Of scale oddities and scale snobbery

[SprueMan]

One thing that always frustrates me in scale modelling (apart from 10million different paint codes) is scale itself.

 

First, the choices of the scales are in actual fact odd.

 

First lets look at the actual scales:

 

In car scale modelling,

You usually have scales of:

1/12 - 1/20 - 1/24 - 1/25 - 1/43

OK, So 1/12 is already an odd size; why is it not 1/10? which would be easier to calculate than base 12?

Then you have 1/24, well that somewhat makes sense as it is half of 1/12, so there is at least some logic. The base 12 seems to follow scale modelling (somewhat)

But then you also have 1/25. 1/25 sort of makes logical/mathematical sense, as it is 1/25th of something, but it is so close to 1/24 it asks why are there both?

And then you have 1/43. Where did that come from? It neither follows the 1/12 logic (ie. 1/12, 1/24 and then it should be 1/48) nor any math sense.

And finally in the middle, you have 1/20 which is excessively reserved for F1 cars. Just because.

 

In Aircraft, you usually have:

1/24 - 1/32 - 1/48 - 1/72- 1/144

Well, at least there is some logic in following the base 12 calculation. Even though the actual increments are a bit odd.

But again why follow the base 12 in the first case?

1/48 for instance, is really close to 1/50 1/24 is close to 1/25 etc.

 

In space and maritime scales... well, there we are all out of luck.

1/72, 1/96,, 1/142(what?), 1/144, 1/150, 1/180, 1/250,  1/350, 1/400, 1/700, 1/720

 

Armour is really easy, as you just have

1/16 - 1/35 - 1/48 - 1/72 - 1/76

Wait. 1/76?? where did that come from?

 

OK, so it is a mess.

However, we know there are historical and and tangible reasons for these scales.

1/72 in aircraft was apparently (?) invented by Airfix in the early days of scale modelling as a compromise between the tangible size of the aircraft model and and the cost of manufacturing etc. Good enough for a boy to assemble and play with, but not too big to be too expensive to produce.

And I am guessing its in 12 base due to some connection with imperial measurements. The advantages of metric still escape just one country on the planet...

The other base 12 scales probably (?) followed from there (1/24, 1/48 and so on)

 

But then there are the outliers.

Tamiya started building 1/24 cars, but then decided to also produce 1/20 F1 and regular cars as a way of making them bigger, and more detailed. ("Ours are bigger than theirs") other manufacturers jumped on that too, but the scales slowly died except for F1 cars. (And F1 cars alone, not other racing series..)

All the meanwhile, the US manufacturers decided on building their cars in 1/25. Whether it's because it's 1/25 or because American cars are bigger (and also they like their trucks) , I do not know.

The most popular scale of armour is 1/35. Which makes no sense at all. Except because for the sole fact that a B size battery fits into a 1/35 scale Panther.

When is the last time any of us saw a B size battery, I ask you.

And for some reason, which Airfix produced aircraft in 1/72, then decided to produce armour in 1/76...

Then there are the ships and space sizes. There is no logic there. It's all about how big the topic of the scale is rather than the logic of the scale itself. Or the roll of the dice, I guess.

 

And I did not even mention the scales of model trains which follow no logic at all.

HO is 1/87 because it is "half of O" But "O" can be 1/48 or 1/45 or 1/43.5 (yes, its one to forty three and a half) depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. etc.

 

 

Why on earth do we have to live in this mess? 💥

 

See, I am what you might call a scale snob.

I build 1/20 F1 cars and occasionally 1/48 aircraft and a few various things.

I like to stay within a set of scales, so if I have a number of models on a shelf, then they are the same scale so you can compare the sizes.

If you put, say a 1960s F1 car next to a current one, you (and others..) can really see how big the cars have become.

Or if you take a 1930s air racing aircraft next to a fighter plane of the same era, you can see how the addition of armaments, fuel and armour necessitated a much bigger plane etc.

Simply put; there is a point to scale.

 

But naturally, this limits the number of topics that I and other snobs can buy and build.

Quite a few (most?) items are only available in one scale. 1/20 being the rarest of them all, but this is also somewhat true in aircraft modeling and in space and maritime as well.

 

So why am I wearing down my fingers and keyboard?

Well, ideally I guess we would have less scales and more items in the scales that remain.

(Except... I do not want my scale to be the one removed...)

 

Perhaps, with 3D printing becoming normal in the future, we will either be able to buy and download a model and print it according to our scale on our printer, or on a company website, select what scale we want an item to be, and have the company print and deliver that model to us.

 

I just wish there was order in the (modelling) universe

 

Thank you for reading. 😄

 

 

[psdavidson]

1 hour ago, SprueMan said:

In space and maritime scales... well, there we are all out of luck.

1/72, 1/96,, 1/142(what?), 1/144, 1/150, 1/180, 1/250,  1/350, 1/400, 1/700, 1/720

Umm, you forgot 1/600 and 1/1200

 

/P

[bentwaters81tfw]

1 hour ago, SprueMan said:

 

And I am guessing its in 12 base due to some connection with imperial measurements. The advantages of metric still escape just one country on the planet...

Pray tell me what advantage is a system devised by the French, which is based on flawed calulations and the Egyptian Cubit?

 

 

And for some reason, which Airfix produced aircraft in 1/72, then decided to produce armour in 1/76...

1/76 is OO scale and fits in with model railways. HO was introduced to fit the US loading gauge onto OO track and accessories

 

 

And I did not even mention the scales of model trains which follow no logic at all.

HO is 1/87 because it is "half of O" But "O" can be 1/48 or 1/45 or 1/43.5 (yes, its one to forty three and a half) depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. etc.

 

 

Why on earth do we have to live in this mess? 💥

Because we can.

 

 

 

Thank you for reading. 😄

 

 

 

[Neil.C]

1 hour ago, SprueMan said:

 

 

 

 

 

In Aircraft, you usually have:

1/24 - 1/32 - 1/48 - 1/72- 1/144

Well, at least there is some logic in following the base 12 calculation. Even though the actual increments are a bit odd.

But again why follow the base 12 in the first case?

1/48 for instance, is really close to 1/50 1/24 is close to 1/25 etc.

 

Obviously the base 12 refers to feet for people that don't understand imperial. 😉 Therefore 1/72 = 1 inch to 6 foot.

 

1 hour ago, SprueMan said:

 

OK, so it is a mess.

However, we know there are historical and and tangible reasons for these scales.

1/72 in aircraft was apparently (?) invented by Airfix in the early days of scale modelling as a compromise between the tangible size of the aircraft model and and the cost of manufacturing etc. Good enough for a boy to assemble and play with, but not too big to be too expensive to produce.

And I am guessing its in 12 base due to some connection with imperial measurements. The advantages of metric still escape just one country on the planet...

The other base 12 scales probably (?) followed from there (1/24, 1/48 and so on)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not actually sure what the advantages of the metric system actually are. Plenty of us old timers will more easily understand 5/16" of an inch rather than it's metric equivalent.

We still have pints of beer over here and would rather say somebody is 6 foot rather than some arcane metric ( 1.82 m or something). When I am in the US I have no trouble assimilating. 

 

However, as the vast majority of post war model kits originated from Britain and the US I honestly can't see how surprising it is regarding base 12. 

[John Tapsell]

Sprueman - You've answered your own question.

 

There are many scales because there are many manufcaturers and whilst most of them stick to common scales there is no requirement for them to do so and some of them choose to plough their own furrows (and the market is prepared to purchase those 'different' scales and thus support their continued existence)..

 

Most scales have their origins in the imperial measurement system and tend to be keyed to various 'fractions' of an inch as you surmised.

 

Architectural scales are standardised on a decimal basis but that has seen limited transfer to the scale modelling community: 1/25 - 1/50 - 1/100 - 1/200 - 1/400 -

 

Then there is the correlation with railway scales (because that hobby developed before mass market plastic models)

 

The early days of plastic kits also saw many companies operating a 'box-scale' policy - sizing the model to a scale that fitted into a standard box. Whilst each was a scale model, there was less emphasis on consistency across the range.

 

The use of different scales for different genres also has a lot to do with 'shelf presence'. A 1/600 ship, 1/144 airliner, 1/48 fighter, 1/72 bomber, 1/24 car. 1/35 tank, 1/16 figure all have similar visual impact and footprint when placed on a shelf. For many modellers that's more important than building to a constant scale across multiple genres. That's significant because the vast majority of modellers do not build to a constant scale or to a limited subject area - they build whatever takes their fancy and 'scale' is a minor factor (if at all) in their decision-making process.

 

You haven't even touched on figure and wargames scales (all measured in mm) based on a ground to eye-level measurement standard for a 'typical' human male. In wargames, the situation is further muddied through the use of 'heroic' standards and concepts regarding the angles when viewing figures from above.

 

It won't change because there is no commercial incentive to standardise on a more limited number of scales. Those of us (me included) who prefer building to a constant scale are a minority within the model-buying public.

 

 

[-Ian-]

46 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

And for some reason, which Airfix produced aircraft in 1/72, then decided to produce armour in 1/76...

1/76 is OO scale and fits in with model railways. HO was introduced to fit the US loading gauge onto OO track and accessories

It was the other way around, HO (1/87) scale came first with OO being the UK derivative of it but using the same 16.5mm track gauge. The giveaway is that 16.5mm is the correct width for 1/87 scale standard gauge track, in 1/76 it's undersized.

[Nigel Bunker]

 

[ckw]

1 hour ago, John Tapsell said:

hat's significant because the vast majority of modellers do not build to a constant scale

Is that actually the case? I could understand 'occasional' modellers jumping around, but I always thought more obsessive modellers stuck to one scale (with perhaps the odd foray into something else).

 

The imperial system makes sense to me but I have no problem with metric. However I'd hate to see 1/72 disappear as I've been building to that scale all my life. For me 1/72nd is an ideal scale for aircraft as you can build and display the smallest and largest prototypes without to much trouble and display them together - sometimes it can be quite surprising to see the difference sizes of aircraft in a constant scale collection.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[Graham Boak]

Picking on a couple of points: cars use 1/43 scale because Dinky Toys were matches to original model railway scale, now known as O gauge.  A smaller railway scale appeared just prewar with smaller motors as this was half O, or HO.  However the real British railway system runs to a smaller laoding gauge (thanks top Stephenson's tunnels into Liverpool) so could not be built with the new motors, so a slightly larger scale was introduced as OO gauge, which but be 1/76 except, as said above, it was cheaper to buy existing HO track.

 

I don't know where the Egyptians come from: as the 12-based number systems are based on the Babylonian system of 60.  60 being chosen (it seems because it could be divided by more prime numbers, making ccalculati9ons easier.  (1,2,3, and 5)  Division by 3 in decimal systems is notoriously awkward.  We still use the Babylonian system for inter-related systems for time, angles and geography.. 

 

1/72 scale became popular for aircraft prewar mainly thanks to Skybirds, as it was (and remains) the ideal for a widest range of real aircraft sizes, BD-5J to B.747 (and up).    1/48 became popular because Americans have bigger houses.

 

The military scales came from the existing figure sizes eg 54mm, 20mm, and  British OO gauge railways (1/76)

 

You don't even mention ship scales, which began with the established Imperial 1/1200 and 1/600 used for ship drawings, until the Japanese decided to be different with their 1/700 series of IJN ships, which has led to the adoption of 1/350 for no good reason that I can see..  For smaller ships it is now 1/1250, for no good reason that I can see..

 

The overall trend does seem to be to 1/72 as a universal scale, covering ships, aircraft and military.  However it has yet to infiltrate railways or cars.  1/48 is perhaps increasingly important in aircraft even outside the US, but a number of attempts to make military subjects seem to fizzle out.  HO or 1/87 was popular in Europe but has now largely gone outside of railways.

 

I think that most modellers stick to a single scale within their areas of interest, but make little attempt to stick to it when widening interests.  As an example, I do 1/72 for most aircraft  but like 1/144 for airliners, 1/76 for military vehicles but accept 1/72 to get enough representative softskins, and 1/700 for ships.  Less than 1% of my stash is any other scale, and these have usually been gifts.

 

I grew up and am still happy with Imperial measures, but having worked with both in the aircraft industry I have no doubt of the superiority of metric.  I'm glad that my children grew up with sensible metrics rather than firkins, furlongs and fortnights.  I do feel that the major fault of the half-hearted British changeover was the retention of the pint and gallon.

[Tojo72]

I'm not a scale snob,it has more to do with my obsessive thoughts,I just can stand the thought of having mixed scales displayed together on the shelves.So I stick with 1/35 armor,1/350 Ships,and 1/48 aircraft.

 

I do have a shelf full of 1/48 armor,but that has to be far away from the 1/35

 

1/72 armor and aircraft has been too small for me

1/200 ships too big

1/700 to small

 

Just preference for me

[Des]

1/72 was important for consistency  when I used to get down on the carpet and play with built models and Airfix figures although that became quite annoying when I realised that there was in fact  a noticeable difference between 1/72 & 1/76 , but last week is now in the past.

 

Had a brief flirtation with military modelling in my 20s during the 1970s when the market was still quite limited compared to today with a few manufactures producing some kits in 1/32 while Tamiya led the charge into 1/35 and found that the differences were rather frustrating especially with dioramas (back to the carpet again).

 

Never really got interested in ship modelling mainly because of lack of detail in what was available in smaller scales in my early modelling years.

 

With aircraft never really found much pleasure with 1/32 at one extreme nor 1/144 at the other but over the years have built up a reasonable stock of spares , decals etc for both 1/72 and 1/48 and moved between the two depending on whatever project has taken my fancy , have on occasion by necessity included some of the older Heller 1/50 kits using 1/48 details with little problem.

 

Have always been under the impression since building my first kit in the late 1950s that 1/72 was based on Imperial Standards as mentioned with 1 inch = 6 feet etc. which the UK market could easily relate to while 1/144 was deemed more suitable for larger subjects in smaller British homes while 1/48 , 1/32 as derivatives were promoted by Aurora / Monogram and the like for the US market where homes were perhaps perceived as having more hobby space.      While by no means confined to mainland Europe scales such as 1/100 , 1/50 , 1/25 always seemed more of an engineering response to the concept of 'Constant Scale' as opposed to the earlier 'box scale' approach. 

 

 

[Bertie McBoatface]

4 hours ago, psdavidson said:

Umm, you forgot 1/600 and 1/1200

 

/P

Also 1/60, 1/64, 1/72 and 1/16 - and that's just my collection.

[John Tapsell]

1 hour ago, ckw said:

Is that actually the case? I could understand 'occasional' modellers jumping around, but I always thought more obsessive modellers stuck to one scale (with perhaps the odd foray into something else).

You have the answer in your question - 'the more obsessive modellers...'

 

The vast majority of kit purchasers are omnivorous consumers of the hobby rather than scale-focused modellers. Forums and social media groups are unrepresentative of the bulk of the model-buying public. They only tend to attract those who have decided to take their interest more seriously than just purchasing and building kits as the manufacturer intends. It's the same for many other hobbies too.

 

The minority of 'serious' or 'obsessive' modellers wouldn't support the number of manufacturers we see in the market today.

 

[Bertie McBoatface]

When I worked in a bookshop I wanted all the books to be the same size or at least the same aspect ratio. It would have been much tidier.

 

When I worked in a school I really wished all the kids were the same; same as the nice ones.

 

Maybe it would be best if there was just the one scale, any scale would do, and here's the revolutionary idea, just ONE MODEL. How tidy would that be?

[Bertie McBoatface]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

half O, or HO.

 

Thanks for that Graham. I've wondered about that for years.

[Graham Boak]

John:  I think that your image of a mass modelling buying public with no discernment belongs to an earlier age.  Certainly I would not consider everyone who ever put a model together as a "modeller", just as not everyone who ever kicked a ball is a footballer, nor everyone who ever handled a musical instrument is a musician.

 

To jump from there to "obsessive" is derogatory, bordering on offensive,  There are a very large number of modellers who never approach such a description.  They probably don't join IPMS, nor post on this or other forums, but this does not make them an amorphous mass lacking in deliberate choice.  They have jobs, life partners, even children.  None of which leave much time for obsessions.  And precious little for any hobby.

 

As for the market size, it is difficult to see how companies such as Special Hobby or Arma Hobby could be relying on casual purchases, unlike (say) Airfix in the UK.  Only regular modellers will ever seek out such kits,  for they are certainly not seen by casual buyers nor recognised by such as possibly a worthwhile buy.   Even Airfix have moved their main range further towards the specialist modeller, with greater attention paid to detail, accuracy, variety and number of parts..  It does seem that the majority of modern buyers are regular modellers, as these are who the subjects and quality are aimed at.  The size of production runs would seem to confirm this.

[pigsty]

The metric system isn't just based on the size of the Earth.  The underlying basis is decimal.  Everything else was contrived to use powers of ten: first length (ten million metres is the distance from the equator to the poles); then volume (a litre is ten centimetres cubed); then mass (a kilogramme was the weight of a litre of water).  And ten is a fairly obvious basis for calculation, especially before anyone invented writing, because we have ten fingers.  It does have its problems: it's true that a third of anything decimal can be tricky.  But as I always say: (i) go on then, what's a fifth of a shilling? and (ii) if we learned base 14 to count the pounds in a stone, we could have dropped both concepts without losing a thing, because we don't count in 14s for anything else.

 

Anyway, to return to the subject, the handy thing about 1/72 and 1/48 is that they amount to six and four feet to the inch respectively.  That's nice, simple mental arithmetic.  A 1/48 kit is also one-and-a-half times the size of a 1/72 kit, which is another handy ratio, and that's why we have 1/32 when it doesn't divide by 12.  In a culture that measures in feet and inches these scales make perfect sense.  Other cultures don't, which is why 1/50 and 1/75 and 1/100 all appeared.  They aren't used any more because they didn't succeed against the imperial scales in the world market, which was still dominated by British and American models.  Had they been tried twenty years later, things would probably have been different.

 

As to why we build one or the other: well, it's different for everyone.  For me it's presence combined with practicality.  Most aircraft come out best in 1/48 for me, because 1/72 is too small and 1/32 too expensive.  But if there's no alternative, or if 1/48 would be stupidly large, I'll usually go to another scale.  And while 1/35 is a barmy scale for anything, it's so prevalent that you can't avoid it.  Looking at Airfix's old kits in 1/32, I do think it's a shame that it didn't get established in that market.  But 1/35 is still easily big enough to make for an impressive kit with lots of faithful detail.  The funny thing is, while tanks and such are obviously large and heavy, they fit all that into a smaller space than most aircraft, so (for me) armour has to be a scale larger than aviation to have that same presence.  Luckily I don't do dioramas.

[RobL]

TLDR

 

But that Two Ronnies sketch could be applied to many things in life, especially at the moment.

 

Also I don't think anyone mentioned it but you forgot 1/9 for motorcycles...

 

However, I agree there are some odd scale choices. 

 

I've got a few 1/32 cars (a Matchbox Porsche 917/10 kit, a Matchbox Surtees TS16 kit, and a badly built Airfix Porsche 917) and at 1/32, whilst they're a reasonable size to work with, they're also quite small compared to car kits in more common scales, and thus lacking in detail, I can only imagine the tiny-ness of 1/43 car kits which seem to be quite common.   So, I was dismayed when I recently went looking for a The Batman Batmobile kit, not only at the cost (£50+!!! WTH) but also it's in 1/35, making it 6 inches long or less!  Why?  Most car kits are either 1/43 or 1/24 or thereabouts, not 1/35!

 

The only reason I can fathom is that Bandai went with 1/35 again because they used it for their other two Batmobile offerings, because the "Tumbler" is technically an AFV, so they've stuck with it...

 

But at least, outside of Bandai's 3 offerings, Batmobile kits have generally stuck to the common scales for car kits (1/25 or 1/43), Star Wars kits used to be all over the place, with 1/50 for TIE Fighters, 1/43 for X-Wings, 1/36 for Darth Vader's TIE, etc. etc, until Bandai came along and standardised them all at 1/72.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by RobL

[Giorgio N]

In the end all the answers clearly show how the predominance of one scale or the other is only due to the commercial success of whoever proposed this. 1/75 disappeared while 1/72 lives on, 1/35 succeeded in military modelling but did not displace 1/32 from the aircraft and car modelling scene, and so on depending on the relative success of the various manufacturers.

Personally I'm very happy with the idea of a single scale, I like to see my models in relation to the others, watching how larger or smaller one type is compared to one designed for a similar mission tells a lot about the design principles of the various designers, something that as an engineer I'm interested in. Then there's the wow factor when I compare my Spitfire to a B-51 in the same scale...

I don't think there are many "scale talibans" in the aircraft modelling scene though, as really certain types are too large for 1/72 while 1/48 and larger models have their own valid points. Sure most will focus on one scale but I've yet to meet a modeller who has never strayed from that single scale.  Even if over 90% of my stash is in 1/72 scale I do like having models in other scale and 1/48, 1/32 and 1/144 do feature in my stash.. together with some kits from those dark days when US companies used whatever scale as long as the kit could fit a standard size box (that do have their own charm for historic reasons).

Things may be different with other subjects, I've met people who only do 1/24 cars for example, but I don't know much about these other areas.

 

Since the metric system (or better, the International System of Units) has been mentioned, well this is a system that makes sense and works well in all areas of science and technology, reason why it's widely used and has replaced most other systems.

I can understand how people in Britain may look at the Imperial System with rose tinted glasses but really this is an obsolete system that is already irrelevant in a wide number of industrial areas at global level and its destiny is to disappear completely soon enough. All that will be left will be a few "commercial" units for traditional reasons, and the modelling scales derived from this system. I don't want to sound harsh but really anyone with some experience in science or engineering will tell the same story (unless he/she wants to support the Imperial System for ideological reasons).

[RAF4EVER]

1 hour ago, pigsty said:

The metric system isn't just based on the size of the Earth.  The underlying basis is decimal.  Everything else was contrived to use powers of ten: first length (ten million metres is the distance from the equator to the poles); then volume (a litre is ten centimetres cubed); then mass (a kilogramme was the weight of a litre of water).  And ten is a fairly obvious basis for calculation, especially before anyone invented writing, because we have ten fingers.  It does have its problems: it's true that a third of anything decimal can be tricky.  But as I always say: (i) go on then, what's a fifth of a shilling? and (ii) if we learned base 14 to count the pounds in a stone, we could have dropped both concepts without losing a thing, because we don't count in 14s for anything else.

 

Anyway, to return to the subject, the handy thing about 1/72 and 1/48 is that they amount to six and four feet to the inch respectively.  That's nice, simple mental arithmetic.  A 1/48 kit is also one-and-a-half times the size of a 1/72 kit, which is another handy ratio, and that's why we have 1/32 when it doesn't divide by 12.  In a culture that measures in feet and inches these scales make perfect sense.  Other cultures don't, which is why 1/50 and 1/75 and 1/100 all appeared.  They aren't used any more because they didn't succeed against the imperial scales in the world market, which was still dominated by British and American models.  Had they been tried twenty years later, things would probably have been different.

 

As to why we build one or the other: well, it's different for everyone.  For me it's presence combined with practicality.  Most aircraft come out best in 1/48 for me, because 1/72 is too small and 1/32 too expensive.  But if there's no alternative, or if 1/48 would be stupidly large, I'll usually go to another scale.  And while 1/35 is a barmy scale for anything, it's so prevalent that you can't avoid it.  Looking at Airfix's old kits in 1/32, I do think it's a shame that it didn't get established in that market.  But 1/35 is still easily big enough to make for an impressive kit with lots of faithful detail.  The funny thing is, while tanks and such are obviously large and heavy, they fit all that into a smaller space than most aircraft, so (for me) armour has to be a scale larger than aviation to have that same presence.  Luckily I don't do dioramas.

We actually have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs,sorry for being a pedant

[sinnerboy]

1 hour ago, pigsty said:

: (i) go on then, what's a fifth of a shilling? 

1p...sorry, could'nt resist

[IanHx]

On the aircraft front, a small number of 1:100 kits.

 

An interesting scale...  a 1:100 Tomcat is large enough to be detailed, while taking up considerably less shelf space than a 1:72.

Whereas a 1:144 Tomcat is a tiddly PITA to assemble.

 

Of course we now have the debate about when did the 'Tomcat'  become a unit of measurement..... 

[Black Knight]

I'll throw something in that may explain why 1/48, or 1/4 inch scale became popular in the U.S.

 

From about the mid-1920s through to at least the 1980s U.S, hobbyists could buy what we now call bookazines. A monthly book type magazine devoted either solely to their hobby, or covering a few hobbies. Just about every boy and man in the U.S. bought these books. They sold in their millions. 

 

My father grew up in Chicago in the 1930s -1940s. He used to get these books. His main interests were radio & electronics and fishing but some of his books sometimes had plans to build one of the latest US Army airplanes. The models could be built either stick & tissue or of solid wood. Although not really interested my father built some of these aeroplanes. There are books out there which have reproductions of these plans. I have one which covers WW1 types

 

Now to the point; the books were about 9 inches by 6 inches. The model aeroplanes plans were folded up x 4 inserted in the book. Opened up they'd be about 18 x 12 inches. The subject plans drawn on them measured out to be, on average, about 1/48 or 1/50. A great many of the plans are/were actually marked ' 1/4 inch scale ' Build plans of the smaller aeroplane types fit very well on this 18 x 12 sheet

 

Up until about 10 years ago I used to have about 100 of the old 1930s/1940s books and many, many years ago I made some of the aeroplanes from the plans, in my balsa-free-flight aeroplanes stage.

I propose that due to the number of U.S. hobbyists who were used to building aeroplanes from these plans in '1/4 inch scale' (1/48) that the U.S. plastic kit manufacturers kept to a scale the hobbyists were well used to

[Black Knight]

extra; here is link to the sort of magazine, being sold on ebay

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144315498054?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D240677%26meid%3D19e0bf48a66f4ea084a38722fe544502%26pid%3D101195%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D304568949599%26itm%3D144315498054%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv9PairwiseWebMskuAspectsV202110NoVariantSeedKnnRecallV1BERT&_trksid=p2047675.c101195.m1851&amdata=cksum%3A14431549805419e0bf48a66f4ea084a38722fe544502|enc%3AAQAHAAABMEro4ql1SUJ1li87bKftud%2BHNR6f%2BZqZvMWaqvYIq1S%2FWkIBqj9FQDQRu6mAcNzuioXWUR932%2F68tDooavd6O6QShguRmWvHa3H%2FRorYkIG8lY1sKMH2krmlRVeWo0dIsceuCwSM8wGMGKZZXUqNSaGtXg0bWc7ZofrquZ76gU6r%2FjQ7Bw6oqlVEuMA7QqsNAezclvh8fSqyVdx6B%2B1n08jZAGnsOcj2%2FXgZnsNcvQ9SMUUdZ5ptRbhw9Uurpez6meVhZDgwSmpfZcXzNgVKUdSOM7KKtUs7VxXeAe4gLFDiYMxdG6%2FwGde%2F3TGnbLlAtX6m49ldEEQydk3SUf6qnVazn32ha%2FXZ4UivUzspcsukJBfn%2FnMhcMyGnbZvtyt9NCbxr91QCloNFkfepE16YCw%3D|ampid%3APL_CLK|clp%3A2047675

[jackroadkill]

15 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I can understand how people in Britain may look at the Imperial System with rose tinted glasses

 

I can't; it's an abomination that can't die off soon enough.