Hosted by Darren Baker
Scale weight of sherman
joleary
Joined: April 17, 2006
KitMaker: 16 posts
Armorama: 17 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 04:58 PM UTC
Does anyone know the calculations to convert 35 tons (a Sherman for example) into 1/35 scale weight? My calculations seem rediculously high. Metric or English systems? I think it would be awsome to have a model weigh to scale, although I'm not sue if the superstructure could handle the weight. Any ideas?
Empire95
Joined: September 07, 2010
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 75 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 06:19 PM UTC
I thougt it was 1:35 (1 is orignial weight, 35 is scale)
so, 35000 : 35 = 1000 ..?
That comes out when I try it, but 1000 kilo is very much xD
so, 35000 : 35 = 1000 ..?
That comes out when I try it, but 1000 kilo is very much xD
Precious_rob
Joined: March 09, 2009
KitMaker: 206 posts
Armorama: 183 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:03 PM UTC
While I dont know the math to give an exact answer, I can tell you the scale weight would be at the very least several hundred pounds if not a ton or more.
Nylonathatep
Joined: September 27, 2007
KitMaker: 58 posts
Armorama: 56 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:13 PM UTC
That would be the original weight divided by 35 cubed.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
brentwal
Joined: February 06, 2010
KitMaker: 100 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:16 PM UTC
Quoted Text
That would be the original weight divided by 35 cubed.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
or about 1.75 lbs
Really about 1.63 lbs based on US system
Dangeroo
#023
Joined: March 13, 2009
KitMaker: 2,058 posts
Armorama: 1,656 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:18 PM UTC
Don't know any formulas but it has something to do with the volume: If you convert a 35*35*35m cube (42875 cuibic meters) to 1/35 scale you will have a 1*1*1m cube (dividing all sides by 35). Obviously that's a lot less volume than if you divide the cuibic meters above by 35. And since weight is defined by the volume that would make it a lot less than just 35 times lighter.
No expert, so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong...
Cheers!
Stefan
No expert, so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong...
Cheers!
Stefan
Nylonathatep
Joined: September 27, 2007
KitMaker: 58 posts
Armorama: 56 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:52 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThat would be the original weight divided by 35 cubed.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
or about 1.75 lbs
Really about 1.63 lbs based on US system
Yep. Although to be much more precise you really need to know which type of "Sherman", could be anything between 700 and 900g.
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 10:03 PM UTC
The formula is very simple. If you reduce the dimesnions of something by a given amount, you reduce the surface area by the square of that amount, and the volume (not the weight) by its cube. For any 1/35 model this means that the ratio of dimensions is 1/35; the ratio of areas is 1/1225, and the ratio of volumes is 1/42,875.
Weight depends on the materials being used. If every item in the original is scaled down but made from the original materials, the ratio of weights will be the same as the ratio of volumes. So a tank weighing 42,875lb (about 19.5 tons) would weigh a pound when scaled down to 1/35. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to construct it out of the original materials throughout, so if you want to replicate the weight of a Sherman in a plastic model, you'll need to add something between 1.5lb and 1.8lb (depending on which mark of Sherman and whether they've filled the fuel tank) to the basic kit. And pray that the suspension doesn't collapse.
US system? What system is that? I know the US pint and the Imperial pint are different but what's different about weights?
Weight depends on the materials being used. If every item in the original is scaled down but made from the original materials, the ratio of weights will be the same as the ratio of volumes. So a tank weighing 42,875lb (about 19.5 tons) would weigh a pound when scaled down to 1/35. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to construct it out of the original materials throughout, so if you want to replicate the weight of a Sherman in a plastic model, you'll need to add something between 1.5lb and 1.8lb (depending on which mark of Sherman and whether they've filled the fuel tank) to the basic kit. And pray that the suspension doesn't collapse.
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThat would be the original weight divided by 35 cubed.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
or about 1.75 lbs
Really about 1.63 lbs based on US system
US system? What system is that? I know the US pint and the Imperial pint are different but what's different about weights?
brentwal
Joined: February 06, 2010
KitMaker: 100 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 04:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The formula is very simple. If you reduce the dimesnions of something by a given amount, you reduce the surface area by the square of that amount, and the volume (not the weight) by its cube. For any 1/35 model this means that the ratio of dimensions is 1/35; the ratio of areas is 1/1225, and the ratio of volumes is 1/42,875.
Weight depends on the materials being used. If every item in the original is scaled down but made from the original materials, the ratio of weights will be the same as the ratio of volumes. So a tank weighing 42,875lb (about 19.5 tons) would weigh a pound when scaled down to 1/35. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to construct it out of the original materials throughout, so if you want to replicate the weight of a Sherman in a plastic model, you'll need to add something between 1.5lb and 1.8lb (depending on which mark of Sherman and whether they've filled the fuel tank) to the basic kit. And pray that the suspension doesn't collapse.Quoted TextQuoted TextThat would be the original weight divided by 35 cubed.
Or to use your Sherman example about 800grams.
or about 1.75 lbs
Really about 1.63 lbs based on US system
US system? What system is that? I know the US pint and the Imperial pint are different but what's different about weights?
Imperial tonne (2240lbs) vs metric ton (2205 lbs) vs US ton (2000 lbs)
Clear as mud
joleary
Joined: April 17, 2006
KitMaker: 16 posts
Armorama: 17 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 04:16 PM UTC
Hmmm, I did not think about cubing the weight. I too was getting ridiculous figures like 1000lbs. 1.75 lbs sounds more reasonable. It would be nice if there was a conversion chart for simplicity. I weight my models to give them a more substancial feel and I was always curious about scale accuracy. With all the nit picking about accuracy one would think that would come into play in heavy duty competition. Thanks for all the imput from all. Cheers
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 04:23 PM UTC
I'd smack on the forehead any judge who wanted to evaluate my model's accuracy based on its weight. It's a visual representation: a miniature. It's not a real tank. It's not made of alloys and steel. It's painted plastic and brass and resin. If someone thinks differently, they shouldn't be judging.
joleary
Joined: April 17, 2006
KitMaker: 16 posts
Armorama: 17 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 04:44 PM UTC
I tend to agree about the visual representation, it was just a thought. I can remember when the underside of the vehicle did not count, but judges who were used to judging aircraft, where it did count, started to make calls about the backs of raodwheels and the kit manufacturers name molded on the bottoms, or open hatches with no interior detail kicking models out of consideration. That has all changed now with the bottoms regularly inspected and so on. I just like the feel of the weight and was wondering how to get close by adding weight.
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 09:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
US system? What system is that? I know the US pint and the Imperial pint are different but what's different about weights?
Imperial tonne (2240lbs) vs metric ton (2205 lbs) vs US ton (2000 lbs)
Clear as mud
In that case I think you've made a mistake - probably by starting with the weight in tons. As the pound is the same in both systems, a tank of any given weight will weigh the same number of pounds either way but will come out at a different number of tons. The scaled-down weight must be constant regardless of who's counting - it's impossible for a fixed number of pounds to be divided by 42,875 and come out to a different weight in pounds if the calculation is done one the side of the pond.
As we're building plastic models here, I don't think weight is ever going to feature as a judging criterion.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.