Which Scale....Let the argument resume

find one? i've been in love with them since i saw that giant wheel in the imperial war museum and bought the giant book about them. i wish i had the skill to scratch 9-10 of the important ones anf 5-6 of the oddballs. olease help me out here, i didn't think there were any kits. even i 1/144, i would go detail crazy. those are some really sexy birds to me.

Contrail did a 1/72 scale Zeppelin R.6/L in vacuform with some cast metal parts.

A lot easier to work with than the tiny 1/144 and there are detailing sets for other WWI bombers to work with. You may be able to caniblize parts from Roden Gotha's as well.

Tom

I prefer 1/48 for anything up to two engines. Sure, a 1/48 X/YB-35 would look great... but where would I put it?

I'm going to be doing my F-18s, F-5s, and P-36s in 1/48. I've already got them started, and really like the kits - but if I start into another large "collection" (say, specialty F-16s, I s'pose) I'd probably go to 1/72 for space (and money) reasons.

I wouldn't *touch* a single-place biplane in anything under 1/48, though.

SRAM No. 144023

under 1/144 Resin Kits for "Zeppelin Staaken R. VI"

To which giant book are you referring? It sounds interesting!

Yeah, the Staaken is awesome, by any criteria.

I sent an email to Roden, praising the Gotha, and suggesting they consisder a 1/72 Staaken R.IV.

Danny CA, USA

I think the rationale for choosing N or Z scales is the space required and/or the amount of scenery you can build to run prototypical length trains through. I've seen layouts built in coffee tables and I've seen whole large rooms devoted to N scale layouts which duplicate real scenes and practises.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

I knew I'd leave somebody out...:)

Bill Banaszak, MFE

thanks, but i was hoping for a bit more. i don't think the staaken and gotha's have much in common. di anyone do a ww1 caproni? the monster with the 2 tractor and one pusher motors? i saw a picture of one with a fighter parked under its wing.

yeah, that's the ticket. thanks.

Oh, I understand N. It's Z that I find a bit puzzling...

Yes, there is quite a bit of detail in N, and looking at Walthams year after year, the selection keeps growing. I think the truly wonderful thing about N is the potential to model realistic LONG trains in a relatively small amount of space.

What's a "MFE?"

I chose N Gauge many years ago when money was really tight. A 4-8-2 loco and several Santa Fe 40s/50s passenger cars were within my budget.

While I still don't have a layout (Lynne has offered a corner of the library, her space) I have a couple of crates of N Gauge stuff. Especially like the newer cars, trucks, buildings and accessories.

Next purchase is a diesel for the transition period.

Tom

Meikraft did a Caproni Ca.3 in 1/72 scale. Injection molded with etched metal and cast metal details, actual wood as thin as I have ever seen it (although a bit out of scale for 1/72) and superb decals.

Figure a month for rigging. :-)

Have seen them on e-bay and at shows in the $100 range.

Tom

yeah, that's the bird. out of my range, sadly.

Patience.

I have found kits, books, etc. that I couldn't afford at affordable prices long after I gave up actively looking.

Considering that Meikraft sold a good number of the Capronis at their high prices it's possible that Roden or the like may pick it up. Almost everything else that he did has been repeated since he passed away.

Tom

It stands for Middle-aged Flatulence Emitter and is awarded to those of us on this newsgroup who are old enough to remember banana oil, 10¢ bottles of Testors and Pactra paint and when box-scale kits were the majority of the kits available, some still wooden.

BTW, Z is 1/220 scale and was largely invented by the folks at Märklin. N has a more nebulous beginning, having started as OOO by an outfit in Europe called Lone Star. Arnold brought out their own line as Rapid-o-line and the scale was slightly different. For awhile there were different points of view as to which scale to standardise on with

1/160 becoming the choice for N. At least that's the way I remember it.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Darn...I am only 35,but I remember testors and pactra at about 15 cents.And aren't a lot of those really small scale Academy kits just a modern version of box scale? I do have the flatulence...can I be a junior member?

8 1/144-. == Z For those who want alot but don't have much space 8

This is a UK scale using HO track (unfortunately 16.5mm)

It is not exactly 1:76 as it is 4mm to the foot

There is an exact scale version called P4 or S4 (18.83mm gauge) and a more workable version called EM (18.2mm).

That's what always impressed me about articles in English model railway magazines. The layout discussed almost always has the scale listed along with the gauge. On this side of the pond it's assumed that if one's models are HO then they're 1/87th scale. Of course we're getting more folks into 'Proto' in whatever scale they're using.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Nah, God or Devil, I don't believe in either.

1/72 is the most *rational* scale. It is small enough that you can build even the largest aircraft in a relatively practical size. Even the largest *ships* in 1/72 will be manageable, although not easily stored/displayed. This is proven best by the large aircraft carriers that have been featured in FSM.

Yet, 1/72 is not smaller than that it is possible (although admittedly difficult) to model a human character with recognizable features, even to the point of being able to identify individual faces. Having done a bit of 1/87 scale railroad modelling, I personally don't think it is possible to achieve that in 1/87 scale, even though this is not *very* much smaller than 1/72. So 1/72 is probably the smallest reasonable scale for figure modelling.

Thus 1/72 combines the possibility of modelling very large human artifacts with the possibility of modelling recognisable humans. Therefore, it is the perfect scale.

-Lasse