ArtistsRifles Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <snipped> The problem with the Stollie as a military vehicle is that is an adapted civilian design, and that means there is a lot wrong with it when you concider its military roles. HMLC should have been designed from scratch and then the result might be something to be proud of...but sorry despite trying to persuade me, I still think they are unimpressive.... It WAS designed as a HMLC from scratch - which is why the Army adopted it - original use was seen by Alvis as being for the likes of BP etc out in oil field territory. Whether or not you like it personally does not detract from this one iota! This is not to cast aspersions on your personal views in any way - we are all free to like/dislike whatever we want. The fact is though that the Stalwart WAS good at what it did despite the design limitations - as said before no other wheeled vehicle has ever kept the label HMLC for all it's service life - nigh on 35 years for the earliest Mk 1's. At the end of the day they can go places and do things normally only accomplished by tracked vehicles. the close-spaced 6 wheel system means they can go over territory that would have a DUKW, RL, MK/MJ, Militants etc. sitting rocking on it's chassis rails or - in the case of the DUKW - lower hull. Only thing the DUKW scores on over the Stalwart is the ability to adjust tyre pressures from inside the cab. Whether that would have been a feature of a proposed Mk 3 is anyone's guess. Had the engine been outside of the cargo area it would either be under the cab - in which case: (a) where does the winch go, (b) acess would have been even worse and © there would have been one hell of a long run of exhaust pipe as the last thing needed would have been a red hot exhaust sitting in front of bulk fuel. Or it would have gone behind the load deck in which case to keep the same level of mobility we'd have been looking at an 8x8 which would have required a complete redesign of the FV-6xx design because the existing 6x5 drive does not lend itself to having another set of wheels grafted on - plus the overall length of the vehicle would, from a military point of view, be a PITA on exercise... I've had the "joys" of camming up both RL's and Militants every couple of days - the RL won hands down every time for being short.... (comparatively) A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) Mike, Are you sure the Stolly was originally concieved as a civilian load carrier? I am not aware of any with first users other than the military. The Stalwart was developed as a private venture. The Prototype was designated PV1, and was completed in 1959. It had a flat loadbed area, with no sides. It was not amphibious. The first prototype was the subject of continuous development. This led in 1961 to a second prototype PV2 which gained drop sides and was amphibious. This vehicle was trialled by the British army, and it gained the designation FV620 or Stalwart Mk1. The trials resulted in a number of modifications including more powerful propulsion jets, a front mounted winch to help it get out of the water, a new cab layout and better visibility, and a number of imrovements to reduce maintenance, and improve reliability. Production vehicles started to be built in 1966 and it was now known as FV622 Stalwart Mk2. It only stayed in production for 5 years. It seem to me Stalwart had been around two years before the Army got involved. rechecking the data - the Stollys speed is quoted in Knots, not mph. Doing a Google conversion turns 6 knots into 7 mph.... Colonel Rogers, in his book "The British Army Today and Tommorow" has its speed as 5 knots in the open sea. Terry Gander has it at 9.6 Km/H (5.96 MPH.) Janes agrees with this figure as the loaded speed and says empty it can do 10.2 Km/H (6.34 MPH). The 1971 M.V.E.E. Handbook has it at 10 Km/H. So as someone has already said, you are going to have to work very hard to cross a fast flowing river without reaching the other bank some conciderable distance downstream. Edited October 2, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Saladin Development started in 1945, and was one of the longest gestation periods of any vehicle having taken 13 years to come from the drawing board and into production. (first models being built in 1958) Clearly Alvis were leaning heavily on the Saladin project, when they dreampt up Stalwart. I did not say it sold in any great numbers to any civilian companies. I merely said that Alvis designed and built it as a private venture, and saw it initially as an offroad load carrier for civilian operators. It was not designed to even swim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) And when thinking about Stalwart design let us not forget that the Stalwart's impressive over-terrain capabilities came from the fact that the 6-wheel-drive system lacked differentials, using simple bevel gears to transmit drive. A centre mounted no-spin differential allowed a certain amount of slip between the two sets of wheels on each side of the vehicle on hard surfaces, but there was no allowance for rotational speed differences between front and rear. The centre no-spin unit allowed the wheels on either side of the vehicle with most grip to drive when off-road. This had the effect of making the vehicle appear to crab (move from side to side) when negotiating muddy conditions, thus making the Stalwart a true 6-wheel-drive vehicle, with 3 wheels locked together and turning at the same speed. However, this system caused 'wind up' in the transmission (inter-component stress) as all the wheels were forced to rotate at the same speed. This led to rapid wear and breakage of the bevel gear boxes if the vehicle was used on firm surfaces such as tarmac or concrete - in off-road conditions the natural 'slip' of a loose surface such as mud or gravel prevented 'wind up'. This problem is of special concern for modern-day enthusiast Stalwart owners - to get a vehicle to a show either requires moving it by low-loader or driving it on the road, risking damage to the transmission. So bad was this problem that the Army started painting white lines on the wheel hubs, The lines on each side of the vehicle being in line on the three wheels. This was so when the inevitable breakage happened you knew which bevel gearbox/ drive shaft to look at and fix! Just find the wheel where the white line no longer lines up with the other two on that side. To turn a corner each wheel on the vehicle needs to turn at a different speed, but because three wheel on each side are locked together, this cannot happen, making steering harder than it should be, and increasing tyre wear. Brilliant Design....... Edited October 1, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Brilliant Design....... At last! I knew you'd get there in the end :-D Perhaps now you can begin to consider the possibility that the success of this brilliant design might just have been compromised by over-extending its application to those to which it was not so suited (e.g. duties involving a high proportion of on-highway haulage). Sounds like many of the shortcomings highlighted so far by extending its range of uses might have been eliminated in a Mk 3, thus making it more suitable for a wider range of roles? I can't think of one sound piece of engineering which could not be described as useless/unsuitable when considered for use outside its design/comfort zone (like putting 4 times the rated load on a GMC - oooh that's not a very good example, they coped with that abuse for years in civvy street didn't they :rofl:). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It was not designed to even swim. <snipped> Brilliant Design....... For it's time - it was..... Leaving aside your personal dislike of them - for the early Sixties it was a good design - same as the Salamander or in RAF parlance the Mk 6 Crash Tender - which also shared the Saracen/Saladin underpinings. Like I said the guru's at Alvis saw it as something the oil companies could use when looking for new fields or maintaining existing ones. As to whether the original was intended to swim - my understanding from research carried out prior to buying my own is that it was always the case that it was meant to be amphibious - hence no doors in the sides of the cab (apart form the one used to shoot the Tomb Raider film ) and access/egress via the roof hatches. When out oil hunting sometimes bridges are few and far between and it was this very ability to go anywhere on it's own that attracted the Military - both UK and Swedish forces operated them and the Bundeswher evaluated them. As for driving on the road - mine did over 80 miles when I bought her, driving home from the Bentley motor museum in East Sussex to Coalhouse Fort in Essex. No problems, no difficulties. The 40 mile round trip to the W&P show has also been done a couple of times under it's own power again without incident. The only problems on the trip back from the "restorers" were of their making and nothing to do with the vehicle design. I think this is a subject on which we need to agree to disagree, you do not like them, I do. Would have liked a DUKW but there was no way I was spending THAT amount of money on a vehicle so bought a Stalwart instead and even with the maintenace nightmares and legacies of 2007 I have no regrets, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulob1 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I really do ask the question again...what can do the stalwarts job today...name me a single vehicle that can....we know its faults and its difficulties but what can cover its job...nothing in my eyes, not a single vehicle. great discussion by the way...I do think that they should have made the traction system just that bit more substantial and a bit more maintainable but not totally sure how...without compromising other areas of the design...still know of no other offroad vehicle aside from a pajero that goes over the bumps as smotthly as a stalwart.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Does anyone know how much a Stolly cost when new, how many were made and if they were ever used in a conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulob1 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think it was in the region of 900 and the last price I heard was £99,000 for the last few... will be out playing with my flawed but brilliant stalwart this weekend on slab common bordon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think it was in the region of 900 and the last price I heard was £99,000 for the last few... will be out playing with my flawed but brilliant stalwart this weekend on slab common bordon... I seemed to remember £50,000 banded about but wasn't sure, seemd too steep! Either way £50,000 - £99,000 for a vehicle in the late sixties early seventies was a huge, huge, amount of money, probably around the equivalent of £1 million these days. No wonder they only sold to the military! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) ... As to whether the original was intended to swim - my understanding from research carried out prior to buying my own is that it was always the case that it was meant to be amphibious - hence no doors in the sides of the cab (apart form the one used to shoot the Tomb Raider film ) and access/egress via the roof hatches. My information that PV1, the prototype Stalwart, was not amphibious comes from the "Janes Handbooks". Janes also says that sides and tailgate were introduced on PV2. Janes says the Dowty units were introduced on PV2. Personally I find these (Janes handbooks) one of the best researched and most accurate sources of information. If PV1 did not have sides or tailgate to the flat loadbed, It could not have swam, since on the FV series the waterline comes someway up the sides, and the waterproofed seals on the sides mean that the area they enclose is part of the bouyancy. I have never seen a photo of PV1 so I do not know whether access was via doors or through roof hatches. We know PV2 varied from PV1 and PV2 was the basis of Army trials and development, not PV1. Perhaps seeing as you have researched the matter you will have a photo of PV1 showing what its cab was like, and how they overcame the lack of bouyancy at the back, since it had no sealed sides and tailgate to provide bouyancy, and how without Dowty units it was supposed to propel itself. But without being rude, until Janes is proved wrong, I do not accept PV1 was ever intended to be amphibious. Can you point me to any documents that prove PV1 was built as a swimmer? Edited October 2, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptopshed Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Nice picture of one of the protos at the 1962 motor show. http://www.chrishodgephotos.co.uk/pixcma/aao082.jpg The aphibious trials were also sea going, as the military prototype that i last saw in storage near Derby had the coloured marker lights on the cabin. It also had hexagonal roof hatches. I love stollies and wouldnt have to be asked twice if i could afford to have another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Here is a picture of the PV1 variant from a French Website. http://www.rover-club-fr.org/pages/Alvis-Straussler/Stalwart.htm It appears to have a raised load bed, side entry doors and the windscreen looks to be higher that the equivelant Salamander, but I can't tell if it would/could have been a swimmer or not. Could the PV1 have been a test bed for dry land testing with the suggested loads? The swimming option might always have been a consideration but just not implimented until they had proved that the base vehicle could do the required job on land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 At last! I knew you'd get there in the end :-D Perhaps now you can begin to consider the possibility that the success of this brilliant design might just have been compromised by over-extending its application to those to which it was not so suited (e.g. duties involving a high proportion of on-highway haulage). Perhaps I can admit that although I reckon there is a lot wrong with the Stolly, if I was given one, I would keep and use it, and I am sure I would enjoy it. The trouble is I have a mischievous side, and I do like to wind folks up and get them going. And some people bite so easily, it just has to be done from time to time..... I wouldn't buy one but I understand why people do. Heck ,I bought an Antar, and I am prepared to send out movement orders everytime I drive it because it is overwidth, I can't knock anyone who buys a Stalwart and who gets into the same, Overwidth, movement order, can't register a vehicle over 2.55m wide nonsense can I? If you only bought was was paractical and easy, there would be one hell of a load more Jeeps and Landies on the circuit. And that would be very dull. No, good luck to those who don't mind owning an overwidth vehicle, and all that means in terms of agro., Police notification and the like...Can't go anywhere without giving two days notice, so no impromtu Jaunts to Freshco's...etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I have never seen a photo of PV1 so I do not know whether access was via doors or through roof hatches. We know PV2 varied from PV1 and PV2 was the basis of Army trials and development, not PV1. Perhaps seeing as you have researched the matter you will have a photo of PV1 showing what its cab was like, and how they overcame the lack of bouyancy at the back, since it had no sealed sides and tailgate to provide bouyancy, and how without Dowty units it was supposed to propel itself. and here is PV2 from the same site. To my mind it is amazingly obvious looking at PV1 that it could not swim. It appears to have opening top half to the side windows, which just slide past the lower half, the catches on the drop sides are standard wrought iron fittings secured with a cotter at the top, just like goods vehicles of the day....The cab seems to be panelled with thin sheet, with half round cover strips over the joints. (I presume the cab is wooden framed, and steel or aluminium panelled over this) This could not be watertight, no would it be strong enough to stand the water pressure. The lights look like standard units that would fill with water, there is no evidence of a raised exhaust pipe...... It is also amazingly obvious that it isn't the standard Salamander cab. (although front windscreen may well be the same). The Salamander had, I believe rear hinged "Suicide Doors" but this has conventionally front hung doors. The roof is completely different and the back of the cab is also a lot further forward. Would you go to the trouble of building a totally new cab for a prototype, knowing that it wasn't what was going to be on the final vehicle, No I suggest if it was just to prove the load carrying ability of the chassis, they would not have spend time, effort and money in building a new cab....The cab is I suggest is the actual cab that was envisiged as being fitted to the vehicle if it went through to production.... It is also obvious that PV2 is not the same prototype as the one pictured at the 1962 Motor show, unless it has undergone a lot of reworking to items such as the drop sides.... Why is it so hard to accept Janes version of the Stalwart History, that it was designed initially as a non amphibious load carrier, by Alvis, as a private venture and only after two years did they attempt to make it amphibious, and only once it was a swimmer did the Army seem to take notice of it and started to get involved. Why try and invent other theories, why won't this explanation do? Edited October 4, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Does anybody know what the original engine fitment was for the Stalwart, before the Military got involved? As far as I'm aware Rolls Royce B80's and 81's were only fitted to military vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 As far as I'm aware Rolls Royce B80's and 81's were only fitted to military vehicles. The B80 and 81 was also availble in civilian spec. and used in vehicles such as fire appliances. you would be surprised at the applications that 6 and 8 cyl version were used in..........even Bedford TK trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The photo of PV1 does look more like the Salamander than the Stalwart. If it was a design study to determine the practicalities of building a soft-skin vehicle (i.e. Salamander and Stalwart) on the core of an armoured vehicle - that I could understand. My ex-employers were fond of doing the same thing much to the consternation of the motoring press. You would not believe some of the things that were running around on the core platform of a Focus or a Mondeo that never made it to production for various reasons. Everything I've ever seen and read, though, indicates the Stalwart as it was - probably from the PV2 stage, not pre production evaluation types - was intended to have amphibious capabilities to replace the DUKW. Like I said earlier - a topic we will have to agree to disagree on! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I doesn't really seem the army knew what it wanted the Stalwart for. This picture claims to show a Stalwart prototype, being evaluated as an artillery tractor for towing the 5.5" field gun. It is hard to see why you would choose an amphibious vehicle for this role, because the towed gun certainly would't float! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) And to be honest PV1 obiously inspired this RAF Foam crash truck 26AG62. or was it the other way round? Again note the "Broken bevel box" detector lines on the hub ends. Edited October 3, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon_M Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 The Salamander was the fire truck. they basically made the first Stalwart by teaching a Salamander to float... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 A good way of getting Stollies around without risking Transmission breakage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 A good way of getting Stollies around without risking Transmission breakage? :rofl: Looks like it may be too late for this one! The front wheel is definately at a slightly different angle going by the tell tale white lines. May actually be about to be recovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Doesn't look that bad - allow for vagaries when painted! :-) And anyway -it has another 5 wheels, potentially, being driven - they are supposed to work with a wheel blown off either side. Drops recovery for a broken wheel station is not a likely scenario..... Which reminds me - ALL the FV-600 series vehicles had the indicator lines at some point in their lives on the hubs - yet I hear no word of complaint about Saracens and Saladins.... :??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 :rofl:Looks like it may be too late for this one! The front wheel is definately at a slightly different angle going by the tell tale white lines. May actually be about to be recovered. Looks to me like a RCT display at an event somewhere. See info board leant against Drops pallet. I don't think thee is a problem with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.