mtskull

This subject has generated some very interesting responses by some very knowledgeable people, each argument with its own merits. In this case though, I feel that perhaps there is a tendency to over-analyse the matter, which probably just comes down to that short and simple phrase: Belt AND Braces.

Thanks everyone; any info is welcome. Rick, I'll pass that photo on if I may; I'm sure there are people who would like to see what the tank looked like when not obscured by the cream of the armed forces...

Men of 43 RTR posing with a Cromwell (or Centaur?) on Salisbury Plain, circa 1953. All I know about this is that the name of the tall chap with the pipe is Geoff Brittain (the photo came via his son). Can anybody add any further detail?

A good crank grinding shop will be able to check the extent of the damage and, if it is not excessive, skim a little from the rod/cap mating surfaces and then bore the big end out again to the correct size to accept new shells.

Don't take that for granted; some crank grinders will leave the oilways full of debris and expect you to clean it out. (I know this to my cost). Always clean out the oilways with a solvent cleaner and then blow through with compressed air to make certain nothing remains, before refitting the crank.

GM-H = General Motors-Holden?

Even if your battery is brand new, checking the battery specification is worthwhile. Many people make the assumption that if a battery has the correct Amp Hour rating then it will be OK but this is only half the story; you also need a battery that will deliver sufficient Cold Cranking Amps. Think of the battery as a bottle: the AH rating refers to the capacity of the bottle i.e. How much it will hold, whilst the CCA rating refers to the size of the opening; i.e. it is a measure of how fast it can deliver its contents. A pal of mine once fitted a Reliant Robin battery to a Laverda Jota motorcycle (against all advice), on the basis that they had the same AH capacity and, in his view, "a battery's a battery". He very soon became adept at bump starting a Laverda...

Sounds very much like an earthing problem to me and it is very easy to check: connect a voltmeter between the engine and the battery earth terminal and observe the reading when the starter is operated; this indicates if there is a voltage drop across your earth leads. Basically, any reading at all indicates a problem. If you don't have access to a voltmeter a quick and easy way to check the earth is to connect a jump lead between the engine and the battery earth and see if there is any improvement. Sorting out earthing problems is not always a matter of making sure that the connections are clean, either: I have seen quite a number of vehicles where the braided earth straps have corroded and it is surprising how much resistance can build up in them. For the cost of a couple of earth straps, it is probably worth replacing them anyway if they are more than a couple of years old.

What can I say except to express my admiration for the sheer dedication and attention to detail that is taking place here. Maximum respect, Goslings all.

Without getting into the deeper or global parts of the argument, I entirely agree that incurring an extra charge of £200 just for travelling half a mile out of necessity in carrying out your work, is unnecessary, counter-productive and utterly iniquitous. BTW, I'll declare an interest here: I work in commercial aviation but I never cease to be amazed by the way in which the entire industry continues to behave as if a) The world's oil reserves are unlimited and b) The environment in general and the atmosphere in particular are impervious to our emissions.

Looks like the ubiquitous Daimler Marienfelde to me; no idea about the gun, though.

There is a copy of this photo on the web which is incorrectly captioned as a Farman but in fact it's a Sopwith type 806, as explained in previous posts.

AVTUR isn't untaxed, it is subject to VAT, admittedly at a zero rate for international flights. If you are sore about the fact that airlines don't pay road fuel duty, think of how much the government collects in Air Passenger Duty for an A380 full of passengers.... As regards whatever rained on you, there is food for thought in an report which I recently read; an investigation into complaints of pollution by residents close to London City Airport. Here are a few excerpts from the analysis of the pollutants: The black smuts were difficult to view easily but could be seen to be comprised of coked oil droplets produced from an fuel oil burning industrial boiler. These smuts are often formed within the chimney of an industrial facility by the condensation of sulphuric acid in the flue gases.. The samples were taken by wiping the deposit from the. surface and retaining the deposit in a small plastic bag. Back in the laboratory the samples were later examined under a stereo-zoom Nikon microscope with high intensity incident illumination. The above contents were confirmed as the main constituents and the minor constituents were flakes of rust and paint, and paint spheres from paint spraying. Some of the coal and coked coal particles were large. about 150 microns which showed that they either originated from tall industrial chimneys or from nearby domestic chimneys. The coked oil droplets were smaller. most less than 100 microns, which suggests that the industrial sources could be some distance away, perhaps over 1 km. The main black component was tyre rubber debris which indicated that the main source of the dust deposit, including the sand and other mineral material, was from road dust. This is not an unexpected finding. Major roads, with high HGV traffic flows. are usually found to be the largest source of airborne dust deposits in urban, industrial, commercial and sub-urban areas. This indicates that the road network to the south, south-west and west of the residential area is more likely to be the main source of the dust deposits than the access road to the Airport, which does not carry HGV traffic. The sample contained no evidence of carbon soot from the airport operations. It should be remembered that the space heating plant for the Airport Terminal building is fired by natural gas. not fuel oil. The analysis of the sample gave no indication of any detectable impact from the Airport facilities or its operations.

This photo supports that identification (assuming that the caption is correct). Every detail matches, except this one doesn't have a spare wheel fitted to the side. If you look closely, it even appears to have the same eagle insignia on the scuttle. Although not relevant to the identification of the AA lorry, here's a shot of a balloon that has fallen victim to one:

Great stuff, Dan! Looking forward to seeing this one run

I must confess to being absolutely fascinated watching the endeavours of the Gosling family, Ben Hawkins and Dan the Steam (amongst others) and admire their skill, ingenuity and sheer tenacity as they strive to create an original, working vehicle from the starting point of an old bare chassis. Now here's another piece of history being brought back from the dead. A magnificent project chaps, I look forward to watching this one progress.

The badge isn't very clear in the photo but if you look at it with a magnifying glass, there is no doubt that it reads "Opel". Here's a photo of the 1910 version of the Opel badge for comparison. Probably a little more ornate than you would find on a wartime truck but you get the idea:

Wonderful progress! What a boost it must be to see the Thorny back in its wheels, if only the front ones at the moment. I am enjoying this thread very much and always looking forward to the next instalment.

Superb!

I am fairly certain that the towing vehicle is a Tamplin Cyclecar. The most obvious points of similarity are the straight planks instead of mudguards, the tall spindly wheels and the single belt drive pulley which can be seen mounted to the inside of the left rear wheel. Also, the underside of the body appears to taper upwards. Although it would be stretching the point too far to describe the Tamplin as a Military Vehicle, there is an intriguing connection: the original Tamplin was designed, as the Carden Cyclecar, by Sir John Carden himself!

The Kirkstall Forge site is currently being redeveloped and very little remains except for a few derelict buildings which will soon be demolished.

I visited Flesquieres a few years ago and was privileged to be allowed to inspect this tank at close quarters; a memorable experience and a genuine welcome from the local people. Welcome to the forum!

There manifestly isn't enough detail to identify the engine beyond the fact that it clearly is not a radial or rotary but, leaving that aside, even at a glance this can be seen not to be an FE2b. There are significant differences in the position of the control horns; the size, shape and layout of the nacelle; the arrangement and number of undercarriage struts and the fitment of skids to the undercarriage. There's also the large radiator behind the rear cockpit, filling the gap between the nacelle and the upper wing. You are correct in that the original "Sopwith pusher" trainers for the Greek navy used Anzani radial engines; however these were all seaplanes. The subsequent armed versions, designated S PG N, were fitted with Gnome rotaries (Some of these were retained by the Royal Navy and a few converted to wheeled undercarriage). The subsequent six aircraft built for the Royal Navy by Sopwith and the further 30 aircraft built by Robey & Co. were fitted with Sunbeam V8 engines and designated Type 806, two examples of which can be seen in the original photograph.

The leading vehicle appears to me to be chain drive; I can see what looks like a sprocket where you would expect to find one, also what appears to be the opposite side chain. There are also several other features which are consistent with this being a Commer, i.e. Curved bonnet top, two bonnet latches, chassis extending forward of front spring hangers, wooden wheels. Sorry, couldn't resist identifying the aircraft; they are examples of the Sopwith type 806 "Gun Bus".

[quote name= The date of the patent, 9th May 1927, also answers your question as to which manifold , cast or alloy, is the oldest. The ball races are lubricated by a lubricator 17. ]I can remember aspects of this design repeated in the 1950/60's as a result of sharp fuel price rises stemming from the Suez Crisis. John This manifold and associated "short pipe" give a fascinating snapshot of history, although with the greatest of respect, I don't see how it is possible to determine the date of the manifold according to the date of an accessory that was probably fitted after manufacture. The mention of a lubricator may provide a clue to the purpose of the pipe union fitted to the manifold? The extra flange with offset studs suggests an adaptor to allow the fitting of a later carburettor. The oil crisis of the 1970's also gave rise to a plethora of similar devices claimed to improve fuel economy. They all had one thing in common: they didn't work, or if they did it was at the expense of performance. I suspect that the "Hulco Atomiser" is no different; unless the carburettor was grossly inefficient to begin with, any benefit gained from better atomisation was likely to be more than offset by the detrimental effect of placing an obstruction in the intake tract. A similar trade-off of performance against economy could have been achieved by simply restricting the throttle so that it couldn't open fully.