Ever wondered what your models should weigh in scale ? calculator at the ready you will find it suprisingly heavy - 200 kg
for an average modern fighter in 1:72 ! - conversely it will also reach mach II at at a poultry 20 mph / 33 kmh - anyone suggest other area’s where the scale maths gives odd or suprising results [?]
hahahahahahah migs…i gotta say your post cracked me up…when you said “poultry 20mph” I suspect you meant “paltry” as in contemptible…but I really like the idea that it would fly like a big fat chicken!
Hmm… WOnder what that Gustav would weigh…
Sorry, migs, but you missed something[;)]. When figuring scale, the weight would be figured by cubing the scale. The linear dimensions are 1:72, but weight would be 1:(72x72x72), or 1:343,248
So, your example would be for a fighter weighing 14,400kg. The “scale weight” would be about 38.5g. For a specific example, a 1:72 F-14 would weigh a little more than 90g ( about 3 ounces for you non-metric folks ) at max takeoff wt. A plane weighing 200kg in 1:72would have a real-life weight of over 74,000 metric tons ( besides, what on this earth is dense enough to weigh 200kg for the volume of a 1:72 scale airplane? )
BTW: I forgot to mention this…
Your “poultry” comment got me wondering about an actual meeting of chickens and aircraft, anyone else heard of the “Rooster Booster?”[:D]
Kugai - I must have missed something in college physics (like I ever went to class at all). Could you please briefly expalin your cubist theory? Thanks, Stinger
stinger,
Weight is proportional to mass, which is proportional to volume, volume is proportional to the cube of a linear distance, which is the ratio 1/72.
A cube with a side of 3 has volume of 27. A cube with a side 4 has a volume of 64. The ratio of their volume is (64/27) which is (4/3)^3.
Kugai - Of course! How stupid of me. If I had thought about volume I would have seen it. That third dimension changes so many things, doesn’t it? I must be watching too much TV, and staring at my laptop screen for too long! Interesting that nothing in Einsteins world could never exist in only two dimensions because our third dimension would have to reach infinity, which, so far as we know, is impossible, because mass therefore would be reduced to zero, which cannot happen even on the atomic level.
Is that close enough for an A in that physics lesson?
Kubai - PS : Mass cannot conversely reach an infinitely positive level, otherwise we would be traveling at warp speed, right?
So sound must travel slower coming from a smaller speaker?
It doesn’t matter how big something is, it still must travel at 740 mph (approx) to reach mach 1.
Yep, pretty cool.
Can’t scale time either. So you can scale wing size down to a model, but time cannot be scaled.
Good topic though, and the rooster booster is fine as long as you THAW the birds first 
Ok - So I didn’t get the Memo on the Rooster Booster thing (I must have been in Physics class that day). Is it any thing to do with an increase in engine performance due to the ingestion of birds, or just what the heck is it? I thought that was what brought down at least one B1.
(I am obviously reaching for thought here).
I can hear all of you who know cackling out there.
Please give us a clue
This conversation is insane. And I thought Quantum Physics was hard to follow.
Muzzleflash, time cannot be scaled, as time is an abstract created by men so it gives us an excuse to yell at women for being late for a date.
As for mass, using Einstein’s formula E=mc2, where m=mass and c=the constant of the speed of light, as something accelerates due to a constantly increasing energy, mass would become infinite. However, that has been disproven by the existence of anti-protons and anti-neutrons, which travel close to the speed of light with an as yet unmeasured mass.
Einstein’s theory wasn’t wrong, just incomplete.
Plesae remeber to tip your waitress.
demono69
Demon - Truly appreciate your knowledge. “Close to” (the speed of light), and “as yet unmeasured” (mass) are the key words there. Einstein still has not been proven wrong. Then again, in calculus, I did have to take that leap of faith about Lim 1/n, as n approaches infinity, = 0. So, basically, I can concieve of “Warp speed, Mr. Zulu”, but we’re not there yet. (Or are we?)
Thanks for making us think - Stinger
Oh, the other thing…if I am correct, The rooster booster is the cannon that chucks birds at windshields for testing. Problem was they forgot to defrost the frozen birds and couldnt figure out why the glass wasnt stopping it 
I was just thinking about this whole ‘weight’ thing today. I got stumped on the calculations too, but the cube route makes sense. A friend puts weights in his armour models to give them some density. They feel alot better when you’re examining and moving them around. Gives the impression of a solid/heavy item!
Murray
Just remember: math and physics are not sciences. One other thing. I hated Calculus. I can honestly say that after the last test in High School almost 15 years ago, I have never used it since. And yes, limit equations sucked. Badly. Just keep pushing the “I believe” button.
demono69
Thanks Muzzleflash - I thought it was something like that, and I did a Google search for it. Found a few links on the subject, but here’s the funniest one. http://home.xnet.com/~warinner/chickens.html
Migs - See what you started? Thanks again though, for helping us think “outside the model”. (Or maybe really, from within).
Demono - Yes, time is abstract, yet so is life, and is that a manmade concept? Did WE ever really exist, once we’re gone? (I think maybe I spent too much time at Kafka’s house in Prague).
Stinger
As a wise man once said, “If I look back on my life using hindsight, I can see the future.” Steven Wright, in case you were wondering.
As for the Rooster Booster, has anyone checked on the feelings of the birds in question concerning this practice? What if there’s a revolution?
Re: The quote on life - So subtle, yet so succinct.
Re: Aviary revolution - Squawk one