ruxy

1974 , the Solihull Despatch-Out record would state the vehicle colour , likewise - the Solihull re-plating several years later , I would expect the Despatch-Out record to state the vehicle colour - second bite of the cherry ? From what I have seen these records don't state much ,but the colour for some reason is there. However as the chassis does seem to be a replacement - it would hardly be definative . Without original chassis steel DNA and present lack of traceability , you are on a hiding to nothing but I admire your determination to close the huge gap of several years. I would like to see several more photographs of the hardware , in particular the view of rear. The more pics the better , sometimes obscure age related parts can be seen that could give further clues.

Be fine once hitched up , until then - it would take a 4 man Commando to shift it !

Info as posted on Ex-MLRA Forum by - RM Lightweight Postby mastigo4 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:58 pm http://forum.emlra.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8665&p=57094&hilit=unitary+trailer#p57094 EMER Wheeled Vehicles U207 /8 Modification Instruction No. 12 gives instructions and plans to install the Unitary Radio Kit in a 15 cwt. Sankey trailer. This was for the Royal Marines, to allow use of the Land Rover for general services. It included provision for hood-sticks & hood. In the EMER installation the URK was fitted facing the rear. In this picture it faces forward, so this was presumably a local modification. The radio set is a C42, possibly a C45: the Antenna Tuning Unit is mounted on the canopy. There may be something mounted on the Dexion, but it is hard to tell. This is the first photo I have seen of a URK in a Sankey. If anyone knows of others I would be most interested. Incidentally I did once mount my vehicle's URK in a Sankey, before I knew of the EMER. It fitted well, and I am a little surprised this arrangement was not used more generally. Alan Knell 13FM87 TRUCK UTILITY FFR 1/2 TON ROVER SERIES 3 1625.0778 2320-99-893-2847

Royal Marines , with a bit of luck you should be able to view the photograph.

The "Unitary Kit" is intended for 12 volt Lightweight if a FFR is not available , just that TUAAM would not be available on the front wings & you could not charge on the highway,. AFAIK in Clansman days you would use a Hopkins genny set with 12 volt L'wt & / or "ground" role. IIRC Hopkins were not around in Larkspur days ?? Onan probably ? http://www.greenmachinesurplus.com/hopkinsgenerator-set1428volt300500wpurpose-and-planning-information-1605-p.asp

btw , in the boundary area between the red and the green - there seems to be a weld run that had been dressed with a grinder , just wondering if somebody has stitched a new dumb-iron on , have a bit more scrape investigation.

Where you have linished off , the chassis No. should start in that area & finish where rusted still , looks like a replacement chassis - story building up now LoL

You are in the right area , it is a early S3 Lightweight chassis. At the time of the re-plating both early & late type chassis would have been available. Could you remove the bitumen where smeared , give it a good stiff wire brush in area of thicker plate for securing spring bolt , in area from top weld bead run downwards 1" , if no signs of number - then it must have been re-chassis. Due to DBG & no sign of RAF Blue/Grey , I now doubt that it was RAF , strange that it is plonked amongst them all though. It was already down for a fair number of new body panels - as it seems the bulkhead was in fact renewed. Worth checking if ever a plate at passenger side , could have been LDH & converted to RHD.. The Royal Marines had both RN & Army VRM's. Looking like it was totalled and sent to Solihull for re-build and re-plate for RN. All most,most strange if they put a S2A vent panel on - just unbelievable. However , we know they were ship-borne , if needed for a taxi - then a 12 volt would be chosen , the fact that it is a FFR = a "Unitary kit" for communications ship/shore. I suppose ££ did not enter the decisions. What is daft , the photograph of your truck shows a "adaptable" box (common conversion kit) for connections stowage , on wings originally intended for Larkspur - so it was Clansman equipped. At the time of the re-build , I think the later front FFR wings with integral boxes & cover tids flush would have been available , certainly they were at Nov. 1980.

So , it does seem the bulkhead was replaced at some time. The seat-base - side-plate on entry, drivers side. There should be another plate affixed with the chassis No. - any plate or evidence of holes for securing ??

That re-plate , it is of the size fitted from late 1970's , it is smaller (the width may be the same but the height is less). So - if that bulkhead is original as fitted in early 1970's then there will be at least two redundant holes , have a close look - they may even be filled in. If the bulkhead was replaced , then I would suspect the chassis was at same time (they soon crumple on impact) , have you checked the chassis dumb-iron for branding of chassis No. It would be good if you could show a photograph of this. The vent panel , there was loads sold off early 1990's - obsolete for abt. £20 often the screen hinge was cut off and S3 ones welded on , often this can be seen as a poor weld bead run. If it was RAF early 1970's , then I would expect RAF Blue/Grey paint , a good way to check is overspray at engine bay top corners of bulkhead where late painting does not get - but as you say it could be a new bulkhead. So have a look under the alloy plates where the seat base cushions are secured & similar places.

btw , if it was originally RAF , then it could have been the case of removal of specialist RAF kit and return to standard sticks & tilt. It may have been fitted originally with a hard-top ?

Plate & other "Time-Line" ------------------------- I have 23HF86 built mid-1979 , it has a 951/A original S3 chassis No. Contract FV.22A/87/ Item 3 The nomenclature plate is BL Cars Solihull manuf. by Rover-British Leyland UK Ltd. DIS July 1979 What this shows is the original Rover S3 chassis No. was still being used but Contract No. had changed to FVE style BUT change to BL Cars / Leyland LoL Built a few months later , I have 52HG33 Contract FVE 22A/115 / Item 6 DIS Nov. 1980 , this is no longer Chassis No. , it is the 14 digit Internaltional VIN starting LBBA Earlyish 1981 the 14 digit VIN stopped and became the 17 digit still used - starting SALLBBA (SAL = Land Rover) ------------- Clearly , the plate is not manuf. quite correctly at anodizsing , where the contract is branded in the black - there should be a clear box. As a matter of interest , I have Chassis No. 9510333A 19FM65 Contract WV11140 that is quite near to your 95103491A Looking at the MJC book , page 182 your WV11378 , slots in between :- WV11131 1973/74 60AM20 to 60AM28 and WV11147 1974 61AM04 to 62AM64 , this page is full of RAF Lightweight Contracts Possibility / probability - I think I would pursue more query at the RAF Museum on this , does not require a FOI as they are very good in reply . It was decided that your truck was to keep the original Chassis No. and Contract No. & be properley re-plated to RN and it looks like they still used the Contract pre-fix WV for RN - but not that far off the Tri-service Contracts starting KA in 1982. Did the RN go to manufacturers always ??? when taking on a vehicle from another service - they would re-plate (not wanting a vehicle with two plates where one could be removed as a sailors momento - then misidentification for census , probably no big deal shifting a vehicle around the country and it kept all records official traceability. This would be more important with such as a crane or fork lift truck where lifting certification is all important. I would put this officialdom all down to the actual periodic physical check & return to HQ of movable assetts - positive identification , also no chance of error with accident reports / missing in action.

Yes, it was "re-plated" that is very , very rare , that plate is rare Rover British-Leyland , possibly just prior to the common Leyland Cars plate. Clearly something was done (re-work) at Solihull , it may have been taken from longer , very long term storage for de-preservation & service. Changes could have been made , that probably included a hard-top fit , may have been only a hard-top fit (done proper). I would suggest that this was undertaken by "Special Products Division" that being the case I would expect their plate - this seems to be a exception - hence this "special" plate - that IMHO would only be affixed by SP. AFAIK Rover Technical - no longer answer this type of query. Special products will still be there , but perhaps under a new name. The only way is to make contact with SP , include a photograph of the plate , ask what they know of this plate and ask them to search their records. Have a good search for a SP plate around the cab / inner , bulkhead under bonnet & in particular on the radiator front panel (appro. 3/4" x 1.1/2")

Rover 217267 "divided" rim 4.1/2" x 16 went back as far as Rover 6 . I think a search in books for photographs , and you will find these rims also used on military Series One.

You need :- NSN. V6MT1/2540-99-802-5616 Originally (S3 days) known as a P7055 (IIRC a Woodhead No.) S/S to 508042 S/S to RTC4231 http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/10764/RTC4231-SHOCK-ABSORBER-1-TON.html?search=rtc4231&page=1 http://www.johncraddockltd.co.uk/search/results.html?s=RTC4231

151 prefix Series II petrol 2286cc -- 241 prefix Series IIA petrol 2286cc 8:1 CR 141 prefix Series II petrol 1997cc Original prefix No. would be within a few hundred of engine serial No. that had same prefix , so you can see it is possible to rough date The original Ser. No. is on the top cover , so you need to find the match marks for top cover & main-casing to confirm the top is not off another box LoL The WV , probavly a WV (wheeled vehicle contract) , you have date marks & other refurb numbers - seems re-worked two or three times. Are you certain the yellow is not GOLD ?

Well , that is the hardware evidence for any Court prosecution gone , how would a EOD Officer's inventory be of any use ?? , you need to get any evidence accepted by the court - somebody may wish to challenge what will be stated as evidence, no primary evidence available ! - if it goes so far as Court..

Well , so a Seacow . Actually - I served my time as a Fitter & Turner at BR Shildon 1965 to 1971 (then I joined P&O Lines) , did my 3 months on Four Road (Repair Shop) and 6 months in the New Repair Shop - where Seacow and similar odd-bods were seen to. So , yes - I have experience of Seacow , I did tell you how it was done - it would have been off in a crack (esp. on nightshift) - reason PBR (payment by results , every job had been work-study , and I can tell you now - a chargehand would not have been called in for a "extra-work ticket" . Further IIRC the only time pneumatic gear was ever used was on Presflow . OK, I've had my rant, I'll go back in the shaddows again.

Hadaway mon , next county up.

66mm AF in a railway shop would be just starting to get big , so we would use the gas axe & bottles , we had piped propane - big stuff we would go to oxy /propane to get the heat in quick to the nut & not the bolt. If you wished to save the nut , then if heat alone + spanner (also we used a Fairey liquid bottle to squirt graphited penetrating oil when hot) , did not loosen , then we would vibrate the nut (& rust on threads) using a rivetting hammer with anvil dolly or just a "buster out" whatever was handy (Fitters were only supposed to pick up the buster LoL ). Rust does not like shock ! Failing that , we would just cut off abt. 1/3 of the hex. nut away (to within 1/4" of threads) & bray away with a 2 lb hammer to spread the nut apart whilst white hot. I have seen some clever trade boilersmith / burner welders frequently blow the nut off without blowing any of the bolt threads away - lots of practice..

Always something LoL , if not buy another.

90606422 http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/2219/90606422-MASTER-CYL-REPAIR-KIT.html?search=90606422&page=1 ---------- The Girling No. was / is SP2361 , could be S/S by TRW

Actually , the condition of your MC looks quite good external , often the plating strips off the cast iron early. It is probably changed in recent , very recent years. I will find the part number for the recondition seal kit for the MC , this evening. Actually , I have 23HF86 (95105276A) a little newer as Contract FV.22A/87 Item 3 (a Suffix Item is more or less a bolt-on to a main contract). DIS. July 1979 Your brakes are correct for period - 10" all , front + rear .

btw , if your bonnet is original to truck , you have the later windscreen washers from abt. 1980. Engine obviously much earlier manuf. due to side filler pipe. What is your vehicle mil. no. probably something like --HF-- or --HG-- , or chassis No. ? Do you have 10" or 11" front brakes ?? , often axles get swopped and it is a total mix up of parts that are then obviously wrong to application , this also affects front & rear slave cylinder sizes. It would probably best to date the truck as starters.

The MC & reservoir have the appearance of a 569671 , that would be correct on a truck up to approx. manuf. date of June 1980. This would have a Supervac unit using a manual "Test" button on the dash (this is just to check the warning bulb has not blown -Ign on). Obviously non-functional, if it were operative and tests out correct, then if the lamp illuminates - indicates loss of vacuum or loss of fluid in front or rear lines (or both). It should be restored & shuttle valve also tested. Without a operational Supervac , there is still braking , you just press harder LoL . There could be some spongyness , esp. if the footpedal height (from floorplate) is not correctly all set up right from scratch. If you don't have fluid weepage from the bleed at Supervac , then the spongyness is probably by-pass across worn seal set. Hose balloon , possible I suppose , my experience is more the opposite , as hoses deteriorate they restrict and then shut off all fluid flow , first indication is when your brakes start pulling to one side. ----------- A problem is that the cylinder (it is Girling manuf) , you can't identify from the casting No. & the plastic or ally bracelet bench test band is missing. It is possible that it is the wrong MC - such as the one used on a 109" of same period , this had front rear flud compartments the other way fore/aft & pipework thread sizes different way - as warning not to use & cross-pipe ! This is a possibility. --- After abt. June 1980 - there were many changes to brakes , the MC NRC6096 was used , this was also rationalised so as to use on 109" with dual-circuit from same time. This is more or less identified in first blush stage - the reservoir is affixed with two Mills pins ..