N.O.S.

No, that's definitely not normal. What would have been quite normal is to have pressed your finger on his newly painted truck and said "oh dear, that's not quite dry yet" - all my paint jobs have a selection of finger marks as I continually check to see if it has dried :blush:

Yep - a good week's work there, I'd say A lovely find! Are those headlamp guards original Rick?

And remember (a car park conversation??) you can use Jimmy front wheel cylinders - but the brake backplate top needs indexing back round one bolt hole (e.g. LHS goes clockwise) to allow union to clear. In your case (i.e. empty brake drums :cool2:) that wouldn't be such a big job New hydrovacs (later type) and kits are available from Belgium. Bit of pipework required though. If you get one and get it working, I'll pop around and see where I've gone wrong......

Welcome to my world :nut::banana::wave: Mind you I was a lot younger then......

Joris - from the information I can find, the reason the B29 was not used in European theatre was that in December 1943 (the maiden flight was Sep 42) it was decided to send the B29s to the Pacific instead of Europe (as presumably originally intended), where their longer range could be used to greater advantage - given the long distances over water needed to reach targets. One cannot help but wonder what effect their use in Europe might have had on the war given their carrying capacity compared with B24s and B17s. It's not that easy to compare payloads - some figures I've found are B29 max. payload 20,000lbs, B17 max. payload 17,600lbs but typically 4,500 - 8,000lbs of bombs depending on distance to target, so presumably quoted max. payload includes fuel? For a given distance I'd have expected the B29 to be carrying a lot more payload than a B17. Over to the experts?

Here's a nice little website featuring Crossley, with info/pictures of WW1 and WW2 vehicles. http://www.crossley-motors.org.uk/history/military/quad.jpg The photo I've highlighted shows an ex RAF 4x4 fitted with early Poclain hydraulic back hoe, loading what looks unbelievably like a Shawnee Poole dumper trailer shortened and fitted with horse shafts???

Is it a tank, or is it a plane? :coffee: http://www.artificialowl.net/2008/10/strange-vision-of-abandoned-plane-on.html

Result! Well done for not giving up. But it just goes to show how little some staff know about the myriad of registration rules (and it could be argued what you were trying to do is not exactly an everday event in the taxation office).

Oops! Just put a correction on my Oz road-train post, the sheep beat the oil drums to the first ride by a year

And inextricably linked to the history of the 45 gallon oil drum is the Australian "Road Train". The trailers were initially developed by haulage entrepeneur Kurt Johannsen for trundling around the outback behind his Diamond T 980/1 with the sole purpose of collecting empty drums (which in the late '40s / early '50s were in desperately short supply) for reconditioning and sale back to the oil companies. Doing a HMVF search should bring up a reference to his book 'Son of the Red Centre' :-) Correction - the trailers were developed a year before the great oil drum round-up of 1948, for sheep. Just checked the book and I was mistaken!

I have to ask why? Did they anticipate the extreme cold might cause problems with diesel waxing up maybe?

Might be quicker to send off the slip stating it has been scrapped, and then start again from scratch to register the vehicle - as purchased from a scrap yard!! Does make you wonder. Hope you get it sorted at Swansea. If they refuse, I wonder if a few folk on here might be able to provide evidence that they have done it before?

Thin oil? Lift pump diapragm gone, leaking petrol into sump and not allowing supply to carb maybe?

Extending this to Maintenance manuals for Aircraft - I was lucky enough to look after an Electrical Systems manual for the B24 bomber for a couple of days - in it a fairly incompetent fitter called Lester makes appearances from time to time. This image at the begining of the manual shows what the B24 thinks of lester's abilities, and suggests he appears in other systems manuals too! Hope Consolidated Aircraft Co. doesn't mind the publicity!

:rotfl::rotfl:You're right there. I blame Jack for a lot of it. I guess the Reo kit is hydraulic, not air? Would you be able to put up a photo of the ram /steering arm set-up? Not that I have a Reo, but am interested to see how easy it is to convert. Thanks.

The spare one could be useful - always doing jobs where I could do with an extra hand.

And if the point being made is that to convert a vehicle detracts from its value, I'd answer by arguing that if we bought our vehicles to use and enjoy them, not simply as an investment, that point has little clout (with me at least). If by the time I've finished with my vehicles they were worthless (let's face it, in 20 years time who knows!) then they'd still have served their purpose. I thought we were all obsessed with our vehicles, not their value.........

Yes, that was a good answer If you ever get a sensible figure, it would be interesting to work out what percentage it is of the total number built. Which could lead to another question - What vehicle type has the greatest proportion of survivors?

R3, you've got lots of bits of new metal bent at right angles - are you managing to do your own folds or getting a sheet metal company to do this?

I think B's comments become more relevant the rarer the vehicle. If I had a unique or very rare machine I would certainly think twice about it. After all you need to do a fair few miles to recoup the cost of a conversion on fuel cost alone. Reliability is also important, but a well-maintained petrol engine shouldn't cause major problems. Another big factor: is it a collectible i.e. a 'what's in my shed' piece, or is it one to use frequently out and about? If I was after a vehicle to use regularly I'd place as much value in a good conversion than an original. Totally down to personal opreference. When fuel hits £5 a litre it will all become academic anyway!

So is the answer to WHY? that it is a show stand accessory to sell a few more machines? Good value piece of fabrication I'd say!! Here is the 1955 sales stand equivalent - a 3 axle Euclid dumptruck full of bathing beauties :-) http://www.sirensofchrome.com/sirens/?p=407

"Hello, Leibherr Service. Erm - we need a No. 2 hydraulic pump drive coupling changed. Oh, and you'd best bring a long ladder....." I was wetting myself until 1/2 way up when I noticed the machine had a couple of locking claws on the front of the undercarriage :shocked:

The intercooler air inlet/outlet has worked out really neatly (sorry - you've worked it out really neatly!!). Good result on the presence of the bush - the removal of that will surely be enough to prevent any problems :-) Can I pick your brains on the clutch assembly e.g. part numbers? Can I assume that all clutches of the largest diameter which will fit to a B flywheel are as heavy as each other, or is there a better-than-the-others type to go for? Will be looking for one very soon :cool2:

Loud noise - feedback doing same job as the siren close-up maybe? (As in you wouldn't want to be close to the speaker). Now't wrong with the occasional SANDBAG moment :-)

Thanks for the response, probably just me over-reacting - well who wouldn't, after reading through that lot again! :nut::banghead::banana: