I was wondering..
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GlouscesterGloucestershire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering..
Whilst talking to my son about scales the question came up about weight. If a tiger I weighs around the 57tonnes, how much should a true 1/16 scale tank weigh?
Yours Simon M.
Yours Simon M.
#5
RE: I was wondering..
LOL LOL That was a good one Pattoncommander,
Size of a model scaled down is one thing,trying to scale the weight might be a little tricky.And why would one want to do that.??? These poor little motors have enough trouble with all the metal tracks and wheels that guys put on them.
BIGMIG
Size of a model scaled down is one thing,trying to scale the weight might be a little tricky.And why would one want to do that.??? These poor little motors have enough trouble with all the metal tracks and wheels that guys put on them.
BIGMIG
#6
Join Date: May 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
ORIGINAL: samarkh
Whilst talking to my son about scales the question came up about weight. If a tiger I weighs around the 57tonnes, how much should a true 1/16 scale tank weigh?
Yours Simon M.
Whilst talking to my son about scales the question came up about weight. If a tiger I weighs around the 57tonnes, how much should a true 1/16 scale tank weigh?
Yours Simon M.
57/16 =3.5625 kg. But at the same time you must get a realistic fiqure of engine power in 1/16 sclae =560/16= 35 hourse power....... i dnt think my 380 Tamiya produces that much..not even 1hp. But I think tamiya has eliminated the powe/weight ratio by introducing a reasonable gearings. I have changed t11 to t8 to my opinion motors to cut down the tank speed.
#8
RE: I was wondering..
ORIGINAL: icecreamslick
English must have been troubling, also.
....sorry, I was just kidding. [sm=thumbup.gif]
Jason
maths was never my strong point
....sorry, I was just kidding. [sm=thumbup.gif]
Jason
Considering he is from Austrailia. The term "maths" is correct in it usage. The UK refers to math courses as such too.
#10
Senior Member
RE: I was wondering..
Gear ratio has a tremendous effect. The tank I rebuilt (1;1) only weighed 11 tons, with all the upper armor gone and rebuilt with 3/8" rolled steel reenforced with 1x2 braces. I dropped in a Ford 4 cyl and C-3 auto transmission, but the differential had a 1'1 gear reduction so I was clocked by radar at 34 mph and it climbed over sand birms with no effort at all. But, plastic at that weight..don't think so.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona, SPAIN
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
ORIGINAL: johnmar78
easy its 1 to 1/16 scale, so you divide every thing by a factor of 16.
57/16 =3.5625 kg. ..............
easy its 1 to 1/16 scale, so you divide every thing by a factor of 16.
57/16 =3.5625 kg. ..............
Regards
jose
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
ORIGINAL: lanierrl
Is that not only equal to 6.3 pounds (2.2kg per pound)?
Is that not only equal to 6.3 pounds (2.2kg per pound)?
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: nelson, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
UHU You are quite correct if scaleing down weight is the only one that does not scale as such 1" cube scale down by 1/16 equals 1/16"cube does everybody get it now 16x16x16.
regards pete
regards pete
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
I don't know why but I want a 30lb tank now. That would be more than three times heavier than my HL Tiger with metal tracks and gears. What kind of motors would it need I wonder. I suppose you would have to use Tamiya electronics, HL boards would fry correct?
#17
Senior Member
RE: I was wondering..
with a 1;6 tank that weight, don't bother with a TBU/DBU,,,,drive it like a T-34 and just ram the enemy tank I used to get hassled by city authorities about my steel track tearing up the streets....when just the opposit was true, the concrete street was tearing up my tracks....same hassle would apply to such a tank on an RC battlefield....no one would let you on it.[:@]
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
Well, I don't battle any way. Besides, how cool would it be to actually drive "through" the grass in the back yard as opposed to "on" the grass in the back yard. This is like the gun upgrades that shoot clear through a coke can. There is no reason to do it other than it's cool!!
I may have found my Holy Grail!!!!!
I may have found my Holy Grail!!!!!
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
Okay,
I have a question for all you math wizards out there. If I am converting armor thickness from real to 1/16th scale is that as simple:
100mm (frontal hull armor) / 16 = 6.25mm, 60mm (side hull armor) / 16 = 3.75mm, etc?
Also, how would you calculate the max speed? 35kph = 21.75mph. What is this in 1/16th scale?
I have a question for all you math wizards out there. If I am converting armor thickness from real to 1/16th scale is that as simple:
100mm (frontal hull armor) / 16 = 6.25mm, 60mm (side hull armor) / 16 = 3.75mm, etc?
Also, how would you calculate the max speed? 35kph = 21.75mph. What is this in 1/16th scale?
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona, SPAIN
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
Hi Lanierrl
Linear dimension are converted dividing by the scale factor, time is not scalable so speed converts simply dividing by 16, e.g. 35/16=2.1875 Km/h, your maximum scale speed should be around 2.2 Km/h (1.367017 mph), that's the reason our scale speeds are so unrealistic.....I've seen tanks speeding at some 6-7 Km/h.....OMG
Two dimensional dimensions (areas) are converted dividing the real dimension by the square of the scale factor, and volumes by the cube of it.
Hope it helps
Jose
Linear dimension are converted dividing by the scale factor, time is not scalable so speed converts simply dividing by 16, e.g. 35/16=2.1875 Km/h, your maximum scale speed should be around 2.2 Km/h (1.367017 mph), that's the reason our scale speeds are so unrealistic.....I've seen tanks speeding at some 6-7 Km/h.....OMG
Two dimensional dimensions (areas) are converted dividing the real dimension by the square of the scale factor, and volumes by the cube of it.
Hope it helps
Jose
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
Thanks!
So armor thickness is two dimensions therefore I just do it as I did above right?
I think once I get my HL Tiger in the 30lb range I won't have to worry about it going too fast.
So armor thickness is two dimensions therefore I just do it as I did above right?
I think once I get my HL Tiger in the 30lb range I won't have to worry about it going too fast.
#23
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: carlislecumbria, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
Just my 2p's worth.....at 1:16 scale, gravity is 16 times stronger. Air is 16 times denser (drag and wind resistance) and also, wouldnt your materials need to be 16x less dense too? Also would the armour have a rockwell number 16x lower (hardness) ? [sm=confused.gif]
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona, SPAIN
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: I was wondering..
@Lanierrl
Thickness is a linear dim, so you're doing right
@Zippy0036
Does a model airplane on a conveyor belt.......???
Regards
Jose
Thickness is a linear dim, so you're doing right
@Zippy0036
Does a model airplane on a conveyor belt.......???
Regards
Jose