ruxy

A pair of 069 for a FFR , BUT check they fit some can be tight because although a BS the size can be just too long (without shaving the feet) with some makes due to bottom clamping facility. A 072 is such as a Classic Range Rover & Disco petrol battery , also a alternative to 069 on a petrol Defender. I used Unipart Samson 072 on a 12 volt Lightweight for many years , warrented for as long as you had the vehicle (I had 3 for the price of one) Although the nominal sizes of 072 are identical to 069 , there is in fact a height difference and I don't think it will go inside a FFR battery box. 072 was also listed for late S3 Petrol , IIRC it was standard fit BUT it had a different top clamp frame due to the shape of the battery top (box shape thinghy central position , IIRC this was for a vent pipe that shifted any acid spill on uneven ground clear of the vehicle on cars , the S3 LR civvy had a spill pipe on the plastic tray , I used to file a small knotch on 12 volt L'wt battery tray platform base - so this spill pipe & plastic tray could be fitted when 069 used)

Possibly a white fleet vehicle (IIRC these were a Lex arrangement), not green fleet. The answer will be on any data tag / nomenclature plate that should exist. The way it was equipped is what I would expect for green fleet , they would not build a station wagen on a Wolf chassis , as always CL continuation with bolt-ons like NATO towing pack , ammeter, HD suspension up-grade to a point. Anti-sway and Bogie strut deemed not needed.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/incredible-pictures-attack-choppers-tanks-5366749

TRUCK UTY MED 4X4 CL LAND ROVER 110 HT etc. is more or less a BASIC VAN. They would have used this for a base vehicle that involved and non-standard military options , there are dozens of these that would be selected from for standard NSN. The fact is that a SVO plate is affixed, not so many years you could ring Solihull switchboard ask for direct line No. if you wish to SVO or ask for connection. Then ask SVO to look up in their own log 8375-6 19/1/96 , they would tell you straight away In the alternative you could ask for Land Rover Technical , a query what LV2A/265 Item 4A , they could probably tell you whilst you were holding The above of course unless subject of OSA --------------- You can't do that any longer. Well you can if you wish their run-around. --------------- The fact RAF was mentioned "heresay" , so I just random picked Helo support , because it would need four stanchions for platform , reeler cable for aircraft starting , BIG genny , extra batteries etc. etc. Of course there are many possibilities - it was just a example suggestion at a early stage of query. ======================= btw nickp , I think we once met abt. y2k MVS - you were with MJC LoL

1986 would have been a "Tri-Service" KE or KF . Can't get a good fix on LV2A/265 Item 4A , but in any case they were all basic + Option Packs. The SVO label indicates that it was not line-built with standard Option Packs bolted on . Taken from line to Special Vehicle Operations for non-standard work. RAF , yes - probably as Helicopter Ground Support or similar ,,

68 Ah @ the "20 hour rate" is in fact good for a battery of that dimension. To obtain substantially more , then you need a "tractor battery size" 94 Ah at 20 hour rate. 620 CCA SAE = 643 battery , this is a basic Series diesel battery spec. A true tractor battery at same size (346 x 175 x 232) 110 Ah at 20 hour rate. 680 CCA SAE , size(s) 663 & 664 , the only difference as such is the terminal mode (opposites of each other) ================= Mate , you have it all wrong on battery 100 Ah , whatever you are reading - spend more time on swotting up. The FFR starting batteries are a pair , each 44 Ah being ample , however due to battery improvements since late 1970's , you can yet a bigger punch from the same casing or smaller. The 100 Ah you refer. in fact is the 2 qty RADIO STATION batteries , each rated at 100Ah , used for the FFR radio requirements if fitted - these are in fact tank starting batteries (as in MAIN BATTLE TANK)..

Genuine Solihull manufactured wing specific for Clansman , you have a missing securing - these are difficult to obtain.

O72 has same dimensions as 069 , I think the mode is the same (this is the terminal layout code 0 or 1 and determines the position of + & - , so something else you have to watch for. 072 only has 2 Ah more (20 hr rate) but has a additional 45 CCA (cold cranking amp) cold start performance SAE. ISTR 072 is standard Classic Range Rover , good battery for under bonnet. Another good size is 096 packs a good punch but is 12mm longer and 30 mm lower (I used one of these on Rovers + as intended on a Lancia Thema). 096 is a good size because it can be used in a few car situations. Biggest underbonnet (in my case under passenger seat on a civvy 1961 109") tractor batteries sizes 643 663 & 664 A good battery that packs a BIG punch but is small is a 075 , I used a Hella Ultra Power on Fiat Uno, Punto + Lightweight. Then I used a 065 (basic petrol 4 cyl. Land Rover size) on the Punto by drilling another hole 1" further out for the base clamping. 071 is more or less a lower power 072 , Land Rover Series 3 petrol 4 cyl. application.

Depends, early days Wessex HAS1 ,, twin engined HU5 from 1964 this kicked in the possibility of air-portable 88" , after a few years , there was no need to strip fully down (possibly only if a FFR Unitary radio kit fitted , possibly not) Well , that is wrong info. It all depends on the HU model & engine , the BIG lifters started with the twin-engined Gnome. Not that I know a great amount on helo. LoL 1967 If a Wessex can lift a 109" , screen,sticks & hood removed , then it can lift the heaviest unstripped Lightweight - the 24 volt FFR Here are a few benchmark figures uplifted from the military user manuals :- 109" 12 volt (lightest) unladen with coolant , oil, 20 gallon of fuel = 1680 kg ------------- in comparison :- 88" Lightweight FFR (heavier than 12 volt GS) unladen with coolant , oil, 20 gallon of fuel 1510 kg -do- stripped , 5 gal. fuel , no spare wheel 1214 kg

Have you correctly positioned the HT wires in the correct relationship to each other according to the diagram in the workshop manual ? IIRC you should have some plastic spacer clips to do this , if this is not done then there is a danger of cross-fire.

Other vehicles were tested but compromised , hence the Lightweight to meet requirements (reduced weight when stripped for helo lift / reduced width to 5ft o'all for two abreast in aircraft. The RM did actually use Citroen 2CV ,,

May be worth enquiring if such as a Hometune franchise , keep an old school analyser in the van ?

Photograph(s) needed , 2" hole sounds about correct for the later FFR Clansman specific wings , it had a weather-seal grommet. Could have lost the original lid/cover or local modification to early wing near copy to the later design ?

Probably the reason you are finding a "history gap" is because MSP were forgotten about other than a dust out of base-line data as other vehicles came on line. Things went "air-liftable" using helicopters quite fast when helicopters were fitted with more powerfull engines. Pull back from middle-east after Suez to north German plain, that left carrier based helicopters out of European theatre. Have you read the book by Mark J. Cook The Half-Ton Military Land Rover (the Lightweight) ? Although Mark does not set it out in chronological order for MSP as such (there is a very good clear photograph of a Sankey & Champ 14BE29 strapped down on a MSP). If you were to read the story of helicopter and aircraft transport (by actually landing freighter and disgorging) , then you would probably come to the conclusion that MSP was still around but very much held in reserve for about 30 years as a instructional relic - just in case. I can't recall ever seeing a photograph of a Lightweight on a MSP , possbly 90" & there were the special adapted "piggy-back" 90" , not certain but IIRC that was for two units on a MSP ?

Have you queried this with the organisation that will/should know their own history ? http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbrizenorton/organisation/jadteu.cfm At some time JATEU (Joint Air Transport Evaluation Unit) , became JADTEU

In these days of engine management , are Krypton machine so rare ? now is probably the time for such diagnostics. The OP did come asking for opinion (possibly little to mull over is more benificial) and lots of opinion that is zilch £ but a few more thingies to eliminate. I don't know the new spares £spend to date (diagnosis by substitution) . Probably getting it into a garage & paying £40 may have given a good clue or two and been cheaper. There is a difference of compression testing at cranking speed and running at idle and above. Myself , yes I would have done a compression test but rigged up a compressor for a full "leak-down" test that would probably prove more.

I don't think my opinion has changed. QUOTE. (initial post) I had fitted a low mileage engine, as the original was dead. The new engine ran beautifully, some would say like a Swiss watch! until last week. It went on it's maiden voyage and performed as it should. No over-heating, misfiring or anything to cause alarm. I went 12 miles and even left it ticking over in the workshop before it was parked up. Next day I turn the key and it struggles to start. When it does it has the worst misfire mid-range and will not idle, WHY!?! --------------- I / you ,would need to know a lot more about this "low mileage engine" , even if it was a minta (they have been around for 45 years) , it was effectively in storage for one year + , oil draining back to sump , no mention made of oil priming at all , Vee bank hydraulic lifters known to be cantankerous until got running right using all known procedures (flooding hyd. tappets / cams as a minimum). You could have two or three valves not closing correct , so you will never idle. Damge could have been done in those 12 miles. There are special protective coating lubricants used at box-up to prevent hyd. lifter/cam problems , these could have been all new and still not bedded in - a minuite or less of dry run would damage.

ISTR , it was mainly purchased by people towing heavy trailers. There is the kit fitting instructions to be found somewhere on the internet. It was a more merchantable design than other very similar DIY , IIRC no great invention - just a copy of ways that were being done on USA 4x4 trucks that only had two levers ,, Solihull was always well behind , but it was probably their traditional customer base who likes levers with knobs . Myself , I would never have given one up - better still to add a Fairey OD LoL

You must mean what is known as a "shift-on-the-fly" conversion ? There was a kit mentioned in mags. abt. 1980 - never seen one , just so you did not have to STOP vehicle (to avoid a crunch) changing from High 4x4 to High 4x2

Check this out , a known trouble spot http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/101/219714-GEAR-LEVER-HOUSING.html?search=219714&page=1 The special little grub screw 507447 that locates in the main shifter big ball slot is a PITA , comes loose stretches the threads in the alloy housing (I always adapt a longer grub-screw , turn or accurate grind down the location end to size/form) and secure a hex. check-nut against the casting to stiffen it up. Design lasted to the end 35 + years , they should have had more cast metal at the grub screw location. http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/992/507447-GEAR-LEVER-HOUSING-GRUB-SCREW.html?search=507447&page=1 The other problem (other than the lever breaking off at the big ball) LoL is the small ball end of your lever , when they wear a common bodge is a hex. nut gets welded on the end , found a few ! http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/6298/FRC2046-GEAR-LEVER-RHD-4-CYLINDER.html?search=frc2046&page=1 The O ring that should be on the small ball may be worn / missing. Then I suppose you are on to clutch release , start with a new jump hose LoL

------------------------- You ask , What I am missing ? Sooner or later you will get to the - hydraulic bucket tappets , some would say the Archilles heel ..

===================== Interesting , Kasenit - almost forgotten the stuff , used to use it regular until 45 years ago. I just followed the instructions off the chargehand with any heat treatment. What I do recall is that we never used the method you describe , although I recall it from Technical College. We always "soaked" for a time period, the parts in a furnace (similar to a pottery kiln) (mainly drill-jig guide bushes) , often dozens the same size - so they were rough machined on a Capstan Lathe out of low carbon steel, OD centreless ground and then internal ground, they were always dropped (wired in a bundle) into a water quench , never a oil quench. I understand you would have used a low carbon to maintain internal strength , just wondering what depth of hardness you expect to have obtained ? Grind to size would have been after hardening - so we would be aiming max. depth. Had a Google around :- An easy way to harden soft, low carbon metals. Kasenit in combination with high heat creates a tough, durable, hardened finish on the surface of metals. Technical Information Notes: # Produces a wear surface (surface hardening) on low carbon steel, low alloy steel, iron. # Non-poisonous, non-explosive. Application instructions (from Kasenit) for Low Alloy or Low Carbon Steel: There are two methods of application. Method A: Heat the work uniformly to a bright red (1650 - 1700 degrees F), remove any scale with a wire brush, dip, roll or sprinkle the Kasenit powder on the component. The powder will melt and adhere to the surface, forming a shell around the work. Reheat to 1650 - 1700 degrees F, hold at this temperature for a few minutes and quench in to clean cold water. This will give the component a completely hard case of uniform character and depth. Method B: If a deeper case is required, then a container for the compound can be used. A discarded can, lid or tray is suitable for this purpose, but care must be taken to burn off the tin coating before use. Completely cover the component with compound and heat to a bright red (1650 degrees F) for five to thirty minutes, depending upon the depth of case required. Quench only the component in clean, cold water unsing dry tongs for handling. Rates of Penetration: After heating the component to 1650 F using method B, # Case depth .005, Time 15 minutes # Case depth .010, Time 30 minutes # Case depth .015, Time 40 minutes # Case depth .020, Time 50-55 minutes

Yes , on a Lightweight the stowage clamping facility is for both , the starting handle (grip) goes through the big red grommet that you can see to the right of the jack handle eye. Been trying to find a photograph of the proper timber handle , should have one somewhere but can't find it to take another picture. Strange , Solihull gave you a toolbox to stow the jack (Lightweight early or late) BUT no where to stow the actual timber handle LoL I know the front of a 101" has a longer starting handle (handy for Lightweight when NATO pintle bolted to front bumper) , 101" jacking - can't recall ,,

The newest 3/4 ton 109" User Manual I have is March 1980 , after 35 years the battery numbers are long S/S The battery you use is 069 common Defender petrol & diesel. Even used on a Ford Focus diesel. However , originally a BS Spec. case , seems frigged by moulding with DIN style clamping facility. They are a tight fit & you don't wish to saw/grind off feet on a new battery - so you need to actually try out at such as Halfords LoL or measure very accurate. The variations I have found across makes should not be there accoding to standards that don't seem to be applied by manufacturers.

From about 1979 , FFR 109" & Lightweight had no need for the "adaptable box" as stowage standard on Clansman specific wings.