fv1609

Somewhere I have the User Handbook, Minelayer, Mechanical, Towed Equipment, Mk 1. Provisional Edition. July 1954, it was the subject of one of my Mystery Objects so there will be pictures on there.

The No.16 alternator is covered in detail in AESP 2320-D-122-524 Chapter 13-2 which can be downloaded if you follow the links: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_aesp_relating_to_lan That is the base workshop repair info (Level 4) Don't get excited about 2320-D-122-522 as that is unit repairs (Level 2) & just shows you how to remove the alternator & refit it.

Although that is 24v 90A that's a No.16 not covered in ACU which is mainly about No.10.

Just renewed my MV insurance & I see KGM have included the wording below. If you don't like being made to go round the arena it seems the perfect get-out, if you enjoy that sort of thing then contact your MV broker for advice.

My reference to losing the last decade switch was inspired by the 320/1 that sacrificed this switch on manufacture in order to have LSB & USB for use in Yugoslavia. I had believed some people emulated this on a 320 but good to know it can also be achieved by alternative means.

Sorry was thinking of 320/1 that gained extra room for LSB & USB filters by elimination of the last tuning switch.

John indeed yes a lot of preserved WW2 vehicles still continue to emit large amounts of RF interference right across the spectrum. At shows I operate on amateur bands from 80m-2m & it can be quite a problem for me, with a directional antenna I can identify an offending vehicle sometimes several hundred yards away. I would have thought if the ignition systems have actually been restored to their wartime spec then tactically it would have been a drawback not only to a unit's own comms but would also warn an enemy of an approaching threat no matter how much stealth was employed.

I have a 320 but its not a problem, I don't use SSB. Occasionally there are USB nets on 80m organised by https://groups.io/g/VMARS-Member There are also the Sat morning nets on 3.615 Mc/s AM & most days AM QSOs can be had on that frequency. There was a recent thread on a LSB conversion by changing a filter rather than the usual mod that I believe for some reason sacrifices the fine tuning.

JSP 361 shows no specific extension for a 9x9, but there is for 12x12 Extension J1 8340-99-135-9601

Sorry to hear that, poor chap.

Martin what is the book you have? To be applicable to your vehicle you need to look for publications in the AESP series 2320-D-122- I have 3 editions of 2320-D-122-201 Operating Information. It is only the 2nd edition that contains the circuit diagram. PM me your email & I'll sent the diagram The original headlight bulbs for yours were 12v 45/50w

Let me know how you get on with a circuit diagram & that it is specific to your vehicle. If not let me know & can dig one out.

Seems you've got a lot of rewiring to do, shame it can't be made to work as originally intended. My 90 made under the same contract didn't have these lighting issues. Is there not some easier workaround perhaps with more modern lighting? Or are you sure the bulb units fitted are to the original spec?

Yes the fuse rating business was rather strange & caused a lot of confusion in service. This was from a guide was published in April 1995.

Andy were you thinking of Marcus Engineering (Wirral) Company Limited they refurbished carbs etc vehicles in NI. Some years ago I ordered a lot of carb spares from them, but they seemed to have ceased trading under that name in 2003.

The fuses are probably correct! In 90/110s the specified fuse rating relates to the holding current not the blow rating that most of us are used to. Blow rating is about double the holding rating.

Might be worth measuring from the bulb holder but with the negative meter lead to a wire directly on the battery negative & see if you get the same result. Also check the state of the fuses, fuse holder & blade connectors into fuse holders for the dip circuitry. RHS dip feed is Blue/Black to fuse LHS dip feed is Blue/Pink to fuse The live side of each fuse join together to Blue/Red, check the jumper lead & its blade connectors. To rule out an earthing issue, would be to temporarily run a stout lead from the bulb holder earth terminal to battery negative.

So the 1v drop is on the headlight bulb holder that has no bulb., but is the bulb on the corresponding fitting on the other side illuminated? If it is, it is going to take the edge off the at rest voltage of the battery. Measure the voltage drop with the engine running, I suspect you won't see a drop. When measuring this voltage drop from where are you getting the negative connection? On the wing, an earth lead in the wing, the chassis or long lead back to the battery negative or the earth strap of the negative lead? Be suspicious of all earth connections, battery to chassis, chassis to wing or earth leads to lights & associated common earth junctions & links.

Martin it is worth looking for Supplementary Parts Catalogue RTC9941 this covers all the variants in Contract No.22A/340. It covers the Military Land Rover 90 2 1/2 Diesel 12v & 12/24 volt. This is not a military parts book so there are no NSNs just Land Rover part numbers. I think you will enjoy it as it has the layout of the FFR fittings in the rear & on the wings. I used to have a 90 in this contract, one thing I would suggest is to rewire the supply to the map reading light through the ignition switch. It is so easy for the light to get knocked on & in daylight not realise this so you end up with a flat battery. You say you have a 1v drop from the battery to the bulb holder, which bulb holder do you mean & is this when current is being drawn? Have you got a photo of the data plate?

Martin it wouldn't have been converted to 12v as it was already 12v. The 24v charging system was only to the radio batteries & was electrically separate from the 12v system. Hence it was designated 12/24 Volt Hard Top RHD. Being 12/24v was a jolly good idea unlike Wolf derivatives that are entirely 24v. Yours was built under Contract No. 22A/340 of which there were 258 starting 76 KF 14 - 78 KF 18 built in the Fiscal Year 1986-1987 Painted NATO Green, interestingly the contract included 22 in Bronze Green that were designated "Civilian" & all but 11 were given military registrations.

If you need the rubber bung. you need the rectangular rubber gasket that fits in the rim of the cover. Unfortunately neither are identified as demandable items other than being part of the cover PX19354 for the early battery box. I see the later battery box cover FV63144 has a matching gasket FV363145, but I don't know if that will fit yours or not.

As Richard says the odd thing about this category of trailer is that it has mudguards. Using "flash fill" you can see that the panels are flat & reinforced by vertical channelling. Doesn't match up to anything I can think of.

Yes very much that sort thing. A double aggression can be triggered if the vehicle in question has a collecting box for a Service charity, because to question anything about the vehicle is seen as not just an affront to the owner but is taken as criticism of the act of collecting for charity. I should say that there are some very nice people with very nice sensible vehicles who do an excellent job fund raising. I imagine most of us in our own ways give to charities without making a fuss about it & would have no reason to criticise anyone fund raising but that should really not be a smoke screen to create an immunity from questions or comments even when they are politely presented. Some years ago I was looking with astonishment at Mk2 Pig at W&P that had a number of quite strange embellishments & markings that made it look somewhat ridiculous. I was confronted by an ex-NI veteran who assumed the vehicle was mine & was clearly upset who started to admonish me for the way it was presented as being totally unrealistic & he felt that it dishonoured him & his colleagues. By chance I happened to see this Pig in a museum a couple of months ago. It still had all the nonsense but it had a number of other issues relating to servicing. Polite mentioning of these issues was met with indifference, undaunted I followed up with an email offering to help with a Servicing Schedule & any copies of documents or photos to help with presenting & running the vehicle. I did get a response but only after I had posted some observations on TripAdvisor. I got a very aggressive response wanting to visit me & see what vehicles I had & how well restored they were also wanting to know what I had published about MVs. Yes & of course they use it in connection with collecting for Service charities & a very worthy thing to do, which I am not criticising. So that was the trump card, I had no right to say anything presumably?