1/50 vs 1/33 scale aircraft

Discussion in 'General Card Modeling' started by cmdrted, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. cmdrted

    cmdrted Active Member

    This debate has probably been kicked around before but I'd like to solicit ideas and thoughts regarding the merits of 1/50 vs 1/33 scale. I've been primarily a 1/33 scale modeler. I usually convert the smaller 1/50s to larger scale, usually with pretty decent results. Sometimes I have to use other actual 1/33 scale detail parts to bring a smaller scale to life. Anyways, I've been going over my build list, and the larger bombers are looking like they will push me outta my study, and into the basement. ie, the B1 bomber, the huge b52, and even the WW2 twin and quad engined beasts are pretty darn big. I've been going back and forth with modeling in 1/50 scale, and even thought of going back over some of my finished 1/33s and re-doing them in 1/50, just to keep things in constant scale. Some of the models by Kampflierger, Kancho, and some of Marek's 1/50 scale kits are pretty darned detailed to start with, and built stock are relatively easy to build: in 1/33! My question is ,are you guys that build in 1/50 satisfied with the ease of construction in that scale,, and level of detail? And has anyone shrunk down some of the 1/33 kits to 1/50 and how hard were they to build?
  2. k5083

    k5083 Member

    I find not only that Marek's 1/50 models scale nicely to 1/33 but also that Zarkov's 1/72 models work fine in 1/33. But I am running into the same problem you are: Where to put the bigger models, assuming for the sake of argument that I ever finish one.

    In some ways scaling down will be easier than scaling up: no need to extract and rearrange parts to fit on pages. If the detail parts become too small and fiddly, we can either improve our skills or just leave them off. The problem, I think, will be with models that have complex, intersecting internal structures, like any recent Halinski. Those depend on the cardstock being the right thickness, and it may be hard to get cardstock in the scaled-down thickness. Even if you can, it may no longer be stiff enough to do what it has to.

    I bet the ship guys know more about it than we do. They're always rescaling things between 1/600, 1/400, 1/300, and 1/200, and they deal with intersecting internal structures all the time. They probably have to do some serious redesign sometimes.

  3. lizzienewell

    lizzienewell Member

    I eyeball my scale and usually forget what it is directly after measuring it. The sizes that I've been working with (wait I have to check again) are 1:166, 1:65 and 1:32. The 1:65 seems to be the right balance between rigidity and detail for what I'm working on right now.

    The problem with going to big is that you have to start laminating to get the paper ridgid enough. The strength doesn't change in direct preportion to size. if you double the size of something you need to more than double the thickness to get the right strength. The stetchyness of things changes too in a way that's not directly proportinal. You have to decrease the proportional sizes of things that need to stretch to follow a compound curve. I'm not sure if that is the right explaination. If you take a big sheet of paper and wrap it around a hemisphere you will have big pleats and wrinkles. If you take a smaller piece of paper and wrap it around a smaller hemisphere there may be no noticable pleats and wrinkles.

    If you go too small then working some details becomes too difficult. Either increases or decreases in size requires some changes in design.

    To make scale changes easier I treat a one point line as equivalent to a thickness of the paper. In Coreldraw will leave lines the same width when the size of the shape changes. I just have to remember which side of the line to cut on.

  4. thewoodengraver

    thewoodengraver Active Member

    I, personally think that the construction is the same level of difficulty on any scale, meaning, just because you shrink or enlarge doesn't make the model harder or easier, except for the detail. The crucial difference would be cutting and folding accuracy the smaller you get.

    I like to crop the smallest part I cannot do without, then scale down as small as I can actually build it, and the rest is childs play.

    If you are a stickler for detail, you can always substitute some smaller parts for bits of trimmed wood, wire, clay, and even paint. No where does it say the model HAS to be 100% paper.

    Some like them large, some like them tiny (like myself). Just be happy to create!!!
  5. lizzienewell

    lizzienewell Member

    The largest work that I've done was 12 foot by 12 foot by 12 foot out of snow. At this size I needed friends to help and we needed ladders. if we went much bigger we would have needed scafolding and a crane. Fortunately snow is a really cheap material.

    Many things(surface area and volumn) increase exponential with size.

    If you made a fullsized airplane out of paper you would need a hangar to store it. One of the great thing about cardmodels is that it allows inexpensive and easy modeling of larger items without the difficulty or expense of producing the item in full size.

    In making cardmodels were are generally pushing scale in the small direction and we avoid most of the problems with large scale.

    I will generally add all the detail that the scale will support. If the scale goes bigger I add more detail which increases the time spent even further.

    I like a size that's appropriate for the work. I generally don't like the extream of large and small size. Giant five story high clothespins doen't do a whole lot for me nor does microscopic writing on rice grains. The extreams become stunts.


Share This Page