Re: new[TANKS]

["Derek Engelhaupt" <tankme-at-gmail.com>]

Well, I knew it would be around 55", but that is what is the cool part to me.  Being that it would be my second tank, battling would be it's secondary job.  It's first job would be for me to crush small children and animals.....lol.

 

Derek

 

On 11/8/06, Thomas Lum <tlum-at-mac.com> wrote:

I'm building an Abrams now and struggled with the proper scale in which to build.  I also arrived at 1/7th as a happy comprimise with logic versus enthusiasm.  (but not before building all three chassis sizes and looking at them)  At 1/6 scale, the tank w/o cannon was 52 inches long and 15.5 inches tall, a virtual billboard for paintball shooting. Also, I'm partial to roller chain for tread and the length was almost 100 inches, which is a huge amount of mass to get rolling.  I also wanted a decent amount of power and speed to work with and it was just going to be too cumbersome, especially if woods orclose quarters were a battlefield.  At 1/8 scale the hull came in at just over 3 foot long but the width was too narrow in the hull and I was afraid of not fitting the motors, transmission and suspension in a box only   10.4 inches wide.  So 1/7 seems good. 16 inches less track length, almost 12 inches in hull width and a good comprimise between soze and agility.  I'll let you kn!
ow, and I can always buy more roller chain!
Tom


On Wednesday, November 08, 2006, at 05:31PM, "Derek Engelhaupt" <tankme-at-gmail.com> wrote:
>If I ever get around to building an Abrams, it will be 1/6 also for the very
>same reason.  ;)
>
>Derek
>
>
>On 11/8/06, Aahz. <ErickKilmer-at-comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Polanik wrote:
>> > I didn't go 1/6 th becouse it would have been huge.
>> >
>>
>>    heh, I went with the full 1/6th *because* it would be huge :)
>>
>> Aahz.
>>
>