Subject:
|
Re: OT: Crane madness
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:22:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2720 times
|
| |
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rosscraw@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:I7EIq5.4qF@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.technic, Steve Lane wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> > > http://zattevrienden.realroot.be/depanneren.htm
> > >
> > > Sorry if this has already been posted, I'm not in the loop anymore (and • to
> > > lazy to run a better search).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > /Tobbe still out there
> >
> > Thats brilliant Tobbe. I thought the first truck looked a bit unstable • in the
> > second picture, and then when I scrolled down I saw it was {very} • unstable
> > :-).
> >
> > The operator should probably have lifted over the cab rather than the • side,
> > as the vehicle would have been much less prone to rolling then, although • I'd
> > have thought even a lorry that small would have had outriggers.
>
> Lifting over the front can have its problems too if you
<http://www.craneconsultants.com/images/CraneMishaps/Demag-HC-1010/LARGE/DSC
00006.JPG
> ignore the weight chart>.
>
> > The crane on
> > the second lorry is massive, it would be the basis of a great model.
>
> Sure would.
Rembember the crane on the TG-A I have in progress?
Well, its probably a crane the same size, but I still have a jibb on it.
And still I will claim to be the first have a jibb on a crane attached to a
truckchassis.
regards
>
> ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: OT: Crane madness
|
| (...) Lifting over the front can have its problems too if you (URL) the weight chart>. (...) Sure would. ROSCO (20 years ago, 19-Nov-04, to lugnet.technic, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
