Another (suspected) F22 found

[Keith Webb]

Got your attention, Hanno?

http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/f22/Copley/front.jpg

I had at first thought this was an normal FGT, but on looking at it again recently observed the following things:

Retrofitted winch
1945 manufacture
400 steering and 6" steering ends.

Our Ford tractors had light steering and were mostly made during 1942-3.

No data plate, unfortunately.

What do you think, Hanno?

More pics here

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Got your attention, Hanno?

I had at first thought this was an normal FGT

You certainly do! You sent me a b&w pic of this a while ago, but these pictures seem to endorse the assumption this must be an "F22" with all its typical late build features like "Ford Canada" pressings under the headlights, lift slings, round gauges, heavy steering gear and steering ends, full cab without hatch and no winch originally. Nice find!

Attached goes a pic (taken at Beltring 2003) of one of two known restored examples, s/n CK-236140 built NOV-12-45.

snck-236140_2003-07.jpg

[Keith Webb]

http://www.oldcmp.net/images/fgt/fgt9darnum/darn1.jpg

This is the only FGT I've seen with late production hubs, although the front shell is the 1943 pattern with just FORD stamped on it, so possibly the axles were a retrofit.

Not sure which steering box it had. This picture was taken around 1974 and the truck is, as far as I know long gone.

[Keith Webb]

Don Smith sent me a batch of his photographs from South Australia.
Among them is this interesting shot of what looks to me like it may be another of the elusive 1945 F22 models:

http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/people/Don_Smith/F22_1.jpg

Also of interest in this batch is a cut down CGT.

http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/people/Don_Smith/cgt_3.jpg

http://www.oldcmp.net/Images/people/Don_Smith/cgt_1.jpg

More of Don's pics here.

Has anyone else seen these particular trucks? Any other photos, please?

Thanks for the shots, Don!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Not an F22, just a F15A on 20" wheels, but seeing pictures always makes me look twice to make sure it isn't one of those elusive beasts!

"GSV 556, Portsmouth Harbour, June 3rd 2014"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/15565016831/

[Alex van de Wetering]

F15A

Attached is another pic of this C15A, taken in Asnelles june 8th.......and a C15 with big boots. Both trucks travelled together.

Alex

[Keith Webb]

Here's the missing pic of the suspected F22

[lynx42]

Hi Keith,

Why don't the photos from your "OldCMP" site come up any more.

I just clicked on both pages as suggested and there is only the box but no photos. I had a look at Oldcmp and most of the photos are missing as well.

Regards Rick.

[Keith Webb]

Unfortunately I have been unable to access the site for many years to make changes or fix broken links.

Originally Posted by lynx42

Hi Keith,

Why don't the photos from your "OldCMP" site come up any more.

I just clicked on both pages as suggested and there is only the box but no photos. I had a look at Oldcmp and most of the photos are missing as well.

Regards Rick.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Here's the missing pic of the suspected F22

Interesting photo Keith, I hadn't seen that one before. It's another Fewings Indian production FAT conversion, possibly GS configured originally, like the one below.

Indian Pattern FAT GS configuration.jpg


Just to update this old thread - the vehicle pictured in Hanno's old post at Beltring 2003 was also an Indian production FAT originally, presumably identical to the one above except for the winch.

snck-236140_2003-07.jpg


Another likely F22 candidate yet to be fully investigated is the vehicle below - do we have any more photos/info on this vehicle?

f22_donckers.jpg

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Just to update this old thread - the vehicle pictured in Hanno's old post at Beltring 2003 was also an Indian Pattern FAT originally, presumably identical to the one above except for the winch.
Attachment 68728

Another likely F22 candidate yet to be fully investigated is the vehicle below - do we have any more photos/info on this vehicle?
Attachment 68729

Tony,

I know you have given the Indian Pattern FATs and F22 a lot of thought. But, the above two CMPs are what is commonly referred to as an "F22". More specifically, these are C291Q.L-W. chassis with full cabs, i.e. winch-less Ford FGT FAT chassis with No. 13 Cabs and GS bodies.

The first one is chassis serial no. CK-236140, first restored by Brian Nunn and now owned by forum member Lauren Child. The second one is owned by forum member Maurice Donckers. Both can be seen on my webpage with F22 survivors: http://www.mapleleafup.nl/cmpvehicles/f22_reg.html

Indian Pattern FATs are based on Ford FGT and Chevrolet CGT chassis/cowls, and were fitted with wooden bodies built locally in India, and had open cabs fitted with a canvas roof rather than a full No. 13 Cab. I think we should keep the full cab winchless FGT apart from the Indian Pattern CGT and FGT.

I apologize for muddling the water by posting pictures of short wheelbase CMPs (Chevrolets even!) on 20" rims in this thread - my bad

Hanno

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Moderator's note: the next five postings were split off from F30 Illustrated Parts List:

Originally Posted by Lauren Child

I've also been told that some of the F22 parts are F30, hence it would be useful for my truck.

I'd be interested to hear which parts that would be? The F30 is basically a long wheelbase F15A, your F22 is basically an FGT without winch.

H.

[Lauren Child]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

I'd be interested to hear which parts that would be? The F30 is basically a long wheelbase F15A, your F22 is basically an FGT without winch.

If I remember right it's some suspension components. I'll have to look out the big book of her history.

[Tony Wheeler]

Lauren, the only suspension component which varies throughout the CMP 4x4 range is auxiliary springs. They're present on 60S/L and absent on 15A, 30, FAT. Everything else is standardized across the range.

Your vehicle has auxiliary springs but they may be retrofit. Are the spring bumpers riveted or bolted to the chassis rail?

[Lauren Child]

I'll take a look, though I'm hesitant to assume anything is retrofit unless I find evidence on the F22 to indicate it. It's a weird enough beast that anything could have been standard.

[Tony Wheeler]

You're dead right Lauren, it's dangerous to make assumptions about this vehicle! It was poor wording on my part, I've amended it accordingly. In my mind there are actually two possibilities for this vehicle, which could potentially relate to the auxiliary springs. Here's my thinking FWIW:

If we work on the basis that it was supplied to India as per contract, ie. standard FAT chassis less winch, that would mean the auxiliary springs are retrofit. I think that's the logical starting point for this vehicle, as a working hypothesis, until we can establish its provenance more definitely. It's well documented in civvy hands but that doesn't explain the non-standard features, notably the simplified transfer case shift pattern. That is, did it emerge from the factory that way in 1945, or was it a British Army mod performed subsequently?

Personally I find the latter far more likely, particularly in light of the stirrup step evidence, which appears to confirm Indian build. In other words, the chassis was built up by Ford India, with full cab and wooden GS body (just like the winch equipped example photographed during the Indo-Pakistan war), and subsequently brought back to the UK with its returning RA unit. Presumably quite a few CMPs arrived in the UK by that route, either immediately after WWII, or after Indian Independence in 1947, or conceivably some time later, if the unit served elsewhere post war, eg. Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong. We're even finding what appear to be Indian assembled FATs in Australia lately, apparently GS configured originally, one of them with an original battery box located exactly like yours Lauren. Funnily enough this vehicle used to be Keith's daily drive!

Anyway to my mind that's the most likely scenario for your vehicle Lauren, given the evidence to date. I can find no other way to explain those stirrup steps. Logically therefore, the simplified transfer case shift must have been a British Army mod, perhaps for trialling in post war years, with a view to introduction on future vehicle types, eg. Landrovers. The alternative theory is that it was a 1945 Ford factory development, but that only makes sense on a pilot vehicle, not on a single chassis delivered to India.

By the same logic we could reasonably assume the auxiliary springs were also British Army installed, according their own particular needs at the time, rather than by Ford in 1945 on a single chassis delivered to India. However, of interest in this context is Brian Nunn's report: "The chassis is made up as the standard type for the F15 range but with a secondary chassis fitted to the inside of the standard one." That's an extraordinary mod, which if confirmed would appear to tie in with the auxiliary springs, indicating very heavy duty use, eg. water tanker perhaps. That seems to raise another possibility, in light of your contract card evidence Lauren: "The back of SM6337 notes that a small number of vehicles were used as either Truck 15cwt, 4x4 Water 200 gal, or Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water." (I believe you've got the cards mixed up Lauren, and it's actually SM6389). In other words, it's not inconceivable the vehicle started life as a Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water. That might explain the reinforced chassis (yet to be confirmed) and auxiliary springs, if indeed that's how these 30cwt SWB chassis were built, which seems not unlikely. Certainly you'd expect some such modification to warrant uprating from 15cwt to 30cwt.

Brian also reported: "I purchased the vehicle back in 1979/80 from a garage in Hampshire, where it had stood unwanted and unloved for about 15 years. The garage owner told me that he had bought two Ford V8 trucks at an auction, one was fitted with a GS steel body, and the other was a Water Bowser. Both bodies were removed by him, and the trucks were fitted out with a Harvey Frost crane and winch fitted to the back for use as a tow truck. One vehicle was disposed of during the late 60's whilst the other one continued to work till it was replaced with a Humber 1 ton GS truck in the mid 70's. The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body, but thought that it was fitted with the GS type body."

In other words Lauren, if the garage owner's recollection was astray, it's quite possible you own a former Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water! Of course, we'd then have to explain RA markings on a water tanker!

Whatever the case I agree we need to stick to the physical evidence, as found on the vehicle itself. If you can post a few pics of the chassis it may shed some light on these questions. I reckon it would be worth starting a new thread on this vehicle, to keep all the evidence and discussion in one place. If ever a CMP deserved a dedicated thread it's this one!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

So, what do we have here?

291103968f124c3a990d2e8733cf15f2a9a0a52976e8c1331ea925fb6087e435.jpg 2002-349-2 cropped.JPG

Picture was taken in South Sumatra, Indonesia, somewhere during 1946-1948.

This CMP truck is in use with Dutch troops, who inherited a lot of vehicles from the British Indian Army units which first occupied Indonesia in 1945.

http://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/me...1-13966e870614

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

So, what do we have here?

Hi Hanno,
As per my Facebook post the CMP type pictured is C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water. Here’s my general take on this type with known images.


C291Q.L-W Sumatra 1946-48.jpg C291Q.L-W Burma, March 1949..jpg C291Q.L-W Indo-Pakistan War 1965.jpg C291Q.L-W Chowringee Road, Maidan Park, Calcutta 1945.jpg

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

As per my Facebook post the CMP type pictured is C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water. Here’s my general take on this type with known images.

Hello Tony,

Yes, we need to do some more research on Ford's 1945 C291Q models. I think we should go back and study:

1) available source documentation to get a clear listing of contracts and corresponding vehicle configurations;

2) a field survey of known surviving examples;

3) "counting heads" or the ongoing study of period photographs (as you have done above).

Due to the limited nature of available reference sources, there is a risk of "educated guesswork". If we have made any assumptions, we should make note of them.

In this case it, is vital to state that the designation "1945 C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water" you have labelled the above photos with, is your own interpretation of what "C291Q.L-W" stands for.

Thanks,
Hanno

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

In this case it, is vital to state that the designation "1945 C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water" you have labelled the above photos with, is your own interpretation of what "C291Q.L-W" stands for.

Hanno the designation “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” was provided by Lauren Child, not me. It appears on the C291Q.L-W contract card reported by Lauren three years ago. Also the late Peter Ford had previously explained the “L” suffix, as quoted on your very own “F22” webpage: “Which brings us to the ".L". Simply stated, this was the end user's way of telling us that the truck was a Lorry version of a C291Q.” Hanno I’m at a loss to understand why you continue to ignore the official Ford designation in favour of Brian Nunn’s false and misleading “F22” designation. Putting it in quotation marks renders it no less false or misleading, especially with constant repetition over nearly two decades via your “F22” webpage. Personally I’m anxious to dissociate myself from Brian’s false and misleading “F22” designation and any promotion of his rebodied vehicle as an originally configured “winchless FAT”. There are laws against falsifying vehicle provenance and promoting it to unsuspecting buyers. Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough, but now that we have Lauren’s contract card information we can no longer plead ignorance. It’s no skin off my nose but I think you’d be wise to update your webpage to reflect this information.

Hanno I've posted this message verbatim on Keith's Facebook page to avoid potential confusion. Cheers, Tony.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hanno the designation “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” was provided by Lauren Child, not me. It appears on the C291Q.L-W contract card reported by Lauren three years ago. Also the late Peter Ford had previously explained the “L” suffix, as quoted on your very own “F22” webpage: “Which brings us to the ".L". Simply stated, this was the end user's way of telling us that the truck was a Lorry version of a C291Q.” Hanno I’m at a loss to understand why you continue to ignore the official Ford designation in favour of Brian Nunn’s false and misleading “F22” designation. Putting it in quotation marks renders it no less false or misleading, especially with constant repetition over nearly two decades via your “F22” webpage. Personally I’m anxious to dissociate myself from Brian’s false and misleading “F22” designation and any promotion of his rebodied vehicle as an originally configured “winchless FAT”. There are laws against falsifying vehicle provenance and promoting it to unsuspecting buyers. Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough, but now that we have Lauren’s contract card information we can no longer plead ignorance. It’s no skin off my nose but I think you’d be wise to update your webpage to reflect this information.

Hanno I've posted this message verbatim on Keith's Facebook page to avoid potential confusion. Cheers, Tony.

Tony,

I was preparing a proper answer to your posting, but I see you have since changed it. Frankly, I am a bit miffed by your demeanour to all concerned and how you address this very important research topic. It is solely because of your attitude that I don't feel I need to discuss this any further with you. I was hoping we could have gone to the bottom and turn the last stone on this subject. Alas. I have removed my postings on FB regarding what you think is a mythical vehicle anyway.

Have a good day.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough

It occurred to me I should clarify this point in case my comments are misconstrued.

Brian purchased this vehicle almost 40 years ago as a disused tow truck, so he had no idea of the original configuration. His only clue was the previous owner’s recollection of having bought two trucks at auction many years earlier, one of them a Water Bowser and the other fitted with a steel GS body. Brian guessed it had been the GS bodied truck, and speculated on its purpose: “Well, basically this vehicle is a F15A with a few uprated bits and pieces, to make it a little bit more suited for towing a gun.” Thus was born the “winchless FAT” theory.

In hindsight the far simpler explanation is that Brian purchased the former Water Bowser, designated “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” on the contract card, and the other truck was F15A.

Brian of course had no inkling of the “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water”, so his “winchless FAT” theory seemed reasonable at the time, and we’ve all entertained it over the years. However, now that we have Lauren’s contract card info, it does not take a rocket scientist to join the dots, all the way back to the forgotten Water Bowser. Once joined, everything about this vehicle as found makes sense, including the previously unexplained PTO.

Following excerpt from Brian’s account of the purchase on Hanno’s “F22” webpage:

"I purchased the vehicle back in 1979/80 from a garage in Hampshire, where it had stood unwanted and unloved for about 15 years. The garage owner told me that he had bought two Ford V8 trucks at an auction, one was fitted with a GS steel body, and the other was a Water Bowser. Both bodies were removed by him, and the trucks were fitted out with a Harvey Frost crane and winch fitted to the back for use as a tow truck….The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body”.

Repeat: The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body.