ruxy

I used to use Dufay Titaine original IIR NATO and have the brushing & spray data sheets somewhere. This firm was taken over by PRC-Desoto and everything has changed. In theory the original IRR was supposed to be sprayed on a prepared surface (at least the first top-coat). Now - you would probably use something like this :- http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mwj96yW1JHkJ:www.lindberg-lund.com/files/Tekniske%2520datablad/PR-219-TD.pdf+desoto+def+stan&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjH4nzjrFhYuBI7Pplk_hhHUVPgqLv6YNLyVKQrcB6SnZE6O0pceRLl64-7aD-VnPDd8aL2sHArIZoha2qarWkVXr-iejmX_233SVb-C0BkJEV4P-AdOn88E2kCOQKyiXZ83X7M&sig=AHIEtbSvzTY6dhS5qop7xiYosgdctMY3qQ Note the colour - Olive Yellow , not too far away from Eau-De-Ni

From what I have observed of RAF Land Rovers - they did not use service men to re-paint them. They always seemed to get a good spray finish. I know until recent years they employed their own civilian painters for aircraft re-finish, AFAIK they use the paint makers staff or contractors for the new compliant paints. It is probably just grey used as a sealing coat, the original could be / suspected infra-red reflective and the last coat NATO Green that was not IRR. Either colours could be a isolator used over an air-dried synthetic or anything , I have used a paint called OB Primer , a very universal (2 pack) cure all (not a isolator) made by a firm called Upoxy Research Ltd , use it over plastic , bare metals and directly takes finishes inc. celle.

Original chassis paint at best would have just been de-greased. OD would probably not be a good base for a class finish of RAF Blue/Grey. If it was a gloss dress coat of RAF Blue/Grey - then it would probably need a grey undercoat , alternative would be a obliterating ground coat of something suitable he had to hand such as Eau de Nil (that he had probably tested on a earlier job). Undercoat colours are funny , grey covers most OK for most top-coats. Yellow finishing often needs a brown undercoat for best results..

The mail just plucked the info. off the web site page :- http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=Markets#vehicles I would not doubt the technology is proven and there but yes 10 years to get this low pressure system on the forecourt even if full funding available , this would need a breathing space for car production tanked up as required before the ideal stage of fuel cell and direct electric propulsion at realistic cost (30 years away)..

http://www.cellaenergy.com/ What they are saying is that the problem of storage and transport of this "hydrogen based" fuel is now resolved. They are a bit short on info. on production of the hydrogen - a extra nuclear station or two should power it. Possibly hype - who knows just now..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351341/Relief-pumps-Revolutionary-hydrogen-fuel-cost-just-90p-GALLON-run-existing-cars.html Or will it be taxed out of existance..

Bodywork such as bonnet , grille mesh, wing front panels (position of lamps side by side) - are all indicating civvy build spec. However - it could be a Contract B Car Utility , the chassis No. could confirm..

Yes - that I understand , however without clarification - it reads as if all vehicles must be Re-SORN after change of ownership. We are agreed that - The SORN scheme only applies to vehicles where a tax disc expired on or after 31 January 1998 , therefore laid up vehicles not within the SORN sheme - do not have to be SORN on change of ownership. There must be DVLA people at Swansea with nothing better to do with their time but trawl historic vehicle forum sites such as this - they must be laughing their heads off..

Re: SORN fines Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post You cannot SORN it until the log book has been issued in your name, you have to wait until the logbook arrives then you can SORN it. Even if it was taken off the road before SORN came in, when there is a change of keeper you have to SORN it. Same applies if you acquire a vehicle that is part way through the twelve month SORN period, when the new log book is issued the existing SORN is canceled and you have to re SORN. Just because the previous keeper signed and agreed to keep the vehicle off the road, he has no control once the vehicle has been sold on. ====================== The above quote.. With forum comments on such subjects , if you rely on a experience or know for certain then it is always best to quote some reference. My comment was that AFAIK - this is being re-cycled and not based on known facts , also I did agree with you on the variance of advice from DVLA. The problem being is that too many people are searching the internet for the truth because of misunderstanding due to official literature not being produced in plain English. The authoritioes rely on the fact that there are few solicitors & barristers and that the rest of the population lead a busy life , this enables these QUANGO to operate yet another extortion racket. You can see from the little info. presently available on SORN2 , they are feeling their way along with their police backers , drip, drip, drip

I take it that it is safe to assume DVLA VS GREY = DVLA -v- tim grey ??

DVLA - seem to rely on the population taking a general disinterest , how right. I need to be looking more into this SORN racket and watch the legal situation. Two sites taking a interest regarding SI's :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?186019 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=45780 The comment by Grumpy on this forum - that their are alternatives to making use of the DVLA facilities to SORN on a annual basis is most interesting , BUT is he correct with this comment ? It is all very well scribing with a officious style , however I am now satisfied he has been wrong with some comments, need to determine the truth with the same documents the DVLA briefs have to hand.. If he is then the words illegal entrapment, intimidation and embezzelement come to mind..

From the latest FBHVC UPDATES.. Continuous Insurance Enforcement Uninsured vehicles will be identified by comparing the Motor Insurance Database with DVLA’s Vehicle Database. Where a vehicle is taxed, but apparently uninsured, the MIB will issue an ‘Insurance Advisory Letter’ to the registered keeper advising them of the actions they need to take: · If not insured, insure immediately; · If they believe they are insured, contact their insurance provider immediately to check that the Motor Insurance Database has been updated with the correct information; · Make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) to DVLA so that the vehicle is not included in CIE; · If they no longer have the vehicle, notify DVLA in writing. If the keeper fails to undertake one of the above actions and the vehicle remains taxed but not insured, then DVLA will issue the registered keeper with a £100 Fixed Penalty Notice (reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days). Failure to pay the penalty and insure the vehicle could result in court prosecution with a fine of up to £1,000, and the vehicle being wheel-clamped or impounded if found on the public road. CIE does not replace the laws of driving whilst uninsured; that will continue to be enforced by the police. This new motor insurance law only applies to England, Scotland and Wales (vehicles registered in Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man are excluded from this law as they have their own registration authorities). For more information on CIE, please visit http://www.direct.gov.uk/stayinsured When is CIE being introduced? The exact date cannot yet be given, but will be in early 2011. Announcements will be made in the press before CIE becomes law. Historic Vehicle Owners For historic vehicle owners there are a number of important things to remember. · SORN – if a SORN is made and the tax disc surrendered because the vehicle is not in use, then the vehicle will not be subject to CIE; · Pre-SORN vehicles - vehicles which have been kept off-road before SORN came into force on 1 February 1998 are exempt from CIE unless they are brought back into use, in which case they would need to be insured or a SORN made; · Vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1973 – though the vehicle may have a ‘nil value’ tax disc, it is classed as being ‘taxed’ and a SORN should be made if uninsured and not in use; · Ask MID - if you want to check your vehicle is recorded as ‘insured’ on the Motor Insurance Database, visit the free service at http://www.askMID.com. The author has kindly allowed us to print his email address if anyone has any enquiries: ian.davies2@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

I have been embezzeled out of £80.. Herein lies some of the traps,, http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pattle/nacc/arc0496.htm

Advice you can trust, when you need it - £1.53 per / min. http://dvlaguide.co.uk/index.php/dvlaguide/how_to_make_a_sorn/ Another to$$er money making scam - can you trust what they say - NO !! Record the answer - do you have evidence that would be accepted by a Court of Law - NO !! Note the small print at the top - Advice provided is available free of charge from DVLA and the large print in blue - UNOFFICIAL GUIDE TO THE DVLA A letter by recorded would be an investment in comparison to this lot..

I am anticipating some fun, as I understand. Possibly they could say it should have been SORNed years ago and send me a back-log of fines !! I don't wish to be in this situation - that is why I intend sending a lengthy correspondence to them by recorded delivery. The letter of reply will be retained with the existing reply (email) as documentary evidence should the issue go to court.. I have read on forums that the DVLA do not accept their own emails as documentary evidence in these matters ? Things may have changed , possibly.. Several years ago I was reliably informed that a FAX transmital could be used as evidence in court of a legal transmital of a document BUT e'mail with / without attachments could not as it does not have the same quality of evidence.. This I can understand - I don't have FAX facility - so it will have to be a letter sent by recorded..

No / No

This is the only laid up vehicle I have that is not SORN , it is the one I was told by the authorities that it does not need SORN. However - if Grumpy is in fact correct - then it does need SORN. It would be appreciated if Grumpy could post any correspondence references ref. his case , that I could quote to them alongside my similar case and ask why the discrepancy in their reply. This highlights what could be unresolved SORN issues , and they are experimenting soon with SORN2

QUOTE Grumpy That’s the opposite of what I was told by Birmingham DVLA. Just to complicate things further the different answer might be because the vehicle I had purchased was on the old V5 log book not a V5C. Its not unusual getting different answers from different offices in DVLA, in fact you can get different answers from the same office, even in writing. ============ I don't doubt what you state is correct regarding differing answers , because if all the SORNing info. was written in plain English then I would understand as well as those earning their crust administering the system.. I have several vehicles on SORN , what you have stated alarms me because the reply came by email. I think I will send a letter to Swansea by recorded delivery asking for "further clarification" as I have no wish for a hefty fine in the future. Last night - I tried to SORN this particular vehicle on-line , however the software would not permit. The fact that SORNing is being blocked indicates their answer to me was in fact correct , in the alternative their software systems are crap. The 2011 Mk.2 SORN - well , they are just going to see how it goes (as are the police) http://www.polfed.org/roads_policing_newsletter_January2011_low_res.pdf

====================================== Something wrong with this post :- Quote this sentence. Even if it was taken off the road before SORN came in, when there is a change of keeper you have to SORN it. ---------- You had me running for a file to check - this is a comment that keeps getting re-cycled and is wrong... Regarding a vehicle purchased by self 1996 , that had been laid up off the road since 1984.. I queried this point with the DVLA and have correspondence from J. Punchard Customer Enquiries Group. States. The scheme only applies to vehicles where a tax disc expired on or after 31 January 1998. As your vehicle was untaxed on this date, it does not fall into the SORN scheme. It will only become liable to SORN if it is re-taxed and then subsequently taken off the road. regards

And there is a moot point. During my teens (1960's) many was the time I walked through the fuselage sections on the top of Mickle Fell (often as a first hike of the year after the snow to High Cup or search for other aircraft) , like a pilgramage. Apparently the sole survivor was the tail-gunner who managed to get to Birkdale Fm. We never did find any tail-section but the water-shed peat gullies were difficult from the Birkdale side. Apparently it was the best preserved WW2 crash site in England due to remote position. I well remember the well burried engines and twisted prop blades , one point I can not forget is the uneven weathering to the blades - like Redwood part raised like the harder rings , between heavily eroded like sapwood. Over the years I visited - little seemed to have changed, obviously much must have been taken shortly after the crash. Unfortunately I did not take photographs because I never considered it would be removed, far better to visit once a year. It must have been about 1969 - I heard it was being taken, and in fact noticed a lorry with a downed light helicopter travel through Middleton-in-Teesdale that had been involved. A year gone X'mas - I was reliably informed that these large recovered sections had been in storage somewhere at a RAF base in NW England and had in fact been scrapped ??

Lets say , Middlesbrough, Cleveland postal code TS3 6NP , is not a good area (for every reason). In fact it only exists because the Carless Capel & Leonard cracker was at the doorsteps and was fully expected to go up and take the lot with it !! I used to go to CC&L for years and the quickest I could get the hell out the better. At least you have to thank CC&L for the word PETROL .

Long-wave heat radiation during the night causes such as corrugated steel roofing (without bonded / uninsulated) surface temperature to drop below the ambient air temperature - this is a major problem. I don't know if this radiation can also affect a vehicle below the roof line as well ? Once your vehicle temperature gets down to overnight ambient , it will not warm up in the morning as fast as the building structure - if the air is water laden then you are going to get condensation. Steel , alloy, concrete,brick are cold materials and good condensers. Wood is a warm material , I line timber garages inside with cheap tanalised fencing boards , the gap with slab poly. The extra timber adds to cost but increases security , the joints allow breathing. Rather than some ventilation - I think better to seal - all the extra timber absorbes moisture until it dries out , I have come to the conclusion this is better than a single cladding. Some people do bag their vehicles , such as made by Cocoon , my cousin has his Morgan in a Airflow bag.

The diff. filler plug - the splash of yellow paint is Solihull - done immediately after oil fill , the red will be military

2010 was a bit of a grey area for "non-compliant" automotive paints and sensible investment in new spray guns , for some paint manufacturing ceased but sales of "existing stock" remained legal , start of Jan 2011 - these sales are illegal. Unless for your canal boat or aircraft and there - low volume sales will inflate prices.. Some types of thinners will become unobtanium - time will tell about availability of "premium" gun-wash that could be handy leaving a flatter finish than that available with maximum base matting.. Possibly 2011 will see the end of this OD debate - and have to accept what colour(s) left available - who knows ??.

The clue is the NATO SC code at top of the label - and what date NATO numbers were established ..