1:144 trucks.

Hey guys,wondering if anyone knows of any 144th scale trucks (rigids or semis) in kit form, diecast, resin, whatever. I need a few to go into a
small diorama with my Revell An-124. Prefer Euro-type rigs, but at this stage I'll consider anything.
Thanks RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a lord of war dio? the villagers hauling away the motors and big chunks would be cool. don't forget nick and his habdcuffs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

N Gauge is close at 1:160. Heck, there are a number of MicroMachines trucks that are close to 1:144th.
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922 {Sig Quotes Removed on Request}
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Stephen Bierce) wrote

Thanks Stephen - I'll investigate furtherer. N scale may be just the ticket.
RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stephen Bierce wrote:

I hope that I'm not muddying the waters here, but "N Gauge" is actually two different scales. The "N" stands for Nine millimetre, which is the gauge. The two different types of N Gauge are scaled to allow the stock to run on 9mm track.
In the majority of the world, standard gauge is 4 ft 8.25 in, which gives a corresponding scale of 1:160.
In the UK, N Gauge conforms to a scale of 1:148. This means that the scale and gauge are out of sync, but us Brits have been doing that sort of thing for years. OO gauge anyone? ;-)
I feel certain that there are a number of models available in this scale, but a quick perusal of my usual model railway supplier's site www.ehattons.com has come up blank. I have no doubt that a query posted in uk.rec.models.rail will provide you with a number of links.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. Nononononono, Enzo, pwease don't fwo me to the wailway mens... (c:
Thanks for the heads-up Enzo. The Brit N gauge sounds just perfect - always supposing that accessories are actually made in that scale, not 1/160th, of course, which I doubt (my luck doesn't work that way). I'll look in there when I'm back from work in a couple of days.
RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote

Ummm, no. Wrong aircraft. (c: I wouldn't care to put a 124 down on ANY dirt strip...
RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the one in the movie was a 128?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote

Close. After much research (ie, I Googled for it, coz I really couldn't remember (c: ), I found out that it's an Antonov An-12, pic here, about2/3rds of the way down
http://www.elchineroconcepts.com/el_chinero_aircraft_action.htm
And it's got heaps of interesting stuff there, too. Much smaller 4-engined turbo-prop, well able to land on African dirt roads, unlike the An-124, which is a great behemoth of a thing, and totally dwarfs most conventional runways. But it may be able to land on dirt - it certainly has enough wheels.
RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ah, see, i thought cage said it was an ant 128, which is possibe;. don't forget them dauntless dive bombers attacking pearl! very cool site and lots of links, thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Believe it or not, the An-124 (and An-22, An-12 and Il-76) were ALL designed to land on dirt or grass strips -- ergo all of them itty bitty wheels. The Soviets always figured that either they would have cratered any NATO runways or that NATO forces would have blown them upon leaving.
Cookie Sewell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in

This is true. Thanks Cookie. But it would still be an adventure, I'm sure!
RobG (The Aussie one)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

our c117 was meant for tough turf, will it land on dirt and grass? i know it has a short lift capacity, so does it have itty bitty wheels too? all i see are flying pics or wrong angles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote:

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Um, my sources tell me a C-117 was a DC-3. They do have some renown for flying in and out of primitive places but I get the feeling you mean something else.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

oops, what's the new cargo plane? 4 jets made for small unimproved runways. came out in the early 90's, i thin? has a neat flap setup to boost lift. isn't that a 17 something? not the dc3 variant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote:

Yeah, the C-17. I don't have any stats here but I think it's about the same ballpark size as a Herky.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mad-Modeller wrote:

The C-17 is larger and vastly more capable than the C-130. It's maximum payload is nearly four times that of a C-130.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mad-Modeller wrote:

Just a BIT larger. C-130 max t.o. weight 155,000 lbs, C-17 max t.o. weight 585,000 lbs.
C-17 essentially was a replacement for the C-141, with short/rough field ability and oversized cargo capability thrown in for good measure. It may also be considered something of a replacement for the C-5, since it has the oversize cargo capability, but doesn't have near the total tonnage capacity.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote:

I think I made the lights off shortly after posting that. Don't have Cartoon channel anymore. I kind of lost interest in it when the oldies disappeared and were replaced with new stuff not as entertaining.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

now there is son of cartoon central called boomerang that runs a lot of oldies. flinstones, jetsons, looneys, mostly good but a few klunkers. mot worth extra money but comes with my bundle
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.