Jump to content

Lauren Child

Members
  • Content Count

    1,891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lauren Child

  1. Worth noting that in the heat, these loos were some of the few places on site where you couldn’t smell the public toilets. £3 per go was well worth it. Shame they were only in 1 location though - it’s a big site.
  2. I tried 1100R20 for my CMP truck, and they were significantly smaller. I sold them on without fitting them. If you look back in the archives you should find the discussion. My advice is to keep looking - 1100-20 do crop up.
  3. Charging circuit for the extra dynamo on the meteor 4b.
  4. Charging circuit for the single dynamotor.
  5. If I’ve understood correctly, the meteor mk 4 and 4a had a single charging circuit. The 4b added the second dynamo on the meteor engine itself. You may be looking at an older engine installation?
  6. The planning application is here: http://plan.scambs.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=S/1563/18/FL The majority of info is in the Design and Access plan http://plan.scambs.gov.uk/swiftlg/MediaTemp/1151526-786713.pdf
  7. The team now have an employed project manager, which is a step up. He works for the volunteer organisation. I don’t think he’s there to administer the group - it’s still all volunteers. The new building is for restoration and long term storage. After a quick google for Duxford Masterplan, you can see more of what they are planning published on the Internet here: https://museuminsider.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IWM-Duxford-Masterplan-Appendix-6.pdf You can see the revised Duxford layout in the planning docs, which is interesting in that context. If I’ve understood it correctly, the vehicles and land warfare exhibits will be distributed around the site, creating zones and making more of the large objects - combined aircraft, vehicles and artillery in context with each other. The airliners then move to where the LWH is now, clearing the space at the centre of the site so it’s more focussed on being a war museum (which makes the most of the wartime buildings and airfield). Alas the tank running area seems to have gone. I’m hopeful that will come back, as Duxford is one of the few places you could really see things moving, ground and air. Separating the restoration and long term storage into the new building would also make a running area a lot more attractive as a visitor attraction. It’s worth checking out the IWM corporate plan here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/file-download/download/public/3618 I’ve no idea what vehicles (if any) will be moved, stored, or recovered by owners. I’d suspect it’s way to early to tell.
  8. Just to follow up on this one, I think Andrew is right. The early ones had the badge, but later ones didn’t. Going by the pictures in the manuals, the badge is shown in the diagram for S6475 & V3735 of April 1940 but has gone by the two March 1941 editions for V4150 & V4433. I have a late WOT2H and I’m not intending on fitting a badge.
  9. I thought 1100-20 had come in before the end of the war, but I could be wrong. It fits just about anything big an British. QL, CMP, Green Goddess, you name it.
  10. While you may be thinking RAF, Bart Vanderveen’s historic military vehicle directory states that around 120 WOT1s went to the army as search light carriers and fuellers. (page 176 if you eant to look it up).
  11. There was a WOT1 300 gallon water tank in RAF use, but it’s a different back.
  12. Welcome along Will! I’ve spent some time driving Zils and Urals, but I’m sure there will be some other owners along shortly.
  13. Not an expert on Zils by any means, but possibly water pump?
  14. While I can see why you’re worried from the video, my experience of Zils is the only bit not rattling is the steering wheel (while you are holding it).
  15. Just a plus 1 for anyone else who finds themselves in the same sitation. Jacking one wheel up and letting it spin the the tension out will prevent a nasty bang. Then you can change back to 2wd.
  16. The main thing to do is look at the material it’s made from, and the cross sectional area which then drives the current it can handle. Old cables will probably be thick copper. Modern cables could be made from other metals or copper plated, which reduces it’s conductivity. As long as you replace like-for-like rather than relying on modern descriptions you’ll be fine. An example would be battery leads - a modern battery harness is much much lighter weight than an older one. To make mine work properly, I went with copper welding cable of 70mm2 size, which is much larger than the modern norm, but was close to the original. This was on 6volt, so much higher current than modern spec anyway, but the same seems to be true in general. While modern cables can vary in type and quality a lot more than older ones, once you've cut through the rubbish you can find some good variation, for example modern high temperature insulation can be useful in an engine bay, and ultra flexible cables can help in tight spots for routing.
  17. Same size if its the same or better material (normally copper on older vehicles)
  18. Tiny Tims were used late war in tanks, Churchill, Cromwell, Comet, etc. There was a metal lid that fitted over the top on tank ones.
  19. Stumbled upon these two recorded together in the RAF vehicle databook.
  20. Here is the Dodge crew bus data sheet for comparison - it's very close.
  21. There was an Austin 6x4 version of the crew bus the same as the Dodge VK62B. While I can't find a photo, the loadbed of a K6 looks higher, which might account for the difference in hieght. Edit:nope, not enough wheels.
  22. same problem viewing on an iPad. Only the name is displayed. When clicking through the link you get the pop up black box for the viewer but no photo in the middle.
×
×
  • Create New...