Heng Long Challenger 2.Metal Tracks and Sprokets etc.

[Pavel]

You are the first acquaintance of mine from the inhabitants of Foggy Albion who did not take my word for it.
I repeat, all these manias about "strengthening the hull" are an extra headache, wasted time, and for some, money thrown to the wind!

[Herr Dr. Professor]

Pavel and Meter rat: I had to look up "foggy Albion." Here's the first I found.

IMG_6821.jpeg (731.47 KiB) Viewed 1923 times

[Meter rat]

To brace, or not to brace? That is the question.
This has caused a bit of a stooshie.

[Pavel]

Your search engine, strange.....The Foggy Albion, has always been called Great Britain....
The famous London fogs are described in many works of writers.

[HERMAN BIX]

Yeah, Ive heard that one too Mr Pavel.
Coming from NZ it draws a lot of comparisons !!

[zooma]

You are the first acquaintance of mine from the inhabitants of Foggy Albion who did not take my word for it.
I repeat, all these manias about "strengthening the hull" are an extra headache, wasted time, and for some, money thrown to the wind!

Thanks Pavel - your opinion is one that some may agree with - especially if they don't actually own or run one of the longer length Heng Long tanks over very rough ground when carrying a lot of extra weight that is being driven by more powerful motors than those supplied by the manufacturer.

Adding extra weight and using extra power to drive one of the longer length model tanks will place greater demands on the standard plastic chassis, and that can cause it to flex and twist, and is not something that a lighter weight model (or a shorter length model) would experience to the same degree.

There have been many owners of the longer length Heng Long models of modern tanks (Challenger/Abrams/ Leopard 2A6) that have found the use of a simple brace helpful after experiencing problems keeping the metal tracks in place on models that may have more than doubled their original weight after adding metal tracks, metal sprockets, metal drive wheels, metal rollers etc. Using higher power motors to drive these extra heavy model also adds more stress on an unsupported plastic chassis.

Not many owners will suffer any problems when running a standard weight model (often with plastic tracks) as they do not cause the longer moulded chassis tub to flex or twist so much - even when being driven over slightly more demanding terrain.

Shorter length models (such as my own T90) do not flex as much either, and would seldom cause any owner/operator to think that a chassis brace would be beneficial or of any use - unless the model was over-weight, over powered, and likely to be subjected to extreme use.

Owner/operators who only drive their model tanks on fairly smooth undemanding surfaces (and that will be most of us, most of the time) are unlikely to experience any excessive flexing or twisting of their moulded plastic hulls, and would have no reason to consider fitting a chassis brace.

Even when fitted with heavy option parts, unless the model is to be driven over very rough ground (that most owners would probably not want to risk), a chassis brace would not be seen as necessary by most owner/operators.

However, I have noticed how easily (and how much) my own empty Challenger 2 chassis flexes and twists just with the metal drive wheels, metal return wheels and metal rollers fitted. When I add the metal sprockets and tracks this will add a lot more weight, so it will probably flex and twist even more.

As I am also using the RED motors, these will give a LOT more power than the motors that Heng Long fitted to the tank, and these will also stress the plastic chassis a little more as well.

My own thoughts about the use of a chassis brace are that it depends on how heavy the tank is, how long the chassis is, what additional power may be used.....and what sort of terrain the model is likely to be expected to work on.....but I will keep an open mind and consider any well reasoned opinions that may be offered.

Long before I finish this tank I will have had the benefit of running a used Challenger 2 that is both heavy and over-powered and I will know how well it perform both with and without a chassis brace.

[Herr Dr. Professor]

Thank you, zooma. You have explained this clearly and helpfully for me, and it is just what I guessed. I did notice how much flex there was in the plastic hull of my Challenger 2 when I had it empty of electronics and tried it just gently with my hands. Although mine will be weightier by the metal (zinc alloy?) gears, tracks, idlers, and sprockets, I am at least initially not going to upgrade the motors, as I like 'em "low and slow, mean and clean." And my AFVs are babied, I admit.

[zooma]

I managed to find a NEW and boxed Ultimate Edition 11 gearbox to fit this Challenger 2.

Until it arrived I was doubtful that it would be the correct size and type, but it has just arrived in the post this morning and it is indeed the correct H+L type with the longer 59mm axles!

These gearboxes always come with BLUE motors, so I will remove these and exchange them for a pair of RED motors and get it fitted (after I get my used Challenger running again!)..

This is an important "tick box" knocked off of my list of things that I would like to have in this tank - a ball raced gearbox !

[zooma]

I took this Challenger 2 to our local club hall last night and it run very well, and was unrecognisable from the first time I run it following its delivery from Toucon Hobbies.

This was the tanks first run with the RED motors fitted and after the tight links on the metal tracks had been adjusted. The improvement in power (and speed) was noticeable and the steering was much smoother too, so the time spent working on it was definitely worthwhile.

Overall, the tanks performance has been transformed from the rough running tank that was delivered to me, and apart from changing the original motors (at a cost of cost just over £20 for the pair) no cash has been spent on getting the tank to run well.

The tracks had been removed so that any tight links could be flexed back and forth until they all felt the same as each other. When the metal drive sprockets were refitted I changed the cross head screws to slightly longer stainless cap head bolts and put a small dab of thread lock on them to stop them unwinding as easily as the originals did.

On a lesser note, the re-manufactured exhaust louvers also worked well as they can now be removed (they were delivered super-glued down!) to allow the smoke fluid to be topped-up when required...so the tank was run with optional exhaust smoke working for the first time too!

Obviously a nice flat smooth church hall floor does not provide much of a challenge for the tank to run on, but it does help to identify and see anything that is not running smoothly a lot more easily that when the tank is running outside on rougher terrain.

The tank was run without any screws holding the two haves of the hull together (I had not replaced them since changing the motors and servicing the tracks) and the two halves stayed together with no movement between the two - again an indicator that showed how smoothly the tank was running.

Magnets will be fitted to give a secure fixing in the future and this will allow the "battery box" lid to be sealed shut and its internal walls cut away to make space for the battery to be moved into the lower hull.

The 360 degree turret turn also worked well so I am pleased with that small modification.

Now that the tank is running properly I can start to make some of the modifications that will be needed to make this tank into a genuine "rat catcher" that will be able to perform well enough to catch Meter rats proven off-road abilities on very demanding terrain - but first, I must complete my "Used Challenger 2" rebuild that is currently waiting for me to devise some sort of track adjuster (it is very early version that came with solid non working moulded replicas of the track adjusters).

There is even a possibility that I may end up re-painting this Challenger 2 in BATUS colours, and when my "Used Challenger 2" gains some suitable track adjusters it may even replace this model with that one as the official "rat catcher"...............leaving this model to have a slightly less stressful existence in my modern tank fleet!

[HERMAN BIX]

Thats a good outcome Mr Zooma.
And a credit to you for the effort put in from when you got it.

One thing that always amuses me is the fascination with magnetising the joints and removing the battery box these days.
None of my venerable H/L tanks have had this.
Screws and the battery box are the order of the day.
If I need to get into the hulls of these things, screws are not really hard to get out and theres a solid reason for doing so.
Also, changing batteries is much easier or, at least present similar difficulties to cracking the hull to do so.
The Taigens I have are a PITA to change batteries(not the JS2) as the way I have completed the outside presents a problem with skirts, tow cables and suchlike.
On the flipside, manipulating a model to access the underslung battery box cover, change the battery, and reinstate the cover is also an issue in itself at times.

As I am probably an expert in bringing total wrecks back to life, the screwed hull and battery box is a go