paulbrook

That was said in jest by the way.............

If anyone wants a test I'll do it for a fee - somewhere around £50 I guess. For that I will point out the blindingly obvious but I will ensure that the small print says that any clean bill of health is only valid for the time and day of the test, and that as always the responsibility for the vehicle remains with the owner/user. I will call it a My Own Test or something similar. Any takers?

Even in the oft aborted user trials it was dubbed "Truck Utility Hideous"

Oh blimey - I have just come across this thread! What fun.... I was in the trials team when this abomination came along and know way too much about it I fear. Heres the short version. RB get very miffed because they think they invented DROPs. After much time and money they get passed over for the big guns (Scammell/Foden/Multilift) Meanwhile the hunt is on for a replacement for the LR 101 - The Truck Utlilty Heavy (TUH) competiton begins with a landrover, a stonefield and a RB. They are all supposed to have diesel engines and an auto box. They are all memorably hopeless, and the Trials team says so much to everyones chagrin. The Trials team get no Christmas cards from the manufacturers or the Procurement Executive that year. Eventually "The User" is told that it is getting the RB version. In order to make it less useless the TH auto box has been replaced by a manual 5 speed (dispite the clear auto requirement). Duty rumour suggests this is a sop to RB for the DROPS business. The trials team go to pick it up for acceptance trials and having had a quick go around the MVEE test track refuse to take it on the road for the drive back to Aldershot. The brakes get modified a number of times but time and again the trials team refuse to drive it for any distance on public roads. It comes into service anyway with the opinions of the trails team ignored. The rest, they say, is history. I remember the ASM getting very cross with a senior figure who was suggesting he was being over sensitive. The ASM described inadvertantly touching the brakes in roundabout on one of the aborted "collection" missions and having to take the wrong exit as the thing had swerved over the road as a result. As I say - thats the short version.................

Its been a while - but in my defence I have been a tad busy. But today saw Antar No 1 dragged out and pointed in the directction of the sandblasters. I have made most of the cosmetic (if you can use such a word) panels now, mudguards and so on, then stripped them all of again so that the Antar can get blasted and primed in its underpants. I will then be putting all the tinwork back on over the next few weeks. Luckily grandaughter was on hand to do a little filming, and the result (please forgive the shaky bits - she is only 9) is here Oh and obviously when that Antar is done, the other one takes its place in the Big Shed... The crawler by the way is an ex military 1941 Allis Chalmers Model M, one of a pair that followed me home one day.

Good luck! If you find a second one let me know... A while back I looked for one to go behind my Allis tractor that was used on timberwork in Grizedale Forest in the war - but no luck. I seriously considered making one but then didn't. But it remains an option I think. They must be out there and with the benefit of t'internet the search may be easier.

Never mind all this pink diesel - I pumped some decidedly dodgy dark maroon and prehistoric goo out of the tanks of Antar 1 yesterday. Still the steam cleaner seemed happy enough with it thus saving me quite a few english pounds. Happy days.

Aha Definitely the drone. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/phoenix_says_goodbye/

Pheonix rings a bell.... It was either mortar locating radar or a drone and I think it was the latter. Used by the RA.

Pheonix rings a bell.... It was either mortar locating radar or a drone and I think it was the latter. Used by the RA.

Oh and I stick it in my Dodge engine too now that the high detergent diesel 30 weight has done its stuff.

I recommend it too (the classic 20w50), and have used gallons of the stuff in everything from a MGA to a Champ. It is low detergent and has seal conditioner in it. The tin does not say if it is mineral or semi synthetic, my guess is the former but it sort of depends on the definition of semi synthetic. Anyway I swear by it so fetch me an oil technologist and we'll see how much he or she knows about old motors........ I liken it to the old Duchams Q - the only oil that would keep pressure in a hot Jag engine.

Don't tell anyone but Halfords do excellent classic 20W50 oil....... But no - I was shocked because they actually had something I needed (a copper washer)

I am pretty sure I found a copper washer in Halfords. I had to have a sit down I was so shocked.

Very nice! I brought a couple back from Kosovo - Indian built but pre-Mahindra, so still with Willys stamps on everything. They made them all over the place (I did some research for a CMV article and was quite surprised to find how prolific this vehicle was, and I think it is the most successful jeep in terms of numbers and production run ever) An exceptionally nice vehicle in my opinion, I look forward to seeing more. If I can be of any assistance feel free to get in touch!

I definitely recall that the suspension is set up so that the foremost axle does more work then the second axle - in other words it is not a central pivot (the second axle is undriven and were it to carry equal weight you would loose a lot more front axle traction than you already do). That axle was added simply to "top up" the overall weight carrying capability whilst remaining within the then C&U regulations at the expense of mobility. By contrast the Scammel IMMLC dispensed with the second axle and was a straight 30 ton 6x6. (The improved medium mobility was seen as a first line Stalwart type vehicle and a decision was taken that Crown Exemption should be exercised and therefore it would not be constrained by C&U). The second undriven axle on the MMLC was yet another difficult compromise that had to be worked through to meet the capacity and mobility requirement (which it still missed by the way) within the "civilian" rules (as they were then). Experience showed that the second axle was detrimental to cross country performance even then; in fact at the start of Gulf War 1 consideration was given to removing the second axle altogether to maintain mobility. That said, if those weights are the plated weights for the axles we can discuss the issue till the cows come home but if those are the weights the ministry says that they are then that is just about that! My understanding is that since 1998 the GVW for a vehicle of this type is 30,000kg, so you couldn't go to maximum axle weights on all axles anyway as that would total 31,000kg.

I don't think they were 13 tonnes - 12 point something small rings a bell, and even that was fully bombed up. If I have a moment I will chat to my contacts at the Defence School of Transport to see if Stormer on DROPS is in JSP 71.

Stormer was a bit heavier than your standard CVRT and might even have been more than your 11 tons there. Neither can I recall the weight distribution but I think they were nose heavy so the extra weight needs to be back on the rack (maybe reversed on?).

Blue hylomar in moderation is OK, but decent gaskets on decent components need little or nothing of anything. I personally am not a silicone fan (not even on Baywatch) but some folk use it happily. I would be wary as enthusiastic use can lead to lumps of the stuff going where you dont want it. Going back to the decent gasket and decent component comment there is nowhere for even a thin bead of silicone to go except into where you dont want it. I recently spent an expensive (for the owner) few hours digging silicone out of a Bedford engine. Especially dont use silicone on the head gasket (which I presume is a new one?), and hylomar isnt the best either. Use Wellseal on that. If you dont have a head gasket then I have a new one one hanging on my wall (a long story that I won't bore you with!)

Hats off to you that is simply stunning! Never mind the real thing I want one like yours..........

For the record I think we should all be seeking the right answers, even if they are not what we might want to hear. Responsible ownership and operation is of course an individual responsibility, but no-one can doubt the effect on the wider movement of anything different. Furthermore I may still have an inclination to bullsh*t once in a while, but I handed all the "poppy cock" back to the stores a long time ago, and in terms of DROPS safe operation I am remarkably current. Anyway I am not going to prolong the debate any longer - I've said what needs to be said. As they used to say on Hill Street Blues - be careful out there.

If you are referring to the picture that is a CVRT not a 432 and the truck is one of the trials scammels - in fact it is the scammel IMMLC (the one that lost out to the foden) - 6 wheels - not a MMLC - 8 wheels. The location is Crocker Barracks Sennelager and the date is about 1982 during which time we were scoping other possible tasks (other than ammo resupply). And just for the record I was both the OC of the DROPS Trials and Training Team that both developed the system and brought it into service and more latterly the person responsible for JSP 71 relating to DROPS. Oh and I have done one or two other things since then. When it comes to the public inquiry and when we in the military vehicle world are being hauled over the coals by a zealous VOSA feel free to call on me as an expert witness.............

No they didnt - they were specifically directed not to. 43 series were too heavy, were wider than the flatrack, had too high a centre of gravity (particularly important when loading/unloading) and could not effectively be restrained. I am pretty sure the subject was done to death on another thread, with a number of ex military drivers confirming all the above. As for stability well that isn't a MMLC DROPS strong point either, and the vehicle was hard pressed to meet the stability standard during the trials (in fact one decided to have a lie down at Chertsey in front of many many VIPs....). This was due to the desire to keep the overall width within C&U regs whilst coping with the need to have wheels of a size to meet mobility standards and the imposition of both a load handling system and the flatrack all of which pushed the C of G up. Both MMLC and IMMLC were designed and developed specifically for the task of ammunition resupply (and nothing else) where the load was ULC (unit load containers) with a C of G of 20 inches or so above the base spread evenly across the flatrack and restrained in a particular (and rather peculiar) way. Thus the net C of G was half way down the rack and 20 inches above it. At that point both vehicles just scraped by when it came to max permissible axle weights for UK (the total load with 10 155mm ULCs was 14 tonne). A 432 is more than 14 tonne and its C of G is quite different being, as I recall, higher and quite a lot further forward. QED. Because of the obvious need to carry other stuff from time to time each and every different load had to be worked out, tested and the results, including the restraint scheme and specific safety precautions, put into a publication called JSP 71 (which had originally been for loading aircraft, rail wagons and helicopters).

Good word that - comply, as we are talking about the law here. You can drive as sensibly as you like but it will still have at least one (and probably two) axles overloaded..............

I am a bit surprised that you are going to carry 432/434 as they are too heavy and will almost certainly fall foul on one or more axle weights.