To call the rails a travesty is putting it mildly, so I decided to replace them with more accurate ones. I referred to George Bradford's 1914-1938 AFVs, but found that inaccurate as wel in both position and shapel, so I started looking in detail at the Brussels MkIV - Max had sent me detailed pictures of a walk around he did. Whether this tank is "correct" or not, I don't know, but it enabled me to do some drawings of all the connectors.
Will anybody who has detailed knowledge of the rails or knows of drawings, please let me know, but in the meantime, I attach my sketches for comment.
THAT'S INTERESTING - THE BLASTED DRAWINGS AREN'T THERE!!!
Does anybody know why the drawings haven't come out on the posting (size?)???
It would appear as if the drawings didn't come throTo call the rails a travesty is putting it mildly, so I decided to replace them with more accurate ones. I referred to George Bradford's 1914-1938 AFVs, but found that inaccurate as wel in both position and shapel, so I started looking in detail at the Brussels MkIV - Max had sent me detailed pictures of a walk around he did. Whether this tank is "correct" or not, I don't know, but it enabled me to do some drawings of all the connectors.
Will anybody who has detailed knowledge of the rails or knows of drawings, please let me know, but in the meantime, I attach my sketches for comment.
So am I - trying to do the airship tug. Looked at a previous model magazine article on the subject, where it stated that it had to be a male tank, whereas the pictures definitely show a female tank!
Once I have got the rails sorted out, I then work out where the gantry goes; the drgs done by George Bradford seem to show the gantry being built of the unditching beam rails - this would be farcical when you think that the tank is towing an airship 535 ft long, with a capacity of nearly one million cubic feet. The inertia on this thing would be pretty enormous, especially if you consider that the tank wouldn't have had a very smooth silky start!
Thanks Gwyn, much heartburn with this "no image" thing.
I'll now do a new post showing the photos I used as reference.
One point that came up after I had done the one top-central drawing was that I showed the lateral support as two equal angles. Closer inspection would suggest that either an upside-down T-section was used or cold-rolled plate section, much thinner than the angles.
Also, the first silencer/expansion box sits on a light steel plate.
In so far as the EMHAR kit goes is the interesting discovery (to me) that the lateral support steel did NOT go right through to the edge of the track, but stopped some 133 mm inside the track edge. Bit of a bugger to correct, but it has to be done.
