question Truth vs Myth RB44

[ArtistsRifles]

The one at my local T.A center is still sitting there. It hasnt turned a wheel in a year and a half. Would still like one. But would it be worth trading this up for one of them........

 

 

 

Sort answer - IMO - is No.

[Ex Army FV434 Instructor]

I heard the mirrors worked well though

yes silly me forgot the mirrors, cant fault them, 2 of them one on each side, so shiny you can see your face in them, (cant see very well behind you due to the box body)

 

(Actually i was making that last bit up)

[Ex Army FV434 Instructor]

i think now just being able to recall the novelty of driving one that hadnt broken down long enough to have been qualified with familirisation training on my FMT, or doing road tests (which it usually failed) I honestly cant remember what the visability was like in the rear view mirrors.

 

Like i said before they broke down so much that I ended up being the only VM in the workshop who'd had a working one long enough for an instructor to sighn me off as Familirised on it.

 

I remember even senior ranking VM's asking me "so what are they like to drive?"

[AMgeneral]

Hi,I have run three of these trucks,I found them an excellent mid size vehicle,not to slow on the road ( 50 + MPH ) power steering etc.I have had 2 manual gearbox and 1 auto, (Chrysler Torqueflight ) LHD lovely to drive,Perkins Phaser 4 litre engine 20/24 MPG on the motorway.The auto one I fitted a coms body (Withams £750 +vat ).I have spent many an hour trying to sort out brake imbalance,especially when cold but other than that I can recommend these vehicles.

Ian.

[tinbum]

RB44's don't have air brakes and have drums all round so how do they have problems with with air and disks?

[Ex Army FV434 Instructor]

yes they do! an air compressor charges to operate pressure on the servo (thats why you have air tanks on them for)

 

there an air over liquid system (same as a bedford MK)

[Richard Farrant]

 

The first huge fault was the brake disks, ........

 

2nd fault The air braking system, they have the most ridiculous over complicated air braking system which was always leaking and causing the brakes to stay jammed on, ..................

 

 

 

 

Something puzzles me with what you are saying about the RB44. I had them come through my workshop section early in their service life....but memory of details on them was slim as at the time we were rebuilding crashed DROPS trucks from Bosnia. You say the RB44 had disc front brakes and air over hydraulic brakes, well that does not tally with a video made of their production clearly showing vacuum brakes and front drums. I know they undertook mods on them during service life, but changing to air brakes and having to install a compressor would have been a radical move surely.

 

Here is the film, apparantly produced by Renault Trucks;

 

 

Edited December 27, 2009 by Richard Farrant

[eddy8men]

god ! that video takes me back to my class 1 course,6 months of death by monosyllibic technical video/view foil presentations(living the dream).by the way good point with regard to the brakes,sorry but i can't help though as i'm afraid all the ones i saw were all v.o.r. awaitng back loading so didn't get to work on them

[Lord Burley]

Thanks for the link to the video Richard.:thumbsup:

[tinbum]

yes they do! an air compressor charges to operate pressure on the servo (thats why you have air tanks on them for)

 

No thats a vacuum pump not an air pump. The servo is similar to cars landrovers etc. They have vacuum assisted braking which is not complicated at all.

[Stone]

Brakes have always been a problem, see here:

 

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department withdrew from service the RB44 Army light vehicle; and on what date his Department was first alerted to the problems with braking mechanisms of the RB44. [6987]

 

Mr. Arbuthnot:] The issue of braking first arose during trials in 1989, but the shortcomings were addressed before the production contract was placed in 1990.

 

The vehicles were temporarily withdrawn from service in June 1992 following problems with braking performance reported by the Royal School of Artillery in May 1992; after modifications, they were restored to service in November 1992. Following the results of further testing under stringent conditions in August 1993, the vehicles were withdrawn from service in December 1993, but were accepted again for service in August 1995.

 

More here:

 

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company carried out the repairs to his Department's RB44 light vehicle; how many vehicles were sent for repair; what was the total cost of repair; and who will pay this bill. [9952]

 

Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 18 January 1996]: Modifications to the RB44 heavy utility truck in 1992 were made at the manufacturer's expense. Following the identification of continuing braking problems in 1993, and analysis of these by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, in consultation with the manufacturer, a further modification programme to 824 vehicles was started in October 1995 and is due to be complete by the end of 9 Feb 1996 : Column: 384

 

March 1996. The modification kits have been provided by the company, and about 100 of them have been fitted by the company, at its own expense. The remainder are being fitted by military or civilian personnel in unit workshops. The direct cost to the Department of carrying out these modifications is estimated at some £100,000. In addition, other costs to the Department associated with rectifying the problem include the analysis and trials of DERA at a cost of some £310,000 together with the costs of returning vehicles to serviceable and roadworthy condition and maintaining other vehicles used while RB44 have been out of service. The latter costs are not readily quantifiable. The total costs to the Department on this basis are assessed to be less than £1,000,000.

 

Less than a million pounds, oh that's ok then! :argh:

 

Stone

[downforce]

Hi

 

I have just bought an RB44 chassis cab and discovered that formerly it was a "First Strike" fire fighting appliance with 9 AAC. Having never heard of the "First Strike" before I went looking on the web and found - nothing !

 

No pictures, no data, no manufacturer's spec, nothing except one post from a guy who saw one once.

 

As I only have the chassis cab - does anyone know what thecomplete vehicle looked like?

 

Thanks

 

DF

[chevpol]

Hi

 

I have just bought an RB44 chassis cab and discovered that formerly it was a "First Strike" fire fighting appliance with 9 AAC. Having never heard of the "First Strike" before I went looking on the web and found - nothing !

 

No pictures, no data, no manufacturer's spec, nothing except one post from a guy who saw one once.

 

As I only have the chassis cab - does anyone know what thecomplete vehicle looked like?

 

Thanks

 

DF

 

Try AAC museum Middle Wallop

 

Mark

[paulbrook]

Oh blimey - I have just come across this thread! What fun....

 

I was in the trials team when this abomination came along and know way too much about it I fear. Heres the short version.

 

RB get very miffed because they think they invented DROPs. After much time and money they get passed over for the big guns (Scammell/Foden/Multilift)

 

Meanwhile the hunt is on for a replacement for the LR 101 - The Truck Utlilty Heavy (TUH) competiton begins with a landrover, a stonefield and a RB. They are all supposed to have diesel engines and an auto box. They are all memorably hopeless, and the Trials team says so much to everyones chagrin.

 

The Trials team get no Christmas cards from the manufacturers or the Procurement Executive that year.

 

Eventually "The User" is told that it is getting the RB version. In order to make it less useless the TH auto box has been replaced by a manual 5 speed (dispite the clear auto requirement). Duty rumour suggests this is a sop to RB for the DROPS business.

 

The trials team go to pick it up for acceptance trials and having had a quick go around the MVEE test track refuse to take it on the road for the drive back to Aldershot.

 

The brakes get modified a number of times but time and again the trials team refuse to drive it for any distance on public roads.

 

It comes into service anyway with the opinions of the trails team ignored.

 

The rest, they say, is history.

 

I remember the ASM getting very cross with a senior figure who was suggesting he was being over sensitive. The ASM described inadvertantly touching the brakes in roundabout on one of the aborted "collection" missions and having to take the wrong exit as the thing had swerved over the road as a result.

 

As I say - thats the short version.................

[ArtistsRifles]

My old lot were issued two in replacement for four Landrovers. Talking to the S/Sgt i/c the REME detachment at the annual dinners they were delivered - and broke down

REME fixed them - took nearly a month to get the parts - they were driven out of the MT garage towards the main gate - and broke down!

Towed back by Landrover and manhandled back into the garage, fixed - saga repeated...

After 6 months the O/C got royally pee'd off and demanded the four Landrovers back as the RB's were a pile of sh*te - and got them.

 

Maybe the ones at in the latter days were better - but the first ones were so poor it was rumoured they were a secret weapon from the Kremlin!!! I personally would not touch one, even if it were offered free.

[paulbrook]

Even in the oft aborted user trials it was dubbed "Truck Utility Hideous"

[stal108]

yes i thought the same ,, well its a good story

[downforce]

Try AAC museum Middle Wallop

 

Mark

 

Thanks for the pics !

[andym]

Although I'm re-opening an old thread, it might be worth repeating some information that I found while digging around before buying an RB44 myself.

 

The DERA investigation referred to in Post #36 found that the issue was not with the brakes themselves, but rather the steering geometry. The front axle rotated under heavy braking, and because of the steering geometry this caused the vehicle to veer to the left. DERA proposed the fitment of tie rods to limit the axle rotation and this was implemented as Modification Instruction No.4 of September 1995. All extant RB44s should have the tie rods fitted and the braking problem overcome.

 

Andy

[Richard Farrant]

Although I'm re-opening an old thread, it might be worth repeating some information that I found while digging around before buying an RB44 myself.

 

The DERA investigation referred to in Post #36 found that the issue was not with the brakes themselves, but rather the steering geometry. The front axle rotated under heavy braking, and because of the steering geometry this caused the vehicle to veer to the left. DERA proposed the fitment of tie rods to limit the axle rotation and this was implemented as Modification Instruction No.4 of September 1995. All extant RB44s should have the tie rods fitted and the braking problem overcome.

 

Andy

 

I remember the fault as they were coming in Workshops at the time, although I did not do the Mods. I recollect saying this was the similar problem to the jeeps, 50 years previous.

[redneck]

As a former RB44 owner. Used it as daily driver and did many 300+mile drives in it.

Drum brakes all round.

Standard servo with Hydraulic brakes

Detroit locker in the rear

Braked straight an true every time, even under heavy braking. Tie bars were fitted to the front axle effectively making it a 4 link front suspension, eliminating the axle twist that causes steering to veer under braking. Really a schoolboy error on the design, should have cross linked it, like a land rover. I was going to do this myself if I kept it, removing the tie bars and increasing articulation.

Cruised at 60-65mph comfortably.

Ride comfort with a suspension seat was OK, better than a Fuso that I had the misfortune to ride in recently.

 

A couple of problems I had were:-

- the steering pump failed, due to a de-laminating return hose collapsing internally and starving the pump, land rover pump is a direct replacement.

_ prop shaft ujs front and rear died very quickly, but on inspection the joints were bone dry as were the sliding joints on the prop shafts i.e never maintained

- a couple of brake cylinders needed renewal due to water in the brake fluid, again lack of maintenance (being sat around).

Other than that it was a great vehicle, sold to fund a bigger project that didn't happen, so I picked up an ex military 110 landy which is a far worse vehicle to drive and far far less reliable.

 

Bottom line.... I'd definitely buy another one

[Tom Tan]

Hi all, I'm looking at buying a 1995 RB 44 , and have read all your comments, the one I'm looking at is a camper conversion, at least I now know what to look for .

It's only to take the kids to school!

And maybe a trip to Timbuktu.

Hope u make the right decision.

Regards Tom