fv1609

Probably not, that is last year's Christmas card, I just had on file. You don't think I would have wasted hours doing that today? What would you like next a mobile incident control point in the snow or an aircraft armament support vehicle in the snow.

Yes but you wouldn't get an answer from the people who won't join in :roll:

Here's another, this was easier at least I didn't have to cut out a coach & horses & move the dog & duck around! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/HornetSnow.jpg[/img]

Yes but how many actually join in? It seems like only a tiny fraction:-o

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/Xmas2005b.jpg[/img]

But you shouldn't complain about bias against PW vehicles. Look at the front cover of Windscreen. It is a postwar vehicle. Yes really. :roll:

Thank you very much, its always encouraging to know if someone reads this stuff. Actually it was a much longer article, but as you read there is pressure on space. I would sooner have an article chopped into two than have bits chopped out here & there. So hopefully there should be part 2 next time. On page 75, the thing that amazed me is that so many distributor caps became routinely damaged due to that extra nut on the condenser terminal. There is no EMER or recognition of the defect, yet they all get damaged if they have that second nut. Something of an oversight that has been present for 50+ years :roll: Part 2 carries on from the difficulties of getting high performance ignition needed on CVR(T)s that then moved onto electronic ignition & description & results of the Jolley system. Plus some of my experiences with fuel saving devices, magnets & spark enhancers. Including x-rays I took of three leading "spark enhancers" + a home made one! Clive

Jack I don't think it is an issue specific to MVT, its just people not thinking what its like to be a new face, which is why some companies have a buddy system. I got the same when I went to an All Wheel Drive Club meeting once & didn't bother again. As regards the MVT meeting I didn't feel it was a WW2/PW issue. Although I had a Rover Ambulance which I drove to meetings, a new boy with a Jeep was equally cold shouldered.

I think that has an awful lot to do with it. In my early days trying to get into the hobby it was extremely daunting. Going to a meeting was very nerve racking nobody seemed to recognise your plight of not knowing anybody at all. Attempts to introduce yourself & be included in a group conversation met with little acknowlegement. My only hope was to try to guess if there was anyone in my situation as well, not easy as you just don't who is old & who is new. But after a while you can spot someone who is being ignored & hope they will sit with you at the new boys table. But if they didn't turn up next month you were on your own again. Once the show season came you could talk to the person in the vehicle next to you & you were more on a level footing & there was no bar clique to try to break into. When you next went to a meeting you could then at least speak to someone you knew. To this day I can still remember the few people who would eventually talk to you & be nice & those, through I think ignorance of you predicament, would give you a non-welcome. The area in question is not in my vicinity, I have since moved. But it wouldn't surprise me if this exists elsewhere & in other hobbies. Perhaps the idea of contacting the secretary before the meeting might help with the intro, although this is what I tried but was of no value.

Clive. I'm sorry to hear that. I am in Witshire but in the SE boundary & the meetings were always quite a distance in the Swindon area I think. Dorset is some way away & the two Solent groups (one MVT & the other not) are focused around Portsmouth. Meetings I imagine come into their own in the cold non-show vacuum of winter. But more than an hours journey each way in the winter after the conviviality of the usual pub meet puts a damper on things. It isn't necessarily 100% apathy. But I know what you mean about taking on jobs in clubs. My wife had a role in a horse club she gave 2 years notice of quitting & then when she did nobody would speak to her, despite all the work she had done previously :-(

Richard yes they became 00 WB 25 & 00 WB 37 So what year wasthe Shorland turret fitted? I think 6 is the most number I have seen. That first one had quite a high box/plinth for the turret. Clive

I did post a reply put didn't get there. So is yours the oldest? Have 1 & 2 survived? So was yours actually a Fieldmouse?

Richard 04 BK 01 & 19 BK 37 ah yes Fort Halstead both struck off 16/11/77 26 BK 37 got a picture of that, ended up with a Shorland turret I saw it at Ludgershall in 1994, it went to Budge & sold off as 91 MS 40

Yup absolutely! Ex RUC & a prototype. I have just seen your posting whilst I bashed out below. It was 27 BT 90 when it was a foamer in Army service. It was a prototype pig with armour but canvas roof at rear built in 1956, one of 20 trials vehicles. Although it has been extensively rebuilt by the Army the clue for me looking under the wheel arch was the chassis plate 93280. The prefix 9 in front of the serial no was the give away on Fv1609s had that. From the rest of it 3280 means it was originally 32 BK 80. When troop trials finished & the Mk 1 Pig went into production this one was in a batch of 10 that went to the RUC in October 1958. It was built with an armour roof in 1960. It was issued with the Belfast no 2997 OI & fleet no 185. it was withdrawn from police service on 15/1/70. In 1973 made into a Mk2 then a foamer. But in Army service it had to be given another registration as 32 BK 80 was struck off census & can't go back on again. It was finally struck off 20/11/86. Somewhere along the line in Army service it had been made into a standard APC, but the made feature of fixtures remained. When I fisrt saw it 15 years ago, there was a black card registration plate with a silly number, suggesting it was rustled up for some film work. But the canvas & the blunder with upside down ram doesn't help in the presentation of this rare vehicle which I believe went to The Netherlands. It is the second oldest pig in the world being made in 1956, there is one other of these FV1609s that survives which is in my garage. Mine has an earlier chassis number & is 2996 OI the immediate neighbour of this one 2997 OI. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/DSCF1204.jpg[/img]

Not that I know of. When you look through the records of the 3,700 Humbers with their distinctive 'BK' registration. It shows only two foaming pigs, but there was a third one & this it. Any ideas?

Ah but we ain't finished yet. Why is this particular vehicle unique? BTW The door in the rear door was to feed in a water supply from a hydrant. The welded bit lower down was where they tried the hatch originally.

Yes!

Its not an ambulance although on the ambulance the step was moved. The step was moved because there if it was on the right you couldn't get in there as there is a thing behind the rear door that is special & has features on the door that are unusual.

Maybe, but can you elaborate on the features that make you say that?

Hello Gareth. Have a look at the missing bit of the bar, you can see that if it was there it would go right across the headlight. Look at the configuration of a normal ram the bars are uniformly spaced, except in front of the headlights. But on the mystery vehicle the larger gap is at the bottom. The answer is this never had a barricade ram, but someone felt it should have one. So a copy was made out of aluminium tubing. Unfortunately it was fitted to the pig upside down! So the gap for the headlights was at the bottom. As the headlights were now partially obstructed by the second from the top tube. A bit of it was cut off at each end. I am sorry I can't find the frontal view, I am not witholding it to make anymore difficult. Anyway that establishes that the pig despite being a Mk2 was not fitted with a ram. AFAIK there were only two groups of Mk2 pigs that had no ram. Maybe the rear view helps. Think about the step:

Yes its amazing how things get around I provided the owner with that pic of his actual pig having a squirt. But anyway this baby isn't a squirter.

Good idea but no.

Absolutely correct, it was not easy to see in that shot. But any ideas why?

Yes well spotted Pike, I mean Neil. Adjustment of the torsion bars can vary the height by 4in. So in its original role it would have been heavier.

I knew I would come accross it eventually. Here one is in action in NI on a rainy day in 1980s