Sean N

80+ rear sounds very high for a vehicle in preservation typically running without a load... ??

The HGV inspection manual says, under condition of tyres, 3. Check each tyre for: a. Cuts - Reason for failure: a cut more than 25 mm long, or 10% of the section width of the tyre (whichever is greater) and deep enough to expose the ply or cords. b. Lumps, bulges or tears - Reason for failure: a lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or part failure of the tyre structure (this includes any lifting of the tread rubber). c. Exposed ply or cord - Reason for failure: exposed ply or cord. Application notes say: A tool can be used to check for exposed ply or cords provided care is taken that using the tool does not cause further damage. Exposed means visible to the naked eye or can be made visible by use of a probe. If during investigation, i.e. either by folding back rubber or opening a crack with a blunt instrument so as not to cause further damage, exposed ply or cord can be seen irrespective of size of cut the vehicle should fail under section c. If cords can be felt but not seen and the cut is more than 25 mm long or 10% of the section width the vehicle should fail under section a; if the cut is smaller than this pass and advise. When I've taken vehicles for test I've always interpreted 'cuts' to include cracks, and I've been led to believe this is a correct interpretation. As for recutting, I thought these days only tyres which are designed to be recut (marked on the sidewalls) should be?

I thought these things weren't supposed to be touched? John Pearson would know, probably.

Isn't this a small LARC under all the mods? I used to go out with a girl from Hartlepool and just caught the tail end of the sea coal trade in the '80s; K9s and RLs, if I remember right, perhaps the odd QL; though this film from ITN shows CMPs

Not military, but can anyone ID these bikes from these (admittedly rather poor) photos? I have some ideas, and one seems to have an obvious name, but I won't say more in case I lead you astray... Incidentally, please don't reproduce the photos anywhere else; they're private family photos which I have permission to use, but they're not for publication. Thanks.

£9,500 then is the equivalent of £158,000 today, based on average earnings. Still sounds pretty cheap given the prices of WW2 aircraft today.

Can't you find out which scrapyard it's in and have a deal with the scrappy? Best make it quick though, or it'll go under the torch...

Two Suggas on Milweb now, one tatty one tidy but both in Sweden

Is this RL air pressure servo or vacuum servo?

Was this thing in an auction at Chertsey a fair few years back? There was certainly one blue one put up for sale. There were a load of spares and some other vehicles there including two Martian heavy recoveries.

Clive, at one time I could have gone to the workshop and compared a number of wireless body K9s, I've only got two now! This is from memory and guesswork so don't take it as gospel. I'm sure one of the parts lists or user manuals shows an an open radio body / FFR similar in style to the normal cargo, but with extra benches etc. to carry the radio kit; I'll check if I get the chance but it means digging my books out which are in storage at the mo. I've never seen one of these in the flesh. I believe many K9s were held in store at CVD Ashchurch for some time before issue, I guess as the Army had an awful lot of 1 tonners in the '50s. One of mine, for example, was a 1956 truck but the DIS was Jan 1960. My guess is that these ones that were bodied very late on might be either replacing early cargo type FFR bodies with van type ones, or bodying very late issue vehicles previously stored. It's only my guess though. I've also come across various designations for box bodies, one of which is the wireless light. Based on pictures and K9s I've owned these look superficially similar but differ in detail; I don't know whether these are design differences or simply a reflection of the different coachbuilders. If I remember right, these different designations reflect different radio installations, but I don't know if they were alternative radio set-ups or whether one type superceded another.

Are you sure XK6 engines are that expensive? There are complete XJs, particularly series 3s, around a lot cheaper than that.

The testing regime does match the year of manufacture; there's no obligation to meet any requirements introduced after the vehicle was built. If a NATO socket is not mentioned in the manual it can't be a reason for failure, unless it fails under the visual examination of wiring condition. Nor can the 12N / 12S socket wiring unless physically deteriorated. The pdf linked to only mentions visually examining 7 and 13 pin sockets and only calls for Euro 13 pin sockets, which should have standard wiring, to be actually tested.

Wireless Light was one of the variants of the radio body on the FFR K9, I'm sure I've got references to it somewhere. IIRC one of the original FFR bodies on the K9 was an open cargo type. Could this be from conversion of these to van type bodies? I have half an idea I might have owned 70 BG 98 at one time...

I don't believe they were all fitted with them; certainly when they were being cast I saw some with and some without, and the ones without bore no sign that they were ever fitted.

A few more photos to whet your appetite... If anyone's seriously interested in running one and wants further info let me know

The Leavesley's ones were ex Bundeswehr M2Bs. Don't know if they broke them all up or not, they were expensive last I heard but that was a few years ago now. That's Butch's one, bought after he was inspired by ours (the blue one). They're not too bad to run, the tyres are dear but are about second-hand. I can't remember what ours burnt but I don't think it was that heavy on fuel, certainly no worse than a 432. They're over width, but not so wide you need an escort - IIRC 9'9" wide by about 12' high by 35' long.

Analysed, I hope... How good was the communication to front line troops of research discoveries / experiments with captured AFVs? As you say, Steve, often the discoveries don't seem to have been passed on to those who needed to know...

As others have confirmed you're right, it is an amphibious bridging rig, an M2D built by Eisenwerk Kaiserslautern (EWK) in the 1960s. They were designed to carry a class 60 load (class 70 when uprated to M2D spec). They can be used as a ferry singly or in twos or threes, or more can be joined together to form a bridge. They're powered by twin Deutz V8 diesels. The UK, Germany and Taiwan (or Singapore, I can't remember which) used them. This one looks quite tatty though. Where is it, out of interest? They do indeed, though not all that is aluminium - there's a lot of iron in them

Assume this is dead in the water now...

Switch it on! If it's an MK it should have an electric lift pump and continuous venting from the injector pump. I seem to remember they bleed no problem by switching the ignition on and waiting a short while (though I think there might have been one or two stubborn ones where I had to crack open the injector pipes and spin the engine over briefly to get them fully bled)

John Trent will travel, and does soda blasting which is great - very non-damaging. He's done some good jobs for me, but he's in Poole so it won't be cheap by the time he's travelled there and back. http://www.freeindex.co.uk/profile(jt-soda-blast)_291832.htm

I think we should add the Stonington M2s to this thread...

So, on the basis that a vehicle is any device for transporting goods or people, and per my comment in the other topic, I nominate HMS Victory, 1765 - 2011. Or are we talking wheeled vehicles...?

So an easy way to find the longest serving part would be to find the oldest vehicle still on military strength, which may well be very old and in a museum or historic collection. On that basis, is a ship a vehicle - most parts of HMS Victory?