Scales:
1/350 - 1 inch = 29’ 2" 1 cm = 3.5 meters
1/400 - 1 inch = 33’ 4" 1 cm = 4.0 meters
1/500 - 1 inch = 41’ 8" 1 cm = 5.0 meters
1/550 - 1 inch = 45’ 10" 1 cm = 5.5 meters
1/600 - 1 inch = 50’ 1 cm = 6.0 meters
1/700 - 1 inch = 58’ 4" 1 cm = 7.0 meters
1/720 - 1 inch = 60’ 1 cm = 7.2 meters
1/800 - 1 inch = 66’ 8" 1 cm = 8 meters
1/1200 - 1 inch = 100’ 1 cm = 12 meters
1/1250 - 1 inch = 104’ 8" 1 cm = 12.5 meters
[:D][:D][:D]
You forgot two very important ship scales (and my personal favorites)…1/96 and 1/192, 8 feet, and 16 feet to the inch, respectively. 1/200 scale is also quite popular.
J
1:300 - 1 inch = 25’, 1 cm = 3 meters
1:303 - 1 inch = 25’ 3", 1 cm = 3.03 meters
1:426 - 1 inch = 35’ 6", 1 cm = 4.26 meters
1:542 - 1 inch = 45’ 2", 1 cm = 5.42 meters
1:570 - 1 inch = 47’ 6", 1 cm = 5.7 meters
These are scales of some other ship models produced by Revell and Monogram in the past.[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
The 1:426 is of a well known and long produced kit, can you guess?
[?][?][?][?][?] [:)]
I always wondered where these scales came from…
For example, 1/720th? Why??
Much easier would be this:
1/350th
1/700th
1/1050th
1/1400th
1/2100th
The 1/1050th and the 1/1400th could replace the current 1/1250th. The 1/2100th scale would be ideal for really giant ships such as oiltankers etc.
As you can see, every scale is a multiple of 350. This makes all things much easier I think. Also for aircraft:
1/35th
1/50th (instead of 1/48th)
1/70th (instead of 1/72nd)
1/100th
1/150th (instead of 1/144th)
But this might just be my European “Metric-Mentality”[:D][:D]
Still, it would make many things much easier!!!
Remko
The scales you mention for aircraft can be explained as follows:
1/32 - 1 inch = 2’ 8" - 1 cm = 0.32 meters
1/48 - 1 inch = 4’ - 1 cm = 0.48 meters
1/72 - 1 inch = 6’ - 1 cm = 0.72 meters
1/144 - 1 inch = 12’ - 1 cm = 1.44 meters
Car scales:
1/24 - 1 inch = 2’ - 1 cm = 0.24 meters
1/25 - 1 inch = 2’ 1" - 1 cm =0.25 meters
For those of us building 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th century, especially Dockyard and Admiralty models, 1/48th was the preferred scale (1/4" = 1’) and allows a great deal of detail, especially in small fittings and furniture (masts, spars, rigging, etc.) An eye-opening comparison of scale is evident in an exhibit I reviewed recently where the Queen Elizabeth model from the World’s Fair in 1939 (at 1/3" = 1’0") was juxtapositioned with a 19th century American Brig at 3/8" = 1’0". The Queen model is a whopping 30 feet long and the “tiny” brig just barely four feet, jibboom to mizzen boomkin. It’s an interesting comparison. Anyway, 1/48 for those who want authenticity in earlier ships.
Best,
Ron
Hey Ron,
You try building a 1/48 aircraft carrier!! [;)]
I agree though, quarter-inch is the best scale for small craft, but space limitations as such are one of the reasons that 8 and 16 feet to the inch are preferred by those of us who have spouses who frown upon a ship of the line taking up one’s entire living room!!
Jeff
Beware of generalizations. Scale is, to a large extent, a matter of personal taste combined with practicality. One major reason why those old timers worked on large scales was that the tools and materials available to them wouldn’t work well on smaller scales. Another factor, I suspect, was eyesight. Few people have the necessary near-sightedness to work on small scales without high-quality magnification - which didn’t exist prior to the twentieth century.
I suggest that anybody who thinks 1/48 scale is required for detail and authenticity take a look at the work of Donald McNarry. He rarely works to a scale larger than 1/192 (1/16"=1’), but his models have at least as much detail as any “Board Room” model.
Ron - when I was working at the Mariners’ Museum I engineered a long-term loan of a McNarry model of the U.S.S. Constitution, on the scale of 1/16"=1’, from the Smithsonian. I wonder if that model is still at the MM. (Maybe not; it was in the Sea Power Gallery, which got gutted and redone a few years ago.) If it is still there, though, it’s worth a pilgrimage just to see that one model. It’s guaranteed to cure anybody’s perception that large scales are necessary for fine detail.
I think scale is also relevent for the intention of the builder of the model. A model of a famous ship in a meuseum should be big.
Seasick makes an extremely valid point. Whether in a museum or not, the size of the model is likely to be highly significant. A model of a good-sized sailing ship - say, a frigate or a clipper - on 1/96 scale dominates a room in the average-sized house. Two such models are more than the average room can tolerate; a 1/48 scale model of the same ship would be tough to get out of any but the largest workshop.
The moral to all this is that, as is so often the case in any sort of model building, there aren’t any universal truths. Let each modeler pick his or her scale based on an objective and realistic consideration of all relevant factors.
One thing this thread emphasizes is that anybody getting involved in model building needs to have a clear comprehension of how scale works. It’s surprising how many people have trouble understanding the math involved in it - which actually is simple arithmetic. One well-known beginners’ book on ship modeling solemnly informs its readers that 1/4"=1’ and “quarter scale” mean the same thing. I cringe whenever I read something like that. (For the record: “quarter scale” means the same as 3"=1’. One rarely sees models that’s actually on quarter scale. But one sees plenty on forty-eighth scale - which does mean the same as 1/4"=1’.)
I agree with everything jtilley says. Except for : “Let each modeler pick his or her scale based on an objective and realistic consideration of all relevant factors.”
While this appears perfectly logical and reasonable, on the surface, many spouses may disagree. Mine does.
My large, long term project, is a 1:32 scale, US Sturgeon class, SSN. On good days, she tolerates it. On bad days, she contemplates murder.
So, I would add, “check with your wife, before starting a new project”, to jtilley’s comments.
I believe I’ve already mentioned her plans for a “Viking Funeral” (her version) for me.
Mike K.
Mkeatingss - Amen! I have the great good fortune to have a wife who likes ship models. (At least sailing ship models. She has trouble figuring out why I occasionally turn my attention to those small grey things with smokestacks and turrets - much less the vari-colored ones with wings.) Actually I suspect my meager output - about one major model every five or six years - is also a factor. We’ve agreed on the spot in the house where the next one’s going to go. Beyond that - well, I suspect there could be trouble. Better stick with smaller scales.
I once had a boss whose wife had a long-term love affair with an ancient, gas-guzzling Oldsmobile. He amused himself by planning an automotive variant of the Viking funeral for her. His intention was to lay her out in the back seat of the Oldsmobile and point it down I-64 with the cruise control set. As can readily be seen, the man was (and in fact still is) a barbarian.
Didn’t mean to open a can of worms! I agree with all above. The 1/48th scale was simply a concession to 17th century dockyard model scale for authenticity. One point, however, not addressed was the size of one’s fingers!
Best,
Ron
PS Where’s the glaring error in my earlier post? It’s there.
PPS Dr Tilley, I believe I saw the model you refer to upstairs behind the curtain but it’s been quite a while. I’ll go up this week and see if it’s still there.
First, Dr. Tilley; I consulted with the current curator of models and such and she (Jeanne Willoz-Egnor) assures me that the McNarry model of the Constitution is no longer on site at Mariners’. I’ve yet to check for myself but she’s probably right. Second, the error in my earlier post was using the term “mizzen boomkin” for the aftermost measurement on a Brig. No mizzen on a brig. Two masts, fore- and main-. Third, I’ve just finished and will soon “bottle” my 19th century bark. It’s about two and three-quarters inches which kind of makes it about 1/650th scale. So I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I work regularly in 1/48th! My mistakes would be far too obvious in that scale!
Ron -
That’s a shame about the McNarry model. I imagine it got sent back to its permanent home, the Smithsonian. I’m going up there to look at the new exhibition on American military history in a couple of weeks; I’ll look for that model. It belongs in public view.
McNarry built several Constitutions on that scale. Another one is in the collection of the Naval Academy Museum at Annapolis. I’m hoping to stop by there too; I haven’t seen the new ship model hall there yet. I do hope at least one of those McNarry Constitions is on exhibition where people can see it.
At the risk of offending half the population - why are so many men in here worried about what their wives think of their hobby? It’s a HOBBY, not an affair. IF you have a good, supportive woman and your marriage is a true partnership, it shouldn’t even be an issue! The fact that many women feel threatened by hunks of plastic and wood seems to me to be more an issue of their own insecurities or control freak tendencies than anything else.
And for the female modellers in here - the above can be turned right around and applied to your husband.
I think I’ll not distrub this sleeping dog[:-^]
But face it, not many women try to build something the size of a refridgerator and costs as much as something practical, like say a deck and a hot tub, just for it to take up an entire room and collect dust. Although the cats would think of it as a really neat playhouse.
Dang, I sound like someone I live with[sigh]
I think modeling is eminetly practical - it keeps me sane!
This is a great thread can it be “stickyed” so it stays on top in put in some sort of FAQ?
.