fv1609

Steve VAOS Section F is tools & workshop equipment, later as a DMC spawned FI tools (non-powered) in COSA. I have a complete COSA F1 but that is all NSNs. I only have bits of VAOS Section F from 1955. I see that spanners & sockets occupy FA17000 - FA17595 (at least) I cannot find FA17347 although it sits in the right area. I cannot tell you if it is correct for your set, but it seems likely.

Jim sounds as if you've got it running very well. You could just wind the slow running screw in slightly to get it to tick over better when cold.

Jim your suggestion has worked for me. I have a B60 in a Pig that runs quite well, so much so that I have disconnected the choke cable. I follow the start proceed recommended for Pigs in NI. Provided the engine has run recently (& doesn't need priming manually), just a couple pumps on the accelerator then start up. If not pump a few times as you turn it over. So no more stuck cables or forgetting to push the choke in or pushing it in to find that it hasn't fully operated on the carb itself.

Ted I have got quite a number of documents relating to vehicle markings of their various kinds. Nowhere can I find a requirement for painting any of the cooling system blue. In 50s & 60s there were some odd embellishments when in depot storage. You mention AL39 so that has got to be 1978 onwards & there seems to be even less painting since then, other than marking the identity of the product itself to be used. That only relates to the Army, but goodness knows what the RAF got up to

Yes see Post #5

Jim I once had a Pig with most hatches seized. I needed heat, lubrication & fine oil, as you noticed as it cools then the tightness returns. I found that I had to keep moving the hatch back & forth as it cooled for a good many minutes each time trying to extend the arc of movement. I didn't need to remove hinge pins, just lots of waggle back & forth until it became co-operative, this can be quite tiring.

Ok thanks. Even with a very fine brush there was some overflow that needed some wiping. The marker looks handy.

I wonder what is the size of the tip on that marker? I've used a fine brush on this one. I did about 5 years ago & it has lasted quite well so far.

This Hansard extract gives a good flavour of Churchill's stance on defence strategy some of which was quoted above. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1948/dec/01/national-service-amendment-bill#S5CV0458P0_19481201_HOC_444

Big tyres on Saracens cropped up here: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?39492-No-157/page3&highlight=saracen+tyres

There would have been a fair number of S6 respirators with their early haversacks that were used by the RUC in August 1969 that would have been available. So it may have been a matter of convenience to make some use of what was locally available.

Tony earlier versions the FV drawing number was cast here: I don't think the latest incarnations with the new FV drawing number have this. You will note that the last digit in that picture differs from the FV no in the Def Stan. This may be because it is simply the identification of the jaw itself that forms part of the complete assemble. Or it is indeed a different drawing, which I will explain in a minute. First the Def Stan details. 2540-99-895-5169 FV192721 FVRDE Spec not given 12190 kg 2540-99-943-9271 FV332151 FVRDE Spec No 1138 4080 kg 2540-99-943-9272 FV337701 FVRDE Spec No 1273 7620 kg There was a problem with the medium & lighter assemblies not always locking properly. This was identified in EMER WHEELED VEHICLES A 029 Misc Instruction No. 6 Oct.1963 that required some filing & welding to give a more secure latch of the jaw. Presumably subsequent jaws were manufactured to this improved spec & perhaps the drawing was redrawn to give a changed FV no. I have just checked on the Def Stan website & I see 25-6/3 was the latest issue but was withdrawn on 31/8/2000. There is no replacement Def Stan for these assemblies listed as current, obsolescent or deleted. I can only assume the later versions had a Spec for FVRDE, MVEE or DGFVE. Incidentally I note that Def Stan 00-000 Standards for Defence Standards was withdrawn on 18/2/16. I don't quite understand how Def Stans are now constructed without the mother of all standards.

Def Stan 25-6 Issue 3. Nov. 1973 defines 3 types. FV337701 Designed safe load 7620 kg FV332151 Designed safe load 4080 kg FV192721 Designed safe load 12190 kg

If you mean the difference between the Land Rover Military Defender parts book & the MOD Military Defender parts book. The MOD book will also contain NATO Stock Numbers & sometimes the specification for bolts etc, whereas the Land Rover book may have nicer diagrams but will only give the Land Rover part numbers.

I think if you search the MOD site for FOI requests someone has asked for the associated AESPs. This was on the basis that he wished to tow & maintain one safely, so to that end he needed all the available technical information. Anyone can download it from the site.

Because the tyres on Mk 1 & 2 were 16.00 x 9.00, but Mk 3, 4, 5, 20.00 x 11.00

I often get that feeling but I probably am! But you get used to it. When you help someone off forum there is a low thanks rate for your trouble, once the problem is solved or they have got the documents they want off you.

I don't like the idea of 'like' or 'thank' buttons. It might encourage posts or threads that play to a populace audience in order to increase your score. It's bad enough with the number of your posts being displayed. I have a highish count of posts but it isn't necessarily anything to be proud of, in fact it is more of an embarrassment as it might suggest I haven't got anything else to do with my time. I would actually prefer that no post count is shown & there is no top of the pops poster's chart. Apart from that, someone may want some specialist technical help & an answer is produced but may receive few 'likes' or 'thanks' because either the majority of people had no interest in that particular problem or didn't understand the technicalities of it. So it having only a few 'likes' almost suggests there is a silent majority of people who have an implied 'dislike'. This might seem to unjustifiably reflect poorly on the thread poster & the people who replied. Yet they may have contributed significant new knowledge that in the future may be unearthed when someone searches for the answer to a similar problem. Yet it may be a very worthy but specialist topic that might seem of lesser value than a thread on say "What colour should I paint my Jeep or Land Rover?" That would get lots of hits & presumably quite a lot likes to the various opinions aired. Yet this thread & the posters may not necessarily be adding a great deal compared with a difficult technical problem yet would seem to better people because they have notched up a higher score of "likes/thanks". The other factor is 'false' thanks. I go on a non-MV forum & only rarely feel I have anything useful to post. But I have notched a number of 'thanks' then I realised it looks bad because I haven't thanked anybody. So to make it look as if I am a grateful member of the community I found myself posting lots of 'thanks' so I don't look too selfish. On there I notice some people with very high 'thanking' scores, which does make me wonder when I read the posts that earned the 'thanks' whether it was really useful or whether it was over-generosity that could lead to bumping up a score. I also wonder whether some who have received high scores feel obliged to 'thank' their 'thankees' when they come to make a post. I think if a post seems to be of help & you like it. You can tap a few words to say so or send a PM.

Yes G1/5306-99-137-7424 Bolt, machine, SI metric, steel, hex hd, M12 x 130mm long

The original bracket design seems a bit of an oversight. At least you have the satisfaction of knowing it wasn't something that was your fault!

Well I've looked in the Land Rover IPC & the AESP IPC, although they describe the adjustable side of the bracket, the support bracket & fixing is not identified separately. It is just part of the whole engine assembly. However you are not the first person with this problem! Assuming you have a NA Diesel rather than V8. 2320-D-122-821 Land Rover 90/110/127. Gen. Instr. No.58. 90 amp alternator support bracket. May 1995 It describes the support bracket ETC 5357 (7RU/5340-99-350-8645) as having a hole 20mm diam It needs to be replaced by ERR4748 (7RU/5340-99-670-4330) that has a 13mm diam hole PS This looks to be the cheapest http://www.thexmod.com/item_detail.asp?id=8351

Might the date signify when it was recorded as being struck off the Chilwell Register?

John I assume you have the sequence diagram, if not I can scan it.

The UHB gives details of the head tightening sequence but omits to give the torque setting. My copy has amendments 1-4. I'm not sure if this is part of the official amendments but written in is 65 ft/lb.

Tyler I'm afraid I don't. I suppose you could make an FOI request on the grounds that you have bought the vehicle legally & wish to drive it safely on the roads. In order to do that you need the UHB, Maintenance Schedule, Technical Description, Modifications, General Instructions & ISPL. No doubt significant sections will be censored but it would not to be an unreasonable request to make.