discussion Spitfire camo querie

[peterairfix]

Just a quick question i am starting a Mk1 spit and i would like to know if the camo lines should be sharp or that slightly blurred you get with spraying

 

[Alan 45]

Depends on scale I'd say 1/48 and higher yes and a lower scale 1/72 no but it's your build mate go with what you want I'm sure it will look just as good

 

[dave]

My understanding is they used masks when spraying the aircraft so at full size the lines would be fairly crisp, so I'd probably go further and say sharp lines.


But at the end of the day it is your model and go for what you think looks right.

 

[stona]

Generally sharply masked or sprayed with minimal overspray (which was tightly regulated) at the point of production.


View attachment 108404



View attachment 108405



View attachment 108406



You will see a softer finish on aircraft re-sprayed at a major overhaul or in a new theatre scheme. But in scale even this would be a quite hard demarcation. It becomes an artistic decision for the modeller.


I've struggled to find a 'soft' Mk1, so here's a later Mark as an example.


View attachment 108407



Cheers


Steve

View attachment 221427

View attachment 221428

View attachment 221429

View attachment 221430

 

[Guest]

For camo (not roundels), at 1/72 scale, a 1 mm band of fuzziness (transition) would represent 72 mm on the real aircraft = 3 inches. Using logic (not always a reliable guide) I doubt whether the painters produced such a big transition between one colour and the next. So a transition of less than a mm on the model would be to scale. But that would be very sharp and would be more or less what you would get with just a mask of Tamiya tape. But to my eyes, such a sharp definition of a paint edge would look unrealistic on a model, (it would look more like a model than people would wish) and look wrong. So I would go for a transition of about 2 mm (on the model). That's just my feeling of what would look right-never mind the theory, modelling is a tricking-the-eye sort of activity.


At 1:48, a 1 mm transition would represent 48 mm = 2 inches - still more, I think, than the painters would produce, so perhaps a transition on the model at that scale could also be a bout 2 mm. But we are all different.

 

[Guest]

Supermarine's drawings advocated "stencil mats" from 1937; (some) other companies went for freehand spraying, but this caused roughness and drag, so from about May, 1940, mats were ordered for general use.


As Steve has said, the units and M.U.s might not have had masks, but a former IPMS president, who painted aircraft at the end of the war, told me how his foreman insisted on no more than 1/2" (that's half an inch) of overspray, which I would find difficult to replicate even in 1/24 scale.


From mid-war, Aircraft Finishers were employed on Squadrons, and their job was to retouch any damage (especially on the wings' leading 20%.) then sand it smooth and wash down with clean water (probably why some photos appear to be of glossy-finished airframes.)


Edgar

 

[Guest]

Mark I to V I normally do a sharp demarcation. For Mk VIII onwards, it is a softer demarcation. That is how I do it. No doubt some people will disagree, but this is how I do it


John

 

[stona]

I think that's a rule of thumb that doesn't really have any basis in fact. Many late Mark Spitfires clearly show very fine or masked demarcations.


View attachment 109529



View attachment 109530



View attachment 109531



Just sayin'


Steve

View attachment 222552

View attachment 222553

View attachment 222554