>To start a thread: what do people here consider realistic weathering
>for WW1? I would have to agree with Doug. Armor modelers (myself
>included) really like things dirty, grungy and the like, whereas most
>A/C modelers are too pristine. However, I really haven't seen any
>discussion on what it considered adequate or realistic weathering on
>WW1 A/C. The limit I go to is to dirty the underside just a bit (mud
>and dirt flying causes some "weathering"), but that's about it.
>Others?
>
>
There are a number of arguments against the heavy weathering of WWI aircraft.
The principle one is that the airframe lifetimes were only on the order of
several months. Because of their fragility, attempts were made to keep them
under cover whenever possible. The low power to weight ratios made operation
off of muddy fields difficult, although not impossible. Any resulting mud
would be cleaned off as quickly as possible to cut weight and drag and to
prevent water absorbtion into the wood and fabric,
None of this meant that the planes didn't get dirty. There were no paved
runways, so the ground environment could get dusty. And the rotary engines
in particular would pour a lot of oil out of the exhaust. I'm not quite sure
what the post-flight result would look like, so I'll continue to go with a
clean airplane. For whatever its worth, thats my thinking on the subject.
Eli Geher