Scale weight - thru the coffee table!

hahahahahahah migs...i gotta say your post cracked me up....when you said "poultry 20mph" I suspect you meant "paltry" as in contemptible...but I really like the idea that it would fly like a big fat chicken!

Hmm.. WOnder what that Gustav would weigh..

Sorry, migs, but you missed something. When figuring scale, the weight would be figured by cubing the scale. The linear dimensions are 1:72, but weight would be 1:(72x72x72), or 1:343,248

So, your example would be for a fighter weighing 14,400kg. The "scale weight" would be about 38.5g. For a specific example, a 1:72 F-14 would weigh a little more than 90g ( about 3 ounces for you non-metric folks ) at max takeoff wt. A plane weighing 200kg in 1:72would have a real-life weight of over 74,000 metric tons ( besides, what on this earth is dense enough to weigh 200kg for the volume of a 1:72 scale airplane? )

BTW: I forgot to mention this...

Your "poultry" comment got me wondering about an actual meeting of chickens and aircraft, anyone else heard of the "Rooster Booster?"

Kugai - I must have missed something in college physics (like I ever went to class at all). Could you please briefly expalin your cubist theory? Thanks, Stinger

stinger,
Weight is proportional to mass, which is proportional to volume, volume is proportional to the cube of a linear distance, which is the ratio 1/72.

A cube with a side of 3 has volume of 27. A cube with a side 4 has a volume of 64. The ratio of their volume is (64/27) which is (4/3)^3.

Kugai - Of course! How stupid of me. If I had thought about volume I would have seen it. That third dimension changes so many things, doesn't it? I must be watching too much TV, and staring at my laptop screen for too long! Interesting that nothing in Einsteins world could never exist in only two dimensions because our third dimension would have to reach infinity, which, so far as we know, is impossible, because mass therefore would be reduced to zero, which cannot happen even on the atomic level.
Is that close enough for an A in that physics lesson?

Kubai - PS : Mass cannot conversely reach an infinitely positive level, otherwise we would be traveling at warp speed, right?

QUOTE: conversely it will also reach mach II at at a poultry 20 mph / 33 kmh

So sound must travel slower coming from a smaller speaker?
It doesn't matter how big something is, it still must travel at 740 mph (approx) to reach mach 1.

QUOTE: Your "poultry" comment got me wondering about an actual meeting of chickens and aircraft, anyone else heard of the "Rooster Booster?"

Yep, pretty cool.

Can't scale time either. So you can scale wing size down to a model, but time cannot be scaled.

Good topic though, and the rooster booster is fine as long as you THAW the birds first :P

Ok - So I didn't get the Memo on the Rooster Booster thing (I must have been in Physics class that day). Is it any thing to do with an increase in engine performance due to the ingestion of birds, or just what the heck is it? I thought that was what brought down at least one B1.
(I am obviously reaching for thought here).
I can hear all of you who know cackling out there.
Please give us a clue

This conversation is insane. And I thought Quantum Physics was hard to follow.

Muzzleflash, time cannot be scaled, as time is an abstract created by men so it gives us an excuse to yell at women for being late for a date.

As for mass, using Einstein's formula E=mc2, where m=mass and c=the constant of the speed of light, as something accelerates due to a constantly increasing energy, mass would become infinite. However, that has been disproven by the existence of anti-protons and anti-neutrons, which travel close to the speed of light with an as yet unmeasured mass.

Einstein's theory wasn't wrong, just incomplete.

Plesae remeber to tip your waitress.

demono69

Demon - Truly appreciate your knowledge. "Close to" (the speed of light), and "as yet unmeasured" (mass) are the key words there. Einstein still has not been proven wrong. Then again, in calculus, I did have to take that leap of faith about Lim 1/n, as n approaches infinity, = 0. So, basically, I can concieve of "Warp speed, Mr. Zulu", but we're not there yet. (Or are we?)
Thanks for making us think - Stinger

Oh, the other thing.....if I am correct, The rooster booster is the cannon that chucks birds at windshields for testing. Problem was they forgot to defrost the frozen birds and couldnt figure out why the glass wasnt stopping it :)

I was just thinking about this whole 'weight' thing today. I got stumped on the calculations too, but the cube route makes sense. A friend puts weights in his armour models to give them some density. They feel alot better when you're examining and moving them around. Gives the impression of a solid/heavy item!

Murray

Just remember: math and physics are not sciences. One other thing. I hated Calculus. I can honestly say that after the last test in High School almost 15 years ago, I have never used it since. And yes, limit equations sucked. Badly. Just keep pushing the "I believe" button.

demono69

Thanks Muzzleflash - I thought it was something like that, and I did a Google search for it. Found a few links on the subject, but here's the funniest one. http://home.xnet.com/~warinner/chickens.html

Migs - See what you started? Thanks again though, for helping us think "outside the model". (Or maybe really, from within).

Demono - Yes, time is abstract, yet so is life, and is that a manmade concept? Did WE ever really exist, once we're gone? (I think maybe I spent too much time at Kafka's house in Prague).

Stinger

As a wise man once said, "If I look back on my life using hindsight, I can see the future." Steven Wright, in case you were wondering.

As for the Rooster Booster, has anyone checked on the feelings of the birds in question concerning this practice? What if there's a revolution?

Re: The quote on life - So subtle, yet so succinct.
Re: Aviary revolution - Squawk one

I can't tell you guys how much I've enjoyed this conversation between you. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I did read a book once (I was hinding in a prostitutes closet and had nothing better to do) but I would like to point out that you forgot the "Space/Time Continuum".

I've never seen a book in a prostitute's closet! Boy do I feel gyped!

I think it was holding the shelf up.

For information pertaining to the space / time continuum, please consult Steven Hawkins masterpiece of confusion, A Brief History of Time. Great stuff.

Yikes! This is nuts!
Here's a thought: time IS effected by scale, if you want the miniature action to match the full scale action in terms of physics. That's why in miniature special effects photography you overcrank the camera when filming, in effect slowing time when projected at normal speed. For example, a real car plunging 100 meters off a real cliff would take, let's say 6 or 7 seconds to hit the ground (anybody know the acceleration/maximum velocity formula?). A 1/100 scale miniature car falling 1 meter from a 1/100 cliff would take less than a second to hit the ground, because in the real world all physical objects obey the same laws.
But to make that little 1/100 car appear to observe a 1/100 scale world's laws of physics, we'd have to slow it down to a 6 or 7 second fall to match the full-scale laws.
I reckon sound would be the same. Full-scale sound travels at what, 714 miles an hour at sea level? So what is that in a 1/72 scale world? 10 miles an hour? So for a 1/72 scale F-14 to visually appear to be traveling at the speed of sound, it would only need to go 10 miles an hour!
This is nutty, but fun!

Hi all,
- Kugai, thanks for the real picture on scale weight - the 200kg 1:72 Tomcat did seem a bit strange - anti-matter detail sets anyone ? ( postage could be costly ! )
the correct maths is a level up ( or ten ) from mine but sounds a good to me........

- Mer, averything made sense when i typed it

To be honest my 'ACME' maths book said divide averything ( ! ) by 72 and impress your friends...... well i'm impressed by the way we all sound so convincing till someone else sounds just as convincing, i like the 2001 thing too,
- apologies for anyone getting a headache when following this topic (or was that just me) ........ duoo

J-Hulk,

Ask and ye shall receive. For all of you math geeks out there, this is all you need to know about Terminal Velocity. Or, at least the "Cliff Notes" version.

http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/courses/eg1527/site/pdf/exercs/ex2_withans.pdf

demono69

J-Hulk, TIME CANT BE SCALED. The model will land at the same time as the full size car, however you are dropping them from different heights so I would land at different times. :)

Air resistence is negligible, just do the 32ft/sec/sq for objects falling, regardless of the scale size of the object :)

QUOTE: Full-scale sound travels at what, 714 miles an hour at sea level? So what is that in a 1/72 scale world? 10 miles an hour? So for a 1/72 scale F-14 to visually appear to be traveling at the speed of sound, it would only need to go 10 miles an hour!

I was wondering how long it would take! The key words are "to visually appear".

jhulk - your example is how i looked at scale speed and agree that something 72 times smaller will (appear to) travel 72 slower, but i guess speed is distance over time and the problem as muzzleflash says is with time rather than distance, - a scale day would be to short to make any models so we'd get a bit stuck , i think thats what it boiled down to !
the topic was due to the accuracy seen in scale modeling and i wondered how far we could get with scale stats / enviroment ect beyond the kit itself - (only as far as the laws of science will allow i guess) certainly worth a look tho.......

' If you think lateraly remember to look forward'