antarmike

Thats a nice piccy Mike, any more?

 

Mark

RAF Rapier unit, Falklands Victory Parade, London

if Eau de nil colour is actually a primer, would it be normal to put a primer onto IRR? I thought Primers were for bare metal.

I have several in service photograhs of RAf Regiment rapier vehicles and none have an RAF Roundel.

The council had to admit that closing the local bottle bank had caused problems....

Are there any records of achieving a kill?

Could they really expect communications type aircraft to get within 30 metres of a tank without getting blown out of the sky. I bet the pilots were really enthusiastic about this idea!

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..

But surely far too late for RAF Blue Grey, but why Blue Grey, These 101's were paid for by the USAF, and never wore RAF roundel, although they carried AM reg and had RAF crew.

Putting RAF blue gray on a vehicle whose purchase and running costs were met by the Americans seems most odd, particularly when done at some time after 1983.

well I think this is genuine...

I am puzzled, the Panzerfaust only had a range of 30M or thereabouts.

When mounted on an aircraft, how where they intended to be used? What was the intended target? Were they air to surface or air to air? Are these photographs genuine or photoshopped?

Can a mod change the thread title for me, should read 101 not !)! (caps lock!) Ta

Having been doing some welding on rear cross member of a 1977 built, 1983 into service RAF/USAF Rapier TRT. I find on the rear cross member firstly, black then a shade of Olive, then a coat of Eau de Nil, Then a coat of what looks like RAF Blue Grey, then it is back to a shade of Olive. What is the explanation?

Vehicle supplied as Chassis cab to Marshall's for Ambulance body, but it was built after 6 years stored at Ashchurch as a GS, then converted again to a winch equipped 12v Rapier TRT, financed by the USAF.

Based at West Raynham and protecting Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

Pictures of which are already on this gallery...

Any news? Whats happening? is it in yet?:cool2:

I got asked that today too???!!!!:red:

I use a smallish diameter UJ from a Magirus Deutz dumptruck on a most extreme duty application running between 0 - 60 rpm (I mean rotation to stall in a nanosecond and makes my teeth rattle.....) and pulling 3,700 Lbf ft, I know from other similar applications that it will take two or three timnes that with no trouble.

 

Just imagine what the joint's capability might be at engine speed and relatively smooth power flow :shocked:

I am not talking about catastrophic failure but rather excessive wear, and knocked out joints, I have knocked out joints on the propshaft of series I's , 2b's etc running with standard engines. (but I have had a series 1 propshaft burst apart at the UJ, the spider coming through the side of the yoke.) {On Aston Hill of all places.} (with just 52??BHP) from the 1997 F head engine.

Only a small point but the diesels in Explorers are probably only running at half the RPM of the Landy V8's, so even though before the gearbox, they are already doubling the torque because of half engine speed. I may be pessimistic, but when I see the size of AEC's own design of coupling that comes ahead of the Transfer gearbox, and a double reduction rear diff, on a Matador with Half the BHP of most diesel converted Explorers, it does make me wonder if Landy UJ's are really up to the job on an Explorer.

I am told this one was secretly developed at Farnborough, using a crashed UFO power unit, it flew only three times before crashing. (or was that crushing?)

Could be a load of old billhooks.

I would suggest, Mike, you just got a bad deal from Mitcham. VOSA just didn't want to test the Ward and were trying to baffle you with b*llsh*t. Julezee has an MOT on his Militant, and I dont see any under run bars, spray supression etc on that. The only difference, I believe, is he want to Hastings GVTS and you to Mitcham.

 

For my Militant when it is ready, I will drive past my nearest centre and on to the centre where I know I will get a better deal. No less of a test, mind you, just a better reception

Depending on the age of the Militant, it may well not need under-run bars. Spray suppression not required on all vehicles, depends on first registration (first use) so again may not need them.

Same caption may well do both!

3.5 tonnes is the maximum weight which can legally be towed with a towball coupling, it is also the max weight which can be towed using over-run trailer brakes.

 

In the early days Land-Rovers used to be rated to tow 4 tons gross but to do this required jaw/pin coupling (or an appropriately rated NATO type coupling) plus power brakes on the trailer.

 

Interesting that a 2286cc petrol Series II can legally tow 4 tons, but a brand-new Defender 90 only 3.5 tonnes!

Have you a link to an official site for this, I searched and could not find one. You may well be correct, but it would be nice to know which legislation says this is so.

so if its a army vehicle registred as agricultural on the log book can it be driven at 16 years of age ? thanks

No.

A motor tractor is designed for road use and is not the same as Agricultural tractor, which is designed primarily for Off Road use, on agricultural land.

Agricultural registered vehicles must be constructed or adapted for off road use, primarily, for the purposes of Agriculture, Horticulture or Fisheries.

An Agricultural vehicle has to have is primarily use off road, on agricultural land. If such use is not the greatest part of the use of the vehicle, it is not Agricultural.

Having Agricultural on the log book does not make it agricultural, Its use in agriculture makes it Agricultural, and unless it is being used for these purposes its registration in that class is an error, and any privileges or perks associated with that class cannot be used. Having a vehicle registered in the wrong taxation class is also an offence.

And Agric motor vehicle is different from Agric Tractor.

Should an Army truck be registered Agric, it would be as Agric Motor vehicle, not as Agric Tractor.

Rules for Agric Tractor are Minimum age to be able to drive any Agricultural tractor is 17.

Certain Agric Tractor can be driven at 16 but only if under 2.45m Wide, and then can only tow one trailer also under 2.45m wide, but only if it has only two wheels or is four wheeled, close coupled trailer.

If the driver of an Agric Tractor does not hold a full licence, they can drive un-accompanied only if a single seat is provided. If the Tractor has two seats, the learner must be accompanied by a full licence holder.

I can see nothing to indicate a 16 or a 17 year old can drive an Agricultural Motor vehicle.

I wasn't thinking golf cart, more groundskeeper's (groundsman's) truck.

So if you had a pre 1960 HGV you don't need an HGV license but is there a weight limit on this or could you drive ... say an Antar :nut:

Yes, although my Antar was 1961, not pre 1960. (although some would argue that Antar being a locomotive, and authorised only under STGO it may not be an HGV.

Interestingly historically Motor Tractors, Light and Heavy locomotives never used to need an HGV licence to drive them, even when towing laden trailers.

The position with these vehicle classes is not clear under present scheme, (well it's not clear to me anyway.)

Such as Land Rovers and Range Rovers good to 3500Kg's.

 

??? I thought that the max towing capacity of a 50mm ball and catch was 3500Kg have seen trailer catches rated to this but not over that.

I googled tow ball ratings and found several rated at 3.5 Tonnes.

would not look out of place on a golf course, do we think this is road going?

Thanks Mike.

Would this be a good time to review the definition of laden/unladen? :readpaper::readbook::banghead:

can I share your wall? :banghead:

Ok, yep I can understand that, but say you have an American pickup truck which weighs say 4000Kg loaded and is towing a trailer loaded at 3500Kg's total of 7500Kg's is this ok.

At first impressions, that complies with C1+E.