X hits on this document





11 / 22

Translation of pages 16 – 19

holes in the frame above the guide wheels shown closed with bolts are correctly modeled. This is where in the prototype the cooling unit pi- vots and can be accessed for ser- vice. A real gem is the closed cabin on the model. All windows and doors fit without gaps and the de- tails like seals, locks and window wipers are added in black coloring. Even the fire extinguisher near the roll bar is there and all hand rails are scale thickness and in the cor- rect amount and place. As with the original, the driver’s seat is 15 degrees off center to the right to give the driver an improved view. In comparison, the fine wire hand rails and grips, the gear, clutch and brake handles are a bit on the coar- ser site. This can only be noticed on the push blade version that has the open driver platform with the roll bar. As used in sunny California’s scrapper fleets, the right equipment for the place and time.


The first attachment modeled here is the blade used for earth

moving tasks. It is impressive and large as with the prototype and all functions of the original can be simulated. The placement of the hydraulic lines over the stabilisa- tion bar between blade and engine is prototypical. The pushing bla- de used in scraper trains is much smaller but heavily re-enforced. To transfer the immense power of the machine it is mounted directly on to the main frame. It was a well known fact that the D10 in pushing mode could do the work of two DH9H. For the push version, on the rear of the unit, there is a cover to protect the trailer hook assembly. The standard version however had a one tooth ripping arm attachment that has impressive measurements and is nicely done in the model. The four hydraulic cylinders are there including the necessary lines. The- re is also a hydraulic bolt remover. This allowed the driver/operator to adjust the angle position of the ripper arm from the driver’s seat. On the model the bolts are on the opposite side and this arrangement allows for the attachment to be po- sitioned in three different stances.

The holes for this in the arm are a little on the large side.


The paint job in “highway yel- low” cannot be faulted and the lettering is printed sharp and fully legible. A problem however is the packaging; it is too easy for the model and the bottom piece of the packaging to fall out. It is therefo- re recommended to hold the box firmly when handling.

In conclusion it has to be said that CCM has reached a highpoint as far as the ratio price to perfor- mance is concerned. The higher price in comparison to other ma- nufactures is justified when taking in to account the great amount of metal etched pieces in the model.

Bibliography: Heinz-Herbert Cohrs: «Caterpillar Bulldozer-Prospekte», Verlag Podszun Urs Peyer, Thomas Wilk: «Das Tagebau Buch», Verlag Podszun Eric C. Orlemann: «Caterpillar Chronic- le», MBI publishing

Conrad – CCM

When a model of the same prototype has been produced at an earlier time, the urge to compare both is understandable. However, the point is not to compare both according to the level of detailing. It is much more interesting to look at how the production capability of scale models has evolved. In this particular case there is a thirty year difference between the model by Conrad (# 285) and the new release by CCM.



Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedSun Oct 23 20:38:55 UTC 2016