Tango01  | 10 Jun 2016 9:59 p.m. PST |
Cool!
1/35.
More here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Andy ONeill | 11 Jun 2016 2:41 a.m. PST |
Nice kit, I used to do finescale modelling in 1/35th. Did you notice the first picture in the series of markings is a captured su122 with german crosses on it?
There's a lot of modellers who are only interested in German stuff. |
| John Treadaway | 11 Jun 2016 2:54 a.m. PST |
It's terribly impressive. I wouldn't have the patience to build it (not in this lifetime anyway) but as a demonstration of how cramped the fighting compartment is, it's perfect. John T |
 Extra Crispy  | 11 Jun 2016 8:33 a.m. PST |
Is that track built one link at a time? |
| Rubber Suit Theatre | 11 Jun 2016 9:00 a.m. PST |
It appears to have an approximation of working track pins (probably hinges) so that the track will hang like a real one. Those crinkles under the road wheels are exactly what happens if you aren't on flat concrete. |
| Andy ONeill | 11 Jun 2016 9:05 a.m. PST |
Is that track built one link at a time?
Yes. If a kit doesn't come with separate links for tracks, most model makers would buy some an after market set. You can get a far better effect that way. You can see the individual pieces in the sprue photos.
I should think those'll be pretty easy in 1/35. |
| ArmymenRGreat | 11 Jun 2016 9:17 a.m. PST |
That's really neat! So cramped! Now I have an appreciation for how much room the ammo takes up. The other thing I noticed is that all of the suspension towers are angled back (forward?? road wheel rear of mount anyway). I wonder if that was necessary to take some of the stress off. |
| Tango01 | 11 Jun 2016 10:39 a.m. PST |
Happy you enjoyed it my friends. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
 Endless Grubs | 11 Jun 2016 12:44 p.m. PST |
I haven't built a model in decades but that looks great! I may have to try it! |
| Steve Wilcox | 11 Jun 2016 1:07 p.m. PST |
Wow, that looks amazing! One of my favourite AFVs, too! :) |
| Mark 1 | 11 Jun 2016 5:50 p.m. PST |
I am VERY impressed. A fascinating study of the insides of an SU-122, model or no model!
I noticed …the suspension towers are angled back (forward??…). I wonder if that was necessary to take some of the stress off.
I doubt the stress was the reason. The road wheels were mounted on trailing arms (pivot in front of the wheel axle) with the coil spring to control vertical travel. Because of the trailing arm the wheel would actually travel in a semi-circle curving towards the front as it displaced upwards, so the forward slope to the springs was not unreasonable. Still it was likely just a means of putting more spring travel in the same height. Remember that lower hull height was considered a value, and and the rear of the deck sloped inward. All of those factors might contribute to the design. Still this model does give a very vivid illustration of the amount of interior space taken by the Christie suspension. I am somewhat surprised to see the springs enclosed in such small "towers", which from the model appear to be intruding into the interior space. In my (admittedly brief) forays into T-34s I don't recall ever observing one of those towers in the fighting compartment. -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
| emckinney | 11 Jun 2016 9:40 p.m. PST |
I am somewhat surprised to see the springs enclosed in such small "towers", which from the model appear to be intruding into the interior space. In my (admittedly brief) forays into T-34s I don't recall ever observing one of those towers in the fighting compartment. They're internal on the T-34, but there are other things mounted on the inside walls of the hull that make them blend in.
You can see two of the towers on the sides of the picture below, sloping toward the camera:
|
| Mark 1 | 11 Jun 2016 10:43 p.m. PST |
Great info on the T-34 suspension! Diagram and photo … really good stuff! Yeah, you'd have to look pretty hard to find those towers inside a T-34. All of my (admittedly few) forays have been with fully restored and operable vehicles, and quite frankly once you squeeze your body in there's hardly 2 cubic inches of empty space side-by-side inside one.
That said, the diagram (and the pics) do raise a question in my mind. I know that the Soviets made a fair few changes to the original Christie suspension, but still it looks to me like a very different concept in managing weight and vertical travel. The Christie concept, as I understand it, was a trailing wheel mounted on an L-bent arm. The wheel was on one end of the arm (the long leg of the L), while the coil spring was connected to the other end of the arm (the short leg of the L), and stretched to an anchor point in front of the arm. In this way when the wheel traveled upwards, the coil spring was STRETCHED, and when the wheel traveled downwards the coil was compressed. This was a very important consideration, as there was a limit to how far down the wheel should travel, and only an un-sprung weight of vehicle would take the spring to full compression. Adding weight caused the spring to be stretched, so that the whole vehicle was "floating" on stretched springs, for a soft ride. As it crossed terrain the wheels could displace upwards quite a bit, but it became progressively harder to move the wheel the farther up it extended (to to the limited stretch of the coil). Etc. etc. etc. But in these pics and the diagram it appears that the coil springs were in fact set up for quite the opposite. With the springs in a vertical position, it seems that they were compressed when the wheel traveled upwards, and stretched when it traveled downwards. I would expect this to make a VERY rough ride, as any significant vertical displacement would wind up "bottoming" the spring for a jarring stop to the travel. Did that explanation make sense? I hope so. Anyways, by this time, having read almost everything I could lay hands on about the T-34 since the mid-1970s, you'd think I knew how the suspension actually worked. But I'm really not sure I do know, because, well, it doesn't look like a Christie suspension to me… -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
| Tango01 | 12 Jun 2016 11:53 a.m. PST |
Glad you like it too boys!. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| LORDGHEE | 12 Jun 2016 4:51 p.m. PST |
|
| emckinney | 12 Jun 2016 9:18 p.m. PST |
The Soviet tanks didn't use Christie suspensions, depending on how you define a Christie suspension. There's a lot of wrong information out there based on ignorance and bias/credit claiming on the part of American and British authors who didn't want to admit that the Russians could do anything except use somebody else's ideas …
The Wehrmacht provided this excellent cutaway view of the spring towers:
Here's a good view of an actual Christie suspension on an M1917A1 six-ton.
The BT series tanks didn't really use Christie suspensions either, which made them hideously tall. Of course, they also had the complication of steerable wheel, which made things worse and also added weight (see how long the control bars are?).
|
