attleej

I think that the longer term problem will be that petrol (or anything similar) is so dangerous to store. Our older vehicles are not too fussy about fuel quality although ethanol can be a problem. Remember that most of the cost of petrol to us is duty and VAT and there will be all sorts of volatile organic compounds that could be used to run an old petrol engine. So whilst it might not be too difficult to source, say, 1000 litres of fuel from the chemicals industry, storing it safely would be a different matter. Propane will be around for a long time. because it has a variety of uses. A bigger threat to using our older vehicles on the road may be a regulatory one concerning the interface between a self-driving vehicle and one of our simple conventional vehicles. Put simply, our vehicles will not be able to 'talk' to a future self-driving vehicle. John

Malcolm, I do know that there were some translated T55 manuals produced, probably 'just in case'. I would have thought that there would have been T72 manuals translated so it is worth looking hard. John

On the REME Museum's armoured Bedford RL, I did suggest buying a Green Goddess as a good donor. It would have been an easy project because the armour would only need a shot blast and paint and we would have had all the running gear. However, I had enough on my plate (and still do) without pushing that project. The Armoured RL is still at Lyneham. John

Dear All, Out of interest, we will be running the REME Museum's Conqueror ARV this weekend. We will be checking the winch drive, the hydraulics for raising and lowering the spade and checking that it would fit on the 'Big' trailer with spade fitted if it had a 27" extension in the girders. John

Dear All, For those that have read the article in the Scottish Sun, now watch and hear what I actually said here: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e3ad1d9e-e9a5-4958-84e7-599e5e0f27ab I start at 16.39 with some strategic stuff and then talk about "Peter" at about 16.42 hrs. I called him "Peter" because I did not want to be held responsible if something untoward happened. I can assure you all that Barclays Bank is not the problem and they have been very helpful to me. They have no alternative course of action. The real problem is that the Treasury think that the complete integrity of the Money Laundering Regulations is more important than exporting AFVs to Ukraine. John

A Challenger 3 is a really a Challenger 2 with a Leopard 2 turret c/w smooth bore gun which is apparently what the tankies want, ie the 120 mm smoothbore gun. John

There are four separate tasks on the 'Big Trailer' . First, I need to make sure that the radius of the shoes perfectly matches those of the drums on the rear bogie. I can swing both the drums or a jig holding the shoes (jig yet to be made). on my lathe. Second, I need to ensure that the steering system on the rear bogie is working perfectly. Thirdly, I need to insert a 27" extension piece into the middle of the girders in order that the Conqueror ARV can be carried without removing the winching spade which is a bit of a pain to do. Finally, it would be good to make a deck for the trailer by inserting cross members through the girders along with side raves. I have a proper design for this. This would make loading and unloading far easier and quicker. Sounds a lot to do but I have an exceptional team to help. Every alternative to the existing big trailer is horribly expensive because the Conqueror weighs 60 tons AND is 13' wide. I have already got the 25 and 38mm plate in stock for the extension. The Conqueror ARV itself is already nearly ready for Capel and is 'booked in'. I just need to finish the hydraulics for the spade and calibrate the winch. controller / display. John

Absolutely the only way of doing a trailer. Weld it up and then shot blast it all over and then paint it. It will last ages that way. When I had my DT I always wanted a Rogers trailer to go with it but one never came up and / or I coukld not afford it. What a fab job. I can't wait to see pics of the running gear go together. Seeing these pics motivates me to re-commission my big CF girder trailer in order to transport the Conqueror. On the fuel, are you certain that there is not a foriegn body in the fuel tank? Will it work correctly with a jerry can and a minimal jerry rig pipe system? Keep up the good work. John

I think that it is everyone saying "No, after you!" but it was quite clear that it was all about pushing the Germans to release Leopard 2 because of the numbers available in Europe. Plenty of ammunition as well. John

Yes but the cables can be made up. If you have a cable that is too short you can use the connectors with new cable.. You can get the 12 core cable from RS components. John

Mark, The system uses capsules of, I suspect, ether rather than ethanol which will not work. I have never known them be used in UK and the MKs always started even in the coldest weather without using the system. John

I think that it is a very carefully calculated move. The over riding strategic objective is to avoid Ukraine being defeated. and we need to remember that. The bigger difficulty is training the Ukrainians to provide the first and second line technical support to keep ANY NATO AFV operational. The Ukrainians are very clever but all the NATO MBTs are very complicated. John

I am afraid that I am not that good at counting rivets!!!! I expect that it has got a Mk II bumper because that was what they had available. If they were making even a few LHD commercials of a similar type, it might not have been too difficult to make this armoured one as there would be no cab to worry about. John

The caption describes a Mk III militant because of the 226 BHP engine, ie a AEC 760 and 6 speed gear box. The silencer is not like a Mk I or II., more like a Mk III. But the tyres look like 1400 X 20. rather than 1500 X 20. I thought my AEC 10 tonner 37EP87 at 240 Sqn was built in 1966. Either the description above is inaccurate or it was a late militant made from available commercial components to give better performance. Interesting. John

Mark, I now realise that it is quite a few years since I last used an MK or MJ! There will be a dog clutch in the gear box to engage 4 X 4. . If the teeth are abutting each other, they will not be able to engage. I cannot recall this problem arising. You need to check that all the linkage is free up to the gear box. Do this by disconnecting it at the gear box. Then check that the selector rod is not seized in the gear box. One would expect it to move a little. The problem that we did very often experience was a reluctance to come out of low ratio 4WD. The solution was to reverse up a little in order to relieve any wind up loads in the box. I hope that this helps. John

Anton, Probably. John

Dear All, Unfortunately, and as I explained to NIck, I am currently recovering from Chemo for NHL and I am still clinically extremely vulnerable. The doc has banned me from London until Feb next year and I do not take any avoidable risks. Touch wood, I have not yet had an infection. Bearing in mind the inconsistent way in which DVSA has been operating, it will make for an interesting meeting at a senior level at the Department for Transport when I can get to London. The good news about my illness is that it makes for plenty of time to work on the REME Museum's Conqueror ARV! John

Wally, Sorry, I meant stowage diagram or sketch like the ones you have just posted but for Conq ARV. As it happens, I think I might have a JSP 371 or something similar. John

Wally, I don't suppose that you have a loading diagram for a Conqueror ARV? John

Didier, I think that you are right. On the later Cummins NTC 335 fitted to my Scammell Contractor, there is a similar bypass filter and ten another one that filters all the oil going into the engine. John

Dear Wally, I apologise if I have caused any offence. My question was very much tongue in cheek and I drafted it quickly before going out. Mike is always good on research. Some of the Rotinoffs had very large tyres which would justify a lower axle ratio than the 14.4 : 1 used on both MkII and MkIII Antars. There were some Antar type vehicles with very large tyres and they would not have been effective without lower ratio axles. I just wonder whether Kirkstalls would have designed and made lower ratio axles for very low population vehicles such as the Rotinoff UNLESS they already had them available. In my opinion, the 14.4 : 1 axles ratio is perfect for an Antar on 1400 X 24 tyres. It gives a top speed of 30 MPH with a sensible overdrive ration and a gradeability of about 1:6 at 100 tons gross train weight. My thoughts of a stich up arise from the situation at the time. Remember that MOS would be still smarting from the FV1000 project when it turned out that the commercial Antar could do everything that was needed apart from carrying a tank cross country. The last thing that they would want would be another commercial vehicle that might be even better than an Antar. For instance, one dirty trick that I can think off would be to fit well-worn tyres to one wheel station only. This would create a huge wind-up load that would go through the worm reduction. Just my suspicious mind, that is all. I am sure that the FVRDE report would be fascinating reading! Once, again, apologies for any offence. John

So what were the ratios then?!

That sounds like a stich up to me! The drive axles on a Rotinoff are the same Kirkstall axles as on the Antar! Why should they fail like that and not on an Antar? John

If a DT with a Hercules engine worked fine in North Africa, I am msure bthat it would also be fine in UK without a header tank. John

Paul, If you had a manual (or just a few pages) in French, I could probably make sense of it. Happy to swing by to Alton. John