Jump to content

N.O.S.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,540

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by N.O.S.

  1. N.O.S.
    And not forgetting the one with the P-51 canopy!
  2. N.O.S.
    .
  3. N.O.S.
    Looks like you need a valid C licence plus Provisional C+E licence in order to drive artics on L plates - different from the 'good old days' of going straight from car to class 1 hgv.
  4. N.O.S.
    6 wheel drive and a driven axle on the trailer! :drive: Are these photos of the units made up in Oz? Looks like they made the trailers too out of bits. Or maybe they were experimenting with a driven trailer - difficult to make out if there is a propshaft on it, but in which case how are they taking the drive from the bogie?
  5. N.O.S.
    In which case you may need an oil pump in the rear axle...:cool2:
  6. N.O.S.
    Well chosen words :thumbsup:.
  7. N.O.S.
    Never mind a couple more cylinders, Tom - the Chrysler needs a couple more gears! :cool2:
  8. N.O.S.
  9. N.O.S.
    Just goes to show that when it comes to pinning down WW1 paint shades you are entering a very grey area indeed :cheesy:
  10. N.O.S.
    And just to round off Grumpy's post, would it be correct to state that it can be used UNLADEN, towed by for example a DT980, by virtue of forming part of a 'Historic Vehicle' and therefore exempt from C+U Regs? A related question please - if a Historic Vehicle tows a more modern trailer, I guess that trailer would have to be tested? What is that date cut-off for exemption of trailers from testing?
  11. N.O.S.
    Of course, but best to have a fair few more on hand - just to be sure :-D
  12. N.O.S.
    Armoured Dozer 1945 called ALWAYS.WILL (front edge of engine bay side panel). May be copyright, so here is link: http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/vanhall-panzers/Tigers/sPzAbt507TigerIImarch145.jpg Feisty little thing isn't it?
  13. N.O.S.
    Well it certainly looks like a good restoration - but are you saying there's a whole load of filler in the hull instead of steel plate neatly welded in where the range shells went right through? Best check it over with a magnet......
  14. N.O.S.
    Isn't it more a case of DVLA being forced to accept harmonisation with European legislation? The problem is that we take it all at face value......
  15. N.O.S.
    This pic taken in East Anglia shows a USAAF 1 1/2T Chev truck, showing that when it came to bridge plates the USAAF were compliant.
  16. N.O.S.
    Try it without the 'Kind' on the end - http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122 :cool2:
  17. N.O.S.
    Al - just a thought. The USAF were using large quantities of WW2 equipment in UK after the war and I have evidence that WW2 USAAF refuelling tankers were rebuilt in 1956 at Preston. Perhaps the USAF were using companies to recondition these vehicles? This might also explain the origin of these vehicles and their point of entry into preservation too?
  18. N.O.S.
    I can't see any photos - ????? (OK OK, I'm interested too) And as if by magic they suddenly appeared! Thanks, looks fairly tidy too.
  19. N.O.S.
    Well I guess that's a lot better than none (Sir).:saluting: I really thought you were going to be in trouble there....
  20. N.O.S.
    Cough......How many GMCs have you got coming, Jack? :readpaper:
  21. N.O.S.
    I think you're going to need a few more Ward LaFrance wreckers, Jack.
  22. N.O.S.
    Do you mean the Chelsea Flower Show? :cool2:
  23. N.O.S.
    That's a mighty interesting image, in that the whole hoist assembly has been taken from a Chev M6 bomb truck. First evidence of a Dodge being fitted with one! Any caption or suggestion of location? :thumbsup:
  24. N.O.S.
    Surely it would be more appropriate for Jack to FIRE the first round? :saluting:
  25. N.O.S.
    It's been a (long :-D) while since I've been in a testing station, but I thought the reason for loading a commercial vehicle for test was to ensure the brakes didn't simply lock up on brake application when on the rollers, which for example an 8 wheel tipper would if empty. ISTR putting just over 1/2 the max. load on to ensure successful testing, which would accord with a 50% efficiency as axles would be more than 50% loaded with 1/2 a load. If you take an empty vehicle do they really impose the full carrying load?
×
×
  • Create New...