Ford Blitz Restoration/Rebuild

[Keith Webb]

Our prime movers were the 134" wheelbase, we didn't use the F60T here in Australia. And only Ford made the 115" wheelbase tractor late in the war.

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

How convenient!! Maybe you could get them to rivet your spring hangers etc. and pass it off as an original F60T!

Actually I'll be very interested to see how the prime mover wheelbase looked. I'm not sure I've ever seen a pic of one, except this sad looking Chev below.

In some ways it's almost fortuitous that you're forced to shorten the chassis, given that it will effectively be an F60T replica. It's not something you'd do by choice, but in doing so you'll have something a bit out of the ordinary, and of legitimate interest to CMP purists. That's how I'd be looking at it anyway. It's also a very practical wheelbase, and I imagine quite impressive with 20” wheels, while still being nicely proportioned. Was it 115" or 110"...I can't recall...not that it matters much.

I agree though, a turntable is not a particularly fascinating object to stand around and admire. A big gun on the other hand would certainly turn heads in the main street!

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

And only Ford made the 115" wheelbase tractor late in the war.

What did these look like Keith?

[cliff]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

What did these look like Keith?

Like the one below Tony

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by cliff

Like the one below Tony

Thanks Cliff. I have a drivers handbook for this. And I was going to answer:

"They look chunky and beautiful."

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

"They look chunky and beautiful."

Very much so - chunky but nicely proportioned. Thanks for the pic Cliff. Is that a 21 gallon tank, or are my eyes playing tricks?

Quite a coincidence that Tony's chassis has been shortened to 115" - makes it a very worthwhile exercise IMO.

[Private_collector]

F60T2.jpg F60T4.jpg F60T7.jpg F60T8.jpg F60T3.jpg
These are some of the pics I have of F60T.

To me, it looks quite good, but bit boring on the rear end, don't you think?

[Private_collector]

F60t trailer.jpg
Boring that is, unless you add one of these behind it

Still not for me I would say. Also suppose the transport department would class it as an articulated vehicle and require a licence accordingly. How do people get away with those 5th wheelers that the elderly like to tow behind their medium sized utilities???? Can't tell me those things are all driven on articulated licence. They look ridiculous when you see one coming, and it's a whole foot to 18" wider than the tow vehicle on each side.

Tony,

I would love those gusset plates, but they would be a nightmare to post wouldn't they

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

To me, it looks quite good, but bit boring on the rear end, don't you think?

The one in the pictures has had the back of the chassis docked off. The driver handbook shows a normal full Ford CMP chassis.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

These are some of the pics I have of F60T.

This is a replica too, shortened from F60L. It's a pretty impressive job, but they've sure made a mess of the rear chassis. For starters they've chopped off too much, so it's missing the end bits as Keith says. They've made up a new rear crossmember, but haven't bothered to drill the correct holes in it. It's also a little too fat in section, because they've left off the fishplates. The top one (ie. the little one) fits between the crossmember and the chassis rail, so if it's not there, the crossmember has to be a fraction fatter to fit snugly. Not by much, but enough to look wrong. The eye is very sensitive to aspect ratios.

The problem may be compounded slightly, because this is the point on the F60L chassis rail where it starts to taper. Forward of this point, it becomes wider in section. You may find Tony that even with top fishplates fitted, a geniune rear crossmember may still be a bit sloppy inside the chassis rail. There wouldn't be much in it though, maybe 1/16" at most, which you could pick up by making some new top plates out of 3/16" flat, instead the original 1/8" plates. Alternatively, make up a new crossmember 1/16" fatter. With fishplates and chassis rail ends present, the result would be infinitely better than the job they've done here.

Of course, the chassis rail itself will always look wrong, because of the overly long midsection - ie. the straight section before it starts to taper. This is the only point of difference b/w the various CMP chassis rails. The rearmost 7 foot or so is identical on all wheelbases. Hence you can only replicate a shorter wheelbase faithfully by chopping out a section in the middle - which is generally considered a little unwise!

If I'm not making any sense, compare the images below. The first two are both F60S wheelbase, but the B&W one is a shortened F60L. Note the overly long midsection, extending beyond the front spring hanger, instead of tapering a foot or so in front. Likewise the second pair of images - the replica chassis is virtually ALL midsection. By chopping a massive 43" off the F60L chassis, it's lost the entire skinny section at the rear. It has no shape, so it lacks that distinctive blitz chassis look.

A better result would be an F60S shortened by 19", or possibly even F15A lengthened by 14". Not that I'm suggesting it here!

In every other respect it's an excellent replica, with things like the walkway and vacuum tank all present, and they've even riveted the spring hangers. The fuel tanks are wrong - they appear to be repro, but they're not 21 gallon. Clearly they've tried to get everything right, which makes me wonder how they screwed up the rear chassis so badly.

The chassis drawing is quite interesting Tony. I can't see too much wrong with it, except the rear spring hangers which are definitely out of alignment. That handbook is a gem Keith, I imagine you'll be hanging on to that one!

Tony, if you PM me your address I'll get those fishplates off to you. Shouldn't be any problems in the post I don't think, I've mailed similar stuff before. I just need to find the little ones, which I seem to have hidden from myself!

Cheers

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Very much so - chunky but nicely proportioned. Thanks for the pic Cliff. Is that a 21 gallon tank, or are my eyes playing tricks?

Quite a coincidence that Tony's chassis has been shortened to 115" - makes it a very worthwhile exercise IMO.

Your eyes don't deceive you Tony. Fuel tank capacity according to the driver handbook was 2 x 21 gall tanks.

Acceleration (with a 12,000 pound load) is a blistering 29.5 MPH achieved in 46 seconds over a 1/4 mile run, and a top speed of 41 MPH. Compare this with a F15 which achieves a speed of 42.5 MPH over the same distance in 33 seconds with a 1500 pound load.