Trumpeter 1/32nd Lightning

[John B (Sc)]

The Tucano was built by a part of Shorts called Shorlac using new staff recruited from other industries who had never built an aircraft before,my info comes from a friend who was a manager on the programme.Nimrod was the same no two measure the same that is one of the reasons the MRA.4 has problems,hand built aircraft ,no two the same.

Thanks sniper. Astonishing. That's not just sloppy, it's appalling. I'm used to old aeroplanes varying a bit in dimensions, always necessary to field fit items, especially with old wooden airframes, but never eight inches in that size machine. Ye gods. What did they use, shipyard technology ?

That would have to affect handling, trim and CG considerations for each airframe. Difficult to believe any engineer would acept that level of variation. (I wouldn't!)

Nimrod I thought was more to do with the variation on fuselage wing pick-up points, due as you say to effectively handbuilding them - the curse of the UK aviationbusienss, plus years of airframe stressing, just enough to make life difficult. Only needs a few thou. Of course deciding to keep the cheap bit, the fuselage tube, showed someone's brain wasn't engaged !

[Calum]

Being involved in aircraft maintenance my whole lofe I find it impossible to beleive that the Tucano (the design being only 25 yrs old) would have this amount of variation. 8cm's perhaps (although even that would be surprising) but no 8 inches.

[John B (Sc)]

Being involved in aircraft maintenance my whole lofe I find it impossible to beleive that the Tucano (the design being only 25 yrs old) would have this amount of variation. 8cm's perhaps (although even that would be surprising) but no 8 inches.

Yep

[Jazzie]

Being a former light aircraft engineer, a few stories about different lengths made my way.

Phantom FG1s required a skin panel replacement during its life. A fleets worth of panels was ordered and the process began. It was soon noticed that the pre-drilled panels didnt fit! The guys doing the job started walking the line with their plumb bobs and measuring tapes and found a differance of 12" between the longest and shortest Phantoms!!! So did Lightning XR770 measure out the same size as XS936? Dont think so!

The Nimrod saga is one of the best! Redesign a hand built aircraft with a computer!!!

Me, i dont have the space to put the fleet of Lightnings i want on a shelf, even 1/72nd scale so enjoy what youve got!!!

Arabest,

Geoff.

[SeaVenom]

No kit is or can be 100% accurate.

No 2 of the same aircraft are the same length, depends on tempereatures of the day etc.

Concorde was different lengths when on the ground compared to when it was flying.

Don't like Trumpeter kits, don't buy them.

I like them and I will certainly be buying many more.

smeds

Exactly, and I find it hard to believe the Echelon Lightning is 100% accurate.

[SeaVenom]

Do what I do at work - draw the lines with a blunt pencil. Hey presto, problem solved!

I'm much more concerned about the One Million Rivets to fill, and the rear fuselage thing. Oh and the price

It is expensive I suppose but let's not forget how much it costs to tool these kits up and don't forget - the more money these manufacturers make the more kits we'll have and I think the rivets look pretty good. They might not all be in the right places but they seem fairly restrained in depth and they'll soon start to disappear under a few coats of paint.

[stew290]

Exactly, and I find it hard to believe the Echelon Lightning is 100% accurate.

Come on chaps, lighten up.

We all know what it's like to reply to a query without "preparing" your response. Mark was trying to help someone out by answering his request for information as soon as possible. Agreed, "extremely accurate", which the Echelon kit is, would have been more appropriate than "100% accurate", but cut the bloke some slack.

I have always thought of us modellers as being a bit more intelligent than your average punter, and alot more intelligent than your average management , but now I'm not so sure, since it seems that everything has to be taken at face value and most of us can't read between the lines any more.

We really must stop being so anal.

I, personally, like to make a model of a specific machine, exactly as I've seen it in some photo or other, but some people like to build kits out of the box, using little or no reference material, in the way that they think it should look.

So what?

Modelling, in my worthless opinion, is three-dimensional art. Who walks round an art gallery criticising abstract or impressionist paintings? Not my scene (a "proper" painting should look like a photograph as far as I'm concerned - call me old-fashioned), but I don't slag it off just because I don't like what I see (or read!).

I have to say that, although a "newbie" (oooooo, that grates, being older than most of you lot - except Ted Taylor of course [sorry Ted]), I am really quite disappointed with Britmodeller. Not the website itself, but the attitude of some of it's members. There is far too much unfounded criticism, and not enough where it's deserved.

For example; if someone posts their latest effort with the wording "thought I'd post this so you can see my latest effort" (or along those lines - you get my drift, as you're all reasonably intelligent), then see it for what it is. But if someone posts something and asks for criticism, then by all means criticise it! That person is clearly looking to improve their finished product, and if we don't point out their errors - in a gentle and constructive manner, obviously - then how are they going to get better? There is the odd exception of course - someone who asks for criticism, but doesn't like it when they get some! In that case, don't flamin' ask for it then.

Just confirms my point about intelligence really.

In the relatively short time that I have been a member of Britmodeller, the thing that has got my goat more than anything, is someone posting a model which, for example, has been painted using Sandtex paint, has asked for criticism, and all they've got is gushing praise!

How the hell is that constructive?

Up until now, based on what I have seen, I have been reluctant to openly criticise (positively or otherwise) someones models. This is mainly because, in the main, such criticisms have been met with "let's see your model then" (sour grapes), or others jumping on the band-wagon with comments clearly aimed at slapping the critic down (can't make a model as well as the one which is being criticised!)

That reluctance to be a critic has now gone. If someone asks for criticism, then they shall have it. If the rest of you don't like it, then either keep quiet, or find another hobby.

Embroidery, perhaps.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'm fed up of personal slaggings off from people who have no clue what they're talking about.

Hyperscale and ARC, here I come. (That'll probably be met by some smart-a*se telling me to clear off to our Colonial cousins' websites!)

Stew

P.S. Echelon's Lightning is not only extremely accurate, but the 32nd scale drawings you get in the kit are, believe it or not, more accurate than the ones that British Aerospace have. Trust me, they are.

[Armadillos]

Well Stew i think you have raised a few interesting points there and in a sensible and structure way. However i dare say the issues you`ve raised aren`t just restricted to Britmodeller i also see it on other forums that i use for my photography there are those who go to far with criticism or don`t appreciate any thats given despite asking for it

Hopefully this comment won`t be editted as its a fair and honest point as i`ve already mentioned and hardly a ranting slating attack on anyone.

[stew290]

Well Stew i think you have raised a few interesting points there and in a sensible and structure way. However i dare say the issues you`ve raised aren`t just restricted to Britmodeller i also see it on other forums that i use for my photography there are those who go to far with criticism or don`t appreciate any thats given despite asking for it

Hopefully this comment won`t be editted as its a fair and honest point as i`ve already mentioned and hardly a ranting slating attack on anyone.

Thanks Armadillos.

I don't want to slag anyone off, but others do, it seems.

I know what you mean about other forums (they're probably all the same, as humans are involved!), but I felt I had to make a point. Especially as some people find it very easy to hide behind a pseudonym. No names, no pack drill.

2 questions for you personally:

a) Why are you up at this time of night, but not modelling and

Why are you banned from UKAR?

That's not possible, is it?

Stew

Edited January 25, 2009 by stew290

[dirtball]

Is 3mm on a 32nd scale kit really that bad...

I mean, sure Echelon did a 32nd scale kit, and despite its accuracy its hard to find and its vacform!

This together with the demise of the company pretty much puts the Echelon kit out there with the gnomes and fairies because despite what those vacform builders say building a vacform kit is hard compared to a injection moulded kit.

So really the only game in town is the Trumpeter kit.

Is any kit 100% accurate down to the very last detail? if your going to measure overall length then why not panel line depth too? or even revet height or even thickness on the cockpit glass, remember that has a scale too.

Im not surprised by this thread really, it something you would expect on ARC though not here, its almost as if the kit was bought on its release day to be the first to see its problems rather than to build and enjoy it.

Thank you for your post. I agree 100%....................Harv

[Mike]

You boys playing nicely together there?

[Armadillos]

First of all i`m still up after watch Executive Decision (alright film mate nagged me to watch it cos i`ve never seen it) and now editting yet more of my backlog of pics from last years aviation photography trips

Secondly i`m banned from UKAR for making a similar post as you made above which they didn`t appreciate, sadly the mods on there are alittle paranoid at the mo and decided that i was anti-UKAR and get to get them all

[SeaVenom]

Come on chaps, lighten up.

We all know what it's like to reply to a query without "preparing" your response. Mark was trying to help someone out by answering his request for information as soon as possible. Agreed, "extremely accurate", which the Echelon kit is, would have been more appropriate than "100% accurate", but cut the bloke some slack.

I have always thought of us modellers as being a bit more intelligent than your average punter, and alot more intelligent than your average management , but now I'm not so sure, since it seems that everything has to be taken at face value and most of us can't read between the lines any more.

We really must stop being so anal.

I, personally, like to make a model of a specific machine, exactly as I've seen it in some photo or other, but some people like to build kits out of the box, using little or no reference material, in the way that they think it should look.

So what?

Modelling, in my worthless opinion, is three-dimensional art. Who walks round an art gallery criticising abstract or impressionist paintings? Not my scene (a "proper" painting should look like a photograph as far as I'm concerned - call me old-fashioned), but I don't slag it off just because I don't like what I see (or read!).

I have to say that, although a "newbie" (oooooo, that grates, being older than most of you lot - except Ted Taylor of course [sorry Ted]), I am really quite disappointed with Britmodeller. Not the website itself, but the attitude of some of it's members. There is far too much unfounded criticism, and not enough where it's deserved.

For example; if someone posts their latest effort with the wording "thought I'd post this so you can see my latest effort" (or along those lines - you get my drift, as you're all reasonably intelligent), then see it for what it is. But if someone posts something and asks for criticism, then by all means criticise it! That person is clearly looking to improve their finished product, and if we don't point out their errors - in a gentle and constructive manner, obviously - then how are they going to get better? There is the odd exception of course - someone who asks for criticism, but doesn't like it when they get some! In that case, don't flamin' ask for it then.

Just confirms my point about intelligence really.

In the relatively short time that I have been a member of Britmodeller, the thing that has got my goat more than anything, is someone posting a model which, for example, has been painted using Sandtex paint, has asked for criticism, and all they've got is gushing praise!

How the hell is that constructive?

Up until now, based on what I have seen, I have been reluctant to openly criticise (positively or otherwise) someones models. This is mainly because, in the main, such criticisms have been met with "let's see your model then" (sour grapes), or others jumping on the band-wagon with comments clearly aimed at slapping the critic down (can't make a model as well as the one which is being criticised!)

That reluctance to be a critic has now gone. If someone asks for criticism, then they shall have it. If the rest of you don't like it, then either keep quiet, or find another hobby.

Embroidery, perhaps.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'm fed up of personal slaggings off from people who have no clue what they're talking about.

Hyperscale and ARC, here I come. (That'll probably be met by some smart-a*se telling me to clear off to our Colonial cousins' websites!)

Stew

P.S. Echelon's Lightning is not only extremely accurate, but the 32nd scale drawings you get in the kit are, believe it or not, more accurate than the ones that British Aerospace have. Trust me, they are.

I don't want to get into an argument but I don't think it's me being "anal". What bothered me about Marks post was that it seemed he was saying the Trumpeter kit is "completely wrong" because he was involved with the Echelon kit and wants to promote that....especially saying it's 100% accurate which I still find very hard to believe (are all the panel lines etc accurate, same with the rivets, the glass thickness as smeds said - is everything really that accurate on it?). And it's still vacform whilst the Trumpeter kit has a huge advantage in being styrene.

I'm not for one minute saying the new Trumpeter Lightning is perfect (as smeds also said - no kit is 100% accurate anyway) or the Echelon kit isn't good for what it is but from the photo's I've seen it looks pretty good to me (except for the vinyl tyres which I'm not too keen on) so if I'm being anal surely I'd be picking it apart which I'm not. There might well be some annoying things wrong with it when I get around to building it but I think we should all be aware of people attacking new kits (usually plastic kits) because there's a chance that it's in their interests to do so. I've seen it on other forums.

Edited January 26, 2009 by SeaVenom

[stew290]

I don't want to get into an argument but I don't think it's me being "anal". What bothered me about Marks post was that it seemed he was saying the Trumpeter kit is "completely wrong" because he was involved with the Echelon kit and wants to promote that....especially saying it's 100% accurate which I still find very hard to believe (are all the panel lines etc accurate and is there any rivets on the Echelon kit like on the real thing - is everything really that accurate on it?). And it's still vacform whilst the Trumpeter kit has a huge advantage in being styrene.

I'm not for one minute saying the new Trumpeter Lightning is perfect or the Echelon kit isn't good for what it is but from the photo's I've seen it looks pretty good to me (except for the vinyl tyres which I'm not too keen on) so if I'm being anal surely I'd be picking it apart which I'm not. There might well be some annoying things wrong with it when I get around to building it but I think we should all be aware of people attacking new kits (usually plastic kits) because there's a chance that it's in their interests to do so. I've seen it on other forums.

Okay, clearly I've stirred it up a bit here.

There is no way Mark was trying to promote the Echelon kit. He knows that you can't get it for love nor money.

I was merely making a comment about my interpretation of some of the membership of this website.

I am certainly not calling you anal. Yours was just the last post in a thread of posts which were commenting on the fact that ther is "no such thing as a 100% accurate kit". It just so happened that your particular comment related to a previous contributor who clearly had a "holier than thou" attitude, but I wasn't going to lower myself to his level in order to make a point.

I think that Mark made his comments about the Trumpeter kit because he, like me I have to say, is of the opinion that if a kit is that expensive, then one should expect it to be reasonably accurate. It's not so bad correcting minor flaws, but that fuselage is appalling in shape and panel detail.

And yes, the Echelon panel detail was completely accurate.

Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Sorry if I offended you without meaning to. Just shows how difficult it is to write something inoffensive without offending the person you meant to offend, but instead offend someone you didn't mean to offend.

Eh?

Interpreter please.

Stew

[drdave]

GMC number please?

Panel line reading is not strictly core medical school curriculum. How many years of postgrad panel reading are there on your CV?

Trust me I'm a doctor? Does this Lightning have NICE approval

[stew290]

GMC number please?

Panel line reading is not strictly core medical school curriculum. How many years of postgrad panel reading are there on your CV?

Trust me I'm a doctor? Does this Lightning have NICE approval

Alright, I'll rephrase.

Trust me, I'm a Gynocologist

[smeds]

Come on chaps, lighten up.

We all know what it's like to reply to a query without "preparing" your response. Mark was trying to help someone out by answering his request for information as soon as possible. Agreed, "extremely accurate", which the Echelon kit is, would have been more appropriate than "100% accurate", but cut the bloke some slack.

I have always thought of us modellers as being a bit more intelligent than your average punter, and alot more intelligent than your average management , but now I'm not so sure, since it seems that everything has to be taken at face value and most of us can't read between the lines any more.

We really must stop being so anal.

I, personally, like to make a model of a specific machine, exactly as I've seen it in some photo or other, but some people like to build kits out of the box, using little or no reference material, in the way that they think it should look.

So what?

Modelling, in my worthless opinion, is three-dimensional art. Who walks round an art gallery criticising abstract or impressionist paintings? Not my scene (a "proper" painting should look like a photograph as far as I'm concerned - call me old-fashioned), but I don't slag it off just because I don't like what I see (or read!).

I have to say that, although a "newbie" (oooooo, that grates, being older than most of you lot - except Ted Taylor of course [sorry Ted]), I am really quite disappointed with Britmodeller. Not the website itself, but the attitude of some of it's members. There is far too much unfounded criticism, and not enough where it's deserved.

For example; if someone posts their latest effort with the wording "thought I'd post this so you can see my latest effort" (or along those lines - you get my drift, as you're all reasonably intelligent), then see it for what it is. But if someone posts something and asks for criticism, then by all means criticise it! That person is clearly looking to improve their finished product, and if we don't point out their errors - in a gentle and constructive manner, obviously - then how are they going to get better? There is the odd exception of course - someone who asks for criticism, but doesn't like it when they get some! In that case, don't flamin' ask for it then.

Just confirms my point about intelligence really.

In the relatively short time that I have been a member of Britmodeller, the thing that has got my goat more than anything, is someone posting a model which, for example, has been painted using Sandtex paint, has asked for criticism, and all they've got is gushing praise!

How the hell is that constructive?

Up until now, based on what I have seen, I have been reluctant to openly criticise (positively or otherwise) someones models. This is mainly because, in the main, such criticisms have been met with "let's see your model then" (sour grapes), or others jumping on the band-wagon with comments clearly aimed at slapping the critic down (can't make a model as well as the one which is being criticised!)

That reluctance to be a critic has now gone. If someone asks for criticism, then they shall have it. If the rest of you don't like it, then either keep quiet, or find another hobby.

Embroidery, perhaps.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'm fed up of personal slaggings off from people who have no clue what they're talking about.

Hyperscale and ARC, here I come. (That'll probably be met by some smart-a*se telling me to clear off to our Colonial cousins' websites!)

Stew

P.S. Echelon's Lightning is not only extremely accurate, but the 32nd scale drawings you get in the kit are, believe it or not, more accurate than the ones that British Aerospace have. Trust me, they are.

Excuse me for using the DISCUSSION group to put my views over.

I'm being TOLD to lighten up and give a guy some slack because I don't agree with him........... Some discussion group.

"We really must stop being so anal" Great quote "the bad news is that it is still at least 3mm" nuff said !!!

smeds

Edited January 26, 2009 by smeds

[crobinsonh]

I started this thread with what I thought was a honest set of questions - I was asking for help as I am building the kit and would like to make it as accurate as possible. I did think in Britmodeler I would get the same response with out the personal side to it and I am disappointed that this was not the case.

Examples being "Don't like Trumpeter kits, don't buy them".

At what point did I say that I would not buy the kit - did I slag it off in any way, in fact have I ever slagged off a Trumpeter kit in any forum? I have lots of Trumpeter kits in my stash, however for this one in particular I would like to make an accurate F1a to the max of my abilities. Which is why I am 50% of the way through completely rebuilding/scratch building the cockpit based on the photo's that Edgar kinldy provided in my other thread.

Kind regards,

[Edgar]

I've tried to stay off this one, since my heart sinks when I see more "discussion" on dimensions. Stew, I'm afraid you're doomed to disappointment, if you think that the same "rules" don't apply on other forums (should that be "fora?") So many seem to assume that, because, in the most part, aviation is extremely technical, everything is done to infinitesimal limits. Well, as the song says "It ain't necessarily so." My interests, largely, don't go beyond the arrival of grey aircraft, so you'll have to bear with my examples being a bit ancient.

A couple of years ago, there was a discussion (argument, row, whatever you like to call it) concerning Hunter back ends, so I travelled several hundred miles, and measured a lot. I found lengths, of the shortest piece, of 42", 41.5", 41.25", with no two being identical. Measurements, from the transport joint, went from 195.5" to 196.25". I'd be very surprised if the Lightning didn't have similar differences.

There has been a recent argument (sorry discussion,) elsewhere, about widths of cannon bay covers on Spitfires. The Westland historian, several years ago, told me how any panels, covers, etc., from Castle Bromwich-built airframes had to stay with their own machine, since they wouldn't fit any other. While measuring several airframes, Paul Monforton has found that, while major wingribs(root and wingtip, for example) were set, other ribs appear to have been "best fit," maybe by being slid along, until they stopped. He also found up to 2" difference in some wingspans. Doubtless, his findings, as with so many others, will be airily dismissed.

There is a similar argument over Mosquito dimensions (this being an aircraft built over moulds, using hammers, saws, spokeshaves, and wood, to the usual parameters associated with furniture.) A few years ago, I went to a lecture by men who'd actually worked on the airframes, and one told how he'd become fed up with the approved method of repairing large gaps in wings (large gaps? Unthinkable!) He was supposed to carve a piece of wood, to fit, then slide it in, and glue it. Instead, he just poured molten glue into the hole. It was discovered, of course, and he got an almighty rollicking, and the boss was building up to sack him, when a foreman came in, and said that they'd found that his solution had turned out to be stronger than the official line. He got his job back, and glue was used from that moment.

There's a story, in 617 Squadron's history, of how a particular Lancaster, during a major overhaul, was found to have had its elevators fitted upside down. Great, funny, story, but, for that to happen, they must have been painted wrongly (elevators must be painted and balanced before fitting,) and at least two lots of inspection must have missed it. The Lancaster flew like a brick, and no-one could figure out how the pilot had survived. So, how many other aircraft had a similar fault, and the crew(s) didn't survive?

The upshot of this long ramble (sorry) is that I've come to realise that drawings are, probably, only pertinent to the airframe which the artist measured, and, if he/she went solely by published dimensions, Lord help him/her.

Edgar

[Mike]

Gentlemen - Please take a moment to realise that this is a storm in a teacup... no-one means to upset eachother.

[JohnT]

I want to say that I am not the most experienced modeller being a newbie as work has had my attention the last 25 years or so but each night I read a chapter or two of aviation based histories and can recall several examples of aircraft manufacurers pre computer cut days assembling component parts, or not as the case may be, only to find one factory assembly would not mate to the others.

I'd guess that there can be many differences in tolerances and measurements from one airframe to another airframe and all the more so in older aircraft.

(Any ex RAF technicians care to comment ?)

Maybe especially Brit ones due to our aviation cottage industry practises compared to say, the US mass assembly plants??

Anyway I am reminded or reading a heated debate on paint and scale colour and tones etc etc etc

Went the next week to a wet airshow and saw a Danish F104 which at one time in its life was painted overall in the same green colour but with the exception of flourescent lime now had every tone of green imaginable on it.

The moral - God loves infinite variety

So if it "looks" right it probably is near enough chaps

[TonyT]

I want to say that I am not the most experienced modeller being a newbie as work has had my attention the last 25 years or so but each night I read a chapter or two of aviation based histories and can recall several examples of aircraft manufacurers pre computer cut days assembling component parts, or not as the case may be, only to find one factory assembly would not mate to the others.

I'd guess that there can be many differences in tolerances and measurements from one airframe to another airframe and all the more so in older aircraft.

(Any ex RAF technicians care to comment ?)

So if it "looks" right it probably is near enough chaps

The major sticking point on the Nimrod MR4 project was the first computer designed wings offered up to the second fuselage were out by about an inch at the Airframe attachments...... it would have been cheaper and more sensible to have produced new fuselages than recobble together a 40 odd year old fuselage in the hope it would save money...... I was ex RAF and most stuff fitted, a friend was involved with the design on the MR4 and he told me the nightmare that it caused..... Similar he said some of Concordes drawings were little more than sketches on the back of a fag packet.

You all quote Military aircraft, it happens within the light Aircraft industry as well........ Piper are not to bad and there predrill skins etc 99% of the time fit....Cessna on the other hand send out skins they pre drill and the holes do not line up with anything! you end up having to ask them to send one un drilled and they send you a stock sheet with a part number, you have to do it this way because if you just ordered some skin sheet and cut and drilled it yourself ( which you do with the sheet with a part number ) it is counted as manufacturing which you cannot do!.

If you think Concordes model is too long then glue the gear up as it grows about 8 inches in length in flight and has slipper plates in the floor to allow it to stretch

Edited January 26, 2009 by TonyT

[Stebos]

This all reminds me of the pain involved when transferring survey detail of older properties to a CAD system, nothing matches, everything is out of true and often just bodged together.

It's pretty much impossible to accurately convert what is essentially a hand crafted item to something millimetre perfect. The brick wall I dimension as 1115mm might end up as 1110, 1111, 1125 etc... it's unlikely to actually be 1115.

It's all just opinion at the end of the day, even if you go and physically measure it - how accurate can you manage it? Do you read the tape right? Is the tape calibrated? Is point A to point B an exact pinpoint position?

The 1/72 rear end was obviously wrong, any comparision to a photo would show that up. It's still clear as to what it was meant to be though.

I always try to keep neutral on these matters, everyone's threshold for acceptable accuracy differs!

[AnonymousA667]

This all reminds me of the pain involved when transferring survey detail of older properties to a CAD system, nothing matches, everything is out of true and often just bodged together.

Ooh, another CAD techie! The old property analogy is very true - I was recently asked to prepare survey drawings from somebody else's measure up of a 400 year old property (never a good proposition in itself) and it's been a nightmare. Personally I couldn't get vexed about 3mm on a 1/32 model, can anybody honestly hold their hand up and say they could notice the difference with a Mk I eyeball?

peebeep

[TonyT]

Ooh, another CAD techie! The old property analogy is very true - I was recently asked to prepare survey drawings from somebody else's measure up of a 400 year old property (never a good proposition in itself) and it's been a nightmare. Personally I couldn't get vexed about 3mm on a 1/32 model, can anybody honestly hold their hand up and say they could notice the difference with a Mk I eyeball?

peebeep

It's a bit like 1/32 scale figures or 1/35 scale figures. as long as they are not holding a standard length gun etc, we have short and tall people in real life..... wide and narrow, not all the same height and breadth.so the scale there is a bit superflous..