Hello guys i have a question and hope you can help. I was recently looking at scratchbuilding a famo with an 88 but have wisely gone out and purchased the Tiger models conversion kit to go ahead with. Now after researching the kits and the vehicle i have noticed an issue. When looking at both conversion kits the Tiger models and the Amworks kit there are differences in the rear trays. The Amoworks kit has you mount the gun through the floor where as the Tiger model kit has the gun mounted on top of the floor. Now photographs show the 88m gun very low on the rear tray to the point where the fuse setter is just above the floor which makes me think the Amworks rear tray is accurate and the Tiger models requires modification. Now this no big deal as i can modify this and then build some style of support for the gun to be mounted to the chassis to. My concern is when i look at the Nuts and Bolts line drawings it has the mount actually bolted to the chassis base and sitting very low. Now i am inclined to think that the Nuts and Bolts drawings are incorrect and that i should continue on the path that i am heading down ie modifying the Tigermodels kit, but i am looking for photos or clarification as to whether or not i am correct in my thinking. I am also wonderin if any one has photographs or other evidence of this area that i am looking at to back this up as well. Thanks in advance

Would this help ?



Frenchy

Frenchy yes it does but now it looks like the Tigermodels kit is correct and doesnt need any modification please keep the information coming

Im not sure why you have a lot of anger in your post and why your treating my like i am an idiot. I am well aware of the weight of the gun and im well aware of how thin the floor is hence why i am asking the questions i have asked. There is no reason why it could not have been mounted to the floor as long as there were stregthened areas under the floor that were mounted or part of the chassis sub frame to help support the gun and take the recoil.

I am not attacking the Tigermodels kit or why would i have purchsed it i am just looking for an accurate way to represent this area of the model that would have been in existence due to the difference i have seen in the drawings in the Nuts and Bolts book and the appearance of the gun, floor etc in photos i have

Take your anger, treating people like they are idiots etc and shove them where the sun dont shine if you are the good given authority on the famo with flak 88 then please by all means help me or even show me the right mounting method of the gun to the chassis if not then take your attack else where no wonder why people feel intimidated when people like you repsond the way you have

I am sorry if my interpretation of your post is wrong i will take it all back but from where i stand it doesnt look that way

There was no implication at all my friend if you look at the pictures of the conversion kit on the tigermodels design website it has the mount for the 88 ie dragon part number a15 mounted on the floor of the tray

http://www.tigermodels.com/ProductListings/ProductDetails.php?ID=AR-0067.

if you then look at the same part number a15 in the Amowrks conversion kit

http://militarymodels.co.nz/2010/07/28/am-works-88mm-flak-famo-now-in-stock/

it is mounted just below the level of the foor which means it would be mounted onto the chassis at some level..

if you then look at the Nuts and Bolts diagram it has the dragon part a15 or what apeears to be the dragon part a15 mounted directly on to the chassis sub frame of the famo





....... hence my confusion and want of clarification on the matter.

I made no mention or attack of your design and underdstand that yes the gun needs to be mounted to a stable platform that is both strong and able to handle the recoil of the 88 but when you look at the above pictures in the links posted above you can see the confusiuon that the 3 different ways bring

No it doesnt sorry here is the link again

www.tigermodels.com

just click on the famo picture and it will bring up photosof the kit

No by tray i mean the actual checkered plate that is on top of the framing that then sits on top of the bath tub that is how the Tiger model kit shows it.

I am assuming the Amworks kit has the mount for the gun in amongst the framing for the tray which would then be mounted to the bath tub am i correct

The Nuts and bolts proto type shows the mount mounted to the actual bath tub am i correct.

I have heard of the Tony Greenlands article but have been unable to find it or the issues it was in can you help there at all thanks mate

I wasnt aware of the two differnt height options of the Am set ah bugger would like to have seen that and thanks for the further info on the prototype and the fuse box that helps explain a bit thanks mate

I've been rersearching building one of these for over a year finding all the photos I can and enhancing bits of them as best I can. As I'll be putting around $400 USD into the build I want it to be as correct as possible. But keep in mind the following is MY observations and like any other are subject to better info coming to hand.

My personal belief is that both conversions are not 100% correct in this area but that the AMWorks one is the much better kit, not just in this area but overall ( as such it's the kit I have and will be using as soon as I can get my hands on a DML FlaK 37 ).

Both the TMD and AMW ones have tweaks required but overall the TMD one needs more work. I felt the mesh sides on the TMD one were a major let down where-as the AMW just required the travel lock moved and the engine side panels reconfigured ( the TMD one needs that also as well as some major reworking of the gun deck ).

Based on the photos below ( which are enlarged and enhanced so you have to try and see them as a whole ) I believe the gun was mounted to the chassis and came up through a hole as on the AMW kit, but that the hole is larger than on the AMW conversion, with a collar and a small deck attached to the rear. The deck makes sense when you consider that for a gun layer to track the gun effectively he needs to move with his controlls and if he is standing on the deck while the gun turns everyone is trying to shuffle around at the same time and getting in everyone else's way.





So the way I see it it has a small deck about 1/3 the circumference of the base which is attached to the pedestal and turns as the gun turns with the gun layers standing on it. I don't see a raised ring as on the TMD kit and I believe such a ring would be a damn nuisance to the crew.

I was actually discussing this with Brian last year but I've lost your email Brian ( and couldn't remeber your username on here so this has been useful for that ) so feel free to give me a yell again [email protected]

Dean, just curious why you've set you cap on a FlaK 37? The diagram from N&B is a 36 (lights instead of dials).

The 88mms were all alike, whether for AA or AT units. The only difference was the "splinter shield" that units in the field tended to get. But the barrels are the same length.

There IS an optical illusion, though, that would seem to make the AA versions longer: because the older FlaK 18 tube is straight, it looks longer than the later models that came in two parts to allow for a quick change of the lining after it wore out.


The major differences between the 36 and the 37 is the switch from "idiot lights" on the rangefinger equipment to instrument dials. Otherwise the two models are virtually indistinguishable. The gun tubes are interchangable as well, and you'll find 37s with 1-piece tubes.

Do you have documentation, Brian, showing that only FlaK 37s were used? If so, that would seem to indicate that a short run of these vehicles was produced all at once, and not over time.

Dean thank you for the help appreciated i was planning on scratchbuilding the rear deck any way hence my reason for wanting to know what was accurate and where things should be placed

Brian you make a great post in regards to reinforcement ribs etc can you please send me a diagram or point out the places you speak fo etc on a photograph or model so i can visualiise them for my self

Bill, all the photos I have where you can make a distinction show a FlaK 37 rather than the FlaK 36 and as these entered production after the FlaK 37 enterered service to me it would make sense that they would use a gun from the factory rather than one from the field.

Brian. I see your point on the beams though I don't necessarily think what is coming through would require cutting the beams as opposed to sitting atop them. It just appears to me that the circumference of the hole in the decking is larger with some type of sloped collar around it. I don't think this is part of the original gun but something else. One theory on my "possibilities list" is that it isn't actually a sloped collar but rather the hole is not round but square ( it's like that photo - is it a vase or is it two faces ) and that the platform at the back stops you stepping into it as well as allowing the gun layers to move with the gun.

Unfortunately until that elusive close up, clear set of photos taken by a crew member on the deck shows up a lot will just have to remain "best guess".

I have been looking at Rons work on the MM webiste that has his famo 88 scratch build there. Nice looking peice of work and seems to be fairly accurate as well especially around the gun mounting area etc