1/35 DIY RC KingTiger from Dragon models

[ylp020]

To Mikewint: I read the whole post of Mr.Wayne Little in the morning,and learn a lot from it. Thank you.The pastel chalks here we also used on some specific occassions,like german estern-front camouflage.Its a really nice way. but i have to say it's not universal.
Wash ,you dont need to repanit the model if you do it right .Just make the enamel thin enough like some kind of "coloured thinner". you can do it multi times to match the final result.
To Mr Jan:Holy sh*t.....that's quite crazy,you mean just few weeks?You shouldn't get any others if you want to built them all before you retired.(^^)
#1: Most parts of this Italeri kit are good.But the concrete-like rubber tracks almost kill me while i built it.you might change it for a metal or MK ones.
#2: Dragon's new tighr is good,detail of DS tracks is also good, it even have the holes in the teeth.
#3: Nice kit ,but i haven't built one yet.
#4: Be ware of the tracks.
#5: Do not to cement the guiding wheel firstly like it says on the paper. Beacuse T-34's track-link is longer than the other AFV's, you will fall into such situation if you glue the guilding wheels on.
"One more is too long ,One less is too Short"
#6: Same to #5
#7: Famous 1348 ,full internal structure tiger with good price.but most of the structures inside need to be corrected.Like the shell holder.There should be 4 rounds each layer not 3.
To imalko:Thanks, mate
* FOR THE NEW KING TIGHERS*
WOW ，thats nice!! mate.And you washed them,rigth?Looks nice~.Especially the camouflage.
BTW:what is the manufactor of the Jagdtiger?The shape of the barrel looks a little strange.

 

[javlin]

I TOLD you ylp020 that Jan guy is frigg'in nuts!! I say just "nutz"!

 

[Lucky13]

Cheers for the info Ylp, appreciated! True, I will replace the tracks on the Steyr, one of the first things that I was looking for.
Didn't know that with the T-34/SU-85.....can't always trust the instructions, eh?
Think that I'll replace most of the tracks with MK ones, as Friul's cost a bl**dy fortune!
As I mentioned before, working on a Sherman Firefly at the moment, see what comes after....

 

[ylp020]

Very much looking forward to your "Firefly".
Let me have a guess:also movable?
If it is true my kingtiger should be careful with its ass.(^_^)

 

[Lucky13]

True! Have to admit though.....still would like to get a Ausf. A Panther, Kingtiger or Jagdpanther.

Start to finish builds, Sherman Firefly Mk.IC 'Hybrid Hull'

Still to learn about the etch stuff....

 

[Airframes]

Nice King Tigers Mike. BTW, the first two (Tank 332) are the Porsche turret, the second two the Henschel production turret. Always preferred the Porsche turret design, although not many built, about 24 IIRC, all going I think to Panzer Lehr, most being lost in Normandy.

 

[mikewint]

Airframes, Henschel and Porsche designed only the chassis and automotive components. Krupp was responsible for the turret which they designed to fit both the Henschel and Porsche chassis. Krupp's initial design the P-2 Turm, which some refer to as the Porsche turret had a serious design flaw. The curved mantlet had a shot trap which deflected incoming rounds down into the tanks roof. 50 were built while a new design Serien Turm was developed. This became the production turret or as some call it the Henschel turret. the curved mantlet was replaced with 180mm armor curved at 81 degrees and brought the tanks weight to almost 70 tons

 

[Airframes]

You're quite right Mike, and I agree about the shot traps (and weaker side walls of the turret). Most references I have refer to the 'curved' turret, commonly called the Porsche turret, being attributed to the Porsche design team, although cast at the Krupp works.
Even though it had its' serious faults, it looked nice! And very 'Porsche' in shape, like a forerunner of an armoured 911 Carrera!!

 

[Lucky13]

Always prefered the Henschel myself....

 

[mikewint]

Lucky, especially if you were the driver. not fun to have an HE tank shell land in your lap
Airframes, this is what my source states:
Krupp had designed the turrets to fit both the Porsche and Henschel chassis. The initial design called P-2 Turm (or commonly known as Porsche turret) mounted a single piece (monobloc) barrel of the 88mm and had a curved mantlet in the front. The front armor was 100 mm thick, the sides were 88mm thick sloped at 60 degrees and the top armor was 40mm thick. It had space to carry 16 rounds of ammunition in the turret. However, the curved mantlet in the front acted as a shot trap by deflecting incoming shots downwards towards the roof of the hull. A new design was ordered to fix this but as an interim measure, it was decided to go ahead with the production of 50 units with this turret. This was commonly referred to as Porsche turret.
Biggest problem with the Kingtigers was the HL 230 P300 engine, the same as in the 11ton lighter Panther. At 700HP it was much too small for a 70ton vehicle. Along with constant mechanical break-downs, roads and bridges that collapsed under their weight hopelessly miring the tank, add a fuel consumption of 500L per 100km in a country running out of fuel. The vast majority were abandoned rather than knocked out by enemy action.

 

[Lucky13]

Cheers for the info Mike....

 

[Airframes]

Thanks Mike, I see now why it was generally regarded as a 'Porsche' turret. The overall design, if developed further, and with a deflecting mantlet like the Panther Ausf. G, would have made a more 'ballistically efficient' turret than the 'Henschel', but of course they didn't have the luxury of time on their side.
The bulk of those King Tigers with Pz. Lehr lost in Normandy were due to mechanical breakdown, with a lot of transmission problems due to the engine not really being up to the job.

 

[mikewint]

Airframes, yes indeed all the moving mechanical components were stressed to and beyound their limits by these 70ton tanks. The 700hp engine was the same as in the 10ton lighter Tiger I which suffered from the same types of mechanical problems and required a specialized mechanical corps with specialized equipment to maintain and repaire them. Tigers were forbidden to tow a broken down Tiger since the added stress would caus the towing tank to also break down
And the Germans were actually developing the MAUS. 100tons of tank powered by a U-boat engine

 

[ylp020]

Mike, as a mechanical engineer who design reducers everyday, I have to say that the to design MAUS's transmission sytem is desaster for a designer. Unless they use electrical system like Ferdinand's.

 

[mikewint]

The MAUS never got very far. Two prototype chassis were built without a turret.
The Porsche chassis for the Kingtiger originally as designed with an electrical transmission but the idea had to be scrapped due to lack of copper
The Maus was designed from the start to use the "electric transmission" design which Ferdinand Porsche had used in his unsuccessful attempt to win the production contract for the Tiger. The initial prototypes used a gasoline engine, the later ones were to use diesel. It drove a massive electrical generator, and together they occupied the entire central rear two-thirds of the Maus' hull, cutting off the forward driver's compartment in the hull from direct access to the turret from within the tank. Each metre-wide track, which used the same basic "contact shoe" and "connector link" design format as the Henschel-built King Tiger had used, had its own electric motor mounted in the rear of the hull; the tracks had no direct mechanical connection to the internal combustion engine that powered the Maus.

 

[Lucky13]

 

[ylp020]

Thanks Mike, for the infomation about MAUS.I did't know anything about MAUS's transmissions before.
I have been in a Locomotive HUGE factory in china.It's like a small town.
The Locomotive is just drive by 2-3 electric motor which just tied on the shaft(tooo simple to belive).And all the space in the cab is for the Deisel engine and the huge generator.

 

[mikewint]

ylp020, that's pretty neat, diesel-electrics work the same way here in the US. with electric motors there is little use for all the complication of a transmission.
Placing the throttle into the first power position will cause the traction motors to be connected to the main generator and the latter's field coils to be excited. With excitation applied, the main generator will deliver electricity to the traction motors, resulting in motion. If the locomotive is running "light" (that is, not coupled to a train) and is not on an ascending grade, it will easily accelerate. On the other hand, if a long train is being started, the locomotive may stall as soon as some of the slack has been taken up, as the drag imposed by the train will exceed the tractive force being developed. An experienced engine driver will be able to recognize an incipient stall and will gradually advance the throttle as required to maintain the pace of acceleration.

As the throttle is moved to higher power notches, the fuel rate to the prime mover will increase, resulting in a corresponding increase in RPM and horsepower output. At the same time, main generator field excitation will be proportionally increased to absorb the higher power. This will translate into increased electrical output to the traction motors, with a corresponding increase in tractive force. Eventually, depending on the requirements of the train's schedule, the engine driver will have moved the throttle to the position of maximum power and will maintain it there until the train has accelerated to the desired speed.

 

[ylp020]

God .Mike.
You must be a train driver....

 

[mikewint]

No, working on the Railroad is almost a caste system here in the states. With all the concessions the RR received from the Fed back in the early years of RR development they are almost another country. And I like machines. One of those strange people who wants to know how everything works. I like "old stuff" where you can actually "see" how it works. Used to love working on cars until some little black box under the seat took over everything