fv1609

Alec hmm "Boat-Tail" I think you are teasing me now! The internet is awash with this little copy & paste nonsense of "known in Land Rover Circles as the boat tail Shorland" where site after site just pinch content & it gets repeated that people believe it to be true. But I suppose it is true if Land Rover circles know it as that : ( I have spoken to members of Shorland crews both RUC & UDR, people who made them & even the Shorland Sales Director, but none of them have heard of the expression & thought it rather odd that I asked as it doesn't resemble a boat tail at all. I suppose I have this internet nonsense to thank for the endless questions asking if it floats. I must lie down & take some smelling salts.

Alec, there were two batches of RUC Shorlands which were all Mk 1. 10 issued 1966-67 5 issued late 1969 The Dunsfold one came from the second batch & was issued on 4/10/69 so it only saw RUC service for a couple of months before they were all withdrawn & put into storage with the Pigs & Commers. Although mine was serial No.9 it was the 5th one to be issued to the RUC. The first 4 Shorlands were sold to Bahrain then the next 10 to the RUC. Not sure why they think Harland & Wolf were one of the two manufacturers, the Shorlands were made by Short Bros & Harland.

Yes it is sometimes best to keep quiet. I remember an old boy telling his grandson (I assume) that my Shorland was a Bren gun carrier like he drove in the war.

Thanks both. It was a bit wrench saying goodbye from having nurtured it from a non-runner after 34 years. There are no dedicated MV shows in Wales, driving it to England required a long drive mainly on the motorways where it can be frightening with restricted vision and limited speed. Many drivers seem unable to appreciate this and bully-boy HGV drivers driving frighteningly close to force me to somehow increase my speed made driving it unpleasant rather than a nice day out. Few Shorlands turn up for sale these days and sadly some that got exported have been severely blinged & turned into fantasy vehicles. It is true that you can do what you like with your own vehicle, but I felt a moral duty to preserve mine not just for the work I put into it but it is a historical artefact especially as it was the only survivor of the original ten issued to the RUC. Although I believe I could sell to the highest bidder as it were & even selling to a trusted buyer there is no guarantee they will not sell it on once the novelty has worn off. A museum seemed the best hope to preserve it, particularly Ulster Transport Museum where it would represent both social history but an example of a local product. The staff of UTM were most keen to acquire it & did their best to speed up the process but due to the administrative hoops to jump through it took about 10 months before the sale was complete & just in time one day before Wales went into a COVID lockdown. I enjoyed displaying it & met many interesting people although I will not miss the people who think it was home-made or the Army veterans who dismiss out of hand as they served for decades & never saw one so it must be a fantasy vehicle without reading my information board which headlined with a few simple FAQs. Is it real? - Yes Is it home-made? - No Does it float? - No If you have any other questions I would be happy to talk to you. There was a major misconception often fuelled by Land Rover magazines & on-line experts that it was a "riot control" vehicle. It was green because it was intended for rural use particularly in the border areas.

I sold it over 3 years ago so it was a relief to see that it is still running in this recent video. https://www.ulstertransportmuseum.org/collections/shorland

I wonder if those have a cracked porcelain pillar & there is arcing deep within the plug? There is an example of this in my Bright Sparks article. This would be a good example of how misleading a neon spark "tester" could be, as it would light up indicating that the plug was sparking, but not at the gap! Yes good idea to keep the same types together.

I too have found examples of RSN12Y with resistances of about 1.5kOhm and 15kOhm. An inconsistent manufacturing tolerance I think that is most unlikely & I assume there was an uprated spec although I can find no written evidence for this. Spark plug resistance can serve two purposes. A basic 1.5kOhm is required to reduce gap erosion but has no great effect at reducing Radio Frequency Interference (RFI). Using resistances in the order of 15kOhm are needed to quell RFI. In unscreened systems despite the plug having 1.5kOhm built in RFI is attended to by external resistors or in the form of resistive cable. In a typical military ignition system the screened cable is wire, which I assume is more reliable than resistive impregnated cord. So building in more resistance to the plug itself makes more sense so an "improved" RSN12Y so widely used in a range of vehicles would make sense. But as I say I have no evidence for this. I have measured HT current and found it to be about 0.0005 amps, having a resistance of 15kOhms is no disadvantage as the voltage drop will be only about 10v which is really nothing of a reduction of HT. As for the length of electrode exposure, I can't say as I disposed of my collection of plugs a few years ago.

Are you identifying your plugs from what is stamped on them or from the NSN of the packaging? RSN12Y is identified by NSN 2920-99-813-5825 but is also identified as 2920-99-803-6518. The latter NSN also includes RSN8 which is rather different from RSN12Y. But RSN8 is also identified as 2920-99-192-8690 that does not include RSN12Y. Def Stan 29-2 indicated a duplication of NSN and 2920-99-803-6518 was withdrawn. So all a bit of a mix up so perhaps you have some RSN8 as well as RSN12Y?

For RAF service found this in AP 2515E Section 16E

Mark that Appendix A is the only reference I have found for instructional colours. It comes from AC No.70119 Driver Training Vol. I, Part I, 1965. It superseded WO Code No. 8672 1951 but that had no colour details. What is RGB / Hex code? The VAOS Section H1(a) Paints, dopes & varnishes will give the BSC381C. Other than 'Orange' and 'Red oxide' all the colour descriptions are BSC defined.

The number of antennas is inversely proportional to the amount of working radio equipment and with a flag on the top even less chance.

Larry looking at DGFVE Specification No.341 for S3 LtWt Jan 1980 the requirement was for the vehicle to be painted in IRR NATO Green. The galvanised bits were not specified to be painted. But the Spec only required the minimum paint thickness to be 15 microns, which is admitted as not meeting the full IRR requirement. So it would seem that to meet this requirement the vehicles in depot would be painted with a further coat of IRR NATO Green. This no doubt would include the exposed galvanised fittings as their IRR reflectance would need to be toned down to be similar in IRR behaviour as foliage. Not to paint these bits would tactically inept as they would be too reflective under IRR illumination.. Granted that the paint adherence would not be good but that could be touched up at the start of hostilities at the time when the canopies were painted. At the time there was no IRR NATO Green paint that was unreactive with canvas or nylon canopies.

1952 it lists the three types.

That sounds good value Richard. I have always hoped to see one used by the Reserve Force RUC. About 12 were hired from the WO & the other 35 odd which assumed Belfast registrations with the EZ suffix.