Sovietwarplanes

I've recently developed an interest in building Russian WWII single engined fighters. I've built a plenty of US, RAF, etc., subjects, and feel comfortable weathering those. However, in the VVS subjects I've built, I have been stumped trying to find some good photos to see weathering patterns on the wooden parts of the aircraft that seemed to dominate so many Russian fighters of the period. I've also not been able to deduce a lot about how the paint would have faded, variations in surface colors, etc.

I'd appreciate any suggestions, tips or photos that anyone may have.

Thanks!

already in 1930es, Soviets have developed a very effective wood protection technology.  All wooden surfaces of Soviet WWII planes were covered with fabric and painted with nitro-cellulose paints.  At the same time, in the series production, the technology was labour intense:

-  there were several layers of wood putty under the fabric
-  several coats of clear dope to impregnate fabric
-  a layer of silver paint to protect fabric from UV light and
-  at least two layers of camouflage paint at the top

If everything was done properly, the finished surface was smooth and able to withstand speeds of well over 600km/h.

Before you start weathering, keep in mind that Soviets have been developing and improving those nitrocellulose paints for some twenty years.  Aviation paints were the best paints that their chemical industry could provide.

Weathering is also subject of controversy:  some authors say that paint faded and changed colour after few months.  Some provide chips for "fresh" and "weathered" paint.  On the other hand, paint on the preserved planes in museums is not significantly faded.  Paint on wrecks, if preserved, is usually in good condition!
 
In the existing literature look only for the facts about the problems encountered with this technology and paints.  Pieces of fabric (even entire wooden skin) did fall of planes.  Paint did "chalk" and fade in service.  Avoid those who provide chips for "weathered paint" without any explanation or proof.

HTH,
KL

Thanks for that information, KL!

If an area of wood did get chipped, damaged, etc., how would you recommend representing that?

Jon, as Konstantin (KL) wrote, the wood was covered by a fabric impregnated with a yellow nitroputty.  I actually have a substantial piece of the wooden fin from an Il-2 and where the paint has come off, you can see the yellow.  Although the yellow on my 69-year old example is rather faded, I suppose when new something like RLM 04 Gelb (Yellow) might not be inappropriate.  At any rate, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Regards,

Jason

Thanks Jason! Sounds good to me! :D

Keep in mind that paint didn't have decorative role only.  Paint was applied to protect wood from moisture and other elements.  This means that any damage of the fabric had to be repaired and over painted.  I would not recommend covering your model in yellow streaks and dots...

You cannot find on Soviet wooden planes paint flaking off as on Japanese metal planes.  Those are two completely different stories. Check photos if you don't believe me.

HTH,
KL

Thanks for that additional information KL.

Good point about the moisture. Would it be reasonable to show some portions on a model as areas where perhaps new paint had been added over an area of damage? (Like a bullet/flak hole in the fuselage, wing, etc.)

Do you have any photos you could post that show various patterns of wear? Many of the photos I have found are too dark or from too far away to show much. Although I did find this one I liked:

(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-wTyraZ_1MVU/UTjjGZhQLeI/AAAAAAAAMuM/CcJi3QNScDY/s800/La-5%2520squadrons%2520of%2520Valery%2520Chkalov.jpg)

Some fabric repairs (rudder fabric skin, not wood) were posted recently on this forum at  http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1445.0

(http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/galachenko/galacatblr.jpg)

(http://fotohis.ru/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Y8BWCRL53YM.jpg)

(http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Nic1979-m/(110220141649)_Gal_chenko.jpg)

Hi,
if I can, here is an example of repair on an Il-2... a bit old. Looks glued fabric. It could justify a lot of irregularities on a model.
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x266/Redwood70/DSCF0020_zps78b892c9.jpg)
Regards
Massimo

Another suggestion: avoid those who say that colors were strictly standardized against any evidence or proof.

Paints made in Soviet Union were standardized.  There is overwhelming evidence for this:  Official technical requirements (documents preserved in archives) are just one.  Massimo should explain how were paints made and how were planes painted with no standards??


To make this less personal:  take chips that are supposed to represent "old" paint with caution.  All those chips are pure and total guesswork, you even don't know do they represent paint after 3 months, or 3 years or 60 years.

HTH,
KL

Thanks for the input guys! I appreciate it.  :)

KL,

How far can you go in weathering aircraft? If there was damage what then? I presume that there are touchups which gave different coloration? Or not? Even when aircraft where a month in combat and that they used the same standard paints?

Michel

How far?  It's your artistic license.  Your guess (how "old" paint looked) is as good as Pilawskii's or Massimo's.  But, first consider the facts I mentioned before...

Damage was repaired, of course.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm13/klesnikov/Posted%20in%20forums/123ARZStaraRussa_2_zpse3222222.jpg)
 
Battle damage was treated the same as in the RAF or Luftwaffe.  But, I don't remember seeing any battle damage on LW models or RAF models...  Average Ju-87 Stuka probably had some repairs and yet those are not shown on a typical Ju-87 model.

I never said that mechanics in the field used exactly the same paints that were used in factories.  Anybody can download "Polevoy Remont" book and see what paints were used for various repairs and what substitutes were allowed.  Artefacts preserved in museums also confirm use of various substitutes to cover repairs/modifications.

Now, how do you know where were the repairs  (if any) on the particalar plane?  Instead on focusing on possible battle demage, better try to realistically represent difference between the metal and wooden surface.  On following two photos area below the cockpit canopy is wood, detachable panels are metal:

(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm13/klesnikov/Posted%20in%20forums/13-1311499565_zps4741e46b.jpg)

(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm13/klesnikov/Posted%20in%20forums/13-1247069968_zps0c5a83f8.jpg)

Even if painted with same AMT paints metal looked different.
HTH,
KL

Hi,
I know, of course. But please explain the difference of overposed greens in the photo.

.
Of course it is a guesswork, but at least it is a try to distinguish some colors that darken becoming old and some that becomes lighter deducting this from photos of new and aged planes.  

Unfortunately the exact shades of real new colors are unknown, because all the chips have 65 years. For example I don't think that the light blue A-28m was similar to duck egg blue as the alboom nakrasok shows it. One can try to extrapolate an original shade, but it's all guesswork.
At the same time, to suppose that other colors are totally unaltered is another guessing.
So it's better to guess a range instead of claiming that the 80% of models and 80% of drawings made till now are wrong.

Regards
Massimo

Thank you for the photos.

I hope I have not created a problem with my question! ;)

Seriously though, all of this has been very helpful. It helps me understand some likely scenarios for my weathering on various aircraft. In fact, my Zvazda La-5 and La-5FN arrived yesterday, and the kits look very nice. I will have to start them soon.

as I said in my first post, there is a controversy.  ::)


Unknown - maybe, but not because all the chips are 65 years old.  If this was true USAAF, RAF and LW colours would be unknown too.  American, British and German chips are also geting old.  Or time doesn't count for them??
In reality, nobody in the West has ever tryied seriously to define those colours.  Akanihin is the first and only who did something in Russia.

Cheers,
KL

I appreciate the effort of Akanihin and other researchers.  The progresses made in the latest 15 years are undeniable.
I am not saying that shades are totally unknown, of course.
I am saying that one can't be dogmatic with the few informations we have. Besides it would be good to involve someone expert of chemistry in a deep discussion.
The problem exists for planes of other nations too, but the studies have started much before, with more specimens, well preserved planes, more accessible documents, younger witnesses, color photos, the common availability of catalogues of chips as FS etc.
Regards
Massimo

So how can we make some end conclusions?

- paints kept there color even at the different weather conditions?
- there were touchups after battle damages and there could be some color differencies?
- colors have another tone when sprayed over metallic or wood?

This in contradiction to other aircraft that flew in other places in the world like the F-6F3's which had very light colors in the Pacific or the P-47's in the European theatres.

Sorry, but your examples are almost irrelevant.  :-X
Tropical sun and salt make Pacific theatre probably the most hostile environment for any paint.  European climate is more paint friendly, but Thunderbolts regularly climbed to 7,000m (it's cold there).
Most important, you are not saying after what time those planes had "very light colors" - after 3 months, after 1 year or more?

As you may know (or not?), kids in twenties and thirties don't think about aging.  In their forties - maybe.  Most people in their fifties know what the effects of aging are.  Same with paints - weathering works from day one but its effects are not visible for some time.  Then they become visible and degradation of paints becomes faster and faster.

Following is illustration from one Russian book (author is V. Chebotarevski - designer of AMT paints) that shows how paint ages:
(http://www.aquarella.ru/images/stories/images-article/lkm/paints-23.jpg)

My point:  how old is the plane you are modeling?  Doesn?t this question make sense when we talk about aging effects?
Cheers,
KL

a couple of points, regarding P-47's, it not so much the cold, but higher Ultraviolet exposure at a higher altitude that will fade paint.

As for the age of VVS aircraft, or WW2 aircraft in general, they often had very short service lifespans, so paint ageing and weathering did not have time to happen.

I have also noticed that VVS aircraft look to be very well cared for, note the common use of a type of fabric [I presume]  wing protector for servicing, visible in may photos.

Planes may come back with exhaust stains and oil streaks from the engine, but these are cleaned off during even basic servicing.

One interesting point, about metal vs other surfaces, often it seems fabric covered will fade faster,

this is a Hurricane in France, may 1940.   It's been in service for at least 6 months, as part of the RAF in France,  it's one with fabric covered wings,[outboard of the gun bays]  as well as the fuselage.
note the much paler colours on the fabric covered areas to the metal parts.  Interestinlgy the area directly under the cockpit is plywod covered in fabric, and this does not seem to have faded.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/kunac/large.jpg)

Massimo has noted a similar fading on the fabric covered parts of Yaks as well.   I don't know if this is a light effect, due to the fabric surfaces being slighly rougher in texture, so having different reflectance or just that paint weathers faster on fabric covered areas?

Hope of use to the discussion.

T

It seems to me that we're talking about at least three different types of weathering; exhaust and other stains, fadeing or even darkening with age, and paint-chipping.  With regards to the fabric-covered wooden parts of VVS aeroplanes, they may have faded differently than the metal parts (due sometimes to different paints), but the wooden parts don't seem to have chipped as easily, which I believe Konstantin has already mentioned.  On the other hand, the metal parts could become very heavily-chipped, indeed.  An example is the port wingroot of the Shturmoviks, which were often very heavily-chipped, with some examples where the pilot's "path" to the cockpit was bare metal, the paint having been completely chipped away.  Although such VVS aircraft such as the Il-2 didn't last very long in combat, they were very heavily-utilised, so they should show certain types of weathering, such as the wingroot weathering, and sometimes very heavy exhaust stains.

Regards,

Jason

@KL
Why would my remarks be irrelevant? P-47's weathered fast in the European theatre and left there toll on the paint. Even after some weeks in combat.
@Jason
I think that gives a good sum of type of weathering.

I clearly explained why IMHO your remark was irrelevant.  Your remarks are also very general:  the paint became lighter after "some weeks" and then what?  It remained lighter for the rest of the war?  Very convenient for modellers - you lighten your "new" paint and it becomes "old".

Weathering is a process:  Chapter in Chebotarevski's book is titled "Paint's life -from its birth to death".  The process is described in detail, but I don't think you are interested in it.

Cheers,
KL 

I'm very interested in reading that article. :D

So am I.
Regards
Massimo

Hi KL,

Do you have a digital copy of Chebotarevski's book and would you e-mail this to me? Very interesting arguments here.
The color 4bo green seems also to darken with time, instead the usual lighted fading...

That's interesting. This in the contrary to the Olive greens and Dark greens of US aircraft.

Hi,
AII green seems the same, at least on an horizon of 6-12 months. Who knows if they contain lead?
Regards
Massimo

-  Useful life of AMT and AGT paints was modest 6-8 months!  From modelers perspective this means that paint that was less than 6 months looked like "new".

-  After 6 months paint "chalked".  In reality chalking is a microscopic layer of oxidized paint, from a distance it may look like "lightened" paint (not sure about this).  Advanced chalking looks as a white powder covering paint surface.

-  After a year original paint surface is destroyed.  Glossy paints loose luster and turn matt.  Pigment particles are now exposed and gradually washed away.  For modelers this means that 1-2 year old paint may locally turn semi-transparent.  Camouflage pattern was usually sprayed very thinly, so one may expect to locally see green through black or light gray through dark gray.

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk91/lsueno/bugs-bunny-forever11ThatsAllFolks.jpg)

You've got much more technical detail about Soviet paints than you have ever had about German/US paints and you still fill "comfortable" only with Luftwaffe and USAAF colors.  Whenever Soviet colors are mentioned it is "can of worms", "nobody knows", "everything was possible" etc.

Happy modeling,
KL

From Model Airplane International - June 2007
What really catched my attention is author's statement:

"The paints used by the VVS were Casein or similar oil-based paints and these were very prone to high rates of wear"

How does author know this?
 
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm13/klesnikov/Posted%20in%20forums/KL_zps0df64deb.jpg)

It's hard to tell if he were just referring to the white distemper MK-7, which was casein based.  MK-7 did indeed weather quickly.  However, casein is not oil, such as that used in oil-based paints, but a protein derived from milk, that is used, amongst other things, as a glue (white-glue, such as Elmer's).  

Regards,

Jason

He says "paints" (plural) as if several paints were casein based.  He also doesn't mention nitro paints; those were actually the most widely used by VVS.  Yak-1 was definitively painted with AMT nitro paints.
All this shows that author doesn't know much about VVS paints.  IMHO, his note about weathering is 100% made up.

BTW, author of the text is Francisco Soldat from Spain...  :)

Regards,
KL   

I think the author has gone wild on washes on his model  :-\ My MiG is definitely not going to look like this. Everywere he found a panel  lining, the brown/black oil oozes out  :P A clear example how NOT to wash your model. It looks if the fabric parts rust and the aluminium parts ''bleed oil''  :o shocking  :o

IMHO on a white plane, use a filter instead of a heavy wash. Filters are more subtle and better to build up then just ''slam'' a dark wash on it.

On my MiG, i focus more on the difference in metal/wood parts. Maybe some chips on the area's were the groundcrew came for maintenance, or were the pilot get in/walked on...On the photo i have it looks in good condition, so i have to be careful with my weathering.

But hey, i still have to build my first plane  ::) Look who's talking :P

Francisco Soldan is a well known Spanish modeler who also builds military.
The way of weathering his models I like alot.
But that's more in an artists point of view then reality.
@KL
I presume that he only means for MK-7 and if not he's wrong.
@4bogreen
The weathering of the white is good but the darker panellines is not a good representation and overdone. It was better that the underneath camo became more visible. The forward leading edge has been done that way.

Hi,
Here I would say that not all panel lines are the same.
IMHO, such apparent panel lines (not rusty brown, but rather of camo color) could by OK around panels that are manipulated, ofter removed and fixing back - engine covers, different service openings etc.
In all other cases, I agree, it is too much.

     66misos

That's correct but in this case it's a bit overdone altough I like the appearance of it. There can be some brown colors special where there is some maintenance or wear. The way I've made my Il-2 was a mix between reality and making it more appealing for the eye.

Hi friends- help me with this photo.

Is the weathering around the wing roots dirt, chipped paint, or what? I'm not sure what the composition of the airplane in that area is- metal or wood?

(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-DKVr6JjuFdE/UX7_07W2B1I/AAAAAAAANWI/jtU0PaesrnM/s800/La5-8s.jpg)

Thanks for any assistance!

Hi Jonbius,

according to the drawings in MBI book Lavockin La-5 there was only fabric on the wing roots at La-5 and La-5F. Metal panels on the wing roots were installed at La-5FN and La-7.
So I would say it is mainly chipped paint, e.g. yellowish primer or even wood is visible. And all that dirty and dusty, but no layer of mud like on the tanks.

     66misos

Hi Jon, hi Misos
the wingroot was wooden, and the fillets too (the fillets became metallic on La-7 only). I can exclude that the wearing shows natural metal there.
I think that the wood was covered by a layer of fabric as on other types, but I could be wrong.
If it's chipped paint, I suppose that the underlying color was yellowish as visible on a piece of LaGG-3 fuselage in Finland.
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/1941-43/lagg3fuselage.jpg)
I can't exclude that the scratches could show a further underlying layer of aluminium dope, but I don't think because I suppose that the yellow putty adesion to the fabric was strong.  
It could also be dirt.
Regards
Massimo

I'm not sure there would be any wood showing, as that would mean the yellow putty-impregnated fabric covering the wood had been completely worn away.  This would be dangerous as this could cause the fabric to become detached from the wood whilst in the air (the fabric could separate from the wood and "balloon").  This actually happened to various aircraft, including the Il-2, because of a problem with the fabric not adhering properly to the wood (due to a problem with the putty used on the fabric, I believe).  However, I agree that the paint might very well wear away enough to show the yellow of the fabric.  

Regards,

Jason

Hi All  :D

I generally agree with the saying above. The are imho chips... Strange, Because the order was given to imediatley repaint the wooden area's if these came visible. This is a very intersting photo. Most interesting is maybe not the wing root but the rear windowframe. Its a aluminum kind of color. This says a lot of maintenance on this airplane. All aluminium parts look a bit worn...

Another theory is that the chips are created by leaking oil, hot exhaust fumes and spilled fuel. Although they rub it off when fuel spilled, maybe they rub it arround and causes the paint to let loose on that particular area  ???

My two cents on this one...

Hi,
I agree with Learstang, I take back possibility of the visible wood. ;)
As far as I know, that protecting metal plate behind exhaust was removed regularly - every time when ammunition was loaded etc. so quite a "heavy traffic" was on that part of the wing.

     66misos

Good information- thanks everyone!

Is there a chart of the various VVS aircraft that shows what various parts were made up of? That would be helpful to see color-coded profiles.

Jon, I have one of the Il-2 - maybe I'll do it as a post here, or a separate post - perhaps we could have a separate topic where these colour-coded profiles are added (I can't do it right at the moment - computer problems - I'm using someone else's computer now).

Regards,

Jason

That would be cool, Jason! Thanks!

This might be of interest:
(http://s11.postimg.org/v9t1n40b3/Il_2_structure.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/v9t1n40b3/)

John

@John
I know this one. I think it was from a Spanish modeler and it's stunning.
A Hungarian modeler made also a Mig-3 in that style.

Here are the drawings showing the different covering materials of the Il-2:

Metal-winged arrow:

(http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/Learstang/IL-2-Arrow3-View-WoodenFuselageandMetalWings-DifferentMaterialsMarked-75_zpsc8913253.png)

Wooden-winged arrow:

(http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/Learstang/IL-2-Arrow3-View-WoodenFuselageandWings-DifferentMaterialsMarked-75_zps5b5d5c75.png)


Regards,

Jason

Hi learstang,

a nice mixture of materials. What paints did they use for camouflage? Nitroceluloze AMT-xx, or oil A-xx or their combination according to the base material (wood or fabric or metal)?
 
     66 misos

Probably AMT paints (which would have worked over primed metal), with the earliest Il-2's at the beginning of the war apparently having A-18f and A-19f for the metal parts, and AII Z (Green) and AII sv. gol. (Blue) for the wooden parts.

Regards,

Jason

Most awesome- thanks Jason!

You're welcome, Jon - I hope these help!

Regards,

Jason

Hi learstang,

if AMT-xx could be used on metal parts of Il-2 why not on metal P-39?  ???

    66misos

I thought it was, for example, when the stiffening plates were added to the P-39 rear fuselage, and the work was done in the Soviet Union, I thought the area was repainted in AMT-4 Green.

Regards,

Jason

Hi all

about Il-2s: I think that it depends on the factory and period. On Z.1, after 1943, the wings and rear fuselage were painted before being assembled to the front of fuselage, and seem to have more contrasting colors. My idea is that wings and rear fuselage and tail were painted with AMT and perhaps masks (they had fabric-skinned parts), while the front of fuselage was painted with oil paints.
The planes of z.30 were painted after being assembled, probably in AMT.
About Z.18, it is not clear.

Why not? After the primer, probably.

Regards
Massimo

Massimo, so you think that's why the AMT-1 on the forward fuselage is darker (I think we've discussed this before)?

Regards,

Jason

Hi Jason,
it's a possibility, but I can't be sure because the implication could be that A-21m is much darker than AMT-1, and this don't agree with the Nakrasok alboom. Another explanation could be that it was sprayed or thinned in different way and appeared darker for trasparence on a darker background. The third one, but looks less likely, is that the brown on the nose was replaced with green and the green with dark grey, but I don't think because the official patterns on wings and rear fuselage were well respected on planes of z.1 and 30. The fact that the brown blotch on the left fuselage side (aside the gunner's position) appears darker can easily be justified by smokes, but the same thing appears on the nose too. I wonder if it is due to the heat of the engine.
Regards
Massimo

Although it's British I think this shows to good effect darker nose panels, most likely I would think from being rubbed down to get the oil and hand prints off them during maintenance.
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b218/nsmekanik/SpitfireMarkIIAP7895RN-NofNo72SquadronRoyalAirForcebasedatAcklingtonNorthumberlandinflightoverthecoastpilotedbyFlightLieuten_zps01c9a02b.jpg)

Hi,
beautiful photo. In this case, I think that the cowling and leading edges are darker because repainted.
Regards
Massimo