 | | This doesn't look right —Steve Lane
|
| | | Surely this trailers to big? (URL) (23 years ago, 3-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: This doesn't look right —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) to me. The bed needs to be that meaty, first of all because the tank is that wide, but also because tanks are hideously heavy and need a very structurally sound trailer. (Why don't they drive the tanks? Because the tanks eat fuel way too (...) (23 years ago, 3-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: This doesn't look right —Steve Lane
|
| | | | | | (...) My point was that compared with European/US equipment I've never seen a tank transporter where the trailer is twice as long as the tank. It also seems to dwarf the tractor unit. Surely this size would impede off-road ability? Steve (23 years ago, 3-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: This doesn't look right —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) It doesn't dwarf the tractor unit. Look in the photo gallery-- there's one of the vehicle with tank and trailer, in profile. The trailer is indeed twice the length of the tank, but the cab isn't THAT much smaller than the tank itself. The (...) (23 years ago, 3-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: This doesn't look right —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) feedback on a model. But when I went to the page, I see you're not. That's an actual real thing that actually got built and is being bought, presumably, by somebody somewhere. The prototype *is* what it is. There is no "too big" or "too (...) (23 years ago, 4-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
