Some thoughts on the cover article B-2 Spirit in the January issue

I agree that the shadeing of the aircraft may be more obviouse on the model than it would be on the actuall aircraft , but it sure is very well done !

Shell

This is a most interesting topic, and the arguments on both sides are well-expressed.  I'm inclined to agree with both basic points:  one - that the model is a masterpiece of skill and research; two - that the photos of it certainly show more contrast and variation in overall texture and color than photos of the real aircraft do.  (I got a look at a real B-2 briefly a few years ago at Dayton; my recollection is that it gave the impression of being extremely dull and uniform in color.)

I do suggest, though, that we consider another possible factor:  the lighting and processing of the photos.  A model can look a lot different under bright, photoflood lights than it does to the human eye - and post-camera adjustments of color and contrast (which, nowadays, are almost infinitely variable in computer programs like Photoshop) can have even more impact on how the picture looks.  Changing the angle of a light, or the distance from the light to the model, in a photo setup can make an enormous amount of difference.  I'd want to look at the model itself, with my own middle-aged eyes, before forming a firm opinion.

In any case, Mr. Vojtek has demonstrated (in this model as in quite a few others) an extraordinary ability to pick out interesting features of an aircraft and translate them into a model.  By any yard stick it's an outstanding piece of work.

Interesting.

Here are some pics I Googled of the real thing:

Interesting to compare.

Beautiful work on the model. Very striking image ofr the cover.

I fully agree that photo lighting and image processing can make dramatic differences in the appearance of a photographed model.  My two cents worth - and the opinion of my father, a professional artist and longtime modeler - is that outside natural lighting is the best sort for model photos - especially since it is single source, just like pictures of the real machines would be.

But in this case I don't think that lighting or processing issues had much to do with the final appearance of the photographed model.  First, Mr. Vojtech specifically stated that he deliberately altered the coloration of the aircraft by using lighter and darker shades of paint, and second, while lighting might alter the overall color tone of a model, it would not produce the mottled, blotchy appearance seen with particular clarity in the cover shot.  I suppose you could achieve something like that with careful editing in something like Photoshop, but why?  Especially if the original didn't look anything like it.

The variations in color are subtle but distinctive.  If you saw something like that on, say, a blue Corsair from World War II, you would conclude that the plane had been out exposed to the blistering elements in harsh enviornment of the Pacific Islands.  Since B-2s stay as far away as possible from harsh environments, it is, to my mind, an overdone and un-realistic effect.   Again, every picture I've ever of operational B-2s shows a very uniform, uninteresting overall dark gray color, broken only by the various stenciling lines and insignia.

As I indicated in my earlier post, Mr. Vojtech's desicison to paint his B-2 in such a fashion certainly adds a degree of visual interest that would otherwise be lacking on a model painted exactly like the real aircraft.  I simply object to the characterization of such an uneven paint scheme as "realistic" on this particular aircraft model.

Tom 

the actual model is very contrasty as well. I saw it at the nationals. He had the smae problem with his c-130 last year. The stark pre shading was totally unrealistic.

that being said, his assembly skills are astounding.  

I agree with you completely Tom.  There has been a trend in modeling for the last several years to show off artistic talent without worrying much about realism.  For both Aircraft & Armor, techniques such as pre-shading, post-shading, layering, filtering, etc. have gained a large following because properly done they can result in strikingly beautiful models.  But the strikingly beautiful model bears little resemblance to the real AC or Tank supposedly being replicated.  For example, I have looked at thousands of pictures of WWII aircraft & find no evidence that wing panels faded more in the center than along the panel seams, yet modelers show this fading when they shade.  For that matter, panel seams are barely visible on most AC, yet we modelers, myself included, accent them on a regular basis.  In this case, the author/builder should not have stated he did the painting to be realistic, he should have said "I wanted to paint the model for a WOW factor that will surely get IPMS judges attention & land me another cover on FSM, without giving a hoot how it replicates the real thing".

Regards,  Rick

I am not a fan of preshading, I've said it many times. I AM a fan of accurately painted models, however. I applaud the builder for having done a great job of detailing and assembling this dog of a kit, perhaps the most challenging kit I ever built from a major manufacturer. As to the color, in one picture at Global Security, a B-2 does appear to be the light gray depicted by this model, but all the other shots show a very dark gray mostly monochromatic aircraft with some very subtle, emphasis on subtle, differentiations.

Click here to see what I mean.

It does seem to me that real B-2s exhibit some variation in their overall color, but - and this is the key point - regardless of the actual shade of gray, they are a very uniform, dull, un-contrasty color.  This model is very much the opposite of that - while the overall color is obviously gray, it looks extremely blotchy and uneven in color and shade - an effect that is simply impossible given the carbon fiber skin of a B-2.  In fact, even heavily weathered/faded World War II aircraft rarely exhibit this level of patchy coloration.  Look at old war-weary B-17s, for example.  While the orignal color has faded to the extent that it can hardly be considered olive drab any more, and some parts, such as the fabric-covered control surfaces, have an even more heavily faded color tone, the OVERALL aircraft is still a very uniform color.

I completely agree that artistic technique is rapidly overtaking realistic effects in much of the modeling world, especially with contest models.  In many cases, a wide variety of painting and weathering techinques are used to create a model that is superficially a replica of the real thing, but has far more contrast and visual appeal that the real one ever did.

Now, if the modeler is upfront about the fact that his primary goal is to experiment with techinque, and hang the realism, then more power to him.  In fact, in the same January issue of FSM as the B-2, there is a profile about Keven Kuster, who freely admits that with his armor models he is more interested in exploring interesting artistic techinques than in historical accuracy.  His fishnet stocking camo pattern on the Hetzer is a case in point!  That is his take on the hobby, and he is honest about it, and it is a great thing - it adds a different and unusual viewpoint to a hobby that can become obsessively detail and realism oriented.

But using all of these artistic techniques to produce a visually arresting model, and then defending them as "realistic" painting and weathering styles is, I think, over the long run bad for the hobby.  It is in effect placing style over substance in terms of research and accuracy.  I fully agree about the lack of realism inherent in "fading" the center of aircraft panels - it looks cool and creates a more three dimensional feel to the model, but it is never realistic.  I have never seen, or had anyone point out, photograhic evidence that supports this style of paint weathering, but it has become an almost required technique for contest models - how can you be a "serious" modeler if you don't fade your wing panels?

Aircraft panel lines are effectively invisible at anything more than a few feet away from the real aircraft - the "delicate, scale" panel lines on most kits are in fact grossly oversized in scale terms, and are there largely because we modelers would scream our heads off if they weren't.  When we emphasize the panel lines, we are, in effect, saying "look closely at these unrealistic and oversized trenches in the skin of the airplane."  If you actually measured the panel lines in even the most recent, accurate model airplane kit, and then scaled them up to full size, you would be appalled at the huge gouge in the skin represented by the "delicate" panel lines of the kit.

If we are going to build accurate replicas of real-life machines, then we should work towards reproducing real-life painting and weathering effects, and not trying to convince ourselves that just because something looks "cool", it is automaticaly "realistic".  And for what it's worth, I've recently had the opportunity to work closely with a number of aircraft curators at the National Air & Space Museum, who are also modelers, and they are uniformly of the opinon that these recent trends in model aircraft painting and weathering are completely out of hand, to the point where you have to remove such models from the category of "historical replica" and put them into a category such as "historically inspired art".

John Vojtech's B-2 is absolutely amazing! So was his C-130! I love what he can build in 1/72 scale. His work is truly inspiring.

But... the panel lines are far too prominent.

I see C-130s fly over my office parking lot all the time, and the most noticable "weathering" I see is exhaust streaks on the underside of the wings as in this photo. You'll notice in the same photo that that particular plane is pretty dirty and the panel lines are more prominent than in other photos I've seen. They're still far less prominent than Vojtech's model.

For some reason, though, the panel lines on his B-2 bothered me less than on the C-130. I think overly dark panel lines on a light finish are more of a problem than light panel lines on a dark finish. 

At least we have  color photos to compare the model to. This high-res, 3 MB photo shows a lot of variation in the colors of the panels. Whereas this smaller photo taken in different light hardly shows any variation. In this high-res photo, one can't even see a single panel line!

With WWI and WWII planes, which were mostly photographed in black and white, people have written whole volumes on how to interpret the colors. When a color photo of a plane shows up, it makes things even worse, with discussions on how color film processing has changed, how film degrades over time, how the color of paint degrades over time, etc.

The easy answer is that there is no easy answer. I've taken a couple of trips to the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center over the past few years. At one point, somebody on another message board asked if WWI planes had black tires or grey tires. I was curious as to how the Smithsonian had chosen to do the tires for their Nieuport 28, so I looked at some of my photos. 

.

.

I've been there twice, studied the plane, taken photos, and I still can't tell you with absolute certainty that the tires are black, although I think they are.

My approach is to study the photos of the subject I'm modeling, and try to replicate what I see. In the end, though, it's always a judgement call, and I'm the only one who I need to please.

 Regards,

tomgoetz wrote:

this style of paint weathering, but it has become an almost required technique for contest models - how can you be a "serious" modeler if you don't fade your wing panels?

As one who spends a goodly number of hours bent over models at local and regional contests, I'll tell you that if there were an accurately depicted model next to one with a wow factor paint job that looked unrealistic with heavy preshading, (or excess paint chipping, etc.) and all other basic skills were equlal, I'd advocate very strongly with my team that the nod go to the one withteh more realistic finish. IPMS National rules suggest as much as well, with accuracy of paint job being given the benefit of th edoubt.

Given the level of work exhibitted BEFORE the painting, and not having seen what else was in competition, I'm sure he deserved the awards he received. Unfortunately, this model's inclusion on the cover will inspire others to try for more and more "modellistic" effects as opposed to an accurate depiction of a prototype aircraft, tank or other vehicle.

It's ironic that a couple years back that our hosts here even spoofed the whole concept of "artisitic" weathering in an April Fools' diorama showing a ground crew sahding and fading a P-47 which was parked next to a clean one. IIRC, the premise of the dio was that the crew was doing this to make the plane look more used for a visiting dignitary.

I remember the April Fool's article with the P-47s in it, and loved it!  Got a real hoot out of the concept, even if they goofed up and used the wrong commanding general for the date listed in the "orders".  Perils of being an historian as well as a modeler - you notice fairly trivial stuff like that.

As to the panel lines on the B-2 model, I actually don't have any problem with them.  That is because they are not really "panel lines" in the sense that we normally think of.  That is, they are not spaces in between seperate sections of metal, or in this case composite, skin material.  That is after all what panel lines are - the almost invisible joint between two sections of aluminum that have been fastened to the frame of the aircraft.  As aircraft have become more streamlined and faster, those seams have gotten smaller and smaller, to the point where you have to be almost on top of the real machine to even spot them on modern combat aircraft.  Which makes all those models of modern military aircraft with all these highly visible panel lines even less realistic than the ones on older planes.

Anyway, back to the B-2.  The B-2 has no "panel lines" in the traditional sense, as the entire surface of the aircraft is a single piece of the carbon fiber composite - that is one reason the plane is so darned expensive.  The skin is essentially one single piece, with some small cutouts for access hatches and such.  The "panel lines" on a B-2 are in fact similar to stenciling, only in this case they are deliberately created in the skin of the B-2 itself by lightening selected portions of the surface, since they cannot use paint on it at all.  They are put there to indicate where things like framing, hatches, and other important internal parts of the airplane are - information which is often essential when doing maintenance.  Even the national insignia are "molded" into the skin.  Since the overall color of the B-2 is a dark gray, these essential markings are crafted in a lighter gray for contrast, without being too obvious.   So the light gray "panel lines" on the model are in fact completely accurate, and can be verified by any good close up of the real plane.

But I agree that panel lines on a great many recent aircraft models are over-sized and over-emphasized.  The over-sized part is probably inevitable, given that modelers want panel lines on their kits, and if the companies were to make them to realistic scale, they would be so fine and insignificant that they would be effectively invisible.  But this trend to emphasize the panel lines, to in effect shout "look at these seams!" on the finished product, is our fault as builders.  We do it because we want people to notice what we've built, and this is a good way to draw attention to the finished product while still being "subtle" and "realistic".

As an example of what I mean by scaling up to show the real size of panel lines, consider this.  I attempted to measure the depth of some panel lines on some of my 1/48 kits.  Not entirely successful, as most of the parts are still in the plastic bags, and my smallest unit of measuring only goes down to 1/32 of an inch, but based on that, I'm guessing that most of the panel lines on the best, most recent kits are only about 1/100 of an inch deep - perhaps even less, but bear with me.  That seems pretty darn tiny, and is very hard to see as well - which is probably why we tend to consider them "delicate" and "in-scale".  But scale them up to full size, and what do you get?  A gouge in the skin of the plane that is approximately one half in deep and one half inch wide.  Now that's a real trench!  Even if you reduce the depth of the model's panel line to 1/200 of an inch deep, it still scales up to almost 1/4 of an inch deep and wide, which I'm sure anyone who has ever seen the real airplanes would admit is enormously bigger than the real thing.  Or do it the other way - measure the width and depth of real panel lines on real airplanes, and then scale them down.  Not so easy to do, but still yields some impressive numbes, I'm sure. 

There is a certain amount of the "Scale Effect" at work here.  If the panel lines are to be seen at all on such a small model (they almost certainly would not be seen if you simply took a real plane and shrank it down to scale size) they must be oversized, and because the model is so small, you can get away with making them too large because they are still almost too tiny to be noticed. 

The only evidence I've ever seen in photographs of actual planes of panel lines being noticeable is in areas around the engine, cooling, and hydraulic areas of the plane.  These areas all leak some sort of fluids, which tend to accumulate in even the smallest cracks.  These fluids then collect airborne dust and become dark and rather gunky.  So even if most of the panel lines on a P-51 should be virtually invisible, the ones on the forward fuselage can legitimately have some subtle emphasis to them.  This is especially the case with removable panels used to access the engine, as they tend to have just a tiny bit more space between them than other permanently fixed panels, and also because the act of removing them provides extra opportunity for oil and other gunk to get into the cracks.

I suppose my guiding principle for panel lines and all other forms of weathering is "what does the historical record say?"  What can you find in pictures of the real thing, and how can you then duplicate that efffect?  You can certainly find some examples of pretty extreme weathering - I've seen pictures of German fighters and Stukas in winter white paint schemes with virtually the entire fuselage covered with dark black engine exhaust staining.  But I really do wish people would stop applying various artistic painting and weathering techinques in the name of "realism" without bothering to verify that the efffect is in fact realistic. 

I have never been a big fan for accenting panel lines.  I have  been around real aircraft and they just don't look that way.  When an aircraft is built, a sealant is used on all removal panels and butt joints.  Some panels are never removed by maintenance.  These panels look flush with no seam line that is visible.  Panels and doors that are opened on a routine basis do show paint chipping or accumulated stains, but not to the extent shown on many models.  

On a real operational aircraft, panels, doors, covers, components, etc get damaged and are replaced.  The color or camouflage pattern may not match up.  Do model builders emphasize these.  No they don't.  An example is a KA-6D I saw at Tyndall AFB many years ago.  The aircraft was painted in gloss gull gray all over.  The top side had different shades of the gray, where the underside , flight control surfaces were one uniform color.  The radome was two tone gray and the canopy was a different shade of gray.  The droptanks were three different colors, from white, gull gray and flat gray.   Have you ever seen a model built this way?

Navy and Marine aircraft are spot painted to prevent corrosion when at sea.  That is the closest I have seen to accenting panel lines.  The thing is, not every panel line shows spot painting and not the way some model builders accent them. 

Below is a model of the KA-6D like I saw at TAFB.  It was built many years ago and the decals have turned over the years.  It is usually kept out of sight in my model room on a shelf.  I had to do some minor repair after a hurricane sent a limb through the roof of my model room and did some damage to it. 

Berny,

I agree with the general consensus about panel lines expressed in this thread. I also really like the look of your KA-6D!

Still, sometimes the panel lines are visible, as this random image from a Google search shows (click to enlarge):

So my approach is to check for specific references to specific planes when I try to model them. But, as I said in my previous post, even color photos can be difficult to judge.

In the end, I don't think we can have a blanket rule for panel lines, or markings, or camo, or any other aspect of a model and its finish -- there's always a real-life exception! 

Regards, 

tomgoetz wrote:

I remember the April Fool's article with the P-47s in it, and loved it!  Got a real hoot out of the concept, even if they goofed up and used the wrong commanding general for the date listed in the "orders".  Perils of being an historian as well as a modeler - you notice fairly trivial stuff like that.

To Tom et al,

Boy am I delighted to read this thread, I sure wish more modelers felt this way.

The "April Fools" diorama of which you speak was created by Pat Hawkey (a frequent FSM contributor) and me. Its original intent was not meant to be a joke, but quite the opposite. We did this diorama to offer a somewhat scathing explanation as to the only way an aircraft could come to look this way. After seeing this "trend" become more and more prevalent, we decided it was time to set things right. Though glad that FSM choose to publish photos of our effort, its use as an "April Fools" piece somewhat diluted its original intent. For those not familiar with the diorama, here are a few photos.

I agree that Mr. Vojtech's B-2 and last year's AC-130 are amazing accomplishments in detailing. His building abilities are simply amazing. Which only makes his finishes seem that much more out of place. Why he chooses to go with this style when he obviously took so much care in researching every other aspect of the aircraft he chose to model is baffling. So many modelers will go to such great lengths to insure the accuracy of there models including aftermarket detail and correction parts, only to undermine all that effort with a totally fictitious paint job.

I hope that this trend is in fact just that, a trend. And like all trends, will eventually pass.

For the record, Hoyt Vandenberg WAS the CO at the time the original "orders" were dated.  In order for our friends at the magazine to turn our spoof of the current sad trend in airplane finishing into an April Fools piece, THEY changed the date on the paperwork to April 1.  (Not that names and dates were all that relevant to what Tory and I wanted to get across.)

Our contention was that the only way airplanes could wind up looking like models of them so often do these days, was if they were deliberately painted that way.  It sure wouldn't happen naturally. 

I did ask Paul Boyer to give Tory top billing when they ran the thing, as he was the prime mover of the project and did the bulk of the work -- and took it to that year's IPMS Nationals.  Atta-boy Tory!  Someday I hope to see our diorama in person...

Pat Hawkey 

I love that diorama you two made, and most of us get the point you are trying to make with it.  Excellent work gentlemen. 

My 2 cents - some of us build to win contests.

Some of us build for ourselves.

Nothing wrong with either approach - unless you start insisting that your way is the only way. Which is the way some contest judges seem to be leaning.

That said, I do agree that it is amazing detail in a small scale, I will probably never even approach that level; but in addition, since I don't own an airbrush and probably never will, neither do I feel compelled to try and imitate this look. 

 

Me thinks Mr. Hawkey might be giving me more credit that I deserve.

If he hadn't jumped in with a generous offer to help out, the diorama would most likely still be rattling around the hollow shell I call my head as little more than a "neat idea".

In any event, I am glad the diorama pleased the more sensible minded modelers out there who "got it". If only the poor misguided folk could see the light...

 

Did anyone else notice that the weathered look of the B-2 was pretty much the exact same as the weathered look on the hand-painted Corsair that was in the same issue? I think the artistic touches that people (myself included) put on their models is great. It shows that there is no limit to what a person can do the "canvas" of the plastic model. But there's a "but".....But I think it does a disservice to what the very nature of what a scale model is supposed to be. By it's very nature, I feel a scale model is supposed to be an accurate respresentation of a historical item (armor, aircraft, figure, ship, etc) in a particular place in time. Depicting a heavily weathered B-2 or the artist's (note I did not say "modeler's") C-130 is equivalent to depicting Phoenix missiles slung in quad packs under the wings of a Brewster Buffalo as it charges into battle with the Klingons. It would be like building a diorama of George Washington at Valley Forge doing Ninja moves against the Redcoats like Neo did to Mr. Smith in "The Matrix". It is simply fictitious. I was saddened to see the artist win so many model awards with his depiction of the B-2, detailed though it might be. It is just not a realistic depiction of an historical artifact. It is an artist's rendition and an incorrect one at that. There is a place for this work but it is not in any model airplane contest. It would be better to display it in an art exhibit but not side by side with historically accurate recreations. It is clearly evident that the artist has many talents. However I feel the way he finishes his models are best left to the science fiction genre where one is only bound by the limits of their imagination. All I'm saying is that there is a place for everything and everyone. I don't think it's fair that a person who painstakingly creates a historically accurate replica should take a back seat to someone who clearly makes stuff up. Eric PS. I am putting in paragraph separations as I write this but they are not coming through as I post this! Yikes! Sorry.

Echolmberg, 

The Corsair may be weathered appropriately. Planes in the Pacific theater really got beaten up by the humidity, hot sun, and -- depending on the time of year -- driving rains.

I generally agree with people in this thread -- a lot of weathering on models we see in exceptionally overdone!

BTW, I really got a kick out of the April Fools joke from a year or so ago (and posted again above).

BUT, don't go too far in the other direction and state that there shouldn't be any weathering on planes. Sometimes you can see the panel lines! However, I've not seen any photos that show the heavily accented panel lines that are current in vogue.

My solution is to check photos and try to replicate what I see. I've seen photos of some pretty beat-up PBYs and Corsairs from the Pacific in WWII. Most contemporary F-14 photos show some pretty dirty planes.

In fact, one of the best articles I've seen in FSM on weathering was about making a Tomcat look dirty enough to look like a plane from this decade. The weathering was subtle, but very effective.

Check the photos, and then build it the way you like it.

Regards, 

echolmberg wrote:

. I was saddened to see the artist win so many model awards with his depiction of the B-2, detailed though it might be. It is just not a realistic depiction of an historical artifact. It is an artist's rendition and an incorrect one at that.

I agree withyou to a point. No, I don't think this is a realistic finish on this model. However, within the IPMS rules, the accuracy of the finish is not considered. I would have hated to judge this since I feel it's unrealistic and inaccurate but the quality of the build, the detailling, and the APPLICATION of the finish is what IPMS judges MUST consider, especially at the national contest. If only he'd  put into the accuracy of the finish what he put into the accuracy of the detailing we'd have one of the best models ever done.

From the competition handbook: "The model's surface, once painted, should show no signs of the construction process (glue, file, or sanding marks; fingerprints; obvious discontinuities between kit plastic and filler materials; etc.).

Finish should be even and smooth. If irregularities in the actual aircraft's finish are being duplicated, documentation of such irregularities is required.

1. No brush marks, lint, brush hairs, etc.
   
2. No "orange-peel" or "eggshell" effect; no "powdering" in areas such as fillets or wing roots.
   
3. No random differences in sheen of finish caused by misapplication of final clear coats.

Paint edges that are supposed to be sharp should be sharp (no ragged edges caused by poor masking). Edges that are supposed to be soft or feathered should be in scale and without overspray.

Framing on clear parts should have crisp, uniform edges.

Weathering, if present, should show concern for scale (e.g., size of chipped areas), be in accordance with the conditions in which the real aircraft was operating, and be consistent throughout the model (a factory-fresh interior would be unlikely on a 100-mission aircraft).

Decals:

1. Aligned properly. (If the real aircraft had a markings anomaly; e.g., an inverted U.S. insignia, the model builder should provide documentation to show that he is deliberately duplicating someone else's error, not inadvertently making one of his own.)
   
   Some modern aircraft use decals rather than paint for standard markings. If the real aircraft suffers from problems with decal application, such anomalies should be documented if duplicated on the model.

Colors. Paint colors, even from the same manufacturer and mixed to the same specs, can vary from batch to batch. Different operating environments can change colors in different ways. All paints fade from the effects of weather and sunlight, and viewing distance alone can change the look of virtually any color. Poor initial application and subsequent maintenance compound these problems. Therefore, aside from gross inaccuracies such as a light green "Red Arrows" aircraft, color shades should not be used to determine a model's accuracy or lack thereof. Again, models with unusual colors should be supported by confirming documentation."

Well put Mr. echolmberg.

Why is it acceptable to so exaggerate one aspect of the piece (the finish - which I would argue is the most important part) and not others?  To my way of thinking, if a modeler is going to exaggerate - in many cases flat out invent one aspect of his/her model, why only one?  How about a seven blade propellor?  Balloon tires with mag wheels?  National insignia in twelve locations?  Wings that fold in three places and four directions?  How acceptable would that sort of thing be?  Did I hear somebody say "That would be inaccurate?"

Claim it's "artistic".  That ought to be your blank check. 

echolmberg wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the weathered look of the B-2 was pretty much the exact same as the weathered look on the hand-painted Corsair that was in the same issue?

On a side note, I think the Corsair's weathering was absolutely wonderful because it was realistic. I tell ya, I've seen some pics (as I'm sure we all have) where planes out in the Pacific were just beat all to pieces because of that sand. I remember seeing a picture of a P-61 whose twin booms were worn down to the bare metal. I just wanted to clarify my comparison between the B-2 on the cover and the Corsair in the same issue. The two weathered effects were almost similar but I would expect it on the Corsair, not on the B-2. Just wanted to clarify that. :) Eric

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you Eric. I thought that Corsair was grossly overdone. I agree that aircraft in the Pacific did wind up with very heavily weathered finishes, but the technique used on that Corsair in the latest issue of FSM was just so heavy handed, it made the model look like...well, a model.

When attempting to convey heavy weathering, modelers tend to forget to "scale down" the weathering. Think of it this way, if you were to "scale up" that Corsair model to be a full size aircraft, imagine how the paint work would look full size. When building models, we try as hard as we can to try to keep everything "in scale" from antennae wires to wing trailing edge thickness in order to create the illusion that what the viewer is seeing is the real thing only shrunk down to fit on a table.

 When weathering, a little can go a very long way. Most of the normal fading and grunge on an aircraft, when shrunk down 48 or 72 times would be almost undetectable, only a severely weathered aircraft would have even noticeable discoloration. A few years ago at the 2004 IPMS Nationals in Phoenix I saw a Corsair finished in what I would consider to be a very realistic "heavily weathered" Pacific Theater paint job. Here are a few photos of that model.

 

As you can see, it looks well worn, but "in scale" with the model. Now go back and compare it to the model featured in FSM. Big difference right? All of a sudden the Corsair in FSM starts to look a little bit cartoon-ish.

 Anyhow, that is just my opinion and certainly nothing more.

 Tory

 

I just got my issue in the mail today.  I have to agree that the B-2 was overdone on weathering.  I can't understand why it is considered the norm to over do something like that.  The F4U-1 was also to the extreme in weathering.  Maintenance takes better care of aircraft than that. 

I have seen models of aircraft that was dirty and weathered so bad, if that was real life, I would be jumping all over the Crew Chief for having such a filthy looking aircraft. 

Goshawk, that is one fine looking Corsair you showed.  That is what I would call realistic looking.

 

The P61 suffered from tail boom flex, the paint was actually "twisted off" the airframe in the boom area.

 

Don

Actually, I've seen plenty photos of the B-2 with different color panels on its surfaces, and also looking somewhat weathered as well.

BTW, AlphaSim released a very nice flyable B-2 Spirit sim for Microsoft Flight Sim 9.0 (FS9).  The two skins for their B-2, dark grey and light grey, are pretty good. Gives you an appreciation for the research involved in painting or "skinning" a real or virtual model of the B-2. 

 

You can learn a good deal trying to "skin" a virtual model.  I started out with AlphaSim's base skin and spent a 1/2 wk looking up photos of B2 wheels so I could duplicate the same look. Look at the photos and judge for yourself.  You could easily spend as much time researching each quadrant, or detail.  But at some point you throw your hands up.  Unless you zoom in all the way, or have a really big monitor and can run FS9 at 1600 x 1200, you'll miss out on all that extra detail.  BTW, I think "flying" my B-2 is probably funner than building one from scratch... but whatever gives one his jollies ; )  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't there a separate area in this forum for simmer's?

stinger