Semi Gloss or Matt

[Guest]

I'm mainly into WW2 aircraft at the moment and being fairly new to scale modelling, following a 20 year break, I cannot seem to make my mind up on what finish looks best.

I'm not really into weathering at the moment, due to lack of technique at this time, so I intend to finish my aircraft in an as new or museum display type finish. Personally I would say planes with a fabric finish like say a Hurricane I would finish in matt, but if I was finishing a Spitfire which was metal based would it look better in semi gloss?

Then you have night fighter/bombers with their darker finishes like the Lancaster or Mosquito NF, what would you finish these with?

What do you find best?

[Guest]

Hello Copperman69 apologies do not know your Christian name.

Had same thoughts as now only on my 6th model. Most of those in Satin finish last one a Lancaster in matt.

Frankly it is what takes you at the time. Also makes a lot of difference on how you are showing your finished aircraft. Is the lighting high medium or low as a matt finish for instance can in high lighting look glossy. Also colours are afflicted by the type of light. Cold or warm lighting. Warm will give a yellow cast & cold will give a blue cast.

Also I have read a lot recently including on this forum to scale down or up colours depending on the scales of the model.

The answer lies in the above but mostly in our artistic nature. Do you like women with lipstick or without lipstick ? Life gets so complicated for me !

Just add that I have had the same confusion with weathering or museum finish. Difficult when you are just starting out. Do you want to risk wrecking one of your few finished models ?

Laurie

[Guest]

Do you like women with lipstick or without lipstick ? Life gets so complicated for me !

Lol... depends if it's matt or gloss really!

Thanks for the reply and I see what your saying, depends on how your displaying it and also your personal preference.

I took some photos of the MkVb Spitfire at Hendon last week and it's certainly got a sheen to it, but if your scalling down like you mention then it may be better in matt.

Colin.

[Ian M]

I would suggest a satin finish on aircraft, weathered or show room. Glossy looks to much. Unless it is a nice glossy display bird like a Red Arrow or one of the other special paint jobs.

I did a black Alpha from the Valley a while back and that just looked wrong satin, so that got a nice shiny gloss coat.

But as it has already been touched upon, its a matter of taste and how you like them, its your build after all.

Ian M

[stona]

Hi Colin. This is a bit of a mine field. The simple answer is to try and find a good photo reference for your subject but we all know that this is not always possible. As a general rule most aircraft were kept in pretty good nick,this doesn't mean they didn't suffer wear and tear. The paints used on British aircraft had a smooth finish which does not generally appear completely matt whilst being a long way from glossy. I'm going to post a few pictures to illustrate how hard it is to give a definitive answer.

A line up of Canadian Spitfires in North Africa.

I'd say pretty matt.

A close up of one of the same squadron

Matt,well worn and often repaired.

Jump to the UK,around the BoB.

A slight sheen,not entirely matt.

A bit later and things are a bit more shiney.Reinforcing a point made above it also looks to be wet which will alter the way the finish looks.

You can see the variations. After the introduction of the type S (smooth) paints there is a general trend to slightly more satin looking aircraft but it is a trend and not a rule. You can be sure that an aircraft operating from a strip in Borneo won't be a smart as one operating from a British base!

The exact reverse is true of the Luftwaffe. The finish on german aircraft degraded towards the end of the war,something some pilots complained about as a rough finish has a performance penalty.

This brings us to the issue of waxing. This was expressly forbidden in the RAF but there is evidence that some senior officers did it. U.S. non specular paints were pretty matt but many USAAF fighter units applied wax as a matter of course. Noone in their right mind is going to get a tin of polish and a rag and set about a B-17 so you can be sure that these remained matt. Some Luftwaffe units did wax,particularly early in the war,their Air Ministry (RLM) inspectors made official complaints about the practice to the Luftwaffe.

Where would we be without a couple of nice colour pictures of aircraft. First the Germans,and yes,they are giving that wing a polish.

And then a nice clean Spitfire

Good luck.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

I guess then really that there is no right or wrong way, it just depends on your taste and the model your building. I going for a factory fresh look at the moment so will probably go semi gloss to emulate the smooth sheen paint before weathering and battle scars.

I never realised that anyone waxed their planes, must of been a slow day!!

[stona]

I never realised that anyone waxed their planes, must of been a slow day!!

A smooth and polished airframe will be faster than a roughly finished one and that could save or lose your life. British rules and regulations about painting and finishing were very stringent. It is the reason why things like allowable overspray at colour demarcations are so strictly controlled.

The relevant authorities banned or tried to prevent the practice of waxing since it made a repair or repaint very much more difficult and time consuming.

You can see the reflection of the victory markings on the fin of this Bf109 in the horizontal stabiliser.

Here's how you did it.

If you couldn't find a rotary polisher you could always use a small dog,this is "dingo" doing his bit for the war effort :smile1:

The pilot is Sgt James Hyde,a volunteer from Trinidad who sadly, was shot down and killed on 25/9/44. One of a largely forgotten group of Carribean volunteers many of whom served with considerable distinction.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

Very interesting pictures Steve.

Just finished a book by Group Captain Johnny Kent.

He was rested to a OTU squadron as an instructor. He refused to fly the spitfires there as they were clapped out.

But suspect that Spitfires, because of their technical build, came out best as they were mostly sent to factories for repair whereas the Hurricane & Mosquito for instance could be repaired more easily on station so you would get a difference in quality of paintwork.

Just wonder if those weathered so to speak gave a better camouflage image ! Read some where that German pilots tended to repaint their camouflage to suit what they thought was a better protection.

Laurie

[stona]

Hi Laurie,there was a comprehensive system in place for service and repair with aircraft being passed up the chain depending on the degree and complexity of the work required. I'm not very famiiar with the British system but I bet it mirrored the system employed by the Luftwaffe and other air forces.

I'm not sure that weathering would particularly enhance or detract from the camouflage. Everyone adopted their official camouflage schemes to suit the theatre of operations etc. The Luftwaffe units appear to have exercised a great deal of autonomy as far as field adjustments to their camouflage. The schemes coming from the factories were as tightly regulated by the RLM as ours were by the Air Ministry but whereas an RAF unit could not alter the scheme (with a few minor exceptions for which permission was sought,blacking out the white of roundels on some bombers springs to mind) a Luftwaffe unit could and they very often did. This led to a vast range of unorthodox schemes,some in unorthodox,mixed,colours. Interestingly adaptations made by the units could feed back up the chain of command and influence future,official schemes. The colours on the Bf109s of JG 54 which I posted in this thread (the colour ones) are not standard RLM colours and are definitely not an official Messerschmitt,RLM approved,scheme. The images are stills from a film taken as JG 54 headed East and had obviously decided that the standard scheme of the time didn't work for them. This unit was notorious for adapting it's schemes throughout the war.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

Aircraft as supplied should be in a matt finish (full scale).

A great deal of thought and planning goes into the camouflage schemes and paint materials used on aircraft.

The purpose of the camo was to make the aircraft as difficult as possible to see with the human eye. Hence the two tone on top for land base aircraft and either grey or blue for the underside.

Matt finish was essential to reduce reflections. Canopies were a major problem for causing reflections, but it was considered a necessary evil.:cheesygrin: Plus polishing the canopy helps disperse water droplets.

Through wear and tear and constant polishing by uniforms clambering over the aircraft for servicing the finish would become more glossy.

So if you want a factory finish then it should be in matt!:nono:

[stona]

Aircraft as supplied should be in a matt finish (full scale). So if you want a factory finish then it should be in matt!:nono:

We'll have to disagree about that. British type S paints did not give a matt finish,something closer to a slight satin finish. The RLM laquers did not give a true matt finish either.I have seen a large part of a Fw190 wing dug out of the Dutch earth ,washed down from a watering can,adopt a distinct sheen after sixty odd years in the ground. I know nothing about Japanese paints but the most matt of all were the U.S.non-specular aircraft laquers.

I would argue that as paint weathered and faded the finish infact became MORE not less matt in appearance. I base this on the thousands of Luftwaffe and hundreds of RAF and other photographs I have accumulated over the last thirty years or so. Take a look at a nice fresh Spitfire in a revetment at Biggin Hill.

That's a factory fresh finish,you might call it matt but I'd beg to differ.

Moelders Bf109

A humble Percival Proctor. See the fin flash reflected in the elevator.

Now add a bit of weathering and we start losing the shiney sheen as on this Whirlwind.

Or these Spitfires

I still wouldn't say that was really matt,look at the sun on the fuselage.

Now take a well weathered aircraft that has survived long enough,or operated in a harsh environment,and you can get something like this Spitfire.

Or this "Greek" Hurricane which have had any semblance of a sheen beaten out of them.

Cheers

Steve

[Ian M]

Nothing llike being baked in the mediteranian sun for a month or two to get the shine out of paint!

Some great photos there Steve.

Ian M

[Guest]

Stona, I'm don't wish to disagree with you or argue otherwise.:tongue:

I was only referring to British paints, as I don't know about any other country's production methods. Should have made that point in earlier post.

Agreed, any painted area untouched would become more matt in time!

However what I was referring to as weathering was simply due to constant use and abrasive contact by handling. In a couple of the pictures you can clearly see the shiny patches as being high traffic areas. The leading edge of wings being one in particular, where the mechanics would lean over whilst reloading the guns. Similarly around the cockpit/engine areas where the mechanics would open panels or the pilot brush against whilst entering or exiting the aircraft.

In your pictures above a lot of the differences could simply be put down to variations in the painting process. The aircraft were being rushed off the production lines as fast as possible, and the less paint that went on, the quicker it dried. It was also being painted over untreated aluminium panels. Therefore a very thin coat of matt paint is going to look semi-glossy.

The Hurricanes being wood and cloth have a matt finish before the paint is applied. Therefore they would be more consistent in finish.

Add to all the above, various different paint suppliers whom each would manufacture differently, each paint spray shop would stir and thin the paints to their own methods, the painters each rushing to get the job finished as quick as possible, and you have quite a lot of variation possibilities.

I don't know how vigorously the regulations would have been enforced, especially in an area not considered as critical as, for example, the flight controls. So imagine there was scope for many inconsistencies, especially as there was not just one aircraft producer for each model.

[Ian M]

Oh! This could get interesting...:knitting:

Ian M

[stona]

Hi Terry,please don't think I was picking an argument,absolutely not. It's great that different views and opinions can be aired in a grown up way on this forum and hopefully it helps all of us (including me!) learn something.

I agree that traffic areas might initially become polished. We know that in really high traffic areas the paint eventually wore off. The standard method for cleaning off these aircraft was a rub down with water and what we would now call wet 'n dry which should remove foot and hand prints and various staining so beloved of modellers.

Hurricanes were reloaded from the top of the wing and Spifires from underneath,though the guns were cocked from the top.

Here's an erk re-arming a Spitfire.

The regulations for painting aircraft in the U.K. were very strict and religiously adhered to. Sub standard aircraft would be rejected and this of course did not apply just to painting. There is a record of one manufacturer (can't remember who) taking issue with the Air Ministry inspectors over this,their excuse was that all their skilled sprayers had been called up and they were using less skilled people to do the job. They wouldn't have got a rejected aircraft accepted that way! Both the paints and the application were considered an important part of the production process and had to be up to scratch. One of the reasons for the tight regulation was because,as you rightly say,different parts could be made by different sub-contractors and would have to fit together and match up correctly. This was an effort to minimise inconsistencies.

I don't think that the final camouflage coat applied to wooden or fabric surfaces would appear very different to that applied over metal. Fabric surfaces would have been treated with many coats of various dopes,I've got the schedule for fabric surfaces somewhere,I think it may be seven coats of dope.

Spitfires received a coat of a grey primer before the camouflage coats,they were not applied over bare metal.

The reason the British switched to the type S paints was that,as the name would suggest, they gave a smoother finish than the earlier matt paints. I'm not a paint chemist but I understand this has something to do with the size of the various pigment particles. The type S paints were tested and their reflectivity,whilst greater than the earlier paint types was considered acceptable. The smoother finish gave a performance advantage. We must remember that the performance margin between the Spitfire,Hurricane and the Bf109 (and later the Spitfire and Fw190) was very slim,much slimmer than the myths allow. Even a gain of a handful of M.P.H. was considered important.

The most important factor in the appearance of any particular aircraft is its treatment after it left the factory gates which is why references are so important.

Cheers

Steve