Re: Introduction [TANKS]

["Peter Arundel" <pureteenlard-at-hotmail.com>]

I can't build a Churchill if you are! And it would be about 4 feet long in 
1:6th scale, if I recall correctly.
I am a bit of a suspension nut. It's a sort of obsession. I used to build 
car suspension systems out of technical lego when I was younger and I 
couldn't build a tank without suspending it in a way that was similar to the 
original. It just wouldn't seem right.

Pete.


>From: "Marc en Wendy" <marcmethorst-at-zonnet.nl>
>Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>To: <tanks-at-rctankcombat.com>
>Subject: Re: Introduction [TANKS]
>Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:21:15 +0200
>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>>Next I thought about a Churchill III but the damn thing would need 22
>>>suspension bogies and I don't know if I can be arsed to build
>>>that many. On
>>>the plus side the hull and side sponsons would be fairly easy to
>>>make and,
>>>more importantly, to make strong.
>
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>>My vote is for the Churchill.  Build it with no suspension, or if you have
>>to have one, suspend the road wheels in groups of two or three.  leave the
>>mud guards off.  it looks meaner that way.
>
>
>I'm working on a Churchill Mk3 because it's the ugliest tank around on the 
>battlefield, especially because it's got the tracks exposed.
>No pictures yet of the project, I just made the drawings and am scrounging 
>parts.
>I say have a go with the Churchill type, I'm curious to see what you come 
>up with.
>
>BTW: do you have any idea about the size in 1:6 scale? I do :-)
>
>Marc
>