Scale

[Moltinmark]

What scale do members prefer and why ?

[GuntherMT]

Personally, I like 1:48.  It's just a nice scale IMO, where detailing can be done, and the parts are still large enough that I don't destroy my eyeballs.  No technical reasons really, other than I'd like the blocks to be large enough I can pick them up and use them.. lol.

[Moltinmark]

I agree totally I'm just finishing up on 1/96th scale sea witch. My first build was Le Renard and that was in 1/48 scale.  I like that a lot better. Were you going to build the kit as is or make it into an another ship, kit bashing I think they call it

[Keithbrad80]

I dont have much experience in any other scale besides 1: 72 and 1:96, I like clipper ships and if models came in any scale larger than that I wouldn’t have any where to put it. So for me this is a nice scale because it shows enough detail to be realistic, which works for me!

[Louie da fly]

Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200.

 

Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100.

 

Steven

[shipman]

My preference is metric EVERY TIME.

Except visualising something like 6'', 1 foot, 2 feet does seem to be easier.

But smaller measurements in metric are a lot easier when using a pocket calculator.

Fractions of inches bellow 1/16'' do my head in 🙃

[bruce d]

18 minutes ago, shipman said:

My preference is metric EVERY TIME.

Except visualising something like 6'', 1 foot, 2 feet does seem to be easier.

But smaller measurements in metric are a lot easier when using a pocket calculator.

Fractions of inches bellow 1/16'' do my head in 🙃

 

During my 'working years' I had no choice, the materials we used were metric (because the world had moved on) to make things that were designed in Imperial. There were mixes everywhere: we bought casting metal in old tons, injection moulding plastic in metric hoppers, turned components that had metric and  Whitworth threads in one piece, and so on. Once I retired I found I could fiddle about at the bench using either system. Then to my surprise it turned out my head-bone worked better with metric input.

I was nearly twenty before I even saw a metric measuring stick and now it is my default. The two builds currently on my benches are both very metric-centred, despite the plans for one of them (Mediator) being drawn in inches. Also, there are very few materials available here in the UK still made to Imperial standards so ... 'resistance is futile'.

[Jaager]

For kit builders, a scale preference is pretty much subsumed by the designer of the kit.  In that situation, a scale preference of a modeler would only serve to limit the choice of kits.

My prejudice tells me that a kit manufacturer starts with a small range of final model size and selects a scale that yields that finished size.  No historical based factor is involved.

(For one notorious kit, Mamoli's Beagle, I think they had the Bounty hull to hand and just changed the scale on the new plans such that it came out to be the length of Beagle.  The shape is not even close to a Cherokee class brig.)

 

When I began this, it was steel rulers and vernier calipers.  The kits and plans still reflect the past requirement to work  with 1/64" being about as close an increment as could be seen seen.

This is why 1:96,  1:76, 1:64.

The dominance of 1:48 is because the majority of available original plans are this scale.

This heritage and now museum scale (1:48) allows for a lot of detail.  A problem with it is that for rated ships, for frigates and larger, a model is an inconvenient size.

 

For me, metric or Imperial became irrelevant with a availability of digital calipers.  It can measure in decimals.  No more fractions, so Imperial is just as useful as metric.

 

I like the detail at 1:48, but not the size.  I use 1:48 as my baseline, though.  I figured that working in a scale that was 1/2 museum would still allow for detail but an easier to manage sized model.

This is 1:60.  The reduction in X, Y, Z  is 0.8.  The numbers are easy to keep track of.  I just divide the full size data component value by 60.  The volume of a model is 50% of a museum scale model.

The more common 1:64 is very close - X,Y,Z  0.75  and volume is 42% of museum.

Some other scales:

1:70 is 0.7 and 33%

1:72 is 0.67 and 30%

1:76 is 0.63 and 25%

1:80 is 0.6 and 22%

1:96 is 0.5 and 12.5%

1:120 is 0.4 and 6.4%

1:192 is 0.25 and 1.5%

 

 

 

 

 

[RichardG]

8 hours ago, shipman said:

My preference is metric EVERY TIME.

Except visualising something like 6'', 1 foot, 2 feet does seem to be easier.

But smaller measurements in metric are a lot easier when using a pocket calculator.

Fractions of inches bellow 1/16'' do my head in 🙃

 

I agree except my inflection point is an inch. Bigger than an inch I visualize in feet and inches, smaller than that mm is easier. I can "see" 4mm much easier than 5/32 (and 0.15625 inches is impossible). I grew up in the UK and was totally non-metric until an adult. Working in the construction industry moved me to metric. I then moved to the US which is still mostly non-metric. I'm currently making something where the core parts are metric but the tools need to put the parts together are not. So I have an 8mm rod - but what size drill in inches will work?

[Moltinmark]

21 minutes ago, Jaager said:

For kit builders, a scale preference is pretty much subsumed by the designer of the kit.  In that situation, a scale preference of a modeler would only serve to limit the choice of kits.

My prejudice tells me that a kit manufacturer starts with a small range of final model size and selects a scale that yields that finished size.  No historical based factor is involved.

(For one notorious kit, Mamoli's Beagle, I think they had the Bounty hull to hand and just changed the scale on the new plans such that it came out to be the length of Beagle.  The shape is not even close to a Cherokee class brig.)

 

When I began this, it was steel rulers and vernier calipers.  The kits and plans still reflect the past requirement to work  with 1/64" being about as close an increment as could be seen seen.

This is why 1:96,  1:76, 1:64.

The dominance of 1:48 is because the majority of available original plans are this scale.

This heritage and now museum scale (1:48) allows for a lot of detail.  A problem with it is that for rated ships, for frigates and larger, a model is an inconvenient size.

 

For me, metric or Imperial became irrelevant with a availability of digital calipers.  It can measure in decimals.  No more fractions, so Imperial is just as useful as metric.

 

I like the detail at 1:48, but not the size.  I use 1:48 as my baseline, though.  I figured that working in a scale that was 1/2 museum would still allow for detail but an easier to manage sized model.

This is 1:60.  The reduction in X, Y, Z  is 0.8.  The numbers are easy to keep track of.  I just divide the full size data component value by 60.  The volume of a model is 50% of a museum scale model.

The more common 1:64 is very close - X,Y,Z  0.75  and volume is 42% of museum.

Some other scales:

1:70 is 0.7 and 33%

1:72 is 0.67 and 30%

1:76 is 0.63 and 25%

1:80 is 0.6 and 22%

1:96 is 0.5 and 12.5%

1:120 is 0.4 and 6.4%

1:192 is 0.25 and 1.5%

 

 

 

 

 

Thank for a very well explained answer. I am currently working 1/96 which makes drilling a single block very difficult. I've dropped several and have yet to find one in the carpet. 

[GuntherMT]

4 minutes ago, Moltinmark said:

Thank for a very well explained answer. I am currently working 1/96 which makes drilling a single block very difficult. I've dropped several and have yet to find one in the carpet. 

 

That's why I ripped out all the carpet in my workroom and put in hardwood flooring..   No more carpet-monster!

[Moltinmark]

3 minutes ago, RichardG said:

 

I agree except my inflection point is an inch. Bigger than an inch I visualize in feet and inches, smaller than that mm is easier. I can "see" 4mm much easier than 5/32 (and 0.15625 inches is impossible). I grew up in the UK and was totally non-metric until an adult. Working in the construction industry moved me to metric. I then moved to the US which is still mostly non-metric. I'm currently making something where the core parts are metric but the tools need to put the parts together are not. So I have an 8mm rod - but what size drill in inches will work?

I have a chart at work that converts drill sizes. You can also stick the 8mm rod in the drill holder to size. My guess would be just under 3/8 inch. My chart which I'm not in front of presently converts mm to decimal. 8mm= .315 " = 5/16 (looked up a rapid conv chart)

[RichardG]

I have no problem with the conversion, I can't just go to my big box store pick up an 8mm forstner bit, fortunately my 5/16" bit works (just). I have a 5mm hole, do I try an find a 5mm machine screw or will a #10 be close enough? For my 8mm threaded rod, only a metric nut will work. 

 

Show me a piece of wood and I can get pretty close just by looking that it's 2 1/2" wide. To tell you it's 63mm, I need to convert in my head. Something that's 6mm, I can visualize without converting. 

 

[Louie da fly]

I got into building design after the change to metric. But there were still plenty of house plans at 1:96 (8 feet to the inch) which had to be converted to 1:100 - an almost insignificant difference - but not quite!

 

And then you'd find a site plan where the lengths of the boundaries were in links (100 links=1 chain=66 feet - the length of a cricket pitch - because there are 100 links to a surveyor's chain) which had to be converted to metric = 201.168 mm. Close to 0.2 metres - but not close enough!

 

The area of a house is still quoted in squares by salesmen = 100 square feet. But when you are drawing it, you convert to square metres - 9.54 square metres to the square. This one I have by heart, just like a foot is 304.8 mm.

 

Hours of fun!

 

Steven

Edited January 11, 2021 by Louie da fly

[GrandpaPhil]

I personally like 1/72 scale.   I can still have a lot of detail without models of larger ships being unmanageable.