Re: [FT] GZG Model Scale

At 15:16 29/01/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Back on the list after a break for Xmas / New Year - hope I haven't
missed
anything
>important.
>Steven Arrowsmith wrote:
>>> > Ta for the info. Interesting, this means they are very light for
their
>> > volume, more like aircraft construction than ship. 
SNIP
>Depends on which Enterprise you mean as well ... I read this to refer
to
the modern
>aircraft carrier, in which case they seem OK. The models were
originally
(before
>FT2 was even published !) advertised as being 1/3000th scale, which is
a scale
>popular in the UK for naval wargaming.
>
>At a nominal 1/2400th scale, the real USS Enterprise would be around
140mm
long but
>only 32mm wide. It weighs in at around 90000 tonnes which is MASS 900,
which is
>where the comparison breaks down somewhat :-(. In which case we come
back
to the
>previously discussed 'what is a tonne ...' argument. So yes, I concur,
FT
ships are
>rather light for their size. If one MASS was taken to be 1000 tonnes
rather
than
>100, however, the comparison isn't to far out.
>
>Tony Francis

	It seems pretty clear that GZG ton(nes) are either a different
sort
from the ones we currently use or refer to some sort of "nominal"
measure,
(I recall the debate or two about the various meanings of tonnage a
while
ago).  I think I also remember Jon (Tuffley) saying that the scale was
even
more nominally 1/2400 for fighters.  If you compare a GZG fighter to a
1/3000 fighter model, the GZG beastie is a wee bit bigger, so somewhere
from
1/3000 to 1/2400 seems reasonable there.  If you assume, as I think we
must,
that the GZG carriers keep their fighters inside the hull most of the
time,
then the ship scale must be at the smaller end (1/2400 or even 1/3000
rather
than 1/2000) to accommodate the squadrons.  I agree that this makes the
Mass
figures VERY small for the volume of the miniatures, and in fact I don't
really think in GZG ton(nes) at all.
My own Scottish fleet is mainly composed of prehistoric Garrison ships,
which were sold as 1/2400, so that'll do for me.

Maybe we should call them "tuns"? :-)

	An important point about modern US CV airgroups is that most of
the
aircraft stay on the flight deck for a lot of the time- only about a
third
can be placed in the hangars at once.  Modern UK and fUSSR practice was
(mostly) to embark a smaller airgroup which can be brought below decks
(although obviously it's not ideal).

Rob

"Rob Paul

Dept of Zoology
Oxford University
South Parks Road
Oxford
(01865) 271124
----------------------------------------------
"Once again, villainy is rotting meat 
before the maggots of justice!"
"