MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Softskin Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24-01-16, 05:41
Bob Phillips Bob Phillips is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 449
Default drivelines

There were some ambulances that were 4x2 vehicles in longer wheelbases. I have a front axle ( Ford?) and it fits right into a standard CMP 13 cab chassis as it has a hollow tube with no gears and is not a drop type axle that many standard trucks of the era would use. The ends are not drive types but have kingpins, and one version (that is now found a new home) actualy had an extended kingpin with extra support underneath the axle to provide additional support. Going down the road such a vehicle would appear to be a 30 or 60cwt depending on wheel sizes used. It is an oddball!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-01-16, 12:54
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 14,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Phillips View Post
There were some ambulances that were 4x2 vehicles in longer wheelbases. I have a front axle ( Ford?) and it fits right into a standard CMP 13 cab chassis as it has a hollow tube with no gears and is not a drop type axle that many standard trucks of the era would use. The ends are not drive types but have kingpins, and one version (that is now found a new home) actualy had an extended kingpin with extra support underneath the axle to provide additional support. Going down the road such a vehicle would appear to be a 30 or 60cwt depending on wheel sizes used. It is an oddball!
Correct, see two pics of the Ford F602L on display at the Overloon museum attached.

imm002_31.jpg imm009_101.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-01-16, 17:35
super dave super dave is offline
Dave Good
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Onoway, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 684
Default

This has been very interesting and very confusing as well
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24-01-16, 18:13
Bob Phillips Bob Phillips is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 449
Default 4x2 ambulance

A very interesting set of pictures Hanno! If you look at the close up photo of the axle you will see the additional lower support arm of which I wrote. The axle that I still have does not have that additional support arm and it seems probale that in rough service it would not last very long.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-01-16, 14:55
Tony Wheeler's Avatar
Tony Wheeler Tony Wheeler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yarra Junction VIC
Posts: 953
Default

In the absence of any literature defining British WO load rating specs we're left to infer them from known vehicle types. In relation to CMP types they appear to be as follows:

Truck/Lorry (carried load):

8 cwt: SWB; 13" wheels
15 cwt: SWB; 16" wheels
30 cwt: SWB; 20" wheels; 2-spd transfer case (variants include Truck, 30 cwt, 4x4, AT Gun Portee; Lorry, 30 cwt, 4x4, Water) and: MWB; 16" wheels; 10.50 tyres; 2-spd transfer case (F30/C30 variants)
3-ton: LWB; 20" wheels; 2-spd transfer case


Tractor (towed load):

3-ton: 10.50 tyres; 2-spd transfer case (FAT, LAAT, F60T)

Note that for Tractors the wheelbase and wheel size are not stipulated, because they don't affect traction (towing capacity). A further spec applies to Artillery Tractors, namely winch.

As far as I'm aware the above specs hold true for all CMP variants except: F60S Bofors (Lorry, 3-ton, 40mm, Self-Propelled) which runs 16" wheels.

An apparent anomaly is the C8AX (NZ variant fitted with 16" wheels, making nominal load rating 15 cwt, and built on C15441 chassis) for which the expected designation would be C15AX. I'm inclined to suspect C8AX designation may be local misunderstanding, just like F60S designation seen on Australian F30 Ambulance.

On the question of LWB with 16" wheels, eg. F602L pictured above, I suspect these are rated for on-road use only, just like MCP vehicles. As such it would equate with the Dodge T110L5 (160" wheelbase, 16" wheels, 2-spd diff) which is rated 3-ton.

It's worth noting that design factors such as auxiliary springs, diff ratios, steering boxes, big balls v. small balls etc. do not define load rating - they simply reflect the way a particular manufacturer designs their range of 8, 15, 30, or 60 cwt. vehicles, as defined above. Which means the whole question of load rating is far simpler than it appears - once you figure out the rules!
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26-01-16, 15:31
Grant Bowker Grant Bowker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
An apparent anomaly is the C8AX (NZ variant fitted with 16" wheels, making nominal load rating 15 cwt, and built on C15441 chassis) for which the expected designation would be C15AX. I'm inclined to suspect C8AX designation may be local misunderstanding, just like F60S designation seen on Australian F30 Ambulance.
I don't have a C8AX parts list to confirm this, but my understanding is that the C8AX is more or less the same set of parts as the C8A Heavy Utility series from the ground up to the top of the frame rails with a C15A cab and a (probably) unique cargo box. So, if the C8AX is actually a 15 cwt, wrongly named, does that make all Heavy Utilities 15 cwt as well since they are the same structural parts and drivertrain?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-01-16, 18:40
George McKenzie George McKenzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northern Alberta CA
Posts: 451
Default 30cwt vs 3 ton difference

Check out my truck site that was done on 10 03 11 CMP c60l comes home .There is a bit of information about the front axel that is interesting
__________________
George is hooked on OD
5 window DT969
8 ton Fruehauf trailer
M2A1Halftrack ,CMP #11 F15A1 #13 F15A1
RAF Fordson Tractor, 42 WLC HD
No.2MK11 CT267514 center CB24713 bottom hull25701 ,No.2 MK2 parts
MK1 10128 ,(2) MK1 ,Parts Hull9305 .Hull 10407
Hull plate # 7250 all have walk plate on back steps
1917 Patent modle amphibious army tank
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-01-16, 18:47
Tony Wheeler's Avatar
Tony Wheeler Tony Wheeler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yarra Junction VIC
Posts: 953
Default

Grant, evidently there's another factor at work in C8A/F8A load ratings which differentiates them from C15A/F15A. Something to do with the car type rear chassis perhaps...? I really don't know enough about them to speculate.

C8AX (data plate 833) Tony Smith Lithgow NSW.jpg F8A.jpg
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30-01-16, 15:50
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 14,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
It's worth noting that design factors such as auxiliary springs, diff ratios, steering boxes, big balls v. small balls etc. do not define load rating - they simply reflect the way a particular manufacturer designs their range of 8, 15, 30, or 60 cwt. vehicles, as defined above. Which means the whole question of load rating is far simpler than it appears - once you figure out the rules!
Tony,

I'm afraid this is not entirely correct. The British War Office classification was a load classification, regardless of the technical configuration of the vehicles supplied by manufacturers.

Load carrier trucks have a load rating, tractors do not - see the thread Is the FAT a 60cwt or 15cwt truck?.

To be able to carry the load and move it at convoy speed across country, manufacturers configured their trucks from existing components. As stated above, I sorted out the difference for Chevs recently, see Chev CMP chassis views. One can see clearly that the heavier the load rating, the heavier the truck's components are - so "design factors such as auxiliary springs, diff ratios, steering boxes, big balls v. small balls etc." in fact do define load rating!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra View Post
C30:
  • Front axle with 5” steering ends
  • Brakes, front drum: 14” diameter, 2” width lining
  • Brakes, rear drum: 15” diameter, 3.5” width lining
  • Wheel size: 16” rims
  • Differential gear ratio: 7.16 to 1
  • Rear spring leaves: 12
C60S:
  • Front axle with 6” steering ends
  • Brakes, front drum: 15” diameter, 3.5” width lining
  • Brakes, rear drum: 15” diameter, 3.5” width lining
  • Booster actuated brakes
  • Wheel size: 20” rims
  • Differential gear ratio: 7.16 to 1
  • Number of rear spring leaves: 12 + 6 Aux.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
On the question of LWB with 16" wheels, eg. F602L pictured above, I suspect these are rated for on-road use only, just like MCP vehicles. As such it would equate with the Dodge T110L5 (160" wheelbase, 16" wheels, 2-spd diff) which is rated 3-ton.
The F602L has a 3-ton load rating, as has the Dodge, the fact that they had 16" wheels has noting to do with their load rating. They were fitted with 10.50-16 tyres to bear the load.

As per Vanderveen: "Truck, 3-ton, 4x2, GS (Ford F602L) V-8-cyl., 95 bhp, 4F1R, wb 158-1/4 in, 243x90x118(78) in., 7280 lb. Latest type, using many components of F60L. Tubular front axle, two-speed rear axle. Also with four-stretcher ambulance body and 134-1/4 in. wb GS with open cab."

HTH,
Hanno
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-02-16, 16:51
Tony Wheeler's Avatar
Tony Wheeler Tony Wheeler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yarra Junction VIC
Posts: 953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra View Post
Load carrier trucks have a load rating, tractors do not - see the thread Is the FAT a 60cwt or 15cwt truck?.

Hanno, Tractors do indeed have a load rating, despite not being load carriers. I conclude therefore it refers to towed load, not carried load (as mentioned in my post above). Pretty obvious when you think about it but we overlooked it in the thread you mention.

img008.jpg img009.jpg img007.jpg
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-02-16, 17:16
Tony Wheeler's Avatar
Tony Wheeler Tony Wheeler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yarra Junction VIC
Posts: 953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra View Post
One can see clearly that the heavier the load rating, the heavier the truck's components are - so "design factors such as auxiliary springs, diff ratios, steering boxes, big balls v. small balls etc." in fact do define load rating!

I suspect we're getting into semantics here Hanno! To put it another way - Load Rating determines components, not the other way around. Hence F60L with small balls is still F60L.
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30-01-16, 16:03
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 14,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
An apparent anomaly is the C8AX (NZ variant fitted with 16" wheels, making nominal load rating 15 cwt, and built on C15441 chassis) for which the expected designation would be C15AX. I'm inclined to suspect C8AX designation may be local misunderstanding, just like F60S designation seen on Australian F30 Ambulance.
No, the C8AX is a chassis/cab variant of the C8A 8-cwt truck. The fact that it has 16" wheels has nothing to to with it's load rating. The Humber 8-cwt trucks have 16" wheels too.

Read Wheels & Tracks magazine issue 1 and 2, and there is little left to speculate.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-16, 10:55
Tony Wheeler's Avatar
Tony Wheeler Tony Wheeler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yarra Junction VIC
Posts: 953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra View Post
No, the C8AX is a chassis/cab variant of the C8A 8-cwt truck. The fact that it has 16"wheels has nothing to to with it's load rating. The Humber 8-cwt trucks have 16" wheels too.
Yes, I've acknowledged this already, in response to Grant's post above, where I cited F8A as a further example. But the question remains - why are these 16" wheeled vehicles only rated 8-cwt? As I suggested: "evidently there's another factor at work in C8A/F8A load ratings which differentiates them from C15A/F15A. Something to do with the car type rear chassis perhaps...?
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CMP With A Difference! David_Hayward (RIP) The Softskin Forum 5 06-12-14 21:34
Hotrod with a difference colin jones The Softskin Forum 1 25-09-13 02:43
Carrier with a difference colin jones For Sale Or Wanted 11 18-10-10 05:09
HUP with a difference. . . Hanno Spoelstra The Softskin Forum 23 15-12-09 22:05
difference Harley WLA and WLC??? Alex van de Wetering The Softskin Forum 6 26-11-07 08:39


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016