o wrote:
>
>> T067 was last weighed at over 180lbs
>>
>> --
>> *From:* rctankcombat@googlegroups.com [rctankcombat@googlegroups.com] on
>> behalf of Kurt Gutbrodt [gutra...@yahoo.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:52
; *From:* rctankcombat@googlegroups.com [rctankcombat@googlegroups.com] on
> behalf of Kurt Gutbrodt [gutra...@yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:52 AM
> *To:* rctankcombat@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [TANKS] 3' or 1:7 or 1:6?
>
>58 pounds??? Man, my Brumm (
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: [TANKS] 3' or 1:7 or 1:6?
T080 is 1/6 scale, which makes it about 30" long. Other than everything being
a tight fit, I like the size. I've never been in a battle, but I think smaller
is a harder target. Also, it is 58 lbs, and I
, November 14, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: [TANKS] 3' or 1:7 or 1:6?
T080 is 1/6 scale, which makes it about 30" long. Other than everything being
a tight fit, I like the size. I've never been in a battle, but I think smaller
is a harder target. Also, it is 58 lbs, and I would
SV015 was built to the 36" rule which happened to be very close to 1/6th
scale. T081 was built to the 36" rule which ends up around 1:7.8 scale. The
now cancelled Merkava IV was built to 1/6th scale. It would have been 52"
long, 28" wide, and 18" high.
Right now, I won't intentionally buil
t out on Nov 15 at 9AM (tomorrow). How did
you do that?
Bill
--- On Mon, 11/14/11, Ben Holko wrote:
From: Ben Holko
Subject: RE: [TANKS] 3' or 1:7 or 1:6?
To: "rctankcombat@googlegroups.com"
Date: Monday, November 14, 2011, 10:32 PM
#yiv841605667 P {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;MA
T067 was built to 1/6
M113 under construction is also built to 1/6, which puts it at about 75cm (29.5
inches)
Apart from the practical considerations of having to move the vehicle around, I
think bigger is better.
Ben
From: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com [rctan
