Running on the smell of an oily rag

[Yenn]

Does a Commer Knocker have any relationship to a Jabiru knocker?

 

I never drove the Commer knocker, they came after I left the UK, but I did drive other Commers, as well as Bedford Ford Austin, Morris Leyland and AEC trucks. I know why the British motor industry collapsed, just from my memories of those heaps. Oh I forgot Thornycroft, Seddon and Dennis.

 

The only one I really liked at all was the AEC Matador, probably because it was one of the harder machines to drive well.

 

 

[spacesailor]

You didn't like the " Austin Vanden Plas princess" or the Big "Austin Champ", The Austin Motor Company produced 15,000 Champs, powered by the single overhead cam, inline four-cylinder petrol B40 unit of 2838cc capacity, producing 60kW at 3750rpm and 199Nm at 1750rpm

 

.

 

. great cars.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[onetrack]

I know why the British motor industry collapsed, just from my memories of those heaps

Actually, old Pommy trucks were O.K. - it was just that they were underpowered, lacked gears, lacked any decent form of top speed, were uncomfortable to drive, and generally had shocking brakes.The American and European trucks that arrived in the early 1960's were fast, powerful, had good brakes and were comfortable to drive.I owned a '62 petrol (406 cu in) Inter R190 (single drive), a '64 Magirus Deutz (single drive) and a '72 R785, cabover Mack (tandem drive).

 

The Inter was fast on the downslopes, slow on the upslopes, comfortable to drive, and had satisfactory brakes - but it used petrol like it was going out of fashion. 1mpg loaded and 2mpg empty.

 

The big Inter petrol motors needed lots of fuel to cool them, or you burnt out valves by the dozen. You always saw the big Inters with a drum rack behind the cab, with room for at least 3 x 44 gallon (200L) drums of petrol!

 

The Deutz was a delight. Fast (95kmh - when the blanket speed limit for trucks was still 80kmh - everywhere), comfortable, good brakes - and a huge 12.6L air-cooled V8 with a lovely exhaust note, that produced 195HP. Talk about King of the Road!

 

The Deutz single hub-reduction rear axle was built, right through, with all-position barrel-roller bearings, and was rated for 12 tonnes capacity from the factory!

 

The Mack was a different kettle of fish all over again. A genuine 105kmh with ease, excellent brakes, built like a .. like a .. Mack truck - and the torque from that 6 cyl Maxidyne engine would flatten any hill.

 

I also had the pleasure of driving a mates 1947 AEC Mammoth Major MKII. Everyone should have the Mammoth Major driving experience, at least once in their life. The MKII was basically the same truck as the 1935-1939 MKI.

 

It had a full wooden frame cab, the cab ventilation was hinged front windows that opened outwards at the bottom, the seat was modelled on a Hyde Park bench, and it had a massive steel-spoked steering wheel, with no power assist.

 

It sported a 120HP AEC diesel (9.6L from memory), 5 speeds only, and a maximum speed of 50kmh - but the starter and starting process was magic to hear in operation.

 

You'd hit the start button and that wondrous old CAV starter would engage, going, "WHIRRRRRRRR-THUMP!!" - and the old AEC donk would go, "RR - RRR - RRRRR - RRRRRRR - RRRUMP - RUMP - RUMP", into life!

 

The funny thing was, you could do this, on a bitterly cold morning with frost on the ground everywhere, and the AEC would start exactly the same, as if it was a 38 deg day - every time!

 

The terrible brakes were countenanced by that wonderful, massive AEC ratchet handbrake, that stood about level with your shoulder.

 

You grabbed the handle and "wound" the handbrake on, by pumping the handle backwards and forwards, effectively winching on the handbrake mechanism until it was taut.

 

Then you released it, by merely throwing the handbrake forward, whereupon it hit the release pawl, and the handbrake came off with an almighty and satisfying, "BANG!!".

 

The Mammoth Major was hooked up to a tandem low-loader, and it was a regular occurrence when loaded up with the bulldozer, to come to a steepish rise in the road - which would make the old AEC just "run out of puff" (just run out of revs in 1st gear) - whereupon, you hauled on the handbrake, unloaded, "walked" the 'dozer to the top of the rise, walked back and got the AEC, drove it to the top of the rise, loaded up again - and off you went merrily, at 50kmh again!!

 

AEC Mammoth Major 6 / 8 MkII ( model 366/386 ) (Commercial vehicles) - Trucksplanet (click on last photo).

 

 

[spacesailor]

"and off you went merrily, at 50kmh again!!

 

And you said the pommy trucks were sloww. With a 70 Mile p h speed limit, 50 K's would be ridiculous.

 

My 52 Morris Oxford did 75 Mph on the motorway

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Guest douglish]

The worlds first flights were powered by gas vapor. The induction tube was placed directly above a pan which had gasoline dripping onto it, and those fumes powered the Wright Flyer. They had to make their own engine as Henry Ford did not want to supply his motor. History.

 

Smithsonian description - The engine had no fuel pump, carburetor, or spark plugs. Nor did it have a throttle. Yet the simple motor produced 12 horsepower, an acceptable margin above the Wrights’ minimum requirement of 8 horsepower. Gasoline was gravity fed from a small quart-and-a-half tank mounted on a strut below the upper wing. The gasoline entered a shallow chamber next to the cylinders and mixed with the incoming air. Heat from the crankcase vaporized the fuel-air mixture, causing it to pass through the intake manifold into the cylinders.

 

The Wright Brothers | Engine

 

 

[onetrack]

But imagine how much HP the Wrights and Charlie Taylor could have extracted from their engine, if they'd had a proper carburettor, a proper magneto, a proper cooling and oiling system, and a decent method to regulate control of the engine!

 

You've got to give Charlie credit, for a bloke who knew nothing about engines, who was essentially a bicycle mechanic, and had only read about the Otto principle - to build a complete working engine from scratch - with only hand tools and a lathe, was a pretty outstanding effort. However, the first engine did seize up, and had to be rebuilt - possibly because they were guessing at operating clearances needed.

 

I often wonder how his lathe was powered? One would hope it was one of those new-fangled electric-motor-driven lathes, and not a treadle lathe!

 

I have seen nothing about what powered Charlie's workshop - whether it was steam, or whether he actually had electric power.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But imagine how much HP the Wrights and Charlie Taylor could have extracted from their engine, if they'd had a proper carburettor, a proper magneto, a proper cooling and oiling system, and a decent method to regulate control of the engine!You've got to give Charlie credit, for a bloke who knew nothing about engines, who was essentially a bicycle mechanic, and had only read about the Otto principle - to build a complete working engine from scratch - with only hand tools and a lathe, was a pretty outstanding effort. However, the first engine did seize up, and had to be rebuilt - possibly because they were guessing at operating clearances needed.

I often wonder how his lathe was powered? One would hope it was one of those new-fangled electric-motor-driven lathes, and not a treadle lathe!

 

I have seen nothing about what powered Charlie's workshop - whether it was steam, or whether he actually had electric power.

Beathtaking cutting edge stuff, these people really knew engineering; amazing how the wrights could calculate they needed 8 hp.

[spacesailor]

"amazing how the wrights could calculate they needed 8 hp."

 

Thank goodness they didn't have to calculate "Wing_Loading" too.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

"amazing how the wrights could calculate they needed 8 hp."Thank goodness they didn't have to calculate "Wing_Loading" too.spacesailor

HaHa, but their wing load and drag would have to have been included in the calcs.

[spacesailor]

Then The RAA wouldn't have let them fly, It's a Bureaucracy thing to stop an event !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Guest nicephotog]

If you do your energy calculations whether Joules or Calories, you don't get something for nothing !

 

Carburetors that incidentally "mix" air and fuel are simply less efficient at "atomisation" of fuel droplets dragged into the air flow into the manifold, it is considered that the intake manifold causes the "vapourisation" of fuel when it has reached engine operating heat level.

 

All you are really watching is a "sight gag" of fuel air mixing involving nothing more than a "lean mixture" that burns much hotter and if persistant in an engine will cause excessive heat damage.

 

Too, the action is dangerous with low octane fuels because of a problem known as "pinging" that is because of immensely lean fuel mix, pinging is "detonation" of the fuel NOT burning, a slightly different and more violent imbalance damaging action (actual explosion)!

 

One final point , if the fuel is mixed and vapourised first and sent to the carburetor at such a dangerous volatile level, Oxy acetylene welding would teach you to also put in a "flashback arrestor" to prevent accidental detonation or ignition returning up the pipe to where the storage tank is.