If the supports are mounted to the deck of the 8ton right at the back edge they have to extend 60 percent past the Natter to counter the natter c/g then there's no way it would tip backwards under normal operations .
Frank your dead right about the fuels..which means Tom can now build two separate fuel trailers and vehicles to tow them and then a mobil radar unit for targeting ..yup doing Tom no favors here at all 

Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 04, 2022, 08:27:49 PMSurely they'd need to go back only past the Natter's CG in its launch position?

That would be about level with the lower point of the lower fin of the Natter.

You've also got a fair percentage of the mass of the launch system hanging over the back of the vehicle, too.

Actually, you have almost the entire mass of the Natter & most of the mass of the launch system acting on the lever arm that is the base of the launch system, which is positioned directly above the rear road wheels, which acts as a pivot point, pulling it all back past the rear of the vehicle.

The mass of the vehicle, obviously, counters some of this but a couple of good, long stabilisers would not go astray.

Or some big counterweights on the front bumper.

Neat idea and something I'm sure most of us dream of....the old ZELL pics are just so inspiring. Love the paint job on the Natter. The name might also suggest why so many people are nit picking the details lol

Nice idea! 

Couple of points:

1. Re support at the back, the easiest thing to do would be to extend the launch rail past the tail of the Natter then add a big pad on the end of it, so that the launch system is resting on the ground, seperately from the truck when erected,  in much the same way that truck mounted large-calibre mortars work. You could put vertical jacks on the back of the truck to stabilise it while the launcher was elevating.

2. The reason why real Natter launch rails were so long is that, in order to avoid squishing the pilot with G-forces, the launch acceleration was relatively low (for a missile). That meant it took some time to get up to a speed where it's control surface worked, so it needed long rails to keep it going straight during that time. For this mobile setup, it might, therefore be an idea to have a launch rail extension which either folds or telescopes out of the way when the launcher's in travelling mode. The other alternative would be to add thrust-vectoring vanes to the rocket nozzle in the manner of a V-2, but that would mean significantly re-engineering the Natter.

You could set the Natter up like the ZEL F-104's that they experimented with...

I was also thinking of a JATO system but that could also cause some pilot squishing too ..fact a JATO might be worse as they do give a massive jolt to get the weight of aircraft of the ground from the thrust alone.
I think the folding launch rail idea Is a good in.. it's simple and it will work.
For a moment I was thinking a 35th version would be nuts..not really building one but just rolling the bearings around in the head and for giggles I looked at the Dragon 4878th Natter...ummm I could buy 2 35th scale Trumpeter 8 tonners for the price now..bloody hell! .

I think you're on the right track though... If not the natter then maybe the Me163 from Hasagawa on a rail system? The ME163 in 1/32 and the launch truck in 1/35?

Maybe something akin to the LaFrance ladder truck would work?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/87/67/ba8767616ffc1abdc0d2f58ad8937ccb.jpg

The ZELL system had exactly the low-speed control problem I described, which was one of the reasons why it was abandoned. If you look at the slow-motion film of ZELL F-104s (they're on Youtube), you can clearly see them veering to one side in some shots.

Quote from: Lord_Voyager on October 06, 2022, 12:45:23 PMI think you're on the right track though... If not the natter then maybe the Me163 from Hasagawa on a rail system? The ME163 in 1/32 and the launch truck in 1/35?

Your ideas a goodin mate and I like it 
Would be quite cool and the 163 is still quite easy to get and I do already have the SDKFZ7 and a 12ton one as well..hmmm the 12 ton would be better..it's bigger 

How long is the catapult on a modern aircraft carrier?
Could one be mounted on a vehicle?

The shortest steam catapult that Wikipedia shows is 162 feet (49 m) long (Waist catapults on USS Midway and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt)
The longest is 325 feet (99 m) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult#Steam_catapults_types

You'd need quite a land vehicle for the length and the forces involved.

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on October 06, 2022, 05:45:37 PM

Quote from: Lord_Voyager on October 06, 2022, 12:45:23 PMI think you're on the right track though... If not the natter then maybe the Me163 from Hasagawa on a rail system? The ME163 in 1/32 and the launch truck in 1/35?

Your ideas a goodin mate and I like it 
Would be quite cool and the 163 is still quite easy to get and I do already have the SDKFZ7 and a 12ton one as well..hmmm the 12 ton would be better..it's bigger 

Just remember to put an armored roof on it...

Quote from: perttime on October 07, 2022, 04:20:10 AMThe shortest steam catapult that Wikipedia shows is 162 feet (49 m) long (Waist catapults on USS Midway and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt)
The longest is 325 feet (99 m) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult#Steam_catapults_types

You'd need quite a land vehicle for the length and the forces involved.

Not to mention something GINORMOUS to provide either the steam, or the electricity in the case of an EMALS.