How flat camouflage colours then really were ?

[GHE]

Meine Herren !

When scrutinizing b/w historic aeroplane photographies the colours do not seem to be real flat.
Sometimes one even watches mirror images of struts etc. on the painted surfaces.
When you do a visit to a museum and look at ammunition boxes or other items like canteens etc. the paint does not look dead-flat but semi-gloss "flat".
Photos taken from afar will not really indicate whether he paint was flat.

Cleaning and servicing often makes flat colours look semi-gloss.
The first time I watched real flat surfaces was when NATO did the 3-colour-scheme  of red-brown, black and green.
The lozenge fabric on the Rumpler I photographed at Munich looked like printed cloth, the restored Fokker D.VII lozenge pattern looked semi-gloss.
From the books on WW2 German Aircraft Camouflage I learned that in those days real flat colours did not exist.
Thinking of our Lorries and Jeeps at the army - from afar the paint did not look glossy and did not reflect in a glossy way, but
from close the looked more semi-gloss like.
So when we paint WW1 aircraft- what is to do ?
In an armour painting book it was recommended to put some gloss base to your flat acrylics which will give the model a more
lively look afterwards.
That is true; dead-flat vehicles do not look convincing; wheathering stands out better, too- for ex. dust.

Personally I'd opt for a deliberate  semi-gloss look - not overdone and perhaps better done with adding gloss base to flat colours,
or flat base to gloss paint.

What do you think ?

bizz bald, Gunther

[kornbeef]

Yes Gunter it seems a lot of WWI aircraft were far from flat/matt finishes, I tend to finish mine in a satin sheen rather than flat finish.

Worn tired dope may have taken a flat look and dope applied over metal was more reflective than over wood than over fabric, at least thats how I view things. 
Feild over factory applications, mixes, quality etc all lend a hand to cause countless variations.
Then of course you have sheen from engine/gun oil too to add to the mix not to mention DUST...  .

At the end of the day it's more a matter of personal taste unless photographic evidence exists either way for a specific aircraft.


Keith

[WarrenD]

Gunter, Gruss Gott! (Sorry, don't know ho to make the double "s" with my keyboard.)

As we all know, fabric covered a/c of the time were covered with cellulose dope which imparts a glossy finish, therefore the a/c, when new, would be glossy also. However, if we painted a model such as a 1/72nd biplane and put a glossy finish on it, it would look toy-like. Look at modern a/c such as jet airliners or autos which carry glossy finishes, the farther you get away from them, the less glossy the finish looks to our eye. I have seen the scientific arguments to explain why this occurs, but I'd rather not type it out, and I don't think we need to go into it here, it is what it is. Maybe we can chalk it up to "scale effect".   As for me and my house, I think using a "satin" finish of some sort works best when trying to replicate this effect. I completed a 1/72nd Fokker Tripe, and finished it off with a VERY light coat of Testors "satin". From normal viewing distances, you cannot see it, it looks flat, if you get very close, you can see the finish is not flat. I was satisfied with this effect. In my very humble opinion, I think you can up the degree of "satin" as you climb up in scale, but even in 1/32nd biplanes I think a true "gloss" coat should be avoided.
(FWIW, since you brought up NATO camo schemes on vehicles, etc. I remember when I was a mechanized infantryman and armor crewman in the 80's/early 90's, all of our vehicles had a "flat finish". It doesn't take long for that paint to go "flat" from sunlight, weather, etc.)

On another note, I also think we should stay away from heavy weathering. I've seen some modelers weather WWI a/c to make them look like flying dust bins/garbage cans that were serving in the North African desert or on a Pacific atoll exposed to all of the elements for weeks or months. During WWI, these a/c were cutting edge technology, and they were babied and sheltered as much as possible. Sure, you can find the occasional photo of an a/c looking extremely worn, and on its last legs, but look at the majority of images. Most show well maintained airframes with a little exhaust or staining from castor oil, etc. One hardly ever sees very faded paint/dope, etc. except on airframes that are just worn out.

"Fabric Effect"?  Don't even get me started. 

Warren

[Rob Hart]

Most WWI aircraft didn't exist long enough due to combat attrition, accidents, etc. to acquire heavily weathered finishes.

[WarrenD]

Most WWI aircraft didn't exist long enough due to combat attrition, accidents, etc. to acquire heavily weathered finishes.

So true! If they did, they were the exception rather than the rule.

Warren

[kornbeef]

Theres quite a few images of craft with heavy oil staining, flaked and worn doping especially around ribs and trailing edges. Over chipping of metal panels etc is often overdone IMHO but paint was often not good quality, poorly applied in the feild, often quite thinly. It abraded away around high wear area's like steps anc cockpits. Aircraft were often overpainted several times, sometimes not so well executed either, and theres some horrific messes done  by flightline crews rejigging national markings etc.

I'm currently trying to replicate von Schleichs D.V in its later life, if you check the images the airframes really quite rippled it's been field reinforced, the dope is flaking on the lower wings, it's clearly seen some action and probably was close to its  end of use. Seems after he inherite Kissenberth's equally tatty repainted D,Va too.

Yes it's true most airframe lives were generally very short lived indeed and if no photograhic evidence exists of a particular airframe then its a matter of personal choice (I never was big on heavy rusted hulks when I modelled armour, I thought those to over the top... personal taste again  )

[ModelingBob]

IMNSHO, there is no one size fits all situations answer. Case in point is my car. Right after I wash it, it is very glossy. And yes, the paint and finish is indeed very glossy (supposed to be that way!). But right now, I haven't washed my car in over a week, and the accumulated dust, dirt, grime, pollen, etc has covered that finish, and it looks flat, not glossy. No mistaking it right now, it's definitely flat (and will remain that way until I wash it again!). Yep, most lined covered aircraft are covered in a glossy dope finish (that is not quite as glossy as my cars finish), but that's not to say it always looks glossy. Immediately after completing a mission from a dirt/grass airfield, I doubt it is a very glossy finish. Every modeler needs to choose for themselves how they want their model to look, and no one answer is always correct. For me, if I left a glossy finish on my models, IMNSHO it makes them look like toys. And that's not a finish I like! YMMV!!!

[WarrenD]

Theres quite a few images of craft with heavy oil staining, flaked and worn doping especially around ribs and trailing edges.

However, for every one photo showing this this kind of wear and tear, there are dozens and dozens that don't.  Yes, we can document many times when airframes were run "into the ground" so-to-speak (no pun intended), but these airframes are also cutting edge technology of the times. They were babied, sheltered, and well-maintained much more often than not.  A worn and torn finish is not typical, IMHO, unless someone is modeling a particular crate at that specific point in time.


Warren

[uncletony]

Theres quite a few images of craft with heavy oil staining, flaked and worn doping especially around ribs and trailing edges.

However, for every one photo showing this this kind of wear and tear, there are dozens and dozens that don't.  Yes, we can document many times when airframes were run "into the ground" so-to-speak (no pun intended), but these airframes are also cutting edge technology of the times. They were babied, sheltered, and well-maintained much more often than not.  A worn and torn finish is not typical, IMHO, unless someone is modeling a particular crate at that specific point in time.


Warren

I'm afraid I don't quite agree.

Look at the photos of the E.V replicas at Omaka. These aircraft are babied far more than any wwi aircraft could ever have hope for, and they are literally soaked in castor oil, right through the dope-- indeed like all rotary powered aircraft after the first five minutes of running. And its not just the rotaries. The inline engines belched oil too -- hence the holes in the windscreens so the pilots could see out(!!!!!) somewhere I was just looking at a photo of a pilot posing in a Roland D.VI and the windscreen is virtually opaque with schmutz and the thing is sitting on the ground.

Consider the maintenance regimens: every night Benz powered machines were completely drained of all fluids. That means all those alloy panels are coming off and being replaced constantly. Modern lacquer doesn't stick very well to aluminum -- cant imagine the situation was better then. Consider also that machines were routinely taken apart, loaded onto trucks and reassembled. Add to the mix that on the German side at least, resources were very scarce and substitutes were constantly being made with finishes etc.

Add this to the fact that they lived outside in a war zone famous for mud-- c'mon, these things were filthy more often than not.

[WarrenD]

Is the dope "worn" on the Omaka tripes? Is it flaking?  Here are some shots of a rotary-powered tripe that was run for more than five minutes:

http://www.wwi-models.org/Photos/Ger/Fok_DrI/index.html

Scroll down to "A Study in Oil Leakage"


Why do you say that these are a/c are babied more that any one in WWI? Timm, Voss' mechanic, stated in a C&C interview years and years ago that his job every time Voss came back in his tripe was to spend hours scraping off the gunk and wiping it down.  I'm sure this wasn't the exception.


Warren

[GHE]

Meine Herren !
Thank you for the nice "Grüß Gott"  - and the interesting answers !

I do have two original  sienna coloured b/w photographies that either my grandpa (*1907) or his father has taken from a
AEG biplane scout that nosed over.
Even on them it is very hard on the sheen and wear and tear to tell because the paper is sort of pixel-like (not the grain).
Photos in books are copies from good/bad originals and depend on the printing quality in addition- bad print of bad original....
For sure the aeroplanes were maintained very well, because you had stalemate fronts, no hurry to move the squadrons 'cause
the enemy broke through or because the front or production disintegrated although there sure were shortages on either side.

Wear and tear is easily overdone on a model and a challenging theme .
Nevertheless it is not easy at all to show a plane factory - fresh without making it look toy-like.
Gloss varnish will not do (sometimes figure uniforms are not really flat in appearance -and schwupp-die wupp- they will look
toy-like) that is right.

My conclusion that I draw from your nice replies is to mix gloss base into flat paint; this way one may control the desired effect better than using semi-flat paint right away.
It is challenging and fun to work out the "right " look for the different surfaces to make it look life-like.

With my tanks I always mixed in gloss  base and liked the effect very much; as I preferred DAK and Desert Rats to Russian soil,
dust stood out better and looked more convincing.
A Doppeldecker on the Palestine Front will of course have a fine layer of dust soon; the maintenance personnel will dust of the
precious war machine so that the dust will not interfere with air flow or jam something; but when the propeller rotates...

The goal may be to produce a very fine layer of fine pigmented paint to simulate dust.
Old paint might already have a pigment too large from pigments adhering to one another; flat base added to flat paint is a good trick to create dust (makes it look brighter and flatter)

All in all even original photographies are hard to judge - the lenses weren't that bad, the glass emulsions either, but the paper
copies may vary widely, storage abuse ads, etc. .
Most frames weren't done and allowed to do in Walk-Around-Style. Light reflections on surfaces blur details that one notices
standing close to the plane.

In general heavy wheathering is maybe a nice idea for one Doppeldecker but not a general advice to each built model.
- maybe the rotary engine was hit and castor oil spread around etc., maybe its a Palestine front plane...., maybe the lorry
arrived with the latest S.E. 5a - even without a vignette there is a possibility to put a story into the model.

horrido!  yours, Gunther

[GHE]

Meine Herren !

Postscriptum:
Please visit our " Photographing Models " theme: already here one may watch how different surfaces look due to lighting
conditions / editing .

servus, Gunther