N.O.S.

These (the item Robin has shown above) are available in a couple of sizes and bar lengths from agricultural dealers / engineers as replacement eyes for trailer draw bars. One is a good match for military hitches. I've also used rings from lifting equipment suppliers, slightly smaller diameter section for the same hole diameter. Came across an interesting issue last week - I replaced the towing jaw on the rear of a loading shovel with a pintle hook from a WW2 AEC Matador - only to find that some postwar U.S. towing eyes are a very tight fit. :rolleyes:

In my case I don't think there is any no doubt whatsoever :banana:

That was no mean feat - well done!

Reading the article again it says 3 trucks went missing, but then 6 were buried down a mine shaft. So only 16 1/2 tons on each truck then - that's more like it!

Now lets see, 3 missing trucks - probably the biggest around would have been lend-lease Studebaker 6x4s? Then we have a claim of 100T of gold on the missing trucks. So that would be 33 1/3 tons on each truck? Yep, sounds about right for a wartime overload. :rolleyes:

It would look good on the back of that GMC tipper you recently completed - the owner could use it as a living pod

Also steer from side to side, although reversing seems the best way. I often take my Bedford MJ out of 4wd just before the really hard ground, while the wheels will still slip a little - before it gets a chance to go tight.

Welcome Bas - what is the significance of Autocar?

The most exciting thing I've found so far is a small cavern (void) 5 metres down which turned out to be an old Morris Traveller :rolleyes:

And I wanted to put a Scammell Constructor radiator in the hall with the fan blades behind driven electrically to make it a convector - but Mrs. N.O.S. said 'No!"……. Tiger Moth it is then.

I read about that idea of a booster pump on a recent thread somewhere - a good move. Can you advise a suitable 6v pump that will allow through flow when off, and best location, Pete?

A great idea! How about something along these lines but a B-17 instead of the modern jet?

Olaf - seems they were built by DAF for the Luftwaffe after the invasion of Holland - see link for info (part shown below):

There's hope for our very own "Strategic Reserve" yet! :readpaper:

Well the "pre-owned" pistons (job done by someone more experienced than me) worked a treat - problem solved and a nice quiet engine is the result. The most likely explanation comes from a very experienced Jeep engine rebuilder, who reckons pistons from the Willys approved wartime (and late 40s) supplier were notorious for being out of size spec - as much as plus or minus 5 thou. Normal practice was, and is, for pistons to be grouped in matched sets and blocks machined to suit as normal practice. But modern manufacture results in more accurate new pistons, thus oversize sets of such difference within the standard size category would not be readily available. It may be that nobody else gets caught by this, but if you do you now know what to do

Many vehicles to be seen in WW2 photos of USAAF airfields in UK look really beat up - like they're 20 years old or more!

The German equivalent of the big USAAF tankers? Some info here: http://panzerserra.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/ford-g198ts-v3000s-traktor-with-daf.html

These are both the work of USAAF mechanics. 1. Before and after: 2. Pacific Island buggy:

I see your priority was to first clear yourself a good view of the bay

What's your idea of an idyllic beach holiday?

One piston is good and could be used again, three pistons are good on diameter and skirt but the ring grooves are badly worn top and bottom, causing up and down play on rings, result is broken rings. Bores are not worn, some slight scoring presumably caused by broken rings came out with a gentle hone. The jeep was used on an airfield with a PTO mounted generator so maybe this was caused by running on light / no load for extended periods? It seems pointless to strip out engine to either bore out to + 10 or bore out and sleeve back to original just so that new pistons can be used, hence our decision to use a used but serviceable set of pistons. It is interesting to note that somewhere along the line the size of a new standard piston has shrunk, to the extent that they cannot be used in original bores. Not that the requirement to do so is very likely, our situation must be quite unusual.

Ruxy - we're measuring the skirt low down at 90 deg. to gudgeon pin, I'm sure the originals are oval too but we measured both at the same position. This is more of a comparative measuring exercise as it is obvious the new pistons are smaller than the original pistons and too small for the bore. We also tried one of a set of French pistons supplied with a new Hotchkiss block - these are about the same as the original pistons i.e. larger than new manufacture.

No Richard, we haven't measured the bores top or bottom. This is strictly a 'roadside' rebuild :blush: The micrometer is a borrowed WW2 U.S. metric unit (no doubt from a USAAF base!) but good enough to measure the difference between new and old pistons. We have measured the old and new pistons, and running both pistons down the bore we get adequate clearance with the old but too much clearance at 90 deg. to the crankshaft with the new pistons. The engine runs well with the original pistons - we think it will rattle like heck with the smaller new pistons. The fact that the new pistons are smaller to start with means there is no way to get the clearance down to reasonable limits without closing up the bore. I suppose the simple answer is that nobody needs to put new pistons in an original engine anymore without having bores sleeved and machined accordingly.

We need to put some standard pistons in a standard never machined block, because 3 of the original pistons have badly worn ring grooves, causing the rings to break up. Bores are good so apart from a light honing new pistons / rings are all that is required. But we've run up against a piston sizing issue. It would appear that modern (good quality) replacement standard pistons these days seem to be 2 1/2 to 3 thou smaller diameter than original pistons. This means there is too much slop in the original bores of our engine. The new pistons are machined to 3.12325" measured at skirt. If bores are machined to std size of 3.125" plus 1 thou, the clearance would be 2 3/4 thou - about right for recommended clearance. The original pistons from this engine, and several other originals we have found, measure 3.125" at skirt and fit with the correct clearance in our bores, so we can only assume that the working clearance was obtained new by machining the original bores to 3.125 plus 2 1/2 thou clearance. I guess it is true to say that all standard pistons are now used in blocks that will have been sleeved back to standard size, and the new liners would be as a matter of course be honed to suit the new pistons - so this discrepancy between new and old piston diameters would never be an issue. We are fortunate enough to have access to a set of good used pistons which we can fit in order to achieve correct clearances and avoiding rattle which would surely result if new pistons were fitted giving 5 - 6 thou clearance. The only alternative is to bore out 10 thou or bore out and liner back to original size. Has anyone else encountered similar issues with fitting new pistons into original bores?

Have you tried Bernie Smith? He has had them for sale from time to time, might be worth speaking to him. Contact details here: http://stores.ebay.co.uk/vintagevehiclespares-car-commercial/SCAMMELL-/_i.html?_fsub=1126229012&_sid=268079682&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322