Ivor Ramsden

Paint stripper doesn't hurt galv or ally at all.

You might find that it's not very effective on the thick yellow primer that the Army used on galv. It softens it but it doesn't lift it, so it takes a bit of effort to remove it.

I'd say that the big reflectors and the RGX registration put this firmly in the 50s.

Out of interest how good or otherwise is the supply of spares for Morris Commercials such as the CS8, PU and C8?

I would say it's "otherwise"!

Ours has the same cover over the PTO. There is only the flange fitted to the gearbox - no pulley or gear. The early vehicles were fitted with the alternator but I understand they were removed later in service. The guns were originally designed for electrical operation in conjunction with a predictor which was mounted in a separate vehicle but it seems that the gunners preferred manual control so the electrics were removed.

The predictor vehicles were converted to gun tractors.

...Assuming that it is standard cross journal (spider) and bearing caps inside the ring..

This design doesn't have spiders like a standard u/j. The journals are part of the yoke rather than part of the spider. If you look carefully at the diagram and the photo you might be able to see what I mean but I'm afraid I'm too stupid to explain it very clearly!

....all Royal Enfield census numbers ran in sequence to the frame numbers.Ron

I wish they were all that easy! :-D

I don't think there will be a Key Card for this machine because it was demobbed in 1946 before the new numbering system was introduced.

This is what they look like but the book doesn't give them a name other than "ring type joints".

I'd be very surprised if the census numbers coincided with the frame numbers so precisely, Ron. It did happen but it seems that machines weren't always painted in sequence. The bike's number probably wouldn't have been far off the number that you've calculated, but I think it would be somewhere within plus or minus 30 of it.

The numbers certainly ran in sequence with a lot of post-war vehicles, eg Land-Rovers, where chassis plates were factory marked with the census number as well as the chassis number but in wartime it seems that this wasn't the case; it was just down to a signwriter with a batch of numbers and a row of vehicles to be marked up.

I don't know if they ran sequentially in pre-war vehicles but I'd like to find out.

There's one thing for sure though - if Dave paints that number on his Flea, I don't think anybody will be able to prove that it's wrong.

Also how can I find the "C" number for the tank

The plate on the mudguard reads.... Contract S6602 and the Catalogue ref no is 28

 

The bikes from contract S.6602 were numbered from C5816151 to C5816885. I'm afraid I can't help beyond that.

This is the PU set up. It's a belt-drive so your pulley is correct, Jules.

All is revealed here, I think ...

.... I thought the radio vehicle (gin palace) had the drive to the radio generator off the side of the gearbox in a similar set up to the tyre air compressor.

I hadn't realised that before, but you're right. I've got a parts book for the C4/WT which shows a side-mounted drive mechanism so it looks like the upright pto is only for the compressor.

Yes, it's definitely not a 4wd gearbox. Any chance of a photo of the gearbox from the back, Andy?

In the drawing in the driver's handbook it looks like the spring goes through a hole in the big end of the clevis pin rather than through the split pin hole at the other end.

I'm blowed if I can remember how I set it up on the C9B but I think I used the split pin hole. I must have a look and change it if I did because it's not the most failsafe setup.

no sign of any red . has the landrover light got a cutout for no plate light ?

Yes, they do.

As I understand it, when all the surviving C9Bs were demobbed in the mid-50s they were sold without their guns which no doubt were put into storage pending further use. As a result I don't think there will be any survivors in the UK which have their original guns. There may be survivors overseas but I don't know which countries, if any, they were supplied to.

The Cobbaton vehicle was very complete and original when it turned up, although it was without its gun. the restoration looks to be very accurate apart from not having a gun shield.

Martyn, your vehicle has got some very early features (folding gun stay, holes for windscreens on the top of the dash panel and it's the only surviving one that I've seen which hasn't had armoured boxes fitted over the fuel tanks. This was a post-war modification but yours has still got its original thin tread plate.

According to the handbook all the later model PUs were fitted with the 75c-19x control box. Early ones had the 75b-19x.

What's the engine number, Martyn? It's on a brass disc on the right side of the engine, below and to the front of the rebuild plate.

Hi Tim, ours is number 820. Do you know what your original census number was?

Welcome to the exclusive C9/b club, Gavin. I'm happy to help you and Martyn in any way I can. Our vehicle isn't 100% accurate but I know what needs doing to improve it and I can probably give you a few pointers.

 

...I'd been in a Saracen for most of the day, so maybe 7/10

I went to Tesco. :cry:

Great to see it rolling. What do you estimate the grin factor to be? By that I mean the width and duration of the grin on your face after driving it! It looks like an 8/10 to me!

It's good to see another C9b turning up. I'll be very pleased to help you with information. Can't help much with parts though.

You've got to promise to take it and park it in your local Tesco's car park when it's done!

I share your passion for finding the original number of your vehicle. I'm trying to find our Morris CDSW's number.

I might be able to help with your search. I've had a look through my COD Chilwell list which gives these serial blocks for Ford LAATs:

H5327001 to 5327600

H5589105 to 5589404

H6100201 to 6100448

H6100505 to 6101404

Are you certain that you've read the number CH5582910 correctly? Transposing two digits gives CH5589210 which fits nicely into the second batch. Of course the previous owner might have recorded it wrongly and it's not unknown for the original signwriter to get numbers mixed up.