Minifigure-scale Star Wars Vehicles
Posted by CapnRex101,Establishing precise minifigure-scale is always difficult, primarily because minifigures feature such unusual proportions. Nevertheless, many Star Wars models are intended to interact with minifigures, of course.
Recent discussion surrounding 75309 Republic Gunship has prompted broader examination of minifigure-scale. This interesting topic undoubtedly warrants investigation and this article encompasses numerous significant vehicles, determining their approximate minifigure-scale.
Minifigure-scale methodology
As mentioned above, ascertaining accurate minifigure-scale is challenging because of their characteristic proportions. Scale ratios of anything between approximately 1:32 and 1:45 are therefore common, reflecting minifigures' width and height, respectively. However, I consider a much simpler method most successful on this occasion.
75192 Millennium Falcon is constructed at minifigure-scale, measuring 84cm in length. While perfect accuracy cannot be verified, I think the Millennium Falcon appears appropriate beside minifigures and am therefore satisfied with this scale. The onscreen vessel reaches 34.75m in length, giving an approximate ratio of 1:41.369 for 75192 Millennium Falcon.
Using that figure and the following simple calculation, we can ascertain the approximate minifigure-scale for every vehicle.
Canonical measurement in centimetres* ÷ 41.369 = Approximate minifigure-scale measurement
* Measurements taken from StarWars.com, Wookieepedia.com or the most recent canonical reference book.
Minifigure-scale vehicles
Vulture Droid
- Canon length: 6.96m
- Minifigure-scale: 16.82cm
- Nearest model: 18cm (75041 Vulture Droid)
MTT
- Canon length: 35.94m
- Minifigure-scale: 86.88cm
- Nearest model: 41cm (7662 Trade Federation MTT)
AAT
- Canon length: 9.19m
- Minifigure-scale: 22.21cm
- Nearest model: 22cm (7155 Trade Federation AAT)
Bongo Submarine
- Canon length: 15.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 36.26cm
- Nearest model: 43cm (9499 Gungan Sub)
Sith Infiltrator
- Canon length: 26.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 64.06cm
- Nearest model: 38cm (75096 Sith Infiltrator)
Naboo N-1 Starfighter
- Canon length: 11.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 24.17cm
- Nearest model: 29cm (7141 Naboo Fighter)
Delta-7 Aethersprite-class Light Interceptor
- Canon length: 8.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 19.34cm
- Nearest model: 28cm (75191 Jedi Starfighter with Hyperdrive)
Republic Gunship
- Canon length: 17.69m
- Minifigure-scale: 42.76cm
- Nearest model: 42cm (7163 Republic Gunship)
- Notes: Proportionally, I think 75021 Republic Gunship is definitely the most accurate, but the 2002 rendition is closest in size.
Hailfire Droid
- Canon length: 8.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 20.55cm
- Nearest model: 21cm (4481 Hailfire Droid)
AT-TE
- Canon length: 22.02m
- Minifigure-scale: 53.23cm
- Nearest model: 43cm (4482 AT-TE)
Geonosian Starfighter
- Canon length: 9.80m
- Minifigure-scale: 23.69cm
- Nearest model: 25cm (7959 Geonosian Starfighter)
Eta-2 Actis-class Interceptor
- Canon length: 5.47m
- Minifigure-scale: 13.22cm
- Nearest model: 17cm (7256 Jedi Starfighter and Vulture Droid)
ARC-170 Starfighter
- Canon wingspan: 19.85m
- Minifigure-scale: 47.98cm
- Nearest model: 48cm (8088 ARC-170 Starfighter)
V-wing Starfighter
- Canon length: 7.90m
- Minifigure-scale: 19.10cm
- Nearest model: 21cm (6205 V-wing Fighter)
HAVw A6 Juggernaut
- Canon length: 49.40m
- Minifigure-scale: 119.41cm
- Nearest model: 45cm (8098 Clone Turbo Tank)
AT-AP
- Canon height: 10.97m
- Minifigure-scale: 26.52cm
- Nearest model: 25cm (75043 AT-AP)
AT-RT
- Canon height: 3.45m
- Minifigure-scale: 8.34cm
- Nearest model: 8cm (75151 Clone Turbo Tank)
Belbullab-22 Starfighter
- Canon length: 6.71m
- Minifigure-scale: 16.22cm
- Nearest model: 26cm (75286 General Grievous' Starfighter)
UT-AT
- Canon height: 23.80m
- Minifigure-scale: 57.53cm
- Nearest model: N/A
U-wing Starfighter
- Canon length: 23.99m
- Minifigure-scale: 57.99cm
- Nearest model: 44cm (75155 Rebel U-wing Fighter)
Zeta-class Cargo Shuttle
- Canon length: 35.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 85.81cm
- Nearest model: N/A
TIE/sk Striker
- Canon length: 17.20m
- Minifigure-scale: 41.58cm
- Nearest model: 41cm (75154 TIE Striker)
X-34 Landspeeder
- Canon length: 3.40m
- Minifigure-scale: 8.22cm
- Nearest model: 12cm (7110 Landspeeder)
Sandcrawler
- Canon length: 40.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 96.69cm
- Nearest model: 48cm (75059 Sandcrawler)
TIE/ln Starfighter
- Canon height: 8.82m
- Minifigure-scale: 21.32cm
- Nearest model: 23cm (75211 Imperial TIE Fighter)
T-65 X-wing Starfighter
- Canon length: 13.40m
- Minifigure-scale: 32.39cm
- Nearest model: 31cm (75301 Luke Skywalker's X-wing Fighter)
Y-wing Starfighter
- Canon length: 16.24m
- Minifigure-scale: 39.26cm
- Nearest model: 41cm (75172 Y-wing Starfighter)
- Notes: Canon sources sometimes give a length of 23.40 metres, but that describes the fully armoured BTL-B Y-wing Starfighter deployed during the Clone Wars, rather than its later stripped-down equivalent.
TIE Advanced x1
- Canon length: 5.80m, 9.20m, 11.05m
- Minifigure-scale: 14.02cm, 22.24cm, 26.71cm
- Nearest model: 14cm (75150 Vader's TIE Advanced vs. A-wing Starfighter)
- Notes: Three different lengths are commonly provided for the TIE Advanced x1. Detailed fan calculations have established that the length is nearest to the shortest of those canon measurements, which would match the design in 75150 Vader's TIE Advanced vs. A-wing Starfighter.
Snowspeeder
- Canon length: 5.30m
- Minifigure-scale: 12.81cm
- Nearest model: 16cm (4500 Rebel Snowspeeder)
AT-AT
- Canon height: 22.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 54.39cm
- Nearest model: 34cm (75288 AT-AT)
AT-ST
- Canon height: 8.60m, 9.04m
- Minifigure-scale: 20.79cm, 21.85cm
- Nearest model: 20cm (8038 The Battle of Endor)
- Notes: Two measurements are frequently published for the AT-ST, although the variation between them is small and hardly affects accurate minifigure-scale.
TIE/sa Bomber
- Canon length: 7.80m
- Minifigure-scale: 18.85cm
- Nearest model: 16cm (4479 TIE Bomber)
Slave I
- Canon length (landed): 21.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 51.97cm
- Nearest model: 45cm (75060 Slave I)
Lambda-class Shuttle
- Canon length: 20.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 48.35cm
- Nearest model: 46cm (10212 Imperial Shuttle)
Sail Barge
- Canon length: 30.00m
- Minifigure-scale: 72.52cm
- Nearest model: 46cm (6210 Jabba's Sail Barge)
RZ-1 A-wing Interceptor
- Canon length: 6.90m
- Minifigure-scale: 16.68cm
- Nearest model: 17cm (6207 A-wing Fighter)
- Notes: An alternative length of 9.60 metres is sometimes provided, but I find the shorter length of 6.90 metres more convincing. Viewing the onscreen vehicle and comparing the RZ-1 A-wing Interceptor with its successor, which measures 7.68 metres long and seems larger than the Rebel craft, provides compelling evidence.
B-wing Starfighter
- Canon length (landed): 16.90m
- Minifigure-scale: 40.85cm
- Nearest model: 39cm (75050 B-wing)
74-Z Speeder Bike
- Canon length: 3.30m
- Minifigure-scale: 7.98cm
- Nearest model: 12cm (75288 AT-AT)
TIE/in Interceptor
- Canon length: 7.70m
- Minifigure-scale: 18.61cm
- Nearest model: 20cm (6206 TIE Interceptor)
Razor Crest
- Canon length (estimated): 26.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 64.06cm
- Nearest model: 38cm (75292 The Razor Crest)
Atmospheric Assault Lander
- Canon length: 17.83m
- Minifigure-scale: 43.10cm
- Nearest model: 31cm (75103 First Order Transporter)
Upsilon-class Command Shuttle
- Canon height (landed with wings extended): 37.20m
- Minifigure-scale: 89.92cm
- Nearest model: 40cm (75256 Kylo Ren's Shuttle)
T-70 X-wing Starfighter
- Canon length: 12.49m
- Minifigure-scale: 30.19cm
- Nearest model: 37cm (75273 Poe Dameron's X-wing Fighter)
Resistance Transport
- Canon width: 16.18m
- Minifigure-scale: 39.11cm
- Nearest model: 33cm (75140 Resistance Troop Transporter)
Resistance MG-100 StarFortress Bomber
- Canon length: 29.67m
- Minifigure-scale: 71.72cm
- Nearest model: 39cm (75188 Resistance Bomber)
RZ-2 A-wing Interceptor
- Canon length: 7.68m
- Minifigure-scale: 18.56cm
- Nearest model: 20cm (75248 Resistance A-wing Starfighter)
TIE/vn Silencer
- Canon length: 17.43m
- Minifigure-scale: 42.13cm
- Nearest model: 41cm (75179 Kylo Ren's TIE Fighter)
AT-M6
- Canon height: 36.18m
- Minifigure-scale: 84.46cm
- Nearest model: 35cm (75189 First Order Heavy Assault Walker)
Ski Speeder
- Canon width: 11.50m
- Minifigure-scale: 27.80cm
- Nearest model: 38cm (75202 Defence of Crait)
TIE/dg Dagger
- Canon length: 9.51m
- Minifigure-scale: 22.99cm
- Nearest model: 24cm (75272 Sith TIE Fighter)
Larger minifigure-scale vehicles
Certain memorable vehicles would be decidedly unsuitable for minifigure-scale renditions, based upon their incredible size. Nevertheless, we can establish how large they would need to be, for accurate scaling beside minifigures!
Venator-class Star Destroyer
- Canon length: 1137m
- Minifigure-scale: 2748.43cm (27.48 metres)
CR90 Corellian Corvette
- Canon length: 150m
- Minifigure-scale: 362.59cm (3.63 metres)
Imperial-class Star Destroyer
- Canon length: 1600m
- Minifigure-scale: 3867.63cm (38.68 metres)
Death Star
- Canon diameter: 160,000m
- Minifigure-scale: 386,763cm (3.868 kilometres / 2.403 miles)
Super Star Destroyer
- Canon length: 19,000m
- Minifigure-scale: 45,928cm (459.28 metres)
EF76 Nebulon-B Frigate
- Canon length: 300m
- Minifigure-scale: 725.18cm (7.25 metres)
MC-80A Star Cruiser
- Canon length: 1300m
- Minifigure-scale: 3142.45cm (31.42 metres)
Death Star II
- Canon diameter: 200,000m
- Minifigure-scale: 483,453cm (4.835 kilometres / 3.004 miles)
Starkiller Base
- Canon diameter: 660,000m
- Minifigure-scale: 1,595,397cm (15.954 kilometres / 9.913 miles)
Mega-class Star Destroyer
- Canon width: 60,542m
- Minifigure-scale: 146,346cm (1.464 kilometres / 0.910 miles)
Conclusion
The significance of minifigure-scale varies dramatically between subjects. Larger starfighters such as the T-65 X-wing or TIE/sk Striker have achieved near-perfection and that is apparent simply when looking at them, without needing any calculations. Other vehicles deviate slightly from the source material, but are ideally-suited to interaction with minifigures.
Smaller subjects, such as speeder bikes and AT-RTs are usually oversized beside minifigures. That is understandable though as recreating their actual size could restrict potential detail and functions, which must be prioritised. However, I do enjoy the smaller AT-RTs which accompany 8098 Clone Turbo Tank and 75151 Clone Turbo Tank, or the BARC Speeder from 7913 Clone Trooper Battle Pack.
Affordability is extremely important too, inevitably limiting which vehicles can be represented in minifigure-scale based upon their popularity. However, there are numerous examples of classic subjects which could potentially appear in scale beside minifigures, but currently remain elusive.
285 likes
83 comments on this article
Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???
@Volfogg said:
"Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???"
For those who haven't noticed, those sets are very much not minifigure scale.
The death star would be 1:41.369 of the moon.
Accurate scale AT-AT when?
When I saw your name and the article title I knew I’d love this.
I love this.
Is there any artillery in the SW universe? Are they canonical or cannonical? Cannot say? :~P
Seriously, interesting article. The same method could be applied to vehicles and buildings from other lines (e.g. City, Marvel, DC). Might be worthwhile developing a standardised scale of scale accuracy from 1 to 10 with any score of 1 to 9.5 getting an additional + or - to indicate whether the vehicle or building is oversized or undersized.
As someone who is (unusually) interested in scale and how minifigs relate to it, this is probably my favorite article Ive read on Brickset. Thanks for putting so much effort into this CapnRex101. I really enjoyed this!
@Zander said:
"Is there any artillery in the SW universe? Are they canonical or cannonical? Cannot say? :~P
Seriously, interesting article. The same method could be applied to vehicles and buildings from other lines (e.g. City, Marvel, DC). Might be worthwhile developing a standardised scale of scale accuracy from 1 to 10 with any score of 1 to 9.5 getting an additional + or - to indicate whether the vehicle is oversized or undersized."
The Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery Turbolaser (SPHA-T) appears briefly in Episode II. Cannonical length 140.2m. Minifigure-sclae 3.38m
@gorf43 said:
"As someone who is (unusually) interested in scale and how minifigs relate to it, this is probably my favorite article Ive read on Brickset. Thanks for putting so much effort into this CapnRex101. I really enjoyed this!"
Same and same. This was a slice of heaven.
Star Destroyer and Death Star could have been fun additions just to put their true magnitude in another perspective. Minifig scale Imperial Destroyer would be about 24.4m long based on their purported length of around 1km.
Very nice work! I appreciate the effort you always do, Capn! (I see you added the Landspeeder's link!)
@Zander said:
"Is there any artillery in the SW universe? Are they canonical or cannonical? Cannot say? :~P
Seriously, interesting article. The same method could be applied to vehicles and buildings from other lines (e.g. City, Marvel, DC). Might be worthwhile developing a standardised scale of scale accuracy from 1 to 10 with any score of 1 to 9.5 getting an additional + or - to indicate whether the vehicle is oversized or undersized."
yes there is artillery in the star wars universe.
The Self Propelled Heavy Artillery (SPHA) walker was a modular heavy artillery unit used by the Grand Army of the Republic during the Clone Wars. It was used at the end of Episode 2 on Geonosis.
the AV-7 Republic AV-7 Anti-vehicle Cannon was actually released as a set 75045 but i get what you mean, there have been too many star fighters turned into sets, but not really enough ground attack vehicles. Maybe they could use 75311 as a test, see how popular it is and release more ground based vehicles as well.
@Volfogg said:
"Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???"
I have now added a few larger vehicles, just for fun. Alas, I consider a minifigure-scale Death Star unlikely to be released!
As I am always telling, 3 studs per meter or for foot fetishists a little over one stud per foot
Stupid question: Isn't the TCW AT-TE way closer in size to the minifig-scale?
Great article!!!
Perhaps one of the most interesting takeaways is that the new, smaller redesign X-Wing is the closest to actual minifigure scale.
Hoping for more minifigure scale UCS models in the future! (*cough* AT-AT *cough*)
See, this just makes me appreciate the Microfighters all the more. They don't nearly go for "accurate" and just embrace "embarassingly small but still accurate."
Love the detail and effort this has!!!
I suppose the only potential minifigure-scale set that's missing besides an AT-AT is Jabba's Sail Barge. It could be around the same price as Mos Eisley Cantina ($349.99) and include the Sarlacc Pit and a Desert Skiff. Full interior and most of the minifigures we saw in the last one along with a few new ones for people who have the old one. Yeah I'd probably buy that. Not sure if they would make another Slave Leia minifig though.
Now I regret buying the UCS Y-Wing; I thought it was closest to minifig-scale.
@gorf43 said:
"As someone who is (unusually) interested in scale and how minifigs relate to it, this is probably my favorite article Ive read on Brickset. Thanks for putting so much effort into this CapnRex101. I really enjoyed this!"
Totally agree. Best article I’ve ever read here and would love to see more like it and/or a minifig-scale section on every new set review.
@marengho said:
"As I am always telling, 3 studs per meter or for foot fetishists a little over one stud per foot"
Agreed - that is the scale that I work in for modern vehicle MOCs.
@CapnRex101 said:
" Alas, I consider a minifigure-scale Death Star unlikely to be released!"
yes, we have to build it ourselves
Are all the lego bricks ever produced enough to build the - very colourful- Death Star?
Whoa, awesome article! It’s interesting that the most accurately scaled examples in official sets (by this standard) are very old sets in some cases and much newer sets in others.
Of course, your point about speeder bikes and larger starships are just a couple examples of why a totally uniform scale isn’t always the best. Minifigs are very oddly proportioned by nature — their heads and the width of their bodies are way larger in proportion to their height than with real people, and also there is little difference between their sitting and standing heights due to their short, stubby legs. So especially for a set like Luke’s Landspeeder where the occupants’ torsos and heads stick out of the vehicle, a larger scale LOOKS more accurate to the on-screen version than the scale of a set like the UCS Millennium Falcon where the occupants are fully enclosed.
Incidentally, now that the theme is cutting back again on the scale and price point of starfighters like the X-Wing, TIE fighter, and Slave I, I wonder if we might start to see more accurately scaled versions of other starfighters that had become more exaggerated in size over the course of the 2010s, like the A-Wing or Naboo N-1 Starfighter.
@Clutch_P said:
"Now I regret buying the UCS Y-Wing; I thought it was closest to minifig-scale."
Nowhere near minifigs scale. But it’s one of my favourite UCS sets.
Am hoping that the rumoured UCS ATAT is close to minifigs scale.
At 72cm a minifigcan easily do A UCS version. scale Sail Barge is very doable. If Hasbro can do an 3.75inch scale barge then Lego
Interesting read! So according to this, cavegods sandcrawler (which is around 94 cm long) is super close to minifig scale. I am building mould kings version at the moment (bought the instructions from cavegod out of respect, just no way to afford the actual pieces in lego) and I always wondered just how close it is in scale since the jawas next to the tracks look perfect
Once again I'm reminded of how long overdue we are for a TIE Bomber upgrade.
@Darth_Mule said:
" @Volfogg said:
"Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???"
For those who haven't noticed, those sets are very much not minifigure scale.
The death star would be 1:41.369 of the moon."
So you’re saying there’s a chance :D
Scale is tough because you have to consider all 3 dimensions. Using one makes for a good approximation, but the minifigure is disproportionate in width as well. It's why a lot of vehicles look wrong with minifigs and can't accommodate two side-by-side.
So for full functionality, sets should probably include proper scaling for height, depth and width, but that would make a lot of real-life items look more stubby.
@Darth_Mule said:
" @Volfogg said:
"Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???"
For those who haven't noticed, those sets are very much not minifigure scale.
The death star would be 1:41.369 of the moon."
Lol I know I just wanted to see the numbers. I'm glad they edited the article to add them :D
Yay!!!
@Phoenixio said:
"Scale is tough because you have to consider all 3 dimensions. Using one makes for a good approximation, but the minifigure is disproportionate in width as well. It's why a lot of vehicles look wrong with minifigs and can't accommodate two side-by-side.
So for full functionality, sets should probably include proper scaling for height, depth and width, but that would make a lot of real-life items look more stubby."
true - but for example Cavegod's sandcrawler is quite pretty in minifig scale. On the other hand it would need 4 - 6 floors according to the cross-section book. Even with floors fitting to the size of Jawa's it would need to be higher. In the end it is a compromise of a fitting scale and still correct proportions. Nobody would like to see a stubby sandcrawler. Simply you would omit one or two floors and then it is fine.
@CapnRex101, but also thanks to this nice article !
So... we are owed a huge UCS sandcrawler of twice the length and width of a 75059. Is that the reason for those new tracks under the upcoming D11T?
@Aanchir said:
"Of course, your point about speeder bikes and larger starships are just a couple examples of why a totally uniform scale isn’t always the best. Minifigs are very oddly proportioned by nature — their heads and the width of their bodies are way larger in proportion to their height than with real people, and also there is little difference between their sitting and standing heights due to their short, stubby legs. So especially for a set like Luke’s Landspeeder where the occupants’ torsos and heads stick out of the vehicle, a larger scale LOOKS more accurate to the on-screen version than the scale of a set like the UCS Millennium Falcon where the occupants are fully enclosed."
This is absolutely spot on. The perception of minifigure-scale is paramount, regardless of actual accurate scale and particularly when the characters are exposed inside the vehicle.
@xxtrainzfanxx said:
"Interesting read! So according to this, cavegods sandcrawler (which is around 94 cm long) is super close to minifig scale. I am building mould kings version at the moment (bought the instructions from cavegod out of respect, just no way to afford the actual pieces in lego) and I always wondered just how close it is in scale since the jawas next to the tracks look perfect "
I believe Cavegod intended the model to be minifigure-scale and I would consider it such. There are multiple methods for establishing the scale and anything within 10% of around 95cm would be sufficient for the Sandcrawler, in my opinion.
@Phoenixio said:
"Scale is tough because you have to consider all 3 dimensions. Using one makes for a good approximation, but the minifigure is disproportionate in width as well. It's why a lot of vehicles look wrong with minifigs and can't accommodate two side-by-side.
So for full functionality, sets should probably include proper scaling for height, depth and width, but that would make a lot of real-life items look more stubby."
Yes, with the 1:41 scale of the article more emphasis is put on figure height. This works for most vehicles but the smaller walkers like AT-RT and AT-ST are missing width, especially the latters 2009 version can barely manage one pilot. This is why the common AT-ST mocs with Bionicle ball joints go the route of recent official sets and veer towards 1:32 or 1:35 scale which is frankly too large, especially when they then go on to put them next to 1:41 starships, but it easily allows 2 seats and interior.
I myself go by the same rule of comparing fig height to vehicles most of the time but the issues with that are easy to circumvent on small starfighters compared to models dependent on interiors. I wonder how I will solve the AT-RT and AT-ST issues once I am man enough to tackle them.
And lets not bring utensils, weapons and furniture into the equation, man they love to look really awkward.
Oh how much I would give for an AT-UT.
Scale is a weird thing. You'd initially think it would be as easy, as just scaling down everything by the same amount and everything would look 100% like the real thing, just smaller. Well our mind likes to play tricks on us. For example those small 1:55 cars tend to have sized up wheels, because the wheel size that should actually be on there would look pretty weird in scale (some manufacturers actually do those, but they usually target other audiences).
There is actually also a thing about colors, that ends up looking inaccurate in smaller scales, making people mix lighter colors and create fake shadows, but that's a whole other can of worms, that scale modelers have to deal with.
Another thing, physical limitations: As a scale modeler I'm painfully aware of this one. No matter how accurate we try to be, there is stuff like wires, cables, sheet metal, etc. that are just physically impossible to replicate in 1:72, 1:48, 1:35 or even 1:32. Either you leave them out completely, which you can absolutely do, but there are a lot of instances, where it looks a lot better, if you install a way to thick wire for the scale, because there actually is something there that increases the amount of detail.
At least in Lego form it's a lot easier to mask scale inaccuracies, because there is no actual solid point of reference scale wise. A minifig is intrinsically a really bad estimate of the human form factor, so everything else is a lot easier to sell as "somewhat in scale".
A particularly bad scale sin throughout the Lego themes were probably the "Tiny Turbos" with their more or less 1:55 cars combined with "Minifig scale" infrastructure (that actually worked pretty well for the playset nature of the Tiny Turbos theme).
I once heard that the UCS Millenium Falcon, the basis for the list, is actually slightly too big by a very small margin.
Nice to know that a minifig-scale Venator class Star Destoyer would just about fit in my back yard. Yellowing due to UV exposure would be terrible though, sitting out in the sun all year...
Excellent analysis and article. I like how the original 1999 Landspeeder set is the most accurate size although my favorite is the 2017 version. Man, I've been at this a long time!
You can just see some pro MOCer looking at those Star Destroyer measurements, thinking - "challenge accepted" ;-)
But the 'problem' is the minifigs anyway, not the scale. They're chibi and cute, and that follows in to the models to a degree. The more articulated Mega Brands figures (especially on Halo vehicles) look a lot more accurate, but have nowhere near the character and charm of Lego.
I'm a little late but the AT-RT section shows the Clone Turbo Tank in the description.
Great list tho!
I like how you get a "Canon reference length" from the "Canonical reference book".
@SpinyDino said:
"I'm a little late but the AT-RT section shows the Clone Turbo Tank in the description.
Great list tho!"
Because there is an AT-RT in the Clone Turbo Tank
So original series Starship Enterprise would be 7 metres long
Fantastic article, really enjoyed it! Thank you
Surprised by the fact the newest x wing is actually the closest match in terms of scale
@marengho said:
"As I am always telling, 3 studs per meter or for foot fetishists a little over one stud per foot"
As an American I can confirm that we’re armpit fetishists, not foot fetishists.
I wanted an article like this so much honestly, there was a thread on the Brickset Forum (I think?) from years ago that went over the closest Star Wars sets to Minifigure scale. They only had a few but it was still pretty cool.
I extended my 75103 First Order Transporter by 12 studs so it could hold 20 stormtroopers in two rows of 10. It now measures 39.4 cm. So another 4 studs would make it nearly exact! As it is, I had to turn the troopers' helmets about 45° to fit- the helmets are a little more than two studs front-to-back. I also modified the cockpit to have a Transparent Brown front so the pilot can see.
Great article!
I'm hoping this is all a bit of a tease for the reveal of a spot-on minifig scale AT-AT - especially considering the use of AT-ATs in the article's thumbnail.
Ah, 'scale'...the boon and bane of collecting in miniature...anything, really:).
I remember hearing that yeeeears ago; when Kenner had 'Star Wars', someone pointed out their Falcon wasn't 'proper scale'. Their counter was: if it was, no kid could lift it (not to mention, how fewer could've afforded it).
I also remember WEG putting out a game called 'Star Warriors', a SW space battle game using square cardstock counters for the fighters...but they actually made Star Destroyers counters in shape (of the first trilogy Destroyers), and relative size to the fighters. In the rule book, WEG mentioned not making Super Star Destroyers as they be 'a foot long in length', and the Death Star would be "the size of the average basement"; so in 'scenarios', WEG included 'the trench run'. No battle on its surface, nor battle get to it, not even a variant to recreate 'the tunnel run' (from 'Jedi'). Oh, and I made SSDs; because I WANTED SSDs (legal size sheet, rough-out a shape along a diagonal-axis, cut, use...:)).
I recently discussed the scale issues with the different Hailfire models, but I went by 1:48 scale. At that scale, every 1/4” represents 1’, and 6’ tall person would be 1.5”. A minifig, shaved and excluding the stud), happens to be 1.5” tall. At this scale, by the 22’/6.8m height I used for my calculation, the 8” tall Technic model is about 45% larger than it should be. If you go by the 8.5m length, the 9-1/4” long model is still 14” too long. By this same scale, the new X-Wing that people complained was too tiny is actually still 12.5% on the long side. But, unbelievable as it sounds, at 1:48 scale, the plane from the recent Amelia Earhart GWP is only off by a small fraction of a stud. In real life, this is a plane that seats seven. One pilot, and three rows of two seats below and aft. This is a plane that people complained should have been at least twice as long, but if you actually look up photos of Earhart with the plane, it’s spot on...based strictly on a minifig’s height.
That’s the awkward thing about minifig scale. The Earhart plane has a fuselage that’s just four studs wide, but the bare minimum to seat two minifigs side-by-side is six (and even then they’ll need to roll down the windows so they can rest their arms on the sills). Based on height, cars scaled to a minifig end up looking like the polybag Elva that can’t even fit a whole minifig. Scale the model to their width, and that’s how you end up with Speed Champions producing 8-wide tanks.
My club’s layouts aren’t any better. One of our more noted builders has stated he builds to a scale that I think is one stud per foot, which is roughly 1:38 scale. My 6-wide cars should theoretically be the same scale, but end up looking large. Trains, also at 6-wide, are seriously undersized (I think I’ve heard 12-wide stated as the most accurate size for train cars). And that’s where my design philosophy comes in. When building to “minifig scale”, you can build for accuracy, you can build to look good, or you can try to find some happy medium between the two.
Minifig scale star killer base or plants/moons such as naboo, endor lol
@PjtorXmos:
Die-cast cars like Hot Wheels or Matchbox also tend to have exaggerated curves because they wouldn’t read properly if accurately scaled. For the same reason, Barbie has grotesquely exaggerated proportions to a real person, because otherwise the clothing wouldn’t hang properly on her body (in scale, the material used for her clothing would be about half an inch thick, and super stiff).
TIE 8087 Defender?
Good stuff! I've thought about something like this (and put together a little spreadsheet for the UCS some time ago), so it's great to see it done for all the major movie vehicles. That must've been a lot of work.
"Canon sources sometimes give a length of 23.40 metres, but that describes the fully armoured BTL-B Y-wing Starfighter deployed during the Clone Wars, rather than its later stripped-down equivalent."
I'll admit that's exactly where my mind went when I read the title, it was the source of much debate and wrong assumptions when 75181 came out. Needn't have worried though, the Captain doesn't make rookie mistakes like that.
Minifigure scale Great Spirt Robot when?
Okay I said this as a joke, but now I'm curious. Given Rex's method here, a minifig scale GSR would be
By Faber Measurement: 128.38 Kilometers
By Farshtey Measurement: 294.71 Kilometers
For reference, The Earth's Diameter is around 12,742 Kilometers
@Darth_Mule said:
" @Volfogg said:
"Where's the star destroyer or death star calculation???"
For those who haven't noticed, those sets are very much not minifigure scale.
The death star would be 1:41.369 of the moon."
Insert obligatory "That's no moon" joke here.
Well I’ve got 10 on this list, so I guess my collection is pretty well scaled. Of course it may be 13 if I include the Death Star, Corellian Corvette, and Nebulon B.
However while I’m sure that no other set could be as incredibly under scaled as the Death Star, it makes me wonder which other themes have sets that are way under scaled. I’m guessing that the Black Gate from Lord of the Rings would have to be one of the worst excluding some of the skyline architecture sets.
I'd like to see the math done to calculate how close (or far) these "closest" sets are in terms of scale...and then see them ranked from closest to Death Star. :)
Also, I was curious how The Ghost would do (since I know it's WAY undersized, but I'm not sure how much)...but alas, it wasn't on the list.
It's nice to see that most of the fighters are almost upto scale.
@PDelahanty said:
"Also, I was curious how The Ghost would do (since I know it's WAY undersized, but I'm not sure how much)...but alas, it wasn't on the list."
Article was written well before midnight so no sign of a ghost at that time...
The Ghost is 43,9 metres long which results in 132 studs or 1m5cm which is pretty much accurate for brickvaults Ghost which you can find on rebrickable or on my shelf next to the sandcrawler. And a minifigur looks good next to it.
It's nice to see confirmation that ships have grown out of proportion these last few years. Whenever people talk about the UCS Falcon being minifig scale, I can't do anything but shake my head in disbelief. The play set versions feel so perfect. The 2018 TIE also feels way oversized to me, so I guess when people say that's minifig scale it's because it looks good next to the UCS Falcon, which means this year's TIE is a pefect fit for the normal Falcons.
And people laughed when I said 75301 was the most accurately scaled X-Wing!!! I'm going to be linking this article a lot - thanks CapnRex
@Norikins said:
"I once heard that the UCS Millenium Falcon, the basis for the list, is actually slightly too big by a very small margin."
That was probably someone going by 1:42 or 1:48 scale, common model kit scales.
Regarding the X-wing, most renditions are approximately accurate. The examples released between 2004 and 2018 are slightly too large and 75301 Luke Skywalker's X-wing Fighter is very slightly too small, but is the closest by about five millimetres.
@alfred_the_buttler said:
"However while I’m sure that no other set could be as incredibly under scaled as the Death Star, it makes me wonder which other themes have sets that are way under scaled. I’m guessing that the Black Gate from Lord of the Rings would have to be one of the worst excluding some of the skyline architecture sets. "
You could represent the scale accuracy graphically using either the ratio of model size to minifigure-scale size (as provided in CapnRex’s article) or the scale of scale accuracy I suggested earlier in the comments (which is also based on those ratios). To make the visualisation mobile-friendly, you would want to arrange them vertically with the most accurate at the top to the least accurate at the bottom.
Great article! This makes me wonder if there's a niche market for micro/nano figure scale vehicles? It would be interesting to have a LEGO Tantive IV at that scale of roughly 1 meter long... It might also work well for a new, and slightly smaller UCS Sandcrawler (or an MTT or Clone Turbo Tank) that's actually nanofig-scale, or even a Star Wars location à la HP Hogwarts Castle with nanofigs.
@DBMartin:
Millennium Falcon 7778 looks like it’s close to the trophy figs in scale. Beyond that, there might be some polybag or Advent Calendar models that are the same scale.
The buildings and locations seem to be the most out of scale, from the Death star to Cloud City, but wonder how far 75290 Mos Eisley Cantina is out? Guessing would 2x or 3x the size be about right?
@ambr:
Are we talking the entire city of Mos Eisley, or just the portion that’s represented by the set? I think Chalmun’s Bar in the current set is probably a lot closer to minifig scale than most of the vehicles on this list. Cloud City gets a bit trickier, since it’s depicting a small portion of the whole, but presented in a way that also represents the whole (same for the two Death Star playsets).
I love these deep-dive articles, but I think this one might be too comprehensive for its own good — I quickly got bored of scrolling thru all of the stats without any additional analysis.
I think it would have been more interesting to highlight a subset of ships, like the ones that were the closest to actual mini figure scale. Then perhaps follow-up articles about ones that are further away from “true” minifig scale.
Having said that, I’m still always impressed by articles like these, and they are my second favorite part of Brickset (after the comprehensive set database).
@BJNemeth said:
"I love these deep-dive articles, but I think this one might be too comprehensive for its own good — I quickly got bored of scrolling thru all of the stats without any additional analysis.
I think it would have been more interesting to highlight a subset of ships, like the ones that were the closest to actual mini figure scale. Then perhaps follow-up articles about ones that are further away from “true” minifig scale.
Having said that, I’m still always impressed by articles like these, and they are my second favorite part of Brickset (after the comprehensive set database)."
Whilst I enjoyed the article, this bothered me a bit too. I really enjoyed the glimmer of extra analysis we got with the gunship and would have really like to see this expanded for the entire article taking a dive into exactly where each set suffers scale issues and analysing the best methods to improve scale for the minifigures.
Thank you! This article is a fantastic resource. Much appreciated…
Thank you so much for this article. I started doing something similar a little while back but never finished it.
I have often wished that every Star Wars set was to minifigure scale. I guess to keep every age group satisfied, varying price points, along with the lack of parts, means this will always prove to be difficult.
@BJNemeth:
Think if it as less recreational and more resource. A few years from now, if you want to know how close a particular model is to minifig scale, you can refer back to this article. If you’re trying to build a diorama, this could be helpful for picking which builds to incorporate. Or if you end up in an argument over which set is more accurately scaled, this is like having a copy of the Guinness Book of World Records at a bar.
@SpinyDino said:
"I'm a little late but the AT-RT section shows the Clone Turbo Tank in the description.
Great list tho!"
I just realized i was incorrect sorry!
Forgot to mention last time: Thank You @CapnRex101 , for using Boba and Jango Fetts' ship's PROPER NAME...yesh, don't know what's worse: revisionist history, or the name their trying to replace it with...But I digress...
@PurpleDave : Reading over your various points about scale and other toy lines; and you are, of course right. Reminds me of another toy line, one of SW's competitors back-in-the-day: G.I. Joe.
-Back in '83; I got the 'Skystriker', based on an F-14 Tomcat...through 'current eyes', I'm guessing it was out of scale for 3 3/4 inch, but that's not the point...
-Two year later, Hasbro released the 'U.S.S. Flagg'...the 'Joes' dedicated aircraft carrier. Let me write those left two word down again: AIRCRAFT CARRIER...in 3 3/4 inch scale...8|. As big as it was (had second-hand 'sightings' as a friend, who I trust, had a friend who had one...oh, and a local comic store got a 'scrap condition' one, the owner wants to take a shot of repairing...), there nooooo waaaaay the 'Flagg' was accurate. Memory serves; the one I saw was too 'skinny'. Likewise, I also believe the thing isn't long enough...but if were, compound 'the Falcon Problem' with a storage issue (funny story: My friend's friend's dad put hinges on that Flagg; so it could be folded/'sandwiched' for storage)
Excellent article!
@MrKoshka said:
" @gorf43 said:
"As someone who is (unusually) interested in scale and how minifigs relate to it, this is probably my favorite article Ive read on Brickset. Thanks for putting so much effort into this CapnRex101. I really enjoyed this!"
Same and same. This was a slice of heaven.
Star Destroyer and Death Star could have been fun additions just to put their true magnitude in another perspective. Minifig scale Imperial Destroyer would be about 24.4m long based on their purported length of around 1km. "
ISD is about 1 mile long, approx 1.6km.
@brick_r:
Yeah, I can’t find actual dimensions, but it looks like the Skystriker was under 2’ long. At exactly 2’ it would represent a plane that’s 38’4” long compared to the action figures. The real F-14 is just barely narrower than that with the wings closed, and was nearly 63’ long. I’ve got “Battle of the X-Planes” on DVD. It’s a Nova episode about the real design competition for the Joint Strike Fighter project that produced the F-35. The plane it ended up beating for the contract was the X-32, a dinky little sci-fi styled single-seater plane that’s still 45’ long. So, yeah, the Skystriker would probably be smaller than the P-51 Mustang.
As for the Flagg, at 6’ long, that would only be 115’ long. Even helicopter carriers seem to start at about five times that length. The USS Gerald R Ford is right around 100x that length. I can’t find any hard numbers, but based on photos, I think I did find one “aircraft carrier” that was shorter. In 1849, the SMS Vulcano became the first “balloon carrier”, when it was used to launch bombs carried by hot air balloons against Venice. Over 40 years earlier, the 127’ HMS Pallas was used to launch kites bearing propaganda against Napoleon. So, when you get down to the length of a football field, you’re largely talking about unmanned aircraft, or at max maybe one small helicopter.
But I probably asked to get the Flagg for Christmas. And my parents probably laughed at the idea. Even at 6’ long, finding a place to store it would be difficult. Make it 30’ long, and you’d need to have it delivered as freight. And build a playroom out back to house it.
My preferred minifig scale is one stud per foot, ie one stud per twelve inches. That's quite a bit larger than many of the numbers quoted here, but it's easy to calculate and it's well within the range of allowable minifig scales based on different measurements of the minifig.
I've always considered the UCS 75060 to be a proper minifig scaled version of that ship.
@iwybs:
I did mention that one member of my LUG specifically builds in that scale. Besides being easy to calculate, many features on buildings, like windows and doors, are built in 6” increments, so it also scales well.
When I build cars, I stick to 6-wide. Most of them are completely original designs, so there’s nothing to scale them off of, but I was able to figure out an easy way to make bucket seats, and then a bench seat, both of which allow two minifigs to sit side-by-side in a car that’s only six studs wide (and no cheating by moving Chewie’s seat back one stud). Build them any smaller and the cars look like go-carts. Build them any larger and the minifigs look like toddlers. There are a few limited exceptions. The first 8-wide vehicle I built was a box truck. Many of them look like they have van cabs, but with a cargo box that sticks out a bit wider, so I did a 6-wide cab with an 8-wide cargo box. Next was my vintage Routemaster bus, because busses also tend to be wider to accommodate 2x2 seating with a center aisle (mine only allows one minifig per seat, and some seats won’t even accommodate a minifig unless it’s missing one arm). Then, I built Lightning McQueen and Holley Shiftwell 8-wide. I originally designed Lightning to be 6-wide, and he looked fine on the computer, but stretched out when an built the first prototype. Comparing the die-cast cars I’d been working from, they both are notably wider than any of the other Pixar Cars cars that I’ve designed, so my MOCs are as well. Finally, there’s the Shellraiser. A ground-up redesign of 79104, I figured the same logic from the Routemaster applied to subway cars, so the body is 8-wide (it also allowed more complete features on the two ends). And then the giant wheels bump it up to 13-wide, which sometimes poses a challenge for our club layouts, as I like to run it on the train tracks. Only a few of the bridges other club members have built can accommodate its width, and tunnels and train stations are right out. Another member sometimes likes to add the Detroit People Mover to our layouts, and the wheels will knock the 4-stud stanchions out from under it if he runs it down the gap between the tracks.