Matador Gallery

[les freathy]

I think the steering on any Mat is bloody hell Mike that one had a militant steering box put in by Dave i agree the revs were high and did cause us a few problems when changing down we worked on the linkage but the previous owner had not looked after her very well and we had not finished all the jobs when our troubles hit us hope Brian has her up and running OK now

[antarmike]

The steering on both My mats was good (after putting A Coles Crane steering Box in one and a Millie box in the other. ) For some reason my Douglas, which was built with a Burman reduction steering box as standard is far harder than either of the two Mats I have had.

[N.O.S.]

An AEC 8 wheeler steering box :idea: goes straight in with just a little floor board cutting, and - even using the drag link hole furthest away from the box - gives one-handed steering and you can even turn the wheels when stationary with little effort

Edited October 23, 2008 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

Coles crane box went in with thw adaptor plate from the Coles Chassis, This tilts the box towards the driver slightly, The Millie box was put in with an inch packer under it to give a little extra clearance for my knees.

[N.O.S.]

The old Mammoth Major box sits same as Matador one - only clue is the pitman arm with two holes in it.

 

Problem now will be finding one as all the old yards are fast disappearing.

[radiomike7]

An AEC 8 wheeler steering box :idea: goes straight in with just a little floor board cutting, and - even using the drag link hole furthest away from the box - gives one-handed steering and you can even turn the wheels when stationary with little effort

 

Wondered when you would spot that:cool2:

 

Is the Mammoth box a different ratio or is it a recirculating ball type with less friction?

Edited October 23, 2008 by radiomike7

[N.O.S.]

Wondered when you would spot that:cool2:

 

Is the Mammoth box a different ratio or is it a recirculating ball type with less friction?

 

:-D:-D:-D I was struggling to remember which hole we put the drag link on - the 8 wheeler box ratio was so much higher that it coped really well with the drag link on the first hole, so we moved it to the outer hole and the drag link angle was better too. I can't remember the no.turns lock to lock but it was about double that of the Mat box. The main gear housing was slightly bigger hence need to cut floorboards, but otherwise identical.

 

What a stupid boy I was to sell it......:n00b:

[antarmike]

I have a couple of Militant boxes, if anyone is desperate, i'd let one go. only really need one spare.. The slpine on the drop arm is bigger on the Militant box, than the one on standard Matador box, so you have to move the arm across with the box.

[les freathy]

I used to see this old girl on my daily rounds, for many years she was owned by the local river authority later the envionmental agency based at the Flots at Rye in sussex. The boom on the back proved very use ful for the type of work they carried out untill the knowing elf and safty stepped in and from then on she was kept for her winching capabilities. I had stressed a interest in buying her on occasions but she never came up for sale then a couple of years ago out of the blue i get a phone call to advise she was up for Auction unfortunatly at a time when our Mat had to go due to my broken leg problems, i never got to the auction so has anyone an idea where she ended up

[les freathy]

I must be going back15 plus years with this one, at the time a customer and friend had started to take a great interest in building a collection of restored military vehicles and said he had found a 6x6 with coles crane for sale at Chichester he purchased it and we collected on a rainy day on the firms low loader. At the time of its arrival he had been having problems reaching a house with underpinning problems the telescopic on the left i had hired to him fell about 3ft short so we found a concrete skip and the crane was used to lift it to the desired height and the tele used to run the skip from the ready mix truck to the crane. It proved a success but sadly some of the guys useing the crane really had little knowledge and managed to b----r up a few things

[les freathy]

Ex military 0854 converted for round timber logging employment, look at the length of those booms

[N.O.S.]

That looks like the Hills of Botley machine, Les - some other views shown on this thread before. But the only view I've seen showing the boom properly :tup::

[radiomike7]

Ex military 0854 converted for round timber logging employment, look at the length of those booms

 

But who can identify the towing vehicle for the twin bogie timber trailer?:-D

[N.O.S.]

You have the Hills of Botley book too then, Mike....:whistle:

[radiomike7]

You have the Hills of Botley book too then, Mike....:whistle:

 

Actually no, but similar:). Let's see if the others know.

[abn deuce]

M26 pacific isnt it ?

[radiomike7]

M26 pacific isnt it ?

 

No, it is 298 FUW, an ex RAF Scammell Mountaineer which is basically a 4x4 version of the Constructor.

[AndyFowler]

Thanks for that Mike I didn't know that Mountaineers had been used by the military :bow:! Anyone got some "in service" pics ? :-D

[6 X 6]

No, it is 298 FUW, an ex RAF Scammell Mountaineer which is basically a 4x4 version of the Constructor.

 

News to me as well. Did the RAF have many and in what role were they employed ? Thanks.

[antarmike]

News to me as well, and I think it is better to say the Constructor was a 6x6 version of the Mountaineer, seeing as the Mountaineer was designed and built long before the Constructor, and it was only when it was found not to be very suitable for heavy haulage (through lack of grip on the road) that Scammell looked at adding an axle to the original design to try and save the situation.

[N.O.S.]

I think it is better to say the Constructor was a 6x6 version of the Mountaineer, seeing as the Mountaineer was designed and built long before the Constructor, and it was only when it was found not to be very suitable for heavy haulage (through lack of grip on the road) that Scammell looked at adding an axle to the original design to try and save the situation.[/quote]

 

Something else we can agree to disagree on :banana: Certainly not how I understand the development of Scammell vehicles within the context of the then fast-growing world market for heavy trucks.

 

 

Oh come on guys, SOMEONE has to stick up for Scammell!

Edited November 3, 2008 by N.O.S.

[radiomike7]

Thanks for that Mike I didn't know that Mountaineers had been used by the military :bow:! Anyone got some "in service" pics ? :-D

 

 

As far as I know it was the only one and originally used as an artic tractor.

[radiomike7]

News to me as well, and I think it is better to say the Constructor was a 6x6 version of the Mountaineer

 

I see your point, but the picture was taken in 1966 when both models were built side by side, so using 'version' as in 'member of the same family' is still correct.

 

seeing as the Mountaineer was designed and built long before the Constructor

 

Not that long, Mountaineer came out in 1949, Constructor 6x6 in 1952.

 

and it was only when it was found not to be very suitable for heavy haulage (through lack of grip on the road) that Scammell looked at adding an axle to the original design to try and save the situation

 

Mountaineer was never intended for the heavier end of heavy haulage, lacking the higher power and high/low transfer box of Constructor. It excelled as a 4x4 dumper, site mixer, artic tractor and proved capable of operating up to 80 tons or so where a Constuctor would have been OTT. It was also used in such diverse roles as hauling heavy mines rescue equipment over difficult terrain.

 

 

Using your logic (and seeing as this is the Matador section) I could claim that the Mat was found to be unsuitable for heavy fuel bowser use, so an extra axle was added to to the original design to try and save the situation.

 

 

Mike..

Edited November 3, 2008 by radiomike7

[antarmike]

Except that there had been no attempt to use the O853/ 853 Matador in the Bowser role. The O854 and the 854 fuel bowsers were not Matadors. The name was never applied to them, by AEC or in any Official material. They were known as the Model O854 or 854 and were designed for a role(or three roles, depending on how you look at it.) It is almost possible to say they are as much Marshalls as they Matador in origin since the back end is little more than the Marshall back end under a new chassis. The First bowsers did not even share an engine with the Matador.

 

Whatever they design criteria for the Mountaineer was it was being used in civilian Heavy Haulage and found wanting, before the Constructor came on the scene. And the Constructor was designed to do what the Mountaineer had been tried at and failed.

Edited November 4, 2008 by antarmike

[antarmike]

It is equally true to say tyhat there isn't really a standard for the Mountaineer. It evolved over a period of time, and the later ones more more powerful and sophisticated than the early examples.