RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Until recently,it seems, the only outlet for Mato metal Tiger Hulls appeared to be via Ebay, but sourced from the Far East. Now I see that rctank are offering both the complete upper hull, and the lower chassis/hull too (complete with track tensioner) at reasonable prices..http://www.rctank.de/TIGER-I_12
I just wonder what the pros and cons of using them are, in comparison to all ABS; or, a Taigen-like mix of metal turret, plastic upper hull, and so-called metal hull (for 'metal' read: plastic hull with inner aluminium liner)?
Weight would be the obvious factor, but I note that the Full-metal Mato (minus electrics) weighs in at around 6kilos. My Torro KT weighs around that much, but it's no slouch..even with stock electrics and motors, and so the weight factor might not be as significant as I'd supposed Mato claim that the lower hull is more watertight than the usual set up, and the hull/tub appears to use Heng Long suspension components (see-saw type springs, with rocker arms), rather than
torsion bar suspension. Which is better with weight I wonder? Maybe customising all-metal would be trickier that modding plastic.Certainly, it would have its challenges; but the prospect of all metal construction is very alluring: the 'grown-up' (real) one was all-metal, after all..and 'all meta'l also suggests greater structural integrity. Has anyone here build an all metal Mato?

As far as I know the Mato Tiger lower is basiclly a copy of the H/L plastic lower just made of metal, well and the battery doesn't have a compartment from underneath. The problem with that is, IMHO, is that it doesn't have a realistic suspension. It doesn't have torsion bars it has a spring similar to a cloths pin.

Myself I like the Taigen lower hull due to its suspension system using torsion bars like the real Tiger did.

Don't forget Forgebear is Mato UK distributor, he doesn't always list everything in his store so worth asking him.

Back to the question I think when the Mato metal tiger came out it was more a heng long style copy than the alternative Asiatam/taigen torsion beam suspension. Whether this makes better or worse I don't know, but to me the torsion bar suspension is more accurate to the real tiger so I would go that way in my decision.

Ian

Hi The Mato hull at 69,95 is better than the cast hull at 109,95 .The suspension is much better on the mato hull almost the same as a Tamiya .The cast hull suspension is the same as early Heng Long tanks. All the tops fit both hulls so it all depends what you want .


regards pete

jackalope wrote:As far as I know the Mato Tiger lower is basiclly a copy of the H/L plastic lower just made of metal, well and the battery doesn't have a compartment from underneath. The problem with that is, IMHO, is that it doesn't have a realistic suspension. It doesn't have torsion bars it has a spring similar to a cloths pin.

Myself I like the Taigen lower hull due to its suspension system using torsion bars like the real Tiger did.

In fact, I have Taigen/Torro 'metal lower hulls on my Tigers and King Tiger along with torsion bar suspension, and have been very happy with them. I particularly like the convenience of the quick release mechanism that either binds or locks the two halves together. Also, three of my models have the Taigen/torro external charging point combined in a single- and very neat- unit, with the on/off switches for the battery and smoker. European safety regs allow for an external power point on Taigen models, but they're verboten in the US, it seems...but there are times when- even with the presence of the quick release- it's handy to add a drop of electro juice without dismantling the tank.
I just wondered what members thought of the quality of Mato metal hulls, and whether the cons would outweigh the pros in terms building a model from them .. Without a doubt, the Aeromate metal Tiger looks to be the one to have, but at heart-attack prices it's really off limits for most modellers, I guess.