Bedford Gun Portee rear axle gauge

Searching for something totally different in my stash, I stumbled across the ancient Airfix kit of the Bedford QL Gun Portee. On a similar occasion years ago, I had put a note into the box saying that the rear axle’s gauge was some 3mm too narrow, according to a build report I had read late in the last millennium.
Can anybody please confirm that or disprove that the prototype’s rear axle was about 105mm / 4in shorter than the front one? That kit is still pretty good even by today’s standards and can be built into a nice model once this problem is out of the way.

Kind of a half - a_ _ed response but it makes sense that the front axle would be wider due to the complications associated with driven wheels on the steering axle . I have found multi view drawings on the internet but did not measure the track of the front view vs rear but you could do so . This ,of course, calls into question the accuracy of the drawings. I think I have the IBG 1/35 QL kit somewhere in the stash - I could measure the axles on it if you wish but again, how accurate is the kit ?
Anyway, LMK .
Hope this helps- Richard

A long time ago in a far ago century…
There were a series of articles written by the respected author David Jane in the MilMod magazine, who [if memory serves] suggested that the the Max/Airfix/Testors/Italeri/Bilek¹ Bedford QL Portee needs the rear track widened by 60 thou to match the front axle track.

¹these kits have been around a bit

“these kits have been around a bit” - the ones you mentioned, plus TOMY and Revell Germany!
Thank you for remembering David Jane and Military Modelling: that made me dig up the december 1979 edition where he says it was necessary to cement 0.06" discs onto both brake drums, thus widening the rear axle gauge 3 mm. In the drawings David supplied the frront and rear wheels are equally wide apart, so I guess that settles the matter.
And it also confirms the old modelers’ adage to “never throw anything away”!
Thank you, Peter

1 Like