Kaiser Hong Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Hi all,I have a question about the length of the 229 fuselage In many books(Include Zoukei-mura CONCEPT NOTE), all pointed out that the length is 7.465m so, in 1/32 scale,it should be 23.3cmBut I found it was actually 24cm I print a line draw in 1/32 scale to compare the kit's tail seems be too long? I can not draw conclusions any suggestion and opinion is welcome Thanks for your help, Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodgem37 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I do not have the kit, tho I have personally seen it built-up while reviewing the Z-M Exhibit at the USA National IPMS Convention. With that knowledge, I would hazard a guess to say that the quality of the remaining aspects of the kit far outweigh the .02755906th of an inch difference between the miniaturized real item and what one gets in the box. In addition, it is easier to manufacture something with rounded dimensions than not. Sincerely, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunfighter366 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 My best guess is your ruler's wrong, so throw it out! IT"S JUST A MODEL of a plane that was never built in the first place. Enjoy the model for what it is and the enjoyment you get from building it. Gunfighter366 Timescape and Radders 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You're having a laugh, right? Tell me you've not lost sleep over that... Whatever, have fun building it and Happy Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Ron Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 IT"S JUST A MODEL of a plane that was never built in the first place. Actually it was built and flown? the first prototype crashed on it's third flight do to an engine fire. The second prototype is at the Smithsonian. It didn't fly because the war ended. Vandy 1 VX 4 and mattlow 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattlow Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The Horton is one of those kits where I would place more faith in the kit than any drawings (except an original, properly reproduced set of Arthur Bentley's).... ZM went and measured it up and then referenced the work of Arthur Bentley to produce the kit. So the best possible research. Matt Av8fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_S Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Press the nose into the foam! LSP_Ron, LSP_K2 and Vandy 1 VX 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_K2 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's a minor enough difference that I wouldn't sweat over it. It's also entirely possible that the drawing is out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It looks like the model has a head start on the ruler in your photo. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 .......Harv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ermeio Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Hi all, I have a question about the length of the 229 fuselage In many books(Include Zoukei-mura CONCEPT NOTE), all pointed out that the length is 7.465m so, in 1/32 scale,it should be 23.3cm But I found it was actually 24cm I print a line draw in 1/32 scale to compare the kit's tail seems be too long? I can not draw conclusions any suggestion and opinion is welcome Thanks for your help, Kaiser The length is measured with the aircraft at rest, so you must measure the length of the shadow cast on the ground when the aircraft s on the undercarriage and it accounts for the missing centimeters. The drawing depicts an aircraft n flight, so it is slightly shorter, since there is an angle of attack (a pitch) wrt the plan of simmetry Artful69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) The dimension quoted is for the plane resting on the landing gear. Here is a photo that may help explain it better. Radu Later edit: Ermeio said above exactly what I said. I must have been writing as he was writing too. Edited December 17, 2014 by Radub mattlow, Vandy 1 VX 4 and Artful69 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Excellent explanation guys! Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) This is a frequent problem with quoted dimensions!! Different dims for different purposes. The guy pushing the aircraft about a crowded hangar, or production line, or inside a carrier, is going to need different information to the guy setting up the production jigs..... Good catch though. And the shadow thing needs qualifying too! That would only work at noon, parked smack on the equator, on Midsummers Day, or any other day when the sun was directly overhead; so never north or south of the Tropics. And you would also have to allow for 96 million miles of parallax, plus the fuzziness caused by the diameter of the sun. And the difference in height between the nose and tail above the tarmac. And, come to think of it, if you were on the Equator rather than on the edge of the Baltic, some expansion might need to be factored in. Or Factor 50'd out. I'll get my coat..... Tim Edited December 17, 2014 by wunwinglow Derek B, dpastern, scvrobeson and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Well done ermeio and Radu!! ... A question was asked - and an answer provided. A successful conclusion. I knew ZM's research would be spot on - that's just the way they operate. But unless the drawings are off (more than a little possible in most cases!), a discrepancy was noticed and a member requested advice on why that might be the case. He had a point - since ZM's own concept note was showing the same "apparent" discrepancy?!? ... It was a puzzle to be solved and he wasn't being nasty or mean spirited about it. I hope I don't get pulled apart like that if I ever have a similar puzzle I want an answer to?! Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now