Yes, I've done that, I'm sure lots of others have too... Mine was set-up
to operate with 4 ft radius track as a minimum.. Unfortunately I don't
have any pics that highlight that... Here is a an old pic showing an F-3
coupled to an FA... 820 Kadees were the couplers used...
That was my thought too. Also, if I go to the trouble of shortening diaphragms, the coupler slack would let them pull apart. In addition, the 821 has a shorter coupler box and would allow closer coupling.
Bill, In this particular case I did nothing with diaphram, just
mounted the 820s in far enough to keep them together...Unfortunately
most of us have some pretty tight turns in our RRs, so Ur going to
have cases where the diaphrams open up a little in the turns anyway..
I like the generous lateral motion afforded by the 820, or 830 if Ur
using the large one,the pluses far outway the minuses of slack action
in this case...
Greg, the slack action in the case of multiple units is a non-problem,
put the fastest engine in the front, and if Ur pulling the size train
that needs to be double headed, that will keep them stretched out for
sure... I've never had any problem with it whatsoever... U can always
put stronger springs in them too, thats what allows me to get away
with what U see in the pic below, the couplers used here is the 819
package, 820 with a flex bracket, and very strong springs... I use
820s almost exclusively, with an occasional 821 in really tight spots,
and the 819 package when needed...