if the wash uses the same kind of thinner of the base you'll end up stripping the latter and ruining your paint.

In your case I would probably use oil paints and their thinner. Alternatively there are oil paints that can also be thinned with water, like the Winsor & Newton Artisan series. These don't have the same fine pigments of other paints but the fact that they can be used with water makes them easier.

Another alternative is to use some water based paints, like Vallejo's or Humbrol acrylics line. These can be thinned with water but they tend to dry a bit too quick for this job, so if you use them you have to work on smaller parts of the model at a time.

There are also prethinned washes available on the market, in different colours. Before buying check that the wash components are compatible with your gloss coat, so use an acrylic wash over enamels (like in your case) and an enamel based over acrylics

 

One other very important thing to keep in mind is that using a black wash is WRONG ! Black gives an effect that is too stark, the best washes are done mixing burnt umber and Payne's grey. Ideally the wash must be darker than the surface but not too dark to look weird

Payne's grey can then be used alone on grey finishes while black is useful to highlight things like moveable surfaces, hatches and similar features, where the use of black shows that the part is separate from the rest of the aircraft and has therefore a wider gap, while the rest of the wash highlights panel lines and other features.

[Jim Kiker]

Hi Colin,

 

I have a few observations and techniques to pass along.  Bear in mind that it takes some experimentation to work out how you will use/adapt the practices of others.  Also, it's worth noting that applying panel line washes is not, in my view, weathering.  It certainly adds to the look of a model and makes a great companion to weathering techniques.  I always try to do a little practice on an old model/kit pieces before working on my current project.

 

Painting:  I agree in general with Giorgio.  I use lacquer/enamel (solvent based) paints for my basic painting.  I then apply an acrylic clear gloss on the model and apply the decals.  I seal the decals with another clear acrylic gloss coat.  I then apply an oil wash into the panel lines.  I use Payne's Grey for the lines between the flying control surfaces such as the ailerons and around the often removed panels like engine cowlings.  For ordinary panel lines a wash of gray that's just a little bit darker than the base paint works well.  Overly dark/stark panel lines do not, in my view, add realism to models.  I use pastels and artist's oils to add stains around the engine panels, and seal everything at the end with a clear acrylic flat or semi-flat coat.

 

The main point here is to use alternating layers of paint formulas to act as a barrier for the next layer.  I start with enamels then use clear acrylic clear gloss, oil washes, and so on.  You can start with acrylics and go to clear enamel coats just as easily as starting with solvents.  However, remember that in general, the order of layers would be lacquer, enamel, and acrylic.  Modern paints make breaking this "rule" possible, but if you apply a lacquer over acrylic with a heavy hand it can eat into the acrylic. 

 

There are a variety of methods that can work and how I do it is just one of many.  Experimenting on old model parts and learning to make things work is a great way to figure out these techniques and it will limit the number of mistakes one might make on the model project.  As you try out new things I look forward to seeing how you make out.  Let's see how it goes!

 

HTH, Jim

[Mark Harmsworth]

Another vote from me for Payne's Grey rather than black for the panel lines.

Mark

[colsom]

Thanks for the answers. I can see your point with not using black and will definitely give it a go.  I perhaps should have picked a single wing kit first. I'm not overly worried about making a mess though. It was bought very cheaply from a show. 

 

In fairness to all the modellers in the video's I've seen only a couple use black all over the completed models. The rest used an airbrush and did the panel lines first then built up the paint layers on top.

 

Colin.

[Work In Progress]

You are of course at complete liberty to build whatever you like however you like, but since you've asked for thoughts, these are mine.

Don't try to make a model look like another model you've seen. Very often these effects are severely overdone and don't reflect the appearance of actual aeroplanes. 

Only work from photographs of the specific aeroplane where you can, or of similar types of aeroplane in similar operational circumstances. 

For every weathering effect you're tempted to add, understand what full-size phenomenon you're trying to model. What is it that's caused the damage or degradation of the airframe that you have mind? Oil stains? From what source, and how do slipstream, airflow and gravity really combine to move liquids around? Erosion of finish paint? Is that from feet or flying through rain or what? Each works differently. And when you wear off a layer of paint what was actually underneath? Markings wear off to reveal camouflage colours. Camouflage colours wear off to reveal different things depending on manufacturer, type of construction, and period. On a British fabric covered type with areas of fabric-covering you might well see multiple layers: marking, camo colour, silver dope, red dope and fabric before getting through to actual metal. And anything that wore through all those layers would be pretty serious wear and tear, occasioning repair or replacement . Think about how newly repainted or touched-up areas look, because that is just as likely to be seen in service as a badly worn airframe. For dirt, and grime think about not just how it appears but what it looks like after it's cleaned off. Any oily area will be wiped off periodically, usually daily, leaving no visible oil stain but possibly matt camo colours which now appear darker and richer and satin or even semi-gloss from repeated oily-rag treatment.  Above all don't do the whole of an airframe with all the same kind of treatment. That's not how aeroplanes get dirty or worn, any more than cars do. Variation and subtlety are the keywords.

[colsom]

That was a great answer thanks. I hadn't thought about different layers of paint/dope etc or repairs to the air frame. Finding photos of specific in service WW2 Japanese planes is a challenge to say the least. The ones I've found are very poor quality which is understandable. I'll just keep experimenting. It all adds to the enjoyment.

[Toryu]

On 10/01/2019 at 17:27, Work In Progress said:

Markings wear off to reveal camouflage colours.

Not generally. In many instances markings were factory-applied directly onto the primer and then masked to spray camouflage around (or vice versa). Examples to come to my mind are most Japanese Army aircraft (there are cases where no primer at all was applied, so the 'colour' underneath the marking was bare metall); American fighters for use by the British (e.g. Curtiss Tomahawks); and of course all field-camouflaged airplanes.

 

@colsom: Be very conservative when 'weathering' IJN aircraft. Dirty panel lines are OK, but heavy wear of the surface was not typical since the Navy kept their planes in very good condition even in adverse climate zones. Best to consult contemporary pictures.

 

Michael

[Work In Progress]

That's a good tip, and I was rather thoughtlessly commenting generically rather than on Japanese practice, so it is good to learn something new

[colsom]

On 23/01/2019 at 03:26, Toryu said:

 

@colsom: Be very conservative when 'weathering' IJN aircraft. Dirty panel lines are OK, but heavy wear of the surface was not typical since the Navy kept their planes in very good condition even in adverse climate zones. Best to consult contemporary pictures.

I put a lot of thought into what to do with regard to weathering. All the WW2 IJN pictures of carrier based craft I found (Swearing removed) were quite grainy as you'd expect but the vast majority of the aircraft looked very dull and grimy and a long way from being looked after visually. As a result I now have a pretty dirty and grotty looking kit lol. I'd post some pics but after spending a couple of hours trying to figure out how to attach photos I gave up. (I have little patience with technology). If anybody can tell me where to find better images I'd be very grateful. 

 

Colin.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Greg B

[Toryu]

59 minutes ago, colsom said:

I put a lot of thought into what to do with regard to weathering. All the WW2 IJN pictures of carrier based craft I found (Swearing removed) were quite grainy as you'd expect but the vast majority of the aircraft looked very dull and grimy and a long way from being looked after visually. As a result I now have a pretty dirty and grotty looking kit lol. I'd post some pics but after spending a couple of hours trying to figure out how to attach photos I gave up. (I have little patience with technology). If anybody can tell me where to find better images I'd be very grateful. 

 

Colin.

You need to differentiate between operational pictures and those that were taken at war's end by US forces (or months thereafter). The latter usually look very derelict because the planes were exposed without being used or were even crashed/vandalized.

In most books I own the Shidens, Raidens, Zekes etc. look pretty fresh. (I’m speaking of the IJN here, not necessarily the Army). Watch this movie for instance:

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Toryu

[DaveWilko]

Something mentioned some years ago by a pretty competent railway modelling friend when I commented on the realism of

the weathering of his rolling stock and loco collection was quite simply put.

 

He said that the secret was to "Paint what you see and NOT what you think you see".

 

Thinking about that statement,it echo's what some of our colleagues have said above,study as many pictures

of your intended model as possible and similar types in a similar theatre of operations.

Working like that will give you a pretty accurately finished representation of your subject.

 

Have fun.

 

DW.

 

[colsom]

Thanks again for the replies. Michael.....The video was good to watch. All I've found so far are grainy old photos of aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers. The quality is understandably awful which probably contributes to them looking filthy. I'm thinking perhaps  I should get the paint out again. I also think I'm perhaps trying to run before I can walk but hey, it's fun and I'm enjoying what I'm doing which surely is the main priority. I'll have a go at uploading some photos again.

 

Dave....Paint what you see is also good advice as I've painted probably what I imagined. The upside though is that I've started to experiment with different methods  and materials.

 

Colin