Richard Farrant

44 minutes ago, albertamj said:

The notice from Lockheed would be great to see. 

 

I have not got the original notice from Lockheed to hand, but got the following transcription off another website:

Reproduction of a warning note from AP Lockheed on problems with silicone fluids in braking systems

Silicone brake fluids - beware
Our technical service department is receiving an alarming number of calls from motorists reporting problems with silicone fluids. AP Lockheed neither markets such fluids nor recommends their use with our own or any other braking system.

Virtually all the problems relate to long/spongy pedal, sudden loss of brakes and hanging on of brakes. They reflect certain properties of silicone fluids identified by us over many years and recently ratified in SAE publications, namely high ambient viscosity, high air absorption, high compressibility, low lubricity and immiscibility with water. Research has shown that the relationships between problems reported and properties identified may be expressed as follows:

Long/spongy pedal
o Compressibility, up to three times that of glycol based fluids.
o High viscosity, twice that of glycol based fluids, leading to slow rates of fill and retention of free air entrapped during filling and hence bleeding difficulties.

Sudden loss of brakes
o Air absorption - gasification of absorbed air at relatively low temperature produces vapour lock effect.
o Immiscibility (failure to mix) with water - whilst the presence of dissolved water will reduce the boiling point of glycol based fluids, any free water entrapped in silicone filled systems will boil and produce vapour lock at much lower temperatures (100C or thereabouts).

Hanging-on of brakes
o Low lubricity - in disc brake systems the sole mechanism for normalisation if system pressure upon release of pedal pressure is a designed-in tendency of seals to recover to their "at rest" attitude. Low lubricity works against this tendency.
o High viscocity, exacerbating the above effect.
It should not be assumed, therefore, that the high price of silicone fluids implies higher performance in hard driving or even normal road use. AP Lockheed glycol based fluids do not contain the adverse properties described above. The recently introduced Supreme DOT 5.1, which exceeds the performance criteria of DOT5, is suitable for all conditions likely to be encountered in modern driving conditions.

Some years ago Lockheed issued a statement against the use of silicon brake fluid and they listed a number of issues that occur when using it. I recollect 'sponginess' of the pedal was one problem. I have never used it.

PB861 is a fleet number of the Petroleum Board who distributed fuel in the 1940's.

I know this is only a model but it depicts the markings as seen on photos;

https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/bedford-owlc-tanker-petroleum-board-76bd021

On ‎10‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 9:58 AM, Grasshopper said:

Pyramid nosing (which I didn't know the name of) is used extensively on ex London Transport busses (think RT, RF vintage). 

AEC lorry cabs had it in the 50's and 60's as well.

1 hour ago, ruxy said:

He looks very regimental ceremonial mascot ,  possibly the trailer is a double-decker transporter for his flock ?     I did notice the telephone box -  possibly a agricultural show  ?

The Dorset Horn ram was regimental mascot to the Dorset Yeomanry ........ and its successors. The trailer has a signboard on the side, looking like it might be on a recruiting display.

Hi Graham,

To put your mind at rest, check out the following link from post #123 onwards;

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2421&page=5

They show the tyres being fitted to British rims (same as CMP rims). I think Coker is only the dealer, not the manufacturer.

cheers Richard

2 hours ago, Ron said:

Yes you are right! As this original pictures shows, a Lucas Rubberlite bolted to the right side of the body.

 

 

Hi Ron,

The 'Rubbolites' were not Lucas, they were made by Flexible Lamp Co., hence the FL/ prefix on the army part number.

2 hours ago, David Herbert said:

 The WW2 version is rolled out of much thinner sheet metal with the pyramids pushed up from underneath and a flange down both edges for stiffness. I strongly suspect that this lightweight version was a WW2 austerity measure and that the WW1 version was solid like the current stuff.

hi David,

I have removed this type of tread strip during restorations on Daimler Dingos and Bedford QL in order to repair the flooring and steps and it was solid, not pressed. Might just be that different manufacturers had varying ways of producing it. The QL step on the front mudguards had two flat pyramid strips and the outer one had. a flange on one side. Dingo ones on floor plates were flat.

regards, Richard

Just replied to you on MLU forum. Build date is 1945

2 hours ago, Aussie said:

 

A metal disc that is almost exactly the size of the hose! Which neatly explains why there was no water circulating from the radiator (not helped by the absence of the thermostat). I have absolutely no idea what it is (unfortunately doesn't seem to be a valuable roman coin) or how it came to be in the hose, and find it hard to see how any water got past it at all. Anyway,  I'm more confident than ever that there was nothing wrong with the water pump (that was replaced anyway).

 

Hi James,

I fitted a lot of Rolls reconditioned engines whilst working for the army and recall when they were preserved and packed that a metal disc was put over the water outlets and retained by  adhesive tape. Maybe someone forgot to remove it on fitting the engine.

regards, Richard

A friend in Australia has asked me to put the word around about his recently restored 1941 Dodge WC-16 1/2 ton Radio Command Car which is up for sale. He tells me it is now fitted with a later Dodge New Process synchro gearbox and 4:1 diffs which make it a better drive - 50mph no stress, so he tells me.

If anyone is interested, please send me a PM and I will connect you with the owner.

regards, Richard

I am surprised no one has suggested the 7.00-18 Track Grip tyre as fitted to the Daimler Dingo as they are unobtainium.

Museum of the War That Never Happened would be more apt.

Lets face it, when both the Russians and the British, Americans etc. were legitably allowed to send military personnel over the border to see what the other side was up to,, then it was not a war, just sabre rattling.

I am not in favour of 'Nuclear Holocaust' as a title.

1 hour ago, matchlesswdg3 said:

I have just been filling out their vehicle entry form.  I see some welcome improvements in the fee structure with additional vehicles free and no toilet surcharge (must have learned their lesson from last year!).  However, when I got to the paying by card bit, there seemed to be a lack of security indicated with what looked like rather sketchy card detail entry and no indication of any payment security measures.......so one's card details are up for grabs by any old hacker???  Decided not to bother.  Pay at the gate with that weird papery stuff?

Hi Ferg,

Another improvement, you can download and print off a pdf entry form as we used to do, see link here:

https://warandpeacerevival.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018_Military_Vehicle.pdf

On 25/03/2018 at 6:29 PM, REME 245 said:

All British and Canadian 3 tonners and Daimler and Humber Armoured Cars used 10.50 X 20 during the war.  This size was replaced by 1100 X 20 in the 1950's which everyone uses now.  You also have post-war 4 tonners as well and the Green Godess Fire Engines.

There are other war-time tread patterns so it does not have to be Dunlop Trac-Grip pattern, but they need to look good if people are going to pay a premium.

 

According to the 1945 edition of the War Office publication, Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles, the 10.20-20 tyres were shown as being replaced by 11.00-20 at that time.

Hi Richard,

Stick to the QL, much nicer. The WOT6 was an awful wagon!

Hi Stefan,

Great work and well done to all involved in the restoration.

regards, Richard

28 minutes ago, goanna said:

Back in the 1980's, Colin Anderson the well known military vehicle restorer , installed a GMC 270 into his QL Bedford. He drove it to Corowa one year and later on he sold it to somebody in Sydney. It was used in a TV series as a Jap truck in Malaya !

Mike,

This is probably the same QL as Ron has mentioned as the owner bought it from a well known collector in Sydney with the 270 already fitted. The current owner got the 'bug' for one after riding in my QL some years ago.

regards, Richard

Hi Martin.

,Do you mean those lugs that bolt on either side of the chassis at the rear?

Richard

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:10 PM, john1950 said:

Way back when Perkins, P6 was the engine of choice. A Perkins 6354 would be a good fit.

A 6.354 is a tight fit in a QL. A friend in Australia did this conversion about 18 years ago and I spent a week helping him. As he had a compressor on the engine, he opted to change the brake system so it was air over hydraulic instead of vacuum. This worked OK but there was no where to mount the handbrake lever conveniently so we put a spring brake and air control hand brake instead. The engine had a Turner 5 speed box as I recall. It is a much larger engine than the P6 which was a favourite conversion in the 1950's. Had a short ride in it years later and it is a bit noisy in the cab. I much prefer mine with the old 28hp Bedford engine. The transfer box was deemed to be a bit lightweight for the increased torque and using it for bush and desert driving so my friend used a CMP transfer box which is a lot stronger..

regards, Richard

Just reading this and knowing how these vehicles tend to stand around a lot, wondering if it is suffering from 'diesel algae'. You may not realise it but this occurs on pump side of filters as well as in the tank. I worked on a forklift recently that ran alright until it ran out of diesel, then would not bleed through. The filter was covered in slime on the outlet and a small gauze filter in the inlet of the pump was choked. I would be looking at the filters.

Just a thought.

Richard

57 minutes ago, Surveyor said:

Richard

my standard but learning, is open bonnet yup an engine, i have just learnt to change oil and deisel, so if i explain thing as an idiot please understand I'm learning, i do feel in aw of people who get what looks unsalvagable then next looks brand new.

On the front of the engine is a 41 mm "nut" Jim says he can crank that for 4 turns then stops, he says it is compressiing, he has taken the. Top of the engine off and checked pistons and i think push rods and can't see a problem there, hence assumption of con rod, I'm on a drive and no cover. 

Jim is a professional mechanic and i trust him

Richard 

Hi Richard,

I think you are on a crash course of the workings of an engine and hopefully your mechanic will explain it to you in laymans terms!  If the head was off ( you say he took the top off unless you mean the rocker cover) and the engine turned over, albeit 4 revolutions, and all the pistons went up and down, then it seems odd that it is locking up (which I assume is what you are saying). As has been said, your guy will gradually narrow down the problem.

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:51 AM, Surveyor said:

Many thanks, all help appreciated, just a relief the camshaft rotated even just a little bit and my mate Jim says he can here compression, as said its a long time since he worked on Land Rovers and we both need help, do have the parts manual so will copy those pages in case we get oil on them

Richard,

You mention rotating the 'camshaft'. Unless the timing cover is exposed, this is not possible, Do you mean the crankshaft, ie, turning the engine over? It is quite a simple engine really. I have rebuilt 100's of the petrol versions, but not personally been involved with the diesels. When in the early years of service there were serious reliability problems with the diesel engine, but that was about 24 years ago now and was sorted out.

Richard

4 minutes ago, Surveyor said:

Jim my mechanic has checked the and reckons the piston rods are okay, thinks the con rods may have gone

Surely piston rods and con rods are the same thing? Unless you mean the push rods??

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 9:26 AM, john_g_kearney said:

Thank you very much, 10FM68 - I think that pretty much wraps up all the questions. It is interesting that an elite Guards unit was still being issued a wartime lorry instead of a new Bedford RL circa 1958. Perhaps the QL has a special body fitted - it is a hard body, not an open one covered by a canvas tilt.

John.

Hi John,

The QL was likely to be an officers 'gin palace'. Some of the QL's with Command type bodies soldiered on until the mid-1970's. I remember one coming in Workshops about that time. I don't think there was a similar type body on a RL at that time, apart from mobile workshops.

Richard