Metric scale

'Scale' isn't subject to any measurement system, Imperial or Metric.  A 1:100 scale ship is 100 times smaller than the real thing. 

A 300 foot ship for example is 91.440 metres long.  In 1:100 scale a model would be 3 foot long or 914 millimetres - exactly the same length however you measure it..

Michael

Since yours was the only reply to my query (and I appreciate it), I assume that most everyone else has long since "got it" when it comes to understanding scale. I had not.

Your answer was a gestalt for me.

Thank you.

MJH wrote:

'Scale' isn't subject to any measurement system, Imperial or Metric.  A 1:100 scale ship is 100 times smaller than the real thing.  A 300 foot ship for example is 91.440 metres long.  In 1:100 scale a model would be 3 foot long or 914 millimetres - exactly the same length however you measure it.. Michael

You are half correct.  Scale is not necessarily described as a simple numerical ratio, such as 1:48.  For example, 54mm is a scale.  Most of us know that it is 1:32 or G scale, but this can cause confusion for many people. 

While not intrinsically associated with any measurement system, scales such as 1/50, 1/100, 1/200, 1/400 and so on are often referred to as "metric scales".   Models of ships built in countries using the metric system are traditionally built in these scales.   Those built in countries using the "English" system (these days almost exclusively American I suppose) traditionally use scales derived from that system such as 1/48 (1/4 inch = 1 foot), 1/96 (1/8 inch = 1 foot) or 1/192 (1/16 inch = 1 foot).   There are, of course, exceptions especialy these days when so many modern ship models are being produced in 1/350 or 1/700 regardless of the ship's country of origin.

A lot of people seem to find the subject of scale confusing.  Part of the reason, I suspect, is that the terminology involving it sometimes gets applied carelessly.

The common expression "54 mm scale," for instance, came into use among military miniature collectors because 54 mm was a convenient height for a reproduction of a human being.  (Assuming the person in question was six feet tall, that makes "54 mm scale" about the equivalent of 1/33 actual size - close enough to 1/32, as MortarMagnet noted.) 

Scale is usually expressed in one of two ways:  either by means of a simple fraction, or by equating some measurement in the miniaturized object to its full-sized equivalent.  The scale of 1/8" = 1', for instance, is the equivalent of 1/96 actual size.  (An eighth of an inch on the model represents a foot in on the full-sized object.  There are 96 units of 1/8" in a foot - right?)  By the same token, 1/16" = 1' is the same as 1/192, and 1/4" = 1' is the same as 1/48.  And so forth.

Folks who use the metric system often find it convenient to think in multiples of ten.  That's one reason why continental European kits are often on scales like 1/100, 1/150, 1/400, etc.

Some British modelers adopt the convention of stating scales in the reverse order to what Americans are accustomed to.  1" = 16' obviously is the same as 1/16" - 1'.

Some modelers adopt a casual, near-slang for talking about scales, with the result that neophytes can get confused about it.  (Modelers aren't the only ones; architects and engineers are guilty of the same sins.)  I cringe every time I hear an airplane modeler talk about "quarter scale."  He almost certainly means "forty-eighth scale" - i.e., 1/4" = 1'.  (A model of a Spitfire or a Messerschmitt 109 on genuine "quarter scale" wouldn't fit in the average modeler's workshop.)

One acquisition I highly recommend for anybody getting seriously interested in scale modeling is an electronic calculator that works in feet, inches, and fractions.  Such gadgets used to be scarce (and expensive), but nowadays you can find them at places like Lowe's and Home Depot for less than $20.00.  Some of them also make instant conversions from the English system to metric.

MortarMagnet wrote:

You are half correct.  Scale is not necessarily described as a simple numerical ratio, such as 1:48.  For example, 54mm is a scale.  Most of us know that it is 1:32 or G scale, but this can cause confusion for many people.

Actually, G is not a railroad "scale" but is the "guage" or distance between the rails.  The actual "scale" of G gauge varies between 1:20.5 to 1:32.  If tou go to the railorad side of the hobby shop and look at the G gauge people, you'll see that LGB, Bachmann, and Woodland Scenics are all different sizes, even though they are for G gauga trains.

In R/C circles 1/4 scale does indeed mean 1/4 the size of a real airplane or 3"=1'. Thus giving a piper cub for example around a ten foot wing span. Very exciting models to fly but entirely impractical to build in molded styrene or resin.

also refers to how many equals real size, ex is 1:350 scale means it takes 350 models to be equal to 1 real thing

Reklein makes an excellent point.  RC modelers and plastic modelers have gotten into the habit of using that phrase "quarter scale" to mean two very different things.  (The RC folks use the term correctly.)  I'm reminded of a line in one of my favorite comic strips, the late, lamented "Calvin and Hobbes":  "maybe if we really work at it we can make language a complete impediment to understanding."

jtilley wrote:

. Some modelers adopt a casual, near-slang for talking about scales, with the result that neophytes can get confused about it.  (Modelers aren't the only ones; architects and engineers are guilty of the same sins.)

Well, guilty as charged, I guess.   In common with many professions I suppose, architects and engineers ( I am one of the former) do tend to sometimes use shorthand when refering to things that we are intimately familliar with-we do, after all, deal with "scale" every day of our lives.   The one mitigating factor is that confusion is generally not an issue, at least among ourselves, because when architects and engineers say something like "quarter scale" or "eighth scale" or "twentieth scale" they mean the dimensionally derived scale.   Architectural drawings and models are always in 1/4"=1'-0", or 1/8"=1'-0" or 1/20"=1', etc., never 1/48, 1/96 or 1/240.   The only minor exception that I have encountered in 30 years of practice is that sometimes a very large scale detail drawn at 3"=1' or 6"=1' might be labeled as "quarter size","half size" or something similar.  

I would be interested to know how it is typically done in those countries on the metric system (perhaps I should say the rest of the world).   Do archtects and engineers designate drawing scales as 1/50 or 1/100, or (for instance) 1cm=1m?

CG Bob wrote:

MortarMagnet wrote: You are half correct.  Scale is not necessarily described as a simple numerical ratio, such as 1:48.  For example, 54mm is a scale.  Most of us know that it is 1:32 or G scale, but this can cause confusion for many people.  Actually, G is not a railroad "scale" but is the "guage" or distance between the rails.  The actual "scale" of G gauge varies between 1:20.5 to 1:32.  If tou go to the railorad side of the hobby shop and look at the G gauge people, you'll see that LGB, Bachmann, and Woodland Scenics are all different sizes, even though they are for G gauga trains.

Actually, if we are going to be particular about this, G scale is 1:22.5 and uses No. 1 gauge track for MMR.  Despite the many scales that use No.1 gauge track, the only true G scale is the original German G scale that rides on No.1 gauge.  Typically, we define G scale as 1:32 or 54mm using No. 1 track because 45mm(No.1) width track is 1:31.88... of our standard RR gauge, 1435mm.  There is no such thing as G gauge, as it is No. 1 gauge and G gauge is a misnomer that comes from the scale trains associated with the track.