fv1609

What?? Is that an old Chinese proverb or something?

.....organ? :cool2: Sorry Simon when I replied to you I assumed it was a curiosity following my comments on the colours of instructional engines, rather than the real thing.

Interesting link, can't have enough glossaries. Although this one amused me: ATGW – Army Tank Guided Weapon

Graham you are correct. Although the only Regulation I can find that covers the painting of fuel caps for fuel identification, merely states "the filler cap of all vehicles which operate on diesel fuel is to be painted yellow." No mention of red for petrol, I can only assume that this became adopted for reassurance. So that a driver is not worrying, is this unpainted cap indicating it is really for petrol or is it just that someone forgot to paint it yellow? But there appears to be no Regulatory requirement for red to be used even in publications of 1980s & 1990s. It was later added that the regulation does not apply to civilianised vehicles. These are vehicles trying avoid being identified as military vehicles that would have their cover blown with a yellow filler cap. As for the other colours mentioned & their purposes, I can find nothing. At first I wondered whether it was a carryover from the convention of paint colours on instructional engines. Yellow matches up but not the others. Lubrication system - Yellow Lemon Fuel system - Blue sky (which equates to what is often incorrectly called duck egg blue) Cooling system - Green Brunswick middle

Yes under layers of paint on a pig up by the radiator, I found a symbol of a stopcock in yellow about an inch long. Beneath it a series of yellow arrows leading to the draincock. Not seen this on a vehicle before. But you don't have to be Brain of Britain to work out the vicinity where the draincock is to be found! I believe this pig was BAOR. The only other unusual markings were the yellow discs painted on the side doors, which I take to be side bridge plates, which again are unusual, although they are described in the Regulations.

RE vehicles just says "wings", similarly RAF EOD. But RAF OD (IED) & RAOC (then RLC) are white vans with reflective horizontal bands midway up the body. I have some official drawings if you want to become a white van man. Never seen disruptive camo on RE Rover would be self defeating to the camo concept to have red wings. Although it is conceivable a Rover previously painted in camo was pressed into RE service. RN Rovers are navy blue with red wings, a rubber boat on top & towing a trailer. I assume that is for wartime ordnance. Whereas RN have white vans for IEDs similar to RLC. I think similarly RE deal with wartime & heavy ordnance whereas RLC cover IEDs?

Probably just as well, as on another forum a few months ago it got so exciting that the thread had to be locked!

They first appeared in Equipment Regulations 1959 embracing STANAG 2027 (NATO Standard). Although the symbol was then referred to as a "Union Jack". In those days it was 6" x 4". Has reduced in size twice since.

Dear oh dear Paul, you've done it now. You'll open up the old chestnut of what is the Union Jack, a Jack Staff & all that sort of thing & before you know where you are it will become a nautical thread & the sailors will be in on the thread. Yes, the Union Flag sticker should be nearside front & rear. Although about a quarter of all in service vehicles seem to get it wrong!

A recurring subject of fascination that regularly crops up on some Land Rover forums. This is what I have posted there. The wheels, wheel nuts, tow hitch, bumpers, manufacturer’s badges, knobbly bits, ancillaries, hub drive flange nuts, etc should all the the same colour as the vehicle. The only exception to this is that on divided rim wheels where the retaining nuts should be painted red and nothing else. This is repeatedly laid down in, Equipment Regulations, Joint Service Road Transport Regulations, AESPs. There is no requirement to paint anything else red or white even. (The exceptions are on a trailer, emergency brake connections painted red, service connections yellow & secondary connections blue. Tipper locking pins painted red. Rear diff painted white for convoy purposes.) But some units will embellish vehicles with all sorts of silly bits painted. I remember being taken round a camp by the chief vehicle inspector & asked him why about a third of the vehicles on camp have these unauthorised bits of paintwork. He just shook his head in despair & sighed that he can't stop them doing it whenever his back is turned. But I think the silliest one of all is painting the heads of the bolts on the drive flanges. What's going to happen is the wheel brace going to fit on there & the flange come off instead of the wheel? Again if you find your vehicle had these silly markings, most owners, I suppose will feel some justification for reproducing them on their restored vehicle. Someone else sees it & thinks painted twiddly bits would look smart on their vehicle & so it goes on. Using red paint was clearly a warning & was not to do with preservation of the stud & its thread. Regulations refer to the painting of the nuts specifically, not the stud, although inevitably the stud gets a dollop of red paint as well. A variation I have seen is a small blob of white paint on the end of the thread for the wheel nuts & a similar red blob for the divided wheel clamping threads. It avoids the problems of dribbling a contrasting colour paint from the nuts & missing bits on some of the nut faces. I have to admit it does look quite smart, but it is quite contrary to the Regulations. Here are three types of documents, which really say it all, particularly the JSP that makes reference to the painting of the other nuts on the wheel. EMER (Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Regulations) WHEELED VEHICLES A 409 AESP (Army Equipment Support Publication) 2610-A-409-301 Chapter 3 JSP 341 Joint Service Road Transport Regulations Chapter 12

More than several. In fact lots! When when are going to see them all then?

Adam, two archive sources. I'll PM you.

Sounds a silly question but are you sure it is missing? In some installations the panel was mounted underneath the rear floor. The generator panel you need doesn't depend on the Mk of generator but on the wiring of the installation. Although any Mk of panel will work, there can be issues with the charge light not working. If you have two ammeters on the dash you need Gen Panel No.9 Mk 3 If you have one ammeter in a shunt box to the left of or behind the driver, you need Gen Panel No.9 Mk 4.

Adam I'm afraid 05 BK 61 was not one of the pigs that was recovered for use in NI. It was struck off census on 12/9/67 & was not taken on census again.

Adam it’s certainly had some mistreatment & its fascinating to speculate how this damage might have occurred. Was it in some major incident in NI or just neglect in a scrap yard with other stuff piled onto it? The repairs don't look of a good enough standard to have been done by REME. I know they were under considerable pressure over there, but the various repairs on my pigs were of a better quality. It is surprising that the Army would accept a single tank in a pig if drivers in the rest of the fleet were relying on using two tanks. Replacement tanks were manufactured for NI & were available. The most obvious difference was size of the drain hole bolt. So I think it unlikely that the single tank mod was the work of REME. My guess is that a previous owner, unable to find a replacement tank wanted to gloss over its absence by fitting chequered plate over it. The foot well repair looks dubious. I suspect it was a previous owner that fabricated the wings, I don’t mean this unkindly but the asymmetry of the sidelights doesn’t look like the work of a REME workshop. Do you know whether your pig did go to NI? I think yours has no side lockers, now that could be a NI mod. Or it could be that they just rusted away & maybe that’s what happened to the wings? I wonder what underwing reinforcing there is? Mk 1 wings had a large X pattern of ‘top hat’ channelling underneath. All Mk 2 pigs had Mk 1 wings to start with as these wings got damaged whether it was Mk 1 or Mk 2 they were fitted with repro wings, which had no lockers. The reinforcement was 3 parallel runs of ‘top hat’ channelling underneath. I can see where the body contract plate was, someone has nicked it but who & when we won’t ever know. All Mk 1 pigs that served in NI that I have seen had certain modifications that I can’t see on yours. Screen washers were fitted. The reservoir was from a Lightweight & was fitted where your generator panel is. The gen panel was moved to the engine bay in the front nearside corner. The foot wells were fitted with GRP plates at an early stage. The FWD lever was modified; does yours have any holes in it? A mesh frame was fitted over the front visors, which were usually kept open. Can you find any remnants of the hinge welds? Or of the catches on the visors to hold the springs to keep the mesh held up & a single catch on the central piece that supports the engine bay hatches? Whether it went to NI or not doesn’t detract from the prestige of owning a pig & the fact that it could have had a far more interesting history well before the Army used any pigs in NI! Although I know the public can be infuriating if they think your vehicle hasn’t been in their terms “in action”. Like the expectation that all Jeeps were at D-Day or the disappointment that the Hornet, when I had it, was not actually “in a real war”.

Adam just wash out your old one, if its felt. If its paper it probably is a Tecalmit FA2688, which I think matches with a Crossland 432 (B674D) If you buy another felt filter make sure it is the correct type. Early engines had no bypass in the filter mount if it became clogged. This felt is sealed at one end. These types are LF2/31B & LF3. The most common type for the later filter mount with bypass has a felt with a hole each end of the rolled felt. Most common type LF3F superseded by LF3/35. But as others have said just treat it as nature intended & everything will work fine. Spin on filters, electric fuel pumps all unnecessary.

Chris thanks. But unfortunately it is for a later Mk 3 with 6-cyl. Mine is a Mk 1 with 4-cyl, which struggles so I suppose it needs a bigger radiator. I have spoken to Philip & he doesn't feel it was used on any other Rovers. I have visited a Southampton radiator company who rebuild the one in my Shorland prototype a few years ago. They said they can solder this one up from the inside when they recore it. I was hoping Serck might have said that it was a common item on some 1960s commercial vehicle or they were having a clearout of their stores & found some of these still in their original packing...dream on!

Phoned Serck Radiators today. They said they stopped making automobile radiators in 1920s! Gave me a number of another company who have made radiators for them. Phoned them they didn't make them but contacted another company who would know, but this turned out to be Serck Radiators!

Now I've got the radiator off here's a bit more detail. I intend to ring Serck on Monday, but still wonder whether it does match any other vehicle. The serial no 10 M 65 B probably includes the date as the Shorland was built in Nov 1965. It is wider than the 2A 6-cyl rad, this one is 57 cm long, 10.5 cm wide & 53 cm high.

The only name I recognise is at the top of the list is Peter Brown. Not in recent times but I have been in contact with him some 20 years ago, but regularly articles appear from him in the Tank Museum mag & other places. I would have every reason to trust his observations. I think the list is a record of personal observations of the vehicles themselves & from photographs. I think you can feel safe that it is not a churning out of lists done by others that one sometimes sees around the place nor do I think it is copied from Fleet Transport Society. I'm sure these are an accumulation of various observations made over decades. One leading authority I know records any MV he sees on the road. I was amazed when this particular person visited me once & was able to inform me of the ERM batch of my TUL without looking at the plate. He later informed he had seen it twice when in service with the time, date, location & where it was heading! So people do go to great lengths to record all sorts of detail. Getting back to Peter's list. I compared it with a few examples I knew about & it made sense. So I think it can be reasonably trusted.

I'm disappointed Richard, that you would have to rely on mechanical aids, I thought you would have known it off by heart:) My attempts to upstage you have been thwarted. I have a RAF Vocab 16E (MT electrical fittings), although it has a lot of wartime stuff this one is not listed, although it is 1954.

Always a good principle where RF is concerned to bond equipment directly to earth. On receive generally it will make ignition interference less likely to be picked up into the receiver through the coax. If you don't bond the rig to earth on transmit you may experience a voltage drop across the power leads reducing RF power out a little. By bonding to earth then you only have the voltage drop in the +ve lead. From an RF point of view on transmit the rig needs to go straight to earth & otherwise the rig is "floating" above earth & the -ve lead is having to perform an RF function rather than a purely DC role. I think you need to try to tune the whip into resonance. That will improve reception & transmission no end. On 28Mhz I used to use an Aerial Tuning Unit No 8 which was intended for matching a B47 into an 8ft whip. You can use a No.6 which was intended for a C42. The only difference is the resistor in the RF sniffer is higher in the No.6 (27k) than the No.8 (4.7k) as the C42 was more powerful. Before everyone starts frothing at the mouth I should explain you need to detune the ATUs to operate below its lower design frequency which I think was 36Mhz. What I did was to get inside the box & put 50pf trimmer condensers across the matching variable condenser (C8) & the ganged tuning condensers (C9). You can get adaptors for BNC to PL259 (plug or S0239 socket) used on CBs, although these used to be called UHF type, which is an appalling misnomer. In fact inter-series connector kits allow you to mate C, N, BNC & 259 series together. What you have to watch is that 75 ohm BNC has a smaller pin than 50 ohm BNC. If you mix them there is a mismatch, but more importantly a 50 ohm plug into a 75 ohm socket can split the centre connector of the socket. I think the Army system was 75 ohms. G4MBS

You can always rely on the VAOS, this one is dated Nov 1943.

Ah Press Steel Company, so does it say 3/4 Ton? Or does it look like a 3/4 Ton but says its a 1/2 Ton? If so that would be an interesting find. Because certain trailers by PSC were fitted with incorrectly designated plates. These should have been changed according to EMER WHEELED VEHICLES U 209/8 Misc Inst No.1 June 1967