I'm probably going about this wrong, but to get the size a 1:200 scale model should be I usually look at Wikipedia for the original dimensions (in cm) and divide by 200. But how would I get the scale weight? Dividing by 200 gives a ludicrously heavy weight. For example a 737-200 weighs in at 28,100kg unladen, divide by 200, and you get 145kg, which can't be right!? I'm just curious to see if metal or plastic is more realistic weight wise.. (no I'm not going to base my model purchases on their weight accuracy) I'm just curious..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An important aspect to look at when looking this is that mass ( size) versus weight are going to be different.
While the 1/200 scale is simply 1/200th the size of the real thing, a Kg cannot be considered in the same manner. In the case of weight, you have to factor in gravity, which allows an object falling to the ground, moves at 9.8 m/sec (meters per second).
To make matters more complicating, the density of the material also factors into weight... look at GJ 200's aluminum Boeing 757 versus, a Jet-X 737. The 737 outweighs the 757 in this case...
I think if we shrunk a real aircraft into 1/200 scale, the most comparable material would probably be plastic or balsa or styrofoam, just like the r/c models....
__________________ No no no no no... Papoy..... Ahhh papoy!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Blue Angel No.5; 04-08-2013 at 10:32 AM.
I think you need to take into account all of the three dimensional axes, each of which is 1/200. To get the cubic size, wouldn't you multiply 1/200 x 1/200 x 1/200, or volume would be 1/8,000,000? In that case, scale weight of 737 would be .0035 kg (3.5 grams ?), right?
Waffles store gives an estimated weight on most models, I've used it myself to get an idea of what weight I'm putting on my glass cabinet, as my Ikea Detolf is getting pretty full and I'm slightly concerned about over loading the shelves.
I think you need to take into account all of the three dimensional axes, each of which is 1/200. To get the cubic size, wouldn't you multiply 1/200 x 1/200 x 1/200, or volume would be 1/8,000,000? In that case, scale weight of 737 would be .0035 kg (3.5 grams ?), right?
- Danny
This seems the most accurate, I thought it may need to be somehow based on volume. 3.5 grams would mean balsa wood as Blue Angel said, or something lighter. Quite interesting to think that most people prefer a weighty diecast model for "accuracy". Still, it wont influence the models I buy..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
well i kinda prefer diecast models more only cos i feel more satisfied with owning a heavy model. and a heavy model feels like its of good quality. feels like that.hehe
__________________
SU-34 SR-71
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, real planes arent 100% filled with metal, there is plenty of empty space inside an airplane. You also have to take into account the weight of fuel(empty or full) too, so yes a diecast 1:1 plane would in theory weight much much more than a 1:1 plane.
Im a bit confused by the purpose of the question. The 1/200 just relates to size. Neither plastic or metal are close if you are looking at weight.
I believe there is no technical purpose, Istari posed the question because he was curious. Its got me thinking as well. It would be ok to have lighter weight models in 1:200 scale as they would be more realistic. I would't mind just one model in my collection crafted in balsa, it would remind me how delicate the real 1:1 aircraft was. Wouldn't disply it on an open shelf on a windy day though
__________________
Super connies ruled
Last edited by Graham Bridges; 04-12-2013 at 05:24 AM.
The reason I thought of this.. Looking out the window of a plane whilst flying over an airport, you see all the tiny aircraft below you, wouldn't it be great to just reach out your hand and pick one up? Got me thinking about how similar it would be to one of our models? Or how dissimilar.. You would never have a problem with accuracy again though I suppose! There's a lot of empty space in the real things too, imagine how thin the fuselage would be to us giants, compare it to the solid construction of our models. I suppose the closest you might get is a plastic kit.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As far as giving an impression of the thinness of airplane skin on a solid metal model, Martin comes about as close as you can get, with his rendering of curtains in the windows of Small World models.
1:200 Scale Weight
Your Privacy Choices
