ruxy
-
Posts
2,824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Articles
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by ruxy
-
-
You could have had both Larkspur and Clansman tuner boxes mounted over the very long length of service, account the small holes in your front wings for the lead stowage boxes. I have a small box handy somewhere but don't think I have the larger size FV box.
The other hole of course would be for the long stem wing mirror that yours would have left Solihull with :-
GS. 19 FM 65 ( I obtained it from Ruddington in 1980 )
-
Holes in tub rear - most + don't know.
The holes in the upper body side - a 109" FFR side mout antenna bracket could have been fitted , advise of hole centres - I have some around somewhere , so should be able to confirm.
-------------------------
Front wing - truck your age would probably have had Larkspur , this shows the tuner box & antenna mount , yes the rear was open to the elements (you have drivers view).
I don't know why anybody needs to open out such a large mounting bolt hole, the wing is double skinned to reinforce and is pre-drilled on under skin - ready to drill open out & file dress.
A Larkspur tuner would have a universal surface mount "adaptable box" - no known Rover no. they are on a FV No., I have seen a large (common) and smaller - this is for lead stowage.
Smaller & neater than Clansman
From 1979 - this was tidied up with a box built in under the wing with a spade shaped access lid :-
Ignore the crunch !! -
-
======================
-
A full FFR "Unitary Kit" requires no extra holes or work to be done to fit. It all lifts in and clamps down with quick release hooks , can also be used in a ground role under a tent c/w sliding operators seats that can also be used like a deck chair. Normally in this role it would have two more batteries in the tray , they would probably re-charge with a small Onan set if the truck was away and unable to plug the extension lead in...
I doubt if many were used in a limited radio role using a Manpack and dexion - like collectors do now (just keeps the tub free to carry Thermalite blocks etc). I was in the TAVR Royal Signals and we did have some Pye sets but these were in 88" Rover 8 and 10's - never noticed one in a Lightweight.
-
They had far more FFR's than required for use with Unitary Radio kit - so many were used just as a 12 volt GS in a tactical role (there were not that many 88" CL's and they were used by MP's and driver training from what I observed around Catterick). For soft skinned radio trucks etc. I don't know how the TAVR RA sourced their radio operators , possibly attached from Royal Corps of Signals, if that was the case then probably the truck would come attached with them. This sort of indicates it was not used as FFR , there again it could have carried a Unitary kit for ground role - then it was released for GS.
AFAIK forward controllers would be in a armoured tank or similar with a fake shooter ??
I would think it must have been part of the Regiment total logistics - convoy movement every two years for summer camp with BAOR....
-
I think what you are asking is - was it a gun tractor - no (but I suppose it would shuffle at the line). Did it go for the fish and chips - most certainly. Was it used as a ammo limber X country - probably to the line with a Sankey (or two) .....
-
The above shows the later vent control lever knob - you don't want that one ! - if you wish to remain period , (you could as same leverage - they just push on the crimp of the lever end)...
The knobs on Lightweights came as part of a assembly known as "Dash ventilator control" - even at the UK / UK exchange rate - you don't want to be buying those !!!!
As always - Rover use the "common parts bin" but sometimes there was a big run over , the S2A knob (the part No. I gave you) was used on S3 Lightweights for years (well after 1976 IIRC).
=============================
Can't see the detail of your arms , the blades seem to have plastic centre for hook end arms , people do it for ready availability.
Military wipers are single speed , sometimes people fit a more readily available two speed & switch. sometimes these have a slightly different wheelbox and sweep of arc. Sometimes the parking is changed over , I have a couple of minta left hookers but they are stored away with bad access . I am certain they are as Solihull built - you should be OK with arm left hand 575430 & right hand 575431 and a pair of PRC 1330 blades (or NOS s/s).
The spline mounting bobbins (fit on spindles) the ones I suggested are after-market copies (cheap) , they come with a grub screw. Genuine would have a small hex. set-bolt so easier to check for security (in a strong wind - I have had the whole lot ripped off a spindle and blown away).
You probably don't even have the correct spline bobbins - the small catch at base of arm gives quick release for re-position or you can release the bobbin ..
Genuine blades are marked "Made in England" and have the trade mark sort of a box with a roof on that I am certain is Trico. Those copies on eBay are very good , no mark and no central reinforcement at hinge pin but they still work well - may be Chinese but I don't think so. Could be made by Trico , often a OEM will leave all marks off and there is always a slight difference. Likewise the arms - you would be hard pushed to tell the difference from genuine - no marks at all but I would say by a British OEM. There are Chinese about !!!! but even a genuine Trico rubber blade can have a short life on scratched glass ........
-
Bushing (plastic) , 335741
The knob comes as part of the control lever mechanism , there are early and late knobs , your description is early , this is the same knob as on a civvy S2A (late) 332327
-
With all the supercession numbers , old Unipart etc..
Obviously at that price they are not genuine Rover or Trico (OEM)
June 1988 cat.
575437 stainless steel type finish
PRC1330 matt black
You need to try cheapo against a good un , obviously dependent on your climate (cheap could be more cost effective) , wet days in year when used and hot sun that cream crackers the rubber .....
-----------------
You probably don't have the right arm.
You may need to decide what crank is best for LHD & parking so not to strike the screen frame, there is a choice of SS or Matt black, straight or 20 degree crank.
Nothing is ever easy , why not just try a set of these to make life easy (better cheapo)
While you are on get some of these :-
A PO over the pond has probably lost them , sounds like you have wrong kit on.
============================
There is another aftermarket stainless arm that is quite good (but sometimes hard to get) - it has a little spring clip to release the arm - then you can adjust the length for fine tuning...
-
Wiper blades , most you see by vendors or on eBay for £2.50 to £3 are going to be Chinese manuf. poor copies - probably all from the same factory. You will pay far more for a genuine Land Rover parts black or stainless steel finish , compare the construction of of the metal parts of a Chinese copy to a Rover (or OEM "Trico") and there is a big difference (for starter the copy does not have the reinforcement strip at the hinge pin). Does the rubber perform as well against the real thing - a cheap enough experiment to try yourself .... Probably the only fair performance test would be on new glass
Beware of any Chinese fast mover part........ Or any Chinese part .......
Genuine Rover parts will be expensive , those sold as genuine Trico are more or less now unobtainium due to foreign dumping ,,,,,,,,
-
You can tell me, but I'm not going to change them!
Your front lights - bedtime reading :-
Riveting - you will probably not be interested in the rears.
-
Thanks for taking the time to read my ramble. I am in the States and I purchased the only two Lightweights I have ever seem in real life so I don't have much of a base of comparison other than the internet or books like the one Mark Cook did.. The first was also a 1974 but not an FFR. I had to sell it a few months ago. I agree with you that they are many variations of different things throughout the years. A lot of times I really don't understand if things were a real change or I am just seeing a picture of something someone has cooked up. Or, if it was a real change, why they made that change. When you throw in the many years of production, years of service, location of service, regular Army or TA, branch of service, 12/24 volt, and maybe after MOD modifications, ..like I told Andy..I stay confused!!!!! Now I only have one actual example to look at but thank goodness, it has not been messed with too much. You guys who have actually seen or maybe owned a number of Lightweights are really a wealth of knowledge to me and discussions like this one a real help. I hope I have not bored to many of you. Best regards, Bil
====================================
There are some days you need to see fewer vehicles !!!
In your ramblings you mention page 123 , Lightweight (Ex-Gurkas) 41 KC 50 as seen in December 1997. Well I remember the day very well - because I was stood right next to Mark Cook when he took that photograph at MVS (Lichfield). The area around the hangers was stuffed with Lightweights , but we asked permission to go on to the runway because there had been a arrival of hundreds more all parked in 3 or 4 long rows.
I had every intention of buying one or two that day , but I had to say to Mark and his mate - I can't take all this in , it is just too much to take in - I have a headache that is almost a migraine. However that day I observed a few things I have never forgotten - In one hanger there were hundreds of Rover 4 banger new block castings built up in pyramids , the mate of Mark - IIRC a policeman with a Bedford (from Bedford) said I'am coming back with the truck for a few - I can always use them for flower pots. I thought to myself - next month when I come down I will have the Rover & trailer so will put two in exch tub - next visit every single block had gone - SOLD !!!
-
I think anyone who has renewed S3 headlamp boxes would agree , it is such a fiddly job changing the backing rims for a lens and then getting fingers in to a limited space to feed in the wiring and rubber boot that a REME mechanic is not going to swop things around for a whim. In any case on early ones the underseal spray often covered the rubber boot and water seal gland nut !
I think you are safe in saying that looking at the vehicle front and using FK & FL as a base-line - the fronts were clear over amber , by GF the fronts were amber over clear (and this is still with pressed glass lens).
It is unwise to base any theory on the pictures of just one book , in particular the advert on page 46 (that is a very rough artists impression). To compare with S3 CL's or Defender positions would be wrong - apples / oranges.
The sales brochure showing 20 HF 07 , don't trust the VRM as being correct - somewhere I have photographs of self sat in a L'wt FFR with sides rolled up at the 1980 Earls Court Motor Show and IIRC the plates are 20 HF 07 !!
Most of the collection I have are both 12 volt & FFR's covering HF to KC where I went out of my way to obtain good low mileage unmolested examples . Lighting not something I notice - I need to take a survey !!
More important rivet counting - why did they leave off the front bumperettes and rear lift eyes from KA , why mess about with rear axle casing spec. at HG - long before the start of "rationalized axles" ????
-
Lights / lens had to be E marked , hence the Midget Gems became defunct during 1979 approx.
The Lighting Regs. extanct , are quite complex (and I don't wish to go researching into them).
Basically they are subject of positional dimensions for height & centres , light intensity (this will be why you have FRONT amber and REAR amber lens. Side and indicator changes sometimes have to be made depending on type of main beam dip. The trafficators must be seen far better than they had to be prior to E , if they can't be seen satisfactory - then wing side markers must also be fitted.
It could be that they were moved topmost at the front for best visibility , at front (lower) position they could be shrouded by the front bumperettes. I say this because I was once reliably informed that this is why mil. TUM's that are fitted with bug-eyes are not fitted with front bumperettes, the tow pin bumper blades are drilled to take them (the lower lamp would be masked more than on a Lightweight).
---------------------------
Regarding L'wt contracts of 1980 (and possibly some 1979) - many were extra to British MOD (Rover were prevented from delivery to a certain Middle East country) - I know some of the features were specifically ordered by this ME country .. I don't know - just speculating , possibly the lamps were positioned for that countries requirements and not re-worked ?
-
What I would have to say - you and many others may consider quite convincing and before you know it is carved in stone. Then MOT examiners and VOSA pick up on it and then it could cause many people a load of bother.
I quite like the Joseph Lucas "Midget Gems" - so think yourself lucky.
-
Would probably be a eBay - Buy & Sell job
-
FVE22A/87 item 3 for 300 RHD vehicles & item 4 for 217 vehicles March to June 1979
Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668
Now do you want me to tell you EXACTLY - what mix of bug-eye and glass lens you should have on ????
-
I have plenty of documentary evidence and a theory or two , not lost any sleep over it (yet) - BUT it would be pure supposition for me to pontificate further ......
-
I also have a 1980 Series 3 1/2 ton FFR. My lights are the other way round, and it came this way direct from the MoD.
Chris
And I guess you are FVE22A-115 Item 3, 4, 15, 16 or 24 (WHICH ONE ?) - but then I am guesstimating after 24 - so Dec. 1980 ?
-
No - he would not be confused , 1980 builds were relatively clearcut.
If he had the build instructions for 1979 - then he would be confused.
Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668
Contract No. FVE22A/78 Jan 1979
Contract No. FVE22A/87 March to June
Contract No. FVE22A/94 November 1979
On these , if you wish to be a rivet counter , then you need to have a "correct" mix of glass and plastic bug-eyes in correct position .....
-
Rover No. 608180 publication
Issued May 1972
Issued October 1977
Issued April 1979
?
But that would not get you on track, and in fact it probably the reason you are making a note of lamps as you are !!!
-
The Rover 1 (S2A) User Manual (dated August 1968) states on page 124 (293 Turnlights) The front turnlights are mounted in the front wing panels adjacent to the side lights at the outside edge of the front wings. The rear turnlights are situated on the rear body above the stop/tail lights.
If you study period photographs of S2A with headlamps in the grille panel - then the turnlamps are consistant and correct.
==============
Bug-eye turnlights - probably more important to have those marked FRONT on the front and those marked REAR on the rear (most times found incorrect).
I don't believe a particular contract would leave Solihull with lamps incorrectly positioned.
There were changes (due to Lighting Regs - such as rear fog lamps).
--------------
Mark Cooks book - page 95 & 96
00 WA 25 "Trials Vehicle" - so a valid exception.
--------------
I would only consider a period photograph that was factory fresh - in the book you will find some L'wts with front bumperettes , that should not have them fitted in theory - and this may be your best clue.
-
Brunel was better at launching ships he built for slipping ,,, ...
what if
What you got was Stephenson 4'-8.1/2" and the good old Warflat
http://www.movcon.org.uk/History/Documents/DID/D-MCHS%200140.htm
-
I think some clarification is required on the difference between the Jate Ring and the lashing / tie down eye, which both affix to the same points on the chassis.
Jate ring [ATTACH=CONFIG]35764[/ATTACH]
Lashing eye [ATTACH=CONFIG]35765[/ATTACH]
The Jate rings should be used in a pair and fixed to the chassis using M12 Grade 8.8(min) bolts.
================================
The Land Rover part number for this bolt BH110281L , I think if you investigate further you will find it is only 10mm dia. and not 12mm dia. ..... Not very good on 8.8gr in double shear.
What would a Lightweight have been used for in an artillery battery of the TA?
in British Vehicles
Posted
Some FM's left Ruddington after a very short service life !
19 FM 65 in 1980 , perfect condition "Padre Wagon" - best of all at auction..
Still not worked out all the financials - IIRC cost me about £2000 plus inc. Nottingham hotel bill and costs getting it back home. Ran it until 1998 - on blocks awaiting full refurb..
Not many had all their service life with only one regiment !!