[FT] GZG Model Scale

> From the GZG online Catalog..

The scale of the models is (very nominally) 1/2000 - 1/2400;..

Steven

thats found at http://www.lightspeed.u-net.com/gzg/ft-idx.html

> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:

> I've just been looking through FB1, and it got me wondering as to what

I've just been looking through FB1, and it got me wondering as to what scale
the GZG FT miniatures are.

They appear to be "in scale" with one another: that is, a 2000 tonne corvette
from one nation is about the same size as a 2000 tonne corvette from another,
while a 20000 tonne Super Dreadnaught is about 10x the volume. Or looks that
way, anyway.

> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
...SNip,,,JTL
> They appear to be "in scale" with one another:
...Snip...JTL
> Comments?

Alan,

Thats depends on how you look at it, the Enterprise is a Heavy Cruiser, so
compare it to lets say a ESU Gorshkov heavy cruiser, it looks fine, but if you
compare it to a FSE Jeanne D'Arc Fleet Carrier, then it becomes compact..;)

Steven

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:

> Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

> Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

Ta for the info. Interesting, this means they are very light for their volume,
more like aircraft construction than ship. Which makes sense I suppose... but
makes the USS Enterprise look rather compact in comparison.

> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:

Well, the original Enterprise was 289m long and the movie version was 305m
long. At the scale above they would be between 12 and 15 cm long. That's big
when compared to the FT ships.

The mass of the Enterprise has always been suspect, whilst most sources have
said something between 150,000 and 200,000mt there is dialogue in the orginal
series which stated a mass of a million
ton(ne?)s!

In my attempts to do FB stats for the movie era ships, I've had great
difficulty making the Enterprise less than 180 mass and it could easily be a
lot larger.

Back on the list after a break for Xmas / New Year - hope I haven't
missed anything important.

> Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

> > Ta for the info. Interesting, this means they are very light for

Depends on which Enterprise you mean as well... I read this to refer to the
modern aircraft carrier, in which case they seem OK. The models were
originally (before
FT2 was even published !) advertised as being 1/3000th scale, which is a
scale popular in the UK for naval wargaming.

At a nominal 1/2400th scale, the real USS Enterprise would be around
140mm long but only 32mm wide. It weighs in at around 90000 tonnes which is
MASS 900, which is
where the comparison breaks down somewhat :-(. In which case we come
back to the previously discussed 'what is a tonne...' argument. So yes, I
concur, FT ships are rather light for their size. If one MASS was taken to be
1000 tonnes rather than 100, however, the comparison isn't to far out.

> At 15:16 29/01/99 +0000, you wrote:
SNIP
> Depends on which Enterprise you mean as well ... I read this to refer

It seems pretty clear that GZG ton(nes) are either a different sort from the
ones we currently use or refer to some sort of "nominal" measure, (I recall
the debate or two about the various meanings of tonnage a while ago). I think
I also remember Jon (Tuffley) saying that the scale was even
more nominally 1/2400 for fighters.  If you compare a GZG fighter to a
1/3000 fighter model, the GZG beastie is a wee bit bigger, so somewhere
from
1/3000 to 1/2400 seems reasonable there.  If you assume, as I think we
must, that the GZG carriers keep their fighters inside the hull most of the
time,
then the ship scale must be at the smaller end (1/2400 or even 1/3000
rather
than 1/2000) to accommodate the squadrons.  I agree that this makes the
Mass figures VERY small for the volume of the miniatures, and in fact I don't
really think in GZG ton(nes) at all. My own Scottish fleet is mainly composed
of prehistoric Garrison ships,
which were sold as 1/2400, so that'll do for me.

Maybe we should call them "tuns"? :-)

An important point about modern US CV airgroups is that most of the
aircraft stay on the flight deck for a lot of the time- only about a
third can be placed in the hangars at once. Modern UK and fUSSR practice was
(mostly) to embark a smaller airgroup which can be brought below decks
(although obviously it's not ideal).

Rob

> It seems pretty clear that GZG ton(nes) are either a different
measure,

Tons displacement; the *volume* displaced by 1 ton (metric ton?) of hydrogen
(or water? Traveller uses hydrogen).

- Sam

> Steven Arrowsmith wrote:

> Thats depends on how you look at it, the Enterprise is a Heavy

The Enterprise is 275,000 tonnes. That's a mass of 2,750. The model
itself is 1/3788 as opposed to 1/2400, but larger (about 1/2400) models
are available. They're about the same volume as a Jeanne d'Arc. Just
some 10+ times more massive.

Thinks: Mass 2,750 ship. Bet those Phasers are better than Type 3
beams...

> Steve Pugh wrote:

> Well, the original Enterprise was 289m long and the movie version was

289m (before refit) 305m (After refit). Makes sense.

> At the scale above they would be between 12 and 15 cm

Right. Not outrageously so, but certainly Mass 200+  size.

> The mass of the Enterprise has always been suspect, whilst most

> Tony Francis wrote:

> > > Ta for the info. Interesting, this means they are very light for

> So yes, I concur, FT ships are

Concur. "Make it so".

> Samuel Reynolds wrote:

> > It seems pretty clear that GZG ton(nes) are either a

Using hydrogen displacement tons, the Maria von Burgund-class would get
a volume of 168000 m^3, whereas my (not very accurate) measurements of the
model - give a volume of 95-100000 m^3 (assuming 1/2400 scale). Whatever
the Tuffleyverse displacement tonne is based on, it is less dense than water
and somewhat more dense than liquid hydrogen. Assuming a scale of
~1/2800 gives  a very close agreement to the liquid-hydrogen
displacement ton for this particular model. (It is one of the very few GZG
ship models
I have - that's why I use it <g>]

Later,

> On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:13:20 +1000 Alan E & Carmel J Brain

Ah, that makes more sense.

> The mass of the refitted Enterprise was never explicitly stated,

Ships of the Starfleet Volume 1 puts the refit at about 200,000mt (can't
recall if it's slightly more or slightly less). Starfleet Dynamics puts it at
exactly 200,000mt.

An FT conversion factor of 1 mass = 1000mt gives an Enterprise that's big
enough (circa mass 200) to carry a decent load of weapons and decent lab
facilities. But how big would that make the Galaxy class?

> As for the "million-ton" reference, I'd appreciate some more details

Can't recall where it's from, but I know that it's come up on
rec.arts.startrek.tech from time to time. Argh, found the reference in Deja
News but it doesn't give an episode, but it is from a bloke who normally knows
what he's talking about.

I think that of more recent vessels only Voyager has been given a mass in
dialogue. (700,000 ton(ne?)s). So there's another contradictory data point.

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:13:20 +1000 Alan E & Carmel J Brain
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:

> Steve Pugh wrote:

> The mass of the Enterprise has always been suspect, whilst most

> Star Trek Technical Manual (Franz Joseph designs) states 275,000

That seems high. The original Enterprise (Kirk's TV version) was always said
(by such people as Bob Justman, who ought to know <g>) to mass 190,000 mt, and
I'm pretty sure that that figure was used in the FJ ST Tech Manual (in my
copy, anyway). The DN was something like 275,000 mt, and the DD was 95,000;
the SC, built on the same hull but with less weaponry, was 94,500 mt.

The mass of the refitted Enterprise was never explicitly stated, AFAIK, except
for a dubious figure from FASA of 170,000 mt. High tech = lighter ship,
despite the better engines, 3 times as many phasers, bigger secondary hull,
etc. I won't say that it couldn't happen, but the materials boys must have
come up with something amazing....

An interesting side note is that if you compare the sizes (volumes) of
NCC-1701 and CVN-65 (as illustrated in "The Making of Star Trek"), you
might wonder where all the mass went in the case of the starship. The density
of the starship must be significantly higher than that of the carrier, leading
one writer to speculate that the engine nacelles, and maybe the weapons
mounts, are plated with collapsed matter shielding!

As for the "million-ton" reference, I'd appreciate some more details of
who said that and when. ISTR seeing mention of the Enterprise-D massing
about that much, but not the original "no bloody A, B, C or D" ship.

Phil

> Atcliffe, Phillip wrote:

> > Star Trek Technical Manual (Franz Joseph designs) states 275,000

Well, according to that Unimpeachable source,
http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu/FT/st-ft.htm

The mass of the NCC-1701 Enterprise is ..... 190,000 tonnes. OOPS. Yes,
you're right, mea culpa. 285 KT for the DN, 126.5 for the tug, 95 for the
Destroyer, 94.5 for the scout.