fv1609

As I understand it, it is just a pointing stick that doesn't provide the final guidance to the target. It is just a MAF (Manual Acquisition Facility) for the targetting radar to lock onto if the detection radar is not operational for some reason. You are correct that binoculars provide too narrow a field of vision. That was merely a mock up & they soon discovered it was best to have a monocular whilst the operator's other eye could have an appreciation of 'the bigger picture'. The early monocular was a single eyepiece, the later type incorporated a rubber frame above it to give the operator an approximate field of vision to view the target before glancing down into the optical eyepiece.

Hear, hear! Alan wonderful being able to see not just in service pics, but pics of the Pigs at the point of conception as it were. Archive pictures with all the detail, including the surroundings, are so historically fascinating. It is good that someone is finding this materiel AND sharing it with others who appreciate it. I have nothing against these MV mags you can buy off the shelf. I find that most of what you can see is available to see oneself at large shows anyway. Occasionally I will buy one if it has a even a few archive pics of a subject that interests me. Considering the millions of official pics taken over the years, only a small proportion will have been saved & most of us will only see a tiny part of those even. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a MV archive monthly? I'd sign up to a lifetime subscription! Just think of titles like FVRDE Monthly! Wow!

I don't know Lee! It doesn't look substantial enough at the other end though.

Adam, I think you'll find it is hydrogenated glucose syrup. Sometimes I find it tastes nicer to drink my tea without any tea, much less complicated!

Slightly different format this time. Although I know the designation from the plate on the item, I do not know its purpose! There is a prize! Whoever knows what it is & what it does, probably could make best use of it & therefore deserves to win the thing. This is a collect only prize.

Ah Flight magazine on line. Just gone & had a look. At aerojumble dealers I always go through the mags from 1955 -1966, amazing what turns up around the September - Farnborough editions. I'll explain how I got these documents. We all know a fair bit about our vehicles & can easily be touchy about any implied criticism or suggestion that we don't know it all about our vehicle or project. But it does pay to listen & be polite because amongst all the nonsense spoken & asked there can be rich seams of information to be tapped into. Being too conceited about our knowledge can mean we miss out. Over 20 years ago I converted my Shorland to represent a Vigilant conversion. I had plans & photos from Shorts & I had been in contact with a VA Vigilant technical man & with BAC. So I felt I had done a fair bit of research into my project. At a show I met a man who wondered what my missiles were. He said they weren't Vigilants to his mind. He said the launcboxes were not cutaway at the side, the walls of the box should be ribbed & bowed inwards. Also missiles didn't hang from a rail in the launch box, but the launch box was packed with preformed rubberised horse hair. Furthermore the missile tips were not conical there was a long metal spike to detonate the HEAT charge before it hit the tank & besides the aimer's control unit was not like a double butt gun, it was like a pair of binoculors. For another thing they weren't meant to be fitted on a vehicle they were man-portable infantry weapons. I really was surprised, but instead of arguing & getty shirty I questioned him on the basis of his claims. He told me his father ran a small engineering workshop where he often did prototype projects for Vickers Armstrong. He seemed genuine enough & he had seen documents to back his recollections up. I told him I was most grateful, I gave him my address but I was somewhat confused as it was contrary to all the research I had done in contacts with people & research in museums. A few days later a letter arrived, explaining how amongst his fathers old stuff was this technical design project. There it all was just as he had said, it would have been all too easy to dismiss him as a meddling crank criticising my displayed vehicle. It taught me to not only be polite about questions but to be always on the lookout for new & unexpected sources of information. But you never know when it will come or whether it will come. This season, of the couple of dozen people to whom I have given my address on the promise of photos & info, it is sad to say not one person has followed up on their promises, despite the offer of money for postage, copying etc

And to think I was feeling sorry for everyone & gave a clue! You've been reading my articles Richard :shocked: Yes well done Richard For practical purposes you have got it as right as you can be with available information. Given that the information is not on the internet nor in the archives of any military museum I have ever looked in. I doubt it would even be in the PRO as this was not a MoS project but was a private venture. It was stubbornly ignored by the Army. I have spoken with the man who rejected it twice for the Army, someone on the Vigilant sales team & the man who sold it to Libya. So have seen the arguments from all sides. The thrust of the Vigilant sales pitch was that this was a weapon whereby a mere infantryman could defeat a tank in the same way that at the Battle of Crecy armour was defeated by infantrymen with bows. When it was finally accepted into Army service, the manportable potential was largely ignored & they were stuck on the turrets of Ferrets & just used as an interium weapons system whilst waiting for Swingfire. This particular missile predates the Type 891 & predates the name Vigilant. In fact the missile uncontrolled firing was not until July 1957. This controller is a mock up depicted in January 1957. The final controller looked nothing like this thing here. There is an interesting story as to how I obtained these rare documents.

Very good Tony I could see you were on the scent quite early on. But Rapier appeared in 1966, this was 1957.

Good idea Robert, but this is 1957.

Yes, I'm sure thats what they did.

Boxes of tissues? No I'm on the kitchen roll with this lot! Hats of to Charles (no relation) good old fashioned crisp & detailed photography. I had always believed Sankey & ROF produced their own components rather than a kit of parts being supplied by Sankey. Not only, as you say ROF have adequate facilities, but there are characteristics in two of the armour components that can be used to differentiate between a Sankey or a ROF Pig. Also in early Sankey Pigs there was a different design of catch mechanism on the firing ports, if they were supplied in a kit of parts then some would have been seen on ROF Pigs. The chassis is interesting. Clearly it doesn't yet have the small section framework to support the floor nor the rear chassis extension pieces that are needed to be added to the GS chassis to support the Pig body. So this would suggest it is GS chassis stripped down prior to Pig conversion. Interestingly the engine is light in colour ie inevitable Sky Blue. I am not sure whether a repaint was part of the Pig make over. But the pictures I have seen of engines of the prototype Pig (ie FV1609) were black, I strongly suspect all B Series engines as supplied from the manufacturer were black. I note the dynamo has been removed. Both Generator No.1 & No.2 were used on the original GS truck & both were fitted to the Pigs depending if it was APC or FFW. So I don't see why it was removed, unless the engine was given a complete strip down or overhaul & the ancilleries are still being refitted. If that was the case a repaint would have been in order.

Here's a clue, although don't get too tied up with aircraft themselves. But this device was conceived as a result of something that happened to the 'thin winged Javelin'. As you might expect there is nothing relevant to be found on wiki about it, I'm afraid.

Nope.

Yes, very good.

Nope not thermal either.

Nope Tony, not part of Mr Waverley's IR gadgetary.

I take the point Richard that you were drawing a distinction between active IR & passive IE, but it is neither of these. But you are are very good on era, in fact 1957.

Yes that's why I do it:)I enjoy seeing the intellectual ingenuity, the diversity of thought & humour that often arises. Yes, very good. There is power going in & out, but not voice messages.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Binoulars - yes Aldis lamp - nope

What's this all about & when?

http://www.whatsthebloodypoint.com/ http://www.watersanitationhygiene.org/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=3 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MilitaryManualCollectorsClub/messages http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HUMBER-FV1600/ http://www.policefamily.co.uk/forum/ http://www.shorlandsite.com/ (Embarasingly funny classic, right at the end of this clip there is a shot of Lulworth Camp with AFVs including a Mk5 Ferret). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=470jkqA51y0

Yes. But just that one is 22 pages.