Sean N

Thinking about it, the way German abbreviations and acronyms work could Zerstörkörper F. Z. mean Zerstörkörper FlugZeug, which would confirm what I though about aircraft demolition charges?

Not just that - Sprengstoff means explosive. WASAG was a major German explosives manufacturer for civilian and military purposes; by WW2 it was part of IG Farben. I can't get a good translation for zerstörkörper but zerstören means to demolish, ruin or destroy, which would make zerstörkörper 'demolition body' so I think it's likely these were 3 kg demolition charges. Edit - In fact, further searching German results for zerstörkörper mainly throws up results for Luftwaffe documents, including several pilot's handbooks; the FW200 'Condor' handbook says: "For destruction of the aircraft in appropriate emergency, 2 brackets are mounted under the navigation table on the left for a single 3 kg [zerstörkörper]" As to how it got there - someone needed a handy crate for their posessions on return after the war?

Don't know to be honest, Clive. I've only ever seen the FV2500 series designation applied to the earlier version, the Mk 1, and it's so long since I've been under one I can't remember what the brakes are like. I have an ISPL for the Sentinel Mk 1 but Sentinel and Rubery Owen are quite a lot different (though the shoes, bisectors and adjusters look the same, but then there are a lot of similar looking ones that are dimensionally different so I'm not relying just on appearance). The trailer I have has air actuated hydraulic brakes on the front axle if that helps, with external slave cylinders marked FV506015. If it sounds as though they might be right I'd be interested to see them.

All, I have an Office, Trailer Mounted, 2 ton 4 Wheeled Rubery Owen Mk 2 (wide track) 6240-0735 to contract WV5478. It's in really good condition but unfortunately the brakes had been cannibalised from the front axle before I got it. I'd appreciate any pointers for new brake parts (shoes, return springs, actuators, adjusters) or the correct parts list so I can give people some part numbers. Thanks.

I have some of these thin spanners in Snail and other makes, right up to the present day. As Richard and Ruxy suggest, useful for locking nuts, pipe unions, adjusters in awkward places, or anywhere where there's a reduced height fastener and a component or other fastener a full thickness spanner might interfere with.

Well, only slightly. I thought you were teasing but thought I'd go for it anyway - and may have been teasing you back! The high headlights were only in the very, very early vehicles - the lights were dropped quite soon, and many earlier cabs have low lights (counting 'early cab' as the type with the solid upper grille panel, rather than high vs low headlights). See your photo of 35 BR 68 on the first page. I'm guessing an early cab for two reasons; partly because it doesn't look as though there's a lip round the upper grille (though it might be in shadow, and really the photo's too small to tell anyway) but mainly because in '58 / '59 the later style with the mesh upper grille would have been fairly new, so there's a higher chance that it's the earlier one! You will now no doubt produce a photo of the same vehicle clearly showing mesh grille and winch fairleads. I certainly don't have dates & changes for cargo body types on 3 / 4 tonners and my knowledge is by no means definitive, but my understanding is the type shown with four panels and two rows of tilt hooks is earlier, whereas later vehicles typically have a split drop side (so you can drop the front or rear half) with six panels, three on each half - see this photo of 50 EL 82 on Miliblog: http://miliblog.co.uk/wp-content/creativegallery/readers-photos-raymond/bedford-rl-3ton-cargo-50-el-82.jpg

Difficult to tell from such a small photo, Lizzie. I'd hazard a guess that it's an RLB or RLD so without the winch, and an early cab (and body). Might even be one of the trucks featured earlier in this thread?

Always the way. I had three for sale last year, here, on eBay and Milweb and couldn't give them away.

Truck 3 ton 4x4 GS Bedford RL. Oh, sorry...

The shape of it, it's clearly designed to clamp something round or tubular. Given the classification it might be tempting to think it's a barrel, but it could just as easily be a trailer leg or stabiliser.

Richard, that makes sense; I don't have a later Def Stan either, but I suppose one might have expected it to be updated to DOT4 as DOT3 is now somewhat obsolete. My understanding is that DOT3, DOT4 and DOT5.1 are all PEG based fluids and can be mixed safely. DOT3 is somewhat old fashioned and obsolete these days. In recent years synthetic DOT4 and DOT5.1 formulations have appeared, but just as with synthetic motor oils, that doesn't change their compatibility. DOT5 is the silicon brake fluid and can't be mixed with any others. A lot of people moved to it when it came out because it's not hygroscopic, but it turned out it had a lot of other issues and is probably best avoided in standard braking systems. The horror stories you report might be to do with DOT5. I've seen suggestions that DOT4 might not be compatible with seals in certain originally DOT3 systems because of the ester content. Some of the brake fluid and brake system manufacturers recommend sticking to the fluid originally specified for that vehicle in case of compatibility issues, as system components will have been designed to work with the mix of chemicals in use at the time. In general that's a good principle to use; having said that, I've never actually come across any problems despite many years working on vehicles. When I started driving DOT3 was pretty much standard; I was doing a lot of motorsport at the time (getting brake discs glowing orange with use), moved to DOT4 for the higher specified boiling point. I haven't heard any horror stories about DOT4 vs DOT4 synthetic, but then I've never chased them online. I suspect the horror stories might be to do with DOT(x) vs DOT5. I would have thought if Penman specify synthetic DOT4 there's nthing special about it and you could probably get any synthetic DOT4 from the motor factors and it will be fine, but this is only my opinion - the usual disclaimers apply. It's likely the brake system was not made by Penman but by Lockheed, Girling, Lucas, TRW or one of the other brake system makers. If you're still unsure, you could go to them and ask.

Clive, John, the NSN has been mistranscribed. I think it reads 3026 (not 5026) but on one label it's been written as 205 and on the other it's 250, so either -99-205-3026 or -99-250-3026. On the ISO Group site 1095-99-250-3026 doesn't return a result but 1095-99-205-3026 does, and it crosses to MEXE C33811; though rather unhelpfully it's just called BRACKET ASSEMBLY which doesn't tell us more than the photo does!

I always thought OX8 was just standard mineral brake fluid to DOT3, and later DOT4, spec - nothing special. Is there any reason why you can't just buy a bottle of DOT4 off the shelf at the local factors, or am I being naive?

According to Clive's lists, W8 is EOD equipment, while 1095 is miscellaneous weapons...

Rob, ya got a PM.

Neil, if it's a 6x6 someone's bent the front axle and stolen the diff! Not sure what he's after for it - open to offers, I think. Give me a shout if you want to discuss further.

Just seen it, Rob. Mark, the chap who had the ex-Sayers Matador advertised here recently, had one of these as a living van and it was very nice, though a bit low if I remember right. I'll give a chap a ring tonight about it - he might know someone for it.

Another data point - the engine in that Militant Mk 1 down here is also eau de nil

Karrier now definitely for sale as well as Milly. Give me a shout via PM if you want any details.

More photos by request It looks a bit sorry for itself because the panit's awful, the body isn't great and it wants a good spruce up, but looking beyond that I'm not seeing any major cab rot or issues anywhere.

PM received & replied, Alec.

Not sure, the early air braked RLs I've seen have the servo on the inside; it was moved to the outside later, but I'm not sure whether the change coincided with the later master cylinder or not so it may be original. The point is really make sure it's the three bolt fixing master not the identical at a casual glance large nut fixing master, as I'm surprised there are any of the early ones left in the aftermarket parts networks.

"the 31,000 recorded mileage may well be correct" !!!

Chris, I'm not by any means a CMP expert so don't take this as gospel, but isn't it that the chassis rails are correct but the bracketry has been modified? I thought the CMP / Holmes should have a large flattish vertical bracket on each chassis rail, protruding beyond the end of the body, with a towing eye into which the hooks were ... well, hooked (when not in use). The towing pintle assembly is mounted between those brackets in a pair of slipper brackets that take the spring, which would put the forward face of the pintle about level with the rear of the body, and the fairlead rollers below. I thought the fairlead roller assembly was different as well, with a full width axle for the lower roller, but I wouldn't swear to it. If I'm right, your chassis is correct but all the bracketry at the rear end has been chopped about & modified; possibly only the pintle and spring being original. I'd have thought if you hunt around on the interweb and ask on MLU you should get some decent photos of the correct assembly.

TBH at that price it might be worth looking at other sources first. Also make sure it's returnable; I think yours is the type with three mounting bolts that mounts on the inside of the frame rail, while the common one mounts to the outside of the frame rail using large nuts on the outlets. The one they've got might be the latter as it's more recent & common, and they may not spot the difference.