_GOTOBOTTOM
Яusso-Soviэt Forum: Cold War Soviet Armor
For discussions related to cold war era Russo-Soviet armor.
Maz 537, Trumpeter 1/35
LKWMAN
Visit this Community
Sachsen, Germany
Joined: April 13, 2014
KitMaker: 279 posts
Armorama: 279 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 09:18 AM UTC
Hello woju81, a perfect, clean job as you build the MAZ-537. You are one of the few model builders who have changed the crossbar over the rear axles. I have never seen a MAZ-537 in the original where these breakthroughs were present in the traverse. In the parts catalog MAZ-537, however, the drawing also has openings. I wish you much success and joy for the further construction.

Best regards LKWMAN
woju81
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: November 12, 2015
KitMaker: 19 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 05:51 PM UTC
Hi Joachim, I must say I have never noticed, even looking at the photos a hundred times, just recently thought that is something wrong with that rear axel rockers. Nice work on your btr - 152 BTW. Happy modeling. Wojciech.
165thspc
#521
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Friday, June 05, 2020 - 01:23 AM UTC
Likewise with all the super detailing I have done of the several MA3 I have built, for some reason I never considered correcting those openings in the walking beam rear suspension. Kudos!
LKWMAN
Visit this Community
Sachsen, Germany
Joined: April 13, 2014
KitMaker: 279 posts
Armorama: 279 posts
Posted: Friday, June 05, 2020 - 07:04 AM UTC
Hi Michael

I described this problem in detail in my construction report and showed photos. So far, hardly a model builder has noticed that this is wrong in the kit. Show the pictures of the MAZ-537 again for clarification.







165thspc
#521
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Friday, June 05, 2020 - 03:03 PM UTC
Joch

I just always considered that this was a production change in the vehicle somewhere along in the life of the manufacturing run. I therefore dismissed the difference in this walking beam design on the model. I did not feel it was necessary to change it on my models though I compliment you on doing so.

Also the original Russian service manual shows the walking beam as an open girder design just as that employed in the model.

(Sorry - I have a copy of the actual drawing but again Photobucket is not letting me upload for some reason and tech services is not responding.)

It is my suspicion that the original open web design was a one piece machined casting that in use, had a high failure rate and was therefore later replaced with a welded up box beam structure for greater strength at sometime during the production run.

(If you PM me your e-mail I will send the image to you.)
woju81
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: November 12, 2015
KitMaker: 19 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 14, 2020 - 05:05 AM UTC
Hi Guys, welcome after short break .I haven't been idle ,though. There was some painting going on with partial assembly. There is some photos.



[img]http://i.imgur.com/7Bfxbxt.jpg" BORDER="0">//i.imgur.com/ubyhOXz.jpg[/img]


[img
]http://i.imgur.com/2CTFhKW.jpg[/img]



woju81
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: November 12, 2015
KitMaker: 19 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 14, 2020 - 05:09 AM UTC

 _GOTOTOP