Looking good,Mike!
How do you intend to build the cargo bay?
Will you use the bays from both kits, or scratch a new one?

At this moment I am trying to cut up the two separate cargo bays and then join them together but I am having a bit of a problem getting my head around the challenge of just how to fit them together. It is not a straight forward splice.

I think that at the factory they took the hard way in joining the bodies together, sort of trying to keep a uniform spacing between the vertical uprights whereas it would have been so much easier if they had just taken the two bodies, cut and spliced them together and let the spacing of the two uprights at the weld point fall where they would might.




Note how the vertical uprights have a (more or less) uniform spacing but the treatment of each wheel well is different. I think this makes for much more work then just cutting two identical beds and welding them together. (Very well done model here. Think I just might have to paint mine a similar ruddy red!)

Personally I think the designers originally were going for just doing an extended frame and bed simply on a longer 4x4 chassis. Then later the idea was proposed to do a 6x6. I suspect they had already built an extended bed but then had to go back and cut in the second wheel as an after-thought.

I have done this type of bed shortening/lengthening three other times to other models in the past but on the US Deuce the bed sits up high enough that there is hardly any wheel well work to contend with.

Footnotes to both the GAZ-66 and 34:

Trumpeter would have us add the wheel hub "step rings" to ALL axles but in reality only the front steering axle should have a step ring to assist the driver in climbing into the cab. (Just like many WWII German halftracks had them on their main drive sprocket to assist in climbing up into the vehicle.)

Also: In the assembly of the front truck axle Trumpeter's instructions point to the wrong components with the caption "Do Not Glue". If done as indicated the front wheels would no longer be steerable but would also not be glued to the vehicle and would fall off.

Early progress on the loadbox.

Right side is already cut, glued and assembled. Floor is cut. Have not yet started on driver's side wall of loadbox.





That little sliver of a fender is surprisingly easy to cut out of the old loadbox body. Bare in mind it is good idea to now have the vehicle wheels temporarily in place at this point to check how everything lines up. During assembly of this little fender it is easily possible to shift it slightly fore or aft before gluing to better center it up with the new axle.

Nice!
Some text about GAZ-34 from a Russian website(translated by Google translater and edited by me):

"First 2 prototypes were built in 1964,they used the pre-production series GAZ-66 cab and were distinguished by 4 horizontal openings above the early type grille.The last 3 were built in 1967 and used the standard GAZ-66 cab.

Two of the few original elements of the GAZ-34 were the elongated spar frame and an all-metal cargo platform with wheel wells and an internal length of 4100 mm (+800 mm compared to the GAZ-66), but of the same width (2050 mm) and with the same sides.
Three longitudinal folding benches providеd seating for 27 people and a tarp with observation windows and ventilation valves were mounted on.
Original feature of all five test vehicles GAZ-34 were some insignificant differences in the design, configuration and dimensions of each sample. As a result, the wheelbase between front and middle axles ranged from 3445 to 3453 mm, the wheelbase of the rear bogie — 1245 or 1250 mm, overall length was between 6425 - 6435 mm, the front and rear wheel track - 1810–1815 and 1750– 1755 mm, clearance varied between 306 - 312 mm.
With an average curb weight of 5150 kg, the total weight of different prototypes ranged from 8260 to 8820 kg.
All these data come from official test reports, although it is likely that they were simply the result of permissible errors in measurements, because the tests of GAZ-34 machines were carried out separately on several routes from Moscow to Ashgabat and Ukhta, at different locations and at temperatures up to +42 ºС.
While undergoing tests, the trucks carried personnel, towed various trailers, mortars, a 122-mm howitzer M-30(weight 2.5 tons) and even an An-24 airplane.According to the test results, the GAZ-34 received a positive assessment and was recommended for commissioning, but with the organization in 1967 of the mass production of a more powerful ZIL-131 truck with similar parameters, the military’s interest in the new truck disappeared".

Thank you Angel for this reference information.

I knew of the variances in vehicle measurements and felt a difference of only 8 mm at this scale was not of consequence. However I chose as a default, in all cases to go with the longer dimensions. Aldditionally not knowing what differences the non-standard early cabs might have had I am choosing to go with the standard GAZ-66 (Trumpeter) cab. (Have not even started building the cab at this point.)

Moving along on the grafting of the extended loadbox bed.




That floor seam did not disappear as much as I had hoped. I broke my own rules here. - I usually put the glue on rather heavily here and then mash the entire assembly together under constant intense pressure while it is drying to fuse the two pieces of plastic into one, figuring I will sand down any excess glue later. However those thin bead rolls stamped into the floor made me hold back more than I usually would, I went light on the glue and the union did not turn out as smoothly as I had hoped.

p.s. I intentionally lined up the floor seam with two of the wheel well boxes in order to diminish the total amount of seam needing to be filled in.




Right side of the loadbox nearly finished.


Unfinished left side of the loadbox.

Nice and neat, Mike!

Something I have not spoken of up till now is Trumpeter's very nicely done cloth top for the loadbox. I looks like the merging of the two tops is going to work out for the good.

What about those stamped areas on the load bed sides?
They look sort of like hatches/doors to stowage bins.
Where they present in all of the sections or just a few?

In this image it seems as if they have been reduced in size where the wheel arches are

/ Robin

Here's a question: What colors/color does the group think I should use for this vehicle?

I mentioned the rusty red & cream tan color of the model someone else built. But then this IS a military vehicle so perhaps one of the MANY applicable shades of Russian green???

I have shelves full of military colored vehicles so I admit I am drawn to the civilian red.

Robin, I read those as simply being raised, stamped strengthening panels in the sheet metal sides of the loadbox. An identical negative pattern does appear on the inside of the loadbox.

I considered trying to modify these panels but chose to simply disregard them as regards trying to abbreviate or alter them in the areas around the wheel wells.

What you may be seeing as handles on those panels are just the footmen's loops ** used for the belts that tie down the canvas top. The tie down belts on Trumpeter's canvas top line up with these loops.




** Do not know where the term "footman's loop" comes from but that is what they are called - at least on US Jeeps that is what they're called.

I feel strongly that the term comes from the turn of the century (pre-1900's) British carriage industry when a footman would hold the carriage door for you, fold down the carriage step, hold you coat, hat, etc. Also loops such as shown above are utilized on the shafts of a horse drawn carriage to hold the harness in its' proper place and keep the leathers from sliding around. These are also referred to as "Footman's Loops".

The use of these loops totally pre-dates the invention of the internal combustion engine and the entire automotive industry

A footman was originally someone running alongside the masters coach to assist in various situations (preventing overturning on bad roads, generally clearing the way, keeping the riff-raff away from the coach, opening doors et.c. et.c).
I would guess that handles attached to the outside of the coach would be very useful when holding it upright, helping it across obstacles, holding on to when riding along on the coach on the better stretches of road.
Simply a useful handle for the footman
If there are running boards on the side of the coach a few footman loops would be essential

That's my guess ....
/ Robin

Seems like there should be more clearance between the tires and the box body.
As it is I tried to set the rear suspension elevation to match the front ride height???

Clearance looks OK now,Mike!

That photo with the assembled canvas top reflects that I have now put a .015 shim between the frame and the loadbox to raise it. I am considering adding another .015 of shim material but I don't want to get carried away again like I did with the GAZ-66 Radio Van!

Is there any indication whatsoever on the parts showing the maximum travel up-down of the suspension?
At what position does the springs hit their maximum compression?
On some suspensions there is a block that prevents the springs from being compressed further. A walking beam suspension adds its own peculiarities.

Judging by this image:

I would suggest that the top of the wheels should be level with the upper edge of the lower frame of the loadbed.
It depends on the actual load being carried ...
Look at your build from the same angle and compare.

Maybe this one is less loaded:


/ Robin
My stepfather told a story about when they were transporting sand for some tunnel collapse emergency and that the insides of the fenders/wheel arches got polished by the tires.

Please note: The rear wheels on the real truck DO definitely extend above the level of the frame line. Remember there is also a load box support structure under there as well.

An important thing to consider is that the wheel well boxes above these tires are HUGE so the tires are at little/no risk of rubbing or bottoming out.

I am just asking regarding the esthetic "look" of the model but there is no practical concern for the tires actually rubbing.

As I said earlier I already have a thin shim in between the frame and the loadbox structure for more height above the tires and I think I am going to double that. However I want to build up the cab first so I can judge the height of it compared to that of the loadbox before making that final decision.

Drawing and model by a fellow builder in scale:
I have so far found no "official" GAZ plans to go by. This fellow is certainly showing every little room between the tire and the edge of the load box fenders. Again there is plenty of actual clearance above the tires thanks to the generously sized wheel well boxes.

I didn't mean the frame as in chassis frame, I meant the 2x2 or whatever it is that makes up the frames of the sides of the loadbed. The thicker stuff around those embossed/stamped reinforcements which are not lids

I have illustrated this in the images below. The upper edge of the red line is laid along the upper edge of the framing. The yellow field "rests" on top of the framing.
One interesting thing is that the forwards rear wheel seems to be further up into the wheel well. One reason for this could be a light loading. The suspension ensures that both wheels stay on the ground but the light load lets the rear end rise up and the load bed is tilted so that the forward end is lower than the tail.




Note that the camera was probably higher than the lower edge of the load bed when the original photo was taken so the load bed appears closer to the top of the tires.

With some load the bed becomes level and both wheels "intrude" into the wheel arches by the same amount.
/ Robin

Got cha! - Good point.

Just as a comparison, here is a photo of the lightly loaded standard GAZ-66 truck:

Been meaning to mention this earlier but the dual axle rear boggy on the GAZ-34 also requires a couple of torque rods added on top of the differentials. These connect to that big central cross member in the frame and prevent the diffs from rotating during times of extreme acceleration or torque. (Shown below in the dark color.)

A question for Angel:

I have now begun work on the cab. I am wondering why there seems to be a tendency for people to paint that interior engine cover access hatch in a contrasting color?

On the linked model site you gave me the fellow painted just the hatch a bright orange??? And in one set of photos of a real truck the hatch had been painted a sort of a redish-brown faux leather texture in an attempt to match the leather seat upholstery.

I would assume these were both civilian restorations and not actual military vehicles. Would you care to comment on this question?