RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Tiger6 wrote:Both are static replica's - check the website on the placard infront of the spitfire for info. I think these guys were at Wicksted at War last year.

I did, and I spoke to the guys running the show. They're not replicas, inasmuch as they are based on genuine shells, though some fibreglass parts have been added. Crucial parts are still missing, just as they are on many RAF gate guardians.

To the best of my understanding, the difference is that you can make a gate guardian airworthy by building a whole new airplane around a verifiable serial number plate because in the eyes of the authorities you are repairing the aircraft, not building a new one. All of the restored aircraft you see flying have enough of a verifiable history to meet the requirement to maintain the original identity, and any new bits have had to be able to demonstrate they were made and assembled to the same specs as the original parts.

The bio on these 2 reads very much like they would not meet those requirements, and as such at the very least the CAA would require extensive inspection and testing in order to grant a permit to fly as new build replicas. I can recall a new build FW190 sitting around at Duxford a few years ago, which ended up having be sold to the US (where the FAA is a little less picky about these things) because the owner could not get a permit to fly it in the UK for this very reason.

The other issue is that if whoever built the replica did not have the appropreate paperwork to say he was competent in the eyes of the CAA (or his ticket had expired) then no certificate will ever be issued unless the whole lot is torn down and started over again.

These are not a case of "not airworthy anymore" - they were never airworthy to begin with

Gary enquired whether they are full-scale. They are. They are also accurate static representations of two famed WW2 fighters; built mostly from original parts (fuselage etc..); intended to please the eye and inform. That they did. They looked amazing.
I was told it would be possible, theoretically, to assemble a flyable plane from- at the very least the Spitfire; but that the cost would be make such a project completely unfeasible. I had no reason to doubt what I was told, and besides, it was a lovely sunny fun day. Way too pleasant for protracted enquiries, rivet counting, and niggles.
The major parts from which they were assembled were once airworthy, and thus it's not unreasonable to state that they are no longer 'airworthy'; since that is a fact. Museums often have cobbled together tanks, and it's not necessary that they be 'combat ready' in order to fulfil their current representational function. The Tiger 1 in the Munster Panzer Museum is a true replica, however, in that it is composed almost entirely
of various plastics and some metal alloys, and never was a Tiger. My understanding is that these fighters were once, at least in a good part, fighters. CAA considerations, and licensing don't come into it, as the possibility of rebuilding these examples to a flyable condition was purely hypothetical, and according the the 'Pilot' in the RAF uniform, something of a pipe dream.
. ..and I really would like to have them as my gate guardians.
Now, perhaps we should return to the Tamiya MG theme..

Dare l ask... how accurate is the MG on HL's KT?

Sent from my ASUS_T00G using Tapatalk

Excellcent question, gald you asked...
It has a round barrel as noted previously, so it is an MG34. Unfortunately I don't have mine handy to "count the rivets" or whatever, but a quick google (to check my facts) throws up a length of 1.22 meters overall, which scaled down to 1/16 comes out at 76.25mm or 3" in old money. The shape maybe looks a *little* off, based on the image on Forgebear's site, but its not a million miles off.

You might find these videos interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoxAe0eWRow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-KgQ-OZJZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJkU4Sah8I

A picture of HL v Trumpeter mg34. HL is right length but the volume is way off. The Trumpeter even has the bracket for the Schumo mg holder its a snug fit on the half round support for the mg. It even has a loading cover , could have the clip open ready for an ammunition belt.

It does look a little annemic doesn't it? Not sure what could be done to cure it tho.

Didn't both the Tank MG34s have the smooth armoured barrel in which case there are after market bits for the cupola one such as ABERs Armoured MG34 Barrel and AAA Ring sights and Asiatams MG Cupola mount.

Just tried a mod on the MG 42 .If i buy them they are about 15-20 euro for a nice mg34 plus postage. This way is free, and i have another 2 if i mess 1st one up. Almost done apart sights.