Richard Farrant

hi Jim you have got me there! I rebuilt B61 last year with those oil rings and from memory thought there were 2. I am unable to look at my manual to confirm so hope someone else can tell you. regards Richard

Hi Jim the broad ring with slots fits first, then fit the two thin flat rings over it. These go top and bottom of the groove and the narrow wavy one between them. Don't forget to space out the ring gaps around the piston. Sorry I am not able to send a picture. You should have 4 items. regards Richard

Think you will find this glass / mirror, dates back much further than FV432. Before conversion to a NSN it was 6MT3/44297 and was around in WW2 era. These mirrors were supplied by several firms, Desmo, Radydot and Winguard from memory. The glasses do differ slightly between makes. Last vehicles to have them in service were Ferrets as remember fitting the modified arms for the modern mirrors.

Neil, This Class system is probably based on the earlier REME procedure of Class I, II, III, etc. and Clive posted up a scan, check this link and go to post #10 http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?56356-Stenciled-text-on-petrol-tank&highlight=class+III I have not got time now to delve further, but no doubt Clive will spot this. cheers Richard

Thanks Sean, In workshops we would do a top overhaul and things like that, and rebuild engines where there were no replacements available, like AEC 690, 760 and 505, of which I did a number of on loaders, cranes and dumptrucks. It made no sense to rebuild an engine if a replacement was available through Ord. You only have to demand one item, whereas a rebuild would entail numerous parts and you only need a nil stock on one or two to delay a job. We had a line doing all types of Bedford and Land Rover engines so were good for parts for them. In workshops we would not change engines for trivial reasons, but it did happen in the field. Richard

I think 238 Sqn RCT(V) was a TA unit based in Bootle at the time.

Hi Sean, To address your question on replacement engines ... I changed countless engines on all types of vehicles and plant in my time with Workshops, including Mk1 Militants, I cannot recall which workshop the 11.3 litre AEC was generally rebuilt in, but as you mention 27CW, then that was 27 Command Workshop at Warminster. The procedure at the time was that REME workshops or contractors would bid for engine rebuild programmes. Rebuilt engines were stocked at COD Chilwell, then issued out on demand. The 'reconditionable' old engine would be returned in the crate. When Chilwell had an amount of these they would then be sent out in bulk for reconditioning, then returned to Chilwell for stock and re-issue. As so it went on. When you received a rebuilt crated engine, the build date could have been several years earlier. There was a storage period that if exceeded, they engines had to be inspected and re-preserved, this was mainly due to possibility of rust in the cylinders, think this was 4 years. So with this in mind the rotation of stock would be done by rebuild date. So to sum up, an engine rebuild date is not proof of a vehicle rebuild date ........ unless of course, if an engine was rebuilt at the Workshops along with the vehicle rebuild, although this was not common. Hope all that makes sense! regards, Richard

At least we can rule out a 'boarding pass press' Out of my field Clive, will leave this one, unless I spot a clue!

I cannot see that a driverless vehicle is going to take notice of a bumper flag !

It is a ludicrous idea, might work on major trunk/motorway/autobahn/interstate, but imagine on narrow roads where vehicles have to pass parked vehicles, obstacles, it is often signals between vehicles allowing them to pass or give way. No good flashing lights or waving if there is no frigging driver. Just wait for the first fatal accident, then people will turn away from the idea. I imagine that it relies a lot on satellite communication as well. I would not wish to be in one, nor meet one. What happens in an accident, who carries the blame? Will the vehicle lose its licence or the owner? The price of these vehicles with all the technology will be a turn off for the majority of drivers too.

Are you talking about tanks?? Think this might be a reply to the wrong thread

Hi Richard, I take it this is for a Bedford MW? The army in their servicing instructions specified the normal brake fluid of that time. As brake fluid was a 'vegetable base' or as they say now synthetic, I think using a mineral oil could destroy the rubber seal on the shaft. That is the only rubber seal in the assembly. So I use a DOT4 brake fluid without any issues.. If removed I flush the cylinder out by removing the top cover plate and refitting with a new gasket. cheers Richard

I have noticed on record cards of vehicles that came in to service in the 1950's that the earlier records of units it served with were missing, they were probably disposed of, or maybe because the form of recording had changed.

Actually Jeremy Vine conducted the subject very well and sounded like he was genuinely interested.

The Rolls B range had an option of gas engines for the commercial market, so all the info is there already.

The Conqueror tank had a petrol injection Meteor engine in the 1950's

Hi Doug, Caterpillar and International crawlers had face seals in final drives, they are excellent as they prevent ingress of abrasive material, so I can see why they would have been used on a tank. Very expensive though, they had a mirror finish.

Hi Butch, Just in case you are not aware, OC600 was a Straight SAE140 gear oil, not an EP (extreme pressure) gear oil. You will find that OC600 was often specified for use on axles and gearboxes that contained bronze parts, especially worm drive axles. If you were to use the EP140 it could be harmful to these components. regards, Richard

Clive, The MTRS Workshop at Weston-Super-Mare was B269, it was Henlys who were Austin main dealers, I think other Austin military vehicles also went through their workshops. Richard

Hi Clive, no problem, I did not notice you post had been withdrawn until after I posted. cheers Richard

Clive, I read in that WO book on REME activities during WW2 that the 'Aldershot' shelter was developed before the War and it also mentions 'for the 30ft span model'. This makes me wonder if it came in different sizes, and also what we do not know, is the origin of the detailed drawing of one in that book. One can only draw conclusions that the structure evolved over time, with alterations to the canvas covering to make it more practical, ie. vents and different window apertures. Photos from known dates are best reference I think. As to whether it is a No.2, I have no tentage references to draw on. But, as I think the framework on the Libyan one appears similar/same as WW2 versions, it is highly likely the generic name given by soldiers at the time, may well have been 'Aldershot' although it may not have been the official one. cheers Richard

Here is a photo of an Aldershot shelter being used as a workshop during WW2, of interest is a Loyd Carrier, with what looks like a tank engine sitting in it, I wonder if this was trailed behind the Crusader ARV? (off subject, sorry Lizzie). Anyway point of photo is to show these structures did have roof vents.

to expand on names used for these places of short residence, the Aussies call them the 'dunny' ........ probably because when you come out, you have usually 'dun it' ....... unless you have a problem of course :-D Why do we always end up on this subject .....I blame Clive, he reads too many old books .....

Clive The Aldershot shelter was used in WW2, may pre-date it to. It is detailed in one of the red War Office books on REME, which relates experience gained in wartime. Detailed drawing in it, framework fits the Libya one to a T.

hi Clive, According to official sources, the Aldershot was 40 foot wide and 38 foot long with height to top ridge of 18 foot. Framework weighed 2,600lbs and canvas was 1,000lbs. It took 40 men 90 mins to erect.