Sean N

Hello Andy, My parts list says for all models except MWR, Lucas 410503 (MT8/LU/40033) to engine 60715, Lucas 40033A engine number 60716 - 67983, Lucas 40033B (MT8/LU/40033B) engine 67984 on. All earlier units superseded by 40033B if replacement needed. Cover is Lucas 407043, Coil is Lucas 408121

I want to know why there's no dust cover on the steering cross tube rod end. Sloppy.

If you want it light stone, of course...

Well done Andy. That cover doesn't look too clever either - time for a new assembly?

I don't see what else you could have done, and good is coming from it. Don't think you can kick yourself too much.

Conquerors and Churchill bridges.

I think you may be re-opening old wounds here! The fate of these was instrumental in some of us trying to organise to save others from a similar fate.

Think this has been talked about before and the problem has been not the plate - which you could stamp or profile quite easily - but getting reflectors of the right size and style.

Neil, this is my understanding as well, also per Wally and Richard's comments and other discussions such as the recent one Richard has linked to. What I'm trying to puzzle out is the Class 3 entry on the record card. This appears to be the only entry for class, and crucially appears to be in the same hand and pen as those that filled out the vehicle details, as I mentioned earlier. That raises questions about when the record card was filled out, as it implies the vehicle was already over planned life when the record card was started; making me wonder whether there was another record card, dating from 1956, that has been lost. However, I don't know enough about the record card system for this to be any more than speculation; and of course even if I am right, the other record card might just have shown it sitting at 38 VRD. In a way I'm just using the excuse of this detective story to learn and satisfy my own curiosity! Richard, thanks, that confirms my memory of our previous discussion on the subject.

Richard, complete sense, and as the forum's foremost exponent of [Militant] engine changes that's what I hoped you'd chip in with. I think you've commented before that engines might be changed for often quite trivial reasons if the vehicle was needed urgently and fault diagnosis or obtaining and fitting spares would take longer than changing engines?

Thought about dieselling it? They were always a bit underpowered with the B81 anyway, IMHO.

One (ducks for cover)

Hello Wally, yes - I think we're maybe talking at cross-purposes and are all in agreement. So to be clear, receipt of vehicle by MoD from manufacturers = no DIS, allocation of vehicle to unit or role = DIS; which could be some time (days to years) after receipt by MoD and / or some time (perhaps years) before arrival at a unit? Sorry, I'd have been clearer if I'd said 'was allocated' rather than 'was somewhere' in responding to Neil. What of the 'Class 3' entry? Am I misunderstanding / misinterpreting? Andy has already commented on the engine plate dates. Presumably the engine might have been fitted due to an in service engine fault and might not appear on the record card if it stayed with unit? Richard? Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm tempted to ask whether the engine build plate actually says anything about the vehicle dates - it shows the engine was rebuilt by 27CW in 1977, but presumably could have been fitted to the truck at any time after that, including after the vehicle left service if it was cast as a crated engine? Andy, sorry, I'm taking over your topic a bit but I'm finding this intriguing.

Hi Neil, that's why I was trying to understand how the system worked. My experience, which Wally seems to confirm as standard procedure unless I'm misunderstanding him, is that vehicles got a date into service on first issue not on delivery to MoD; so the DIS of 1956 implies it was issued and was somewhere before the 1967 date on the record card. That seems to be confirmed by the Class 3 rating on the card. Again, unless I'm misunderstanding or misreading, it seems to imply the vehicle has already been through Class 1 and 2 (unless Class 3 on the card means something totally different); and it's written in the same hand that's completed the details on the card, implying the Class 3 rating was contemporary. I may be putting two and two together and making five though. What is certain, as you say, is that it's an intriguing detective story and a Singapore and HK history is a lot more interesting than yet another BAOR Militant. Wally, are you getting that from '38 - RC' written next to 'issue voucher - reference date'? Might that mean it would always have been at 38 VRD and going from CVD to VRD would be enough to trigger a DIS, or is it likely to have been somewhere in between?

Well, the image blows up to an equally horrible undecipherable image - thanks Clive! Carrying handles front and rear so designed to be portable, or at least moved regularly. What looks like a screen print of a Wheatstone bridge on the side - information or manufacturer logo? Possibly rolls of either print paper or film. Shot in the dark which I think is wrong - portable developing equipment?

So in normal circumstances a 1956 DIS would indicate allocated to a unit in 1956 and therefore the 1956 to 1967 service history missing or incomplete for one of the book full of reasons you outline above?

Wally, books on the subject, human error and other issues aside, was the 'usual' or 'correct' system for the DIS to be on receipt or on issue to units? Your post implies on issue to units?

A DIS of 1956 yet no activity until 1967 would be inconsistent with my experience where DIS has roughly matched issue date. However, I'm only going by vehicles I've had full paperwork for which is by no means exhaustive and I don't know what the system, if any, was. This also appears to be Class 3 when the card was started, unless I'm reading wrong (which I probably am). Is it possible there is another, full card for this vehicle covering 1956 - 1967 which is missing? I've asked Wally for his input.

Another popular system on tuned and race cars is Emerald injection, often using Jenvey throttle bodies. John, I'd thought you had injection on the Conqueror but didn't want to say so as I couldn't quite recall. I'd agree about the reasons for fitting it.

Andy, on the two vehicles with the same chassis number thing, I had brain fade. I assume your vehicle shows registration 26 BR 34 and contract 6/VEH/17911 on the MoS data plate on the chassis rail, and the data card for the other vehicle showed a different registration?

There is some discussion of UINs on this thread: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?49270-RAF-UIN-Unit-Idenification-Numbers

Careful - there are two types. Both are 1 9/16" bore but you need to measure the brake pull rod diameter. 4255-099 fitted 1952 - 1961 has 5/16" pull rod while the later 1961 - 1969 fitment with 3/8" pull rod is 4255-103. The repair kit is KL71452 This gumming is typical of those bisectors; often you find the only thing stopping them working perfectly is the dried grease. I've even had them with zero braking effort on one side due solely to the bisector being gummed up.

They didn't have to comply with modern crash protection standards in those days! If you make them flexible or even just mount them at the bottom they tend to vibrate with the vehicle, fatigue and break off. That's probably why it has that strap to the headlamp mount. In real life it probably doesn't stick out as much as it appears to in the photo, so if you were close enough to be hit by it you're probably close to being caught by the truck anyway.

There's a K9 hiding behind the Landy.

Radek, sorry to hear about your father - best of luck with it all. Keep playing is my recommendation, but you must do what is best for you. All the best.