BIGGER new models?

DoogsATX

If anybody ever makes a 1:1 kit of the P-47, I'll put it in the backyard...wouldn't even have to weather it!

Man , that would require gallons of liquid plastic cement ............................

Shellback

DoogsATX:

If anybody ever makes a 1:1 kit of the P-47, I'll put it in the backyard...wouldn't even have to weather it!

 

Man , that would require gallons of liquid plastic cement ............................

Never mind that, think of how much paint it would take.

For me it's a love/hate relationship. The larger size makes assembly easier on the eyes but also requires more storage space. And these larger models really scream for super detailing, which I'm not really into. For instance, I bought Trumpeter's 1/16 Tiger when they first hit the streets. I started the build right off but then started seeing threads about all of the deficiencies in the kit. And in this scale, missing or wrong items are just too easy to pick out. So after several weeks of going back and forth, I finally decided that I'm not ready to do the scratch building or detailing that this model will require to male it all it can be. So for now it sits, along with a few other large scale kits that I bought after this one but that also require the same TLC that the Trump does.

The comment a few posts back about Wingnut Wings got me thinking...to me there's a very definite "sweet spot", size-wise, for kits. Namely a 9-12" wingspan. This encompasses most non-tiny WWII fighters in 1/48, and the tiny ones in 1/32. It also encompasses a good many 1/32 WWI kits and a large number of 1/72 bombers and other large craft.

Much smaller than that and you start verging into tininess, much larger and you get into the big honkers (a 1/32 P-47 has a 15" wingspan). To me, the decision to venture above that 12" wingspan is reserved for flat-out awesome aircraft. If I'm going to chew up that kind of space, I want to do it with an awesome kit and an awesome subject. 

Maybe that's why I'm willing to pay more for 1/32 kits? I recognize that they are, in effect, the flagships of my collection, and am willing to dump resources into them accordingly.

I get what your getting at . When the B-29 in 1/48th came from Monogram i snatched it off the shelf . The size was perfect . Previouse releases of the B-29 and other WWII four engine bombers looked / felt to small so when Monogram released these bombers in 1/48th they really fit a nitch in kit size for me .

DoogsATX

The comment a few posts back about Wingnut Wings got me thinking...to me there's a very definite "sweet spot", size-wise, for kits. Namely a 9-12" wingspan. This encompasses most non-tiny WWII fighters in 1/48, and the tiny ones in 1/32. It also encompasses a good many 1/32 WWI kits and a large number of 1/72 bombers and other large craft.

Much smaller than that and you start verging into tininess, much larger and you get into the big honkers (a 1/32 P-47 has a 15" wingspan). To me, the decision to venture above that 12" wingspan is reserved for flat-out awesome aircraft. If I'm going to chew up that kind of space, I want to do it with an awesome kit and an awesome subject. 

Maybe that's why I'm willing to pay more for 1/32 kits? I recognize that they are, in effect, the flagships of my collection, and am willing to dump resources into them accordingly.

The last several kits I've built have been 1/32, so I'm more used to them. Also, to be quite honest, I am still developing my airbrush skills. They are, overall, easier to manage, especially with Luftwaffe birds. As far as display, they don't take up enough room to make this much of an issue. I'll always find a place for them. People know I am an aviation nut, so a nice 1/32 P-47 or P-51 in the living room? Well...what else would anyone want there?

Tamiya is still running ahead of other model companies with detail and quality, IMHO. So, I have several of their 1/48 kits in my stash, to be build as time goes on... Mossie, P-47Ms, etc. but am looking forward to more 1/32 from them in the future.

96Daksport

Thats something I never understood..  1/32nd aircraft and 1/35th armor?  1/24 AND 1/25 cars?  Why couldnt they all just stick to a few common sizes?  Cant put a front line airstrip with a plane and a piece of artillery, because its hard to sync up the sizes.

I think the 1/24 scale comes from our use of the imperial measuring system; 1 inch equals 24 inches or 2 feet. 1/48 is based along the same principle of 1 inch equaling 4 feet. The 1/25 probably originates from metric measuring systems. I believe 1/72 scale came from a six foot tall man being 1 inch in height at that scale.

Monogram began with the 1/35 scale armor, probably something based off of box scale. Their kits were often copied by Japanese manufacturers and eventually became the norm for armor.

Monogram did switch to 1/32 scale armor for some of their later 1970s kits to match Airfix's really nice 1/32 scale armor, but by then the Japanese armor modeling companies had taken off and it became the standard. That's why Monogram has some kits in 1/35 scale (M48 Patton, M34 truck, Weasel, Halftracks) and then some of their later kits (panzers, M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Shermans, armored cars) end up in 1/32.

Revell's 1/40 scale and Tamiya's 1/50 scale virtually disappeared.

The first scale I ever built in was 1/72, and for some reason it's just always looked right to my eye. Since then, I've had scale preferences for subjects: 1/72 for aircraft, 1/35 for armor, 1/24 and 1/25 for autos, and 1/350 for the odd ship I'd build. The only exception is 1/20, that for the Tamiya F1 race cars- I prefer that size over their 1/12.

That said, I think it's cool that manufacturers cater to a variety of interests, as we're obviously a very diverse group. I'm thankful my eyesight allows me to still do 1/72, and I like the fact that in that scale I can realistically build anything from a Fokker Dr.1 to a B-36. I like the size comparison. I do remember seeing the MPC 1/24 Bf-109E and Spitfire (Airfix repops?) and thinking that they'd be physically impressive on the shelf, but simply too damn big for the rest of the collection. However, I absolutely freaked out when I saw the 1/72 B-36, B-52, and C-130 in the store and couldn't wait until I got them on my workbench.

DoogsATX talks about 'epic' builds (as I take it, defined as a big scale with cutting-edge engineering), and along those lines Wingnut Wings does intrigue me. The one kit I'd seriously consider if money and time were no object would be their Hansa-Brandenburg W.29, because of the subject but also just to try out a WnW to experience their engineering quality (I have the Pegasus 1/72 issue).

At the end of the day, though, the 'new big ultra kit' isn't compelling to me in general simply for it's 'new big ultra kit-ness.'

For me its more a matter of my stash already being in 1/35th armor and 1/48th air craft plus the shelf space a 1/32nd aircraft would take up .