thierry laurent

You know, if you went out and found one of those triangular scales (ruler for those who think that way) the Architect's scale (or that's what I've known them as) has all of the above-mentioned increments plus others based upon fractions of an inch equal to 1 foot. If you went looking for an Engineer's scale, it has 1"=10', 20', 30', 40', 50', and 60'.
 
And btw, HO is Half O gauge (1/43.5).
 
Take 5'-10" x 12 = 70" / 35 = 2" for perhaps a typical sized male human at the time??????????????? 
 
Dave
 

I have mentioned this before, but I think it is purely an error. Reading Tamiya's book on their history, they claim 1/35th came from the dimension required for the batteries to fit, width-wise, in the lower hull of their first armor kit, the Panther. And as Tamiya always stuck with one scale for their different models in a series (their earliest models were of ships and they were praised for keeping them in one scale, not 'box scale'), they stuck with 1/35th. But I do not believe it. For one, there was already early tank models out there in 1/32nd by Airfix and Monogram and if they were that worried about keeping things in a same scale, you would think they would have picked 1/32. Also, if you were that worried about fitting in batteries and motors, why would you base the scale on one of the largest tanks you will model? To make the point, their first Panzer IV kit was also motorized and the lower hull is too wide to get the batteries to fit! If they had gone 1/32nd, I believe it would fit. So, 1/35 was a mistake all around.
 
Having said that, I bought one of the first, if not the first, 1/35 aircraft: the Pend Oreille Bf 109G-6 kit as I wanted to be able to do a dio with 1/35th figures and vehicles.

HAHA!! I am just having fun with this, but since you asked....1:35 is more of a bastard scale than any other scale except, perhaps, HO (1:87) because it does not correlate to virtually any other scale. For instance, most popular model scales have equivalents in architectural scale: 
1:12 equates to 1" = 1 foot
1:16 equates to 3/4" = 1 foot
1:24 equates to 1/2" = 1 foot
1:48 equates to 1/4" = 1 foot
1:32 equates to 3/8" = 1 foot
 
If you don't like imperial, then 1:35 doesn't even equate to any engineering or metric scale that I am aware of, so where did it come from?  
 
(Please note, I am just stirring the pot purely for fun! I value everyone's opinions on the subject and say "build what you like and have fun". More power to any company that keeps good kits coming!! Whether these are good kits or not, I cannot say)
 
Tim
 
 

Not just any bomb has been included Ron but an "Air Bomb" !!!
Could someone please explain what a WW2 Allied "air bomb' is?
Equally could someone explain why the AM producers are not interested in 35th scale planes?
 
Shall we discuss l
 
Regards. Andy 

Nobody,  but if correct then this kit is an absolute nail and in the wrong scale, double bad for me .
 
Regards. Andy 

Includes weapons interior structure. That must be the interior of the "air bomb"

Tanks in 1/35?         OK, works for me....
 
Helicopters in 1/35?       I prefer 1/32 but I can accept 1/35....
 
Aircraft in 1/35?           NEVER!
 
 
My 5cents on the topic.
 
Stefan 

+1 Tim! 35th scale planes? Just wrong and however detailed they are it's still a No from me. Interesting it seems the AM suppliers have the same opinion
 
Regards. Andy 

Nope but Border have scaled down the abominable HB kit which is very wrong in fuselage shapes. Enjoy the same in 35th scale!
 
Regards. Andy

Ya know you have to stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel! I get it though and respect your point of view. For me it isn't the scale that disqualifies it ,it's the kit itself or what I've seen of it on line.

Border makes excellent plastic but their instructions suffer and so far in my build history they’re decals. I just rush they would spend more time proof reading their instructions and add more verbiage.  
 
 
Paul

Well, isn't that a daisy! Unless they revamped a few things as per the sprue shots a few months ago , it'll be a hard pass for me. I'm not a spitfire expert by any measure but if I can spot the problems .....welll I'll wait for the Kotare MK V. 

I wasn't even going down the scale road. But since you opened the can, I will NEVER build a plane in 1:35 scale. It's a bastard scale that should never have existed in the first place. I'll put up with it for armor, but only because I have little choice. 
 
There...happy now? 

Wow!!! It even includes clear parts!!!!

Wow!!! It even includes clear parts!!!!

Wow!!! It even includes clear parts!!!!

Wow!!! It even includes clear parts!!!!

Wow!!! It even includes clear parts!!!!

Spellchecks now means we've given up scale discussions?? 
 

Because the Ta 152 fuselage was lengthened in that area. Compared to the Fw 190D series, the Ta 152's cockpit was positioned further aft of the wing, and the engine located further forward of the wing. Thus, there was more room inside the Ta 152's fuselage in that area.
 
HTH,
D

Thank you. OK, that would be an option. I contacted Daco in the meantime and they replied that an extended version of the stencils decal sheet is almost ready for printing and should become available soon. So, I’ll wait for the new set then. 
 
Thanks,
Roger

For whatever reason it looks modellers always prefer dreaming about what could be rather than being satisfied by what is already there! Strangely there are always 'must have' that stay unavailable in 'our' scale ... I just think we could build a workflow with tests to assess the probability one thread will finally become a wish list one. However I'm wondering if this would not be a close to useless effort considering how many different discussions change into such wish lists!  Actually we should possibly do the opposite: assess what can be discussed while probably not being changed into such a result...

How quickly a thread wanders from the OP’s original and, as usual, develops into yet another boring wishlist. 

I believe there are differences between the D-13 and the Ta152H as it pertains to the gun mounted within the engine.  The Ta152H had a 30mm Mk108 and the D-13 had a 20mm MG151.  The Z-M Ta152H kit depicts the 30mm ammo cannister as wrapping around the rear breech of the Mk108 cannon, directly behind the engine.

 
The ammo cannister on the D-13 was located in the empty compartment normally occupied by the twin MG131 above the engine on the D-9.  This is a photo of Volume 2 of Jerry Crandall's excellent Dora book set showing the restored D-13.
 

 
I hope that helps!