What is scale

[Greyhead]

Whilst having a well earned break from flying a few of us got to talking about the pros and cons of the various disciplines of aero modelling, some of us even reminiscing about our youthful participation in control-line combat!

As I espoused the case for scale models, the comment was made “ Of course it’s alright for you, you can build scale models.” My answer to this was that anyone who can build a sports model could build a scale model because scale modelling is really just an illusion.

To demonstrate the point, I sited the case of two models from our club:

A biplane with parallel chord, slightly swept back foam wings, held in place by elastic bands and solid balsa tail feathers cut to a distinctive curvaceous shape. Flying a couple hundred feet in the air at half throttle there’s no mistaking the shape; it’s a Tiger Moth. To be brutally honest the aluminium undercarriage lets it down but a simple bent up piano wire affair would complete the illusion.

An ARTF Cub, nicely finished with a fair amount of detail. Usually seen inverted at about 4 foot altitude doing a scale speed in excess of 300 mph before pulling up into a stall turn to repeat the exercise in the opposite direction. There’s no denying the piloting skill, but one thing it definitely isn’t and that’s scale!

The ultimate is of course the finely detailed model flown in a truly scale fashion as we see at the top competitions and displays. The standard of these models has increased dramatically over the past ten years or so, but we all have to start somewhere and I hope it isn’t the case that these “super models” are in fact putting the average club member off ever starting down the scale road.

[wonwinglo]

***Some interesting points here,nine times out of ten a scale model is far from scale anyway,if we were to follow faithful construction to the letter then it is doubtful whether the model would lift off due to the weight,as you rightly say what we are doing is creating an illusion,to give a fine example of this our doyen Dave Boddington built a Sopwith Pup some years ago,it was far from scale but when I saw it fly a few proper circuits,touch down gently and take off again into the sunset I was truly hooked,those few gentle circuits were far more realistic and above all satisfying that what I term 'Wizz bang wallop' machines,no problem if you like eating up sky like there is no tomorrow,but for me a sympathetic and properly built model far excells in terms of realism.Another thing about that Pup were the rigging wires and end fittings,despite the fact that they looked superb they were only solder tags suitably modified,but I complimented DB on the look of them.

Even in the full size world they have the same dilemma,a recent check on replica Fokker Dr.1's showed that most had very non Fokker features,everything from square fuselage tubing to badly incorrect wheels,we will not even discuss the instruments or cockpit ! the whole lot added up to a clever illusion which after all is what we are after.Another case in mind was a model of the Ford Tri-motor,one example which had a best selling plan was no more than a beginners boxy with windows painted on,a glo motor disguised amongst the cylinders and foam wings with balsa false ribs,but in flight it not only flew beautifully but looked realistic as it trundled around.

A lot of this dilemma comes down to the time factor in building exact (or as near to it as possible ) models,very few of us have the luxury of time on our hands,and if we need to finish a model for the next season then need to get moving if we have a deadline for the flying season,but once again a few compromises usually works,internal structure that is modified for practicality is fine,as long as it cannot be seen,but the cockpit area draws in the eye like a funnel so you had better make it look good !

Only a scale modeller will appreciate the finer points,but one thing that does jarr is the very un-scale like way many models are flown,it makes me feel like suggesting a trip to the local airfield to see how proper circuits are performed.

Whilst having a well earned break from flying a few of us got to talking about the pros and cons of the various disciplines of aero modelling, some of us even reminiscing about our youthful participation in control-line combat!As I espoused the case for scale models, the comment was made “ Of course it’s alright for you, you can build scale models.” My answer to this was that anyone who can build a sports model could build a scale model because scale modelling is really just an illusion.

To demonstrate the point, I sited the case of two models from our club:

A biplane with parallel chord, slightly swept back foam wings, held in place by elastic bands and solid balsa tail feathers cut to a distinctive curvaceous shape. Flying a couple hundred feet in the air at half throttle there’s no mistaking the shape; it’s a Tiger Moth. To be brutally honest the aluminium undercarriage lets it down but a simple bent up piano wire affair would complete the illusion.

An ARTF Cub, nicely finished with a fair amount of detail. Usually seen inverted at about 4 foot altitude doing a scale speed in excess of 300 mph before pulling up into a stall turn to repeat the exercise in the opposite direction. There’s no denying the piloting skill, but one thing it definitely isn’t and that’s scale!

The ultimate is of course the finely detailed model flown in a truly scale fashion as we see at the top competitions and displays. The standard of these models has increased dramatically over the past ten years or so, but we all have to start somewhere and I hope it isn’t the case that these “super models” are in fact putting the average club member off ever starting down the scale road.

[Guest]

It's interesting to think about what is meant by the term scale modelling. On the face of it it's pretty self explanatory but when looking at the way the model will be viewed and the scale, the viewers eyelevel etc, is normally nothing akin to the experience of the real thing, take for example a King Tiger tank, the actual vehicle in a museum, very impressive but obviously most of the vehicle is unable to be seen and pretty much most of it's above eyelevel, a scale model on the other hand gives you a real all in one view of the thing that would be very seldom experienced in reality.

The same applies to the way models are weathered and painted, with accents to the detail to almost make a subtle caricature of the the real thing. It's a bit like the makeup actors wear on a stage production, which has to look good from a particular distance.

Sometimes we have to almost over enhance a particular characteristic of the actual subject in order to make it even look like the real item at the much reduced scale.

I also find it a little amusing how, often in museums, military vehicles are kept in a showroom condition, painted with gloss paint, either lovingly cared for or the other extreme daubed with a little of whatever colour paint was left in the can over the rusty bits. When in france I saw a us armoured car that had had it's very perished looking tyres painted white to "tidy it up a bit", it's quite strange when the real vehicles look less like the real thing that what the models are trying to portray!