Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #209 - 25 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:03:53 -0500 (EST)

Send LRO mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of LRO digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. HPNY ([email-masked])
   2. Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience??? ([email-masked])
   3. Re: SELF DRIVEN ROVERING (Winn Bearden)
   4. Re: SELF DRIVEN ROVERING (Adrian Redmond)
   5. Re: Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience??? (Andrew H. Litkowiak)
   6. List Memory (Kevin and Crew)
   7. Re: Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience??? (Hope Peter)
   8. Re: Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience??? ([email-masked])
   9. Re: Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience??? (Hope Peter)
  10. First silly question of the year (Edit 2)
  11. JackGuard (Brian Horner)
  12. Re: First silly question of the year (Paul Quin)
  13. Re: First silly question of the year (Brian Horner)
  14. Re: First silly question of the year (Jim Hall)
  15. Re: First silly question of the year (Bob & Sue Bernard)
  16. Re: JackGuard (Jean-Leon Morin)
  17. RE: JackGuard (Easton Trevor A)
  18. Spring over (Jean-Leon Morin)
  19. Re: Hand throttles (C. Marin Faure)
  20. Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content) (C. Marin Faure)
  21. Re: V8 series 109 (C. Marin Faure)
  22. Re: Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content) (Peter Ogilvie)
  23. Re: List Memory (Bill Fishel)
  24. Re: Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content) (N Forbes)
  25. Re: Re: Bead unseating??? (Peter Ogilvie)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:42:05 EST
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
  [email-masked], [email-masked],
  [email-masked], [email-masked],
  [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] HPNY
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Happy New Year ONE and all and Yours

May you live long and prosper

Paul
Per Mare Per Terram

--__--__--

Message: 2
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:51:25 EST
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience???
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 Peter Ogilvie posted:

<<I've got 12 tires to mount and the local garages want $15 apiece to mount 
them.  
Anyone have any experience with the tire machine on special from Northern Tool

No experience with that particular tool.  I have used other manual and power 
tire mounting tools. From experience, 16" rims are easier than smaller ones. 
Be sure to get a detergent swab and use the detergent or soap liberally as a 
lubricant.

It looks like you can save the cost of the tool many times over.  It depends 
on the value of your time and how much of it you have to spare.  If you are 
using tubes, doing it yourself may prevent damage by a minimum wage worker.

Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver Colorado

--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:58:34 -0500
From: Winn Bearden <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] SELF DRIVEN ROVERING
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I thought I was the only one who picked up hay bales like that!  Never done
it in a series, though......

Adrian Redmond wrote:

> That's the beauty of the hand throttle in the series. Drop it into low
> ratio, jack up the had throttle and let it crawl, then hope out and load
> bales of hay onto the bed or into the trailer behind, then jump in at
> the end of the field and turn round. Works almost every year!

--
Winn Bearden          19XX SIIa/SIII/RR 100" Hybrid
P.O. Box 464          2- 1967 NADA 109" SW (both in pieces)
Americus, GA 31709    1998 Disco LE7
                      1990 110 Tdi SW

--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 20:23:57 +0100
From: Adrian Redmond <[email-masked]>
Organization: Channel 6 Television Denmark
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] SELF DRIVEN ROVERING
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's much easier and safer to do it in a series that with an agricltural
tractor, where you have to cross the wheel path to climb up and resume
control.
-- 
Adrian Redmond

---------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL 6 TELEVISION DENMARK
Foerlevvej 6, Mesing, DK-8660  Skanderborg  Denmark
---------------------------------------------------
telephone (office)                  +45 86 57 22 66
telephone (home)                    +45 86 57 22 64
telefacsimile                       +45 86 57 24 46
mobile GSM                          +45 40 54 22 66
e-mail                       [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------
Visit our homepages!                www.channel6.dk
---------------------------------------------------

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:34:11 -0600
From: "Andrew H. Litkowiak" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience???
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Before you buy the hand unit, start browsing for an old style Coates
machine. I picked one up for $300. I had to replace all the hoses (and
it is VERY ugly), but it works great. You can't do alloy wheels, but
who cares.

It paid for itself the first time I used it (to break down all those
accumulated tire/wheel combos from 10 years of parting out trucks)

The manual machines are a REALLY GOOD workout. Take your heart pills
before you start. They definitely require upper body strength. They
work, but they are a bear.

Andy Litkowiak

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 Peter Ogilvie posted:
> 
> <<I've got 12 tires to mount and the local garages want $15 apiece to mount
> them.
> Anyone have any experience with the tire machine on special from Northern Tool
> >>
> 
> No experience with that particular tool.  I have used other manual and power
> tire mounting tools. From experience, 16" rims are easier than smaller ones.
> Be sure to get a detergent swab and use the detergent or soap liberally as a
> lubricant.
> 
> It looks like you can save the cost of the tool many times over.  It depends
> on the value of your time and how much of it you have to spare.  If you are
> using tubes, doing it yourself may prevent damage by a minimum wage worker.
> 
> Paul Donohue
> 1965 Land Rover 109
> Denver Colorado
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Kevin and Crew" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 14:32:14 -0500
Subject: [lro] List Memory
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Greetings and Happy New Year

I have been digging through my archives trying to find a reference to a Land
Rover event in Kentucky (?) last spring.
I can't find it.  Can anyone help?
I seem to remember that the event had a wee bit o competition happening as
well.  Week long if I recall correctly.

Thanks

Kevin Willey

--__--__--

Message: 7
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience???
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 12:34:46 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

BTW Peter,
how did you break down the bead before using the tire spoon?
I have always found this to be the hardest part of doing them by hand.
Takes me a couple of tries but I can do it now with the hi-lift.  Was
thinking of making a new bottom plate for the H-L with a 16" diameter half
moon in it.

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 8
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:23:48 EST
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience???
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In a message dated 1/1/02 12:40:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> how did you break down the bead before using the tire spoon?
> I have always found this to be the hardest part of doing them by hand.
> 

Depending on your hand eye coordination, there is a sledge hammer device 
which works well. There is either the slide hammer type, or traditional 
sledge hammer type. Both are faster than the high lift. 

"Bustin" tyres is hard work. They don't call them tire monkeys for nothing.

Zack

--__--__--

Message: 9
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Hand tire mount machines, any experience???
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 14:34:13 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Depending on your hand eye coordination, 

Well that sounds like something I need to stay far far away from ;-)
pete

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:02:15 +0100
From: Edit 2 <[email-masked]>
Organization: Channel 6 Television Denmark
To: [email-masked], UK Land Rover owners list
  <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] First silly question of the year
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Why are decals called decals? if using one is de-cal'ing something, how
did it get cal'ed in the first place?

Why don't they just call them "stickers"?

(Worse still, here in denmark a "decal" is called a "klichi" - not the
same as a clichi though...

:-)

Adrian Redmond

---------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL 6 TELEVISION DENMARK
Foerlevvej 6, Mesing, DK-8660  Skanderborg  Denmark
---------------------------------------------------
telephone (office)                  +45 86 57 22 66
telephone (home)                    +45 86 57 22 64
telefacsimile                       +45 86 57 24 46
mobile GSM                          +45 40 54 22 66
e-mail                       [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------
Visit our homepages!                www.channel6.dk
---------------------------------------------------

--__--__--

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:15:17 -0800
From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] JackGuard
Reply-To: [email-masked]

http://www.jackguard.com

Has anyone tried this?

Thanks

Brian
-----------------------
http://www.roverme.org
"Land Rover community, links and email services."

--__--__--

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:17:10 -0800
From: Paul Quin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] First silly question of the year
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dicalcomanie is the French word for a small decorative transfer decal that
you rub onto something...

Paul in Victoria.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edit 2" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "UK Land Rover owners list" <[email-masked]>

>
> Why are decals called decals? if using one is de-cal'ing something, how
> did it get cal'ed in the first place?
>
> Why don't they just call them "stickers"?
>
> (Worse still, here in denmark a "decal" is called a "klichi" - not the
> same as a clichi though...
>
> :-)
>
>
> Adrian Redmond

--__--__--

Message: 13
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:24:47 -0800
Subject: Re: [lro] First silly question of the year
From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here is the results I got from dictionary.com.
----------------------------------------------------------
de7cal (dkl, d-kl) n.
1.    A picture or design transferred by decalcomania.
2.    A decorative sticker.

de7cal7co7ma7ni7a (d-klk-mn-, -mny)
n. 
1.    The process of transferring pictures or designs printed on specially
prepared paper to materials such as glass or metal.
2.    A decal.

----------------------------------------------------------

Not very helpful at all.

Brian

On 1/1/02 3:02 PM, "Edit 2" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Why are decals called decals? if using one is de-cal'ing something, how
> did it get cal'ed in the first place?
> 
> Why don't they just call them "stickers"?
> 
> (Worse still, here in denmark a "decal" is called a "klichi" - not the
> same as a clichi though...
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> Adrian Redmond
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> CHANNEL 6 TELEVISION DENMARK
> Foerlevvej 6, Mesing, DK-8660  Skanderborg  Denmark
> ---------------------------------------------------
> telephone (office)                  +45 86 57 22 66
> telephone (home)                    +45 86 57 22 64
> telefacsimile                       +45 86 57 24 46
> mobile GSM                          +45 40 54 22 66
> e-mail                       [email-masked]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Visit our homepages!                www.channel6.dk
> ---------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> 

-----------------------
http://www.roverme.org
"Land Rover community, links and email services."

--__--__--

Message: 14
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:12:43 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] First silly question of the year
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Decal, short for decalcomania which comes from French decalcomanie, 
meaning co copy by tracing.

Edit 2 wrote:
> 
> Why are decals called decals? if using one is de-cal'ing something, how
> did it get cal'ed in the first place?
> 
> Why don't they just call them "stickers"?
> 
> (Worse still, here in denmark a "decal" is called a "klichi" - not the
> same as a clichi though...
> 
> :-)
> 
> Adrian Redmond
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> CHANNEL 6 TELEVISION DENMARK
> Foerlevvej 6, Mesing, DK-8660  Skanderborg  Denmark
> ---------------------------------------------------
> telephone (office)                  +45 86 57 22 66
> telephone (home)                    +45 86 57 22 64
> telefacsimile                       +45 86 57 24 46
> mobile GSM                          +45 40 54 22 66
> e-mail                       [email-masked]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Visit our homepages!                www.channel6.dk
> ---------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

-- 
Jim Hall
1966 88" Elephant Chaser
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 
with Jim." Mitch Stockdale

--__--__--

Message: 15
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:26:24 -0800
To: [email-masked]
From: Bob & Sue Bernard <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] First silly question of the year
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 03:17 PM 1/1/2002, Adrian wrote:
> >
> > Why are decals called decals? if using one is de-cal'ing something, how
> > did it get cal'ed in the first place?
> >
> > Why don't they just call them "stickers"?
> >
> > (Worse still, here in denmark a "decal" is called a "klichi" - not the
> > same as a clichi though...
> > Adrian Redmond

Hi,
Now I'm wondering what a clichi is?

Bob B

--__--__--

Message: 16
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] JackGuard
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:43:21 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

WHY does this show up AFTER christmas?

looks very nice... Unfortunately it looks a bit too much like a RIFLE case
for suburban use...

J-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: [lro] JackGuard

>
> http://www.jackguard.com
>
> Has anyone tried this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Brian
> -----------------------
> http://www.roverme.org
> "Land Rover community, links and email services."
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "'Brian Horner '" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] '"
  <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] '" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] JackGuard
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:01:12 -0500 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 My experience of devices like this is that the lead to neglect and
subsequent corrosion of the parts hidden inside. The text mentions grease
and if I recall the HiLift and Jackall instructions say NO grease.
Better to leave the jack open and give it a spray of anti corrosive
lubricant. (Not WD40).

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Horner
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: 1/1/02 6:15 PM
Subject: [lro] JackGuard

http://www.jackguard.com

Has anyone tried this?

Thanks

Brian
-----------------------
http://www.roverme.org
"Land Rover community, links and email services."
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 18
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:38:20 -0500
Subject: [lro] Spring over
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm not done... But I have some information to share.

I spent the entire day working on the rover on friday, and I'm quite
surprised by the results.

I now have six leaves at the rear, and five or six at the front. The truck
rides very high compared to before, I measured the rear bumper to be exactly
8"above what it was before. The track is considerably wider, but the
increases in altitude and girth can be attributed in part to the fatter,
larger tires that were installed.

The range rover axles work beautifully, and look almost factory in this
placement. It looks a lot less extreme than I thought it would. The stance
is higher, but wider. I like it a lot. It doesn't look lifted at all, maybe
a little bit, it simply looks like it came from the factory like that and
someone put some bigger tires on it. It doesn't look overly tippy or like
it's a redneck mobile. I'm actually very pleased with the visual aspect of
the modifications - with all suspension bits painted chassis black, I'm
hoping I won't have a cop magnet.

The drivetrain is still being worked out. I am awaiting some angle
measurements on how to set the castor angle for the axle, and have noticed
that the pinion is angled up on the RR front axle. This means I need a CV
driveshaft, and this should cure my driveline problems for the front.

The rear driveshaft is too short by about 1/2". I'll have to make a spacer
plate for it. Under full droop, the driveshaft will break in it's current
state. I will have to limit downwards travel, and I'm thinking of using the
center upper a arm ball joint "mount" on the axle case for a bolt hole for
the strap. I'll have to weld in a crossmember to support it.

The steering is too complicated to explain, I'll just post some pictures
later on. It works great, not bumpesteer, and oodles of clearance with
everything.

The suspension right now is unreal. With the rear driveshaft off, I lifted
the rear crossmember up 48", maxxing out my hilift, and both rear tires were
still on the ground. I was having a lot of trouble seeing exactly how much
flex it gets as I don't have a floorjack that will lift a wheel three feet
up. It is just the beginning, but I am seeing that I'll end up with a very
capable machine.

I will have to completely redesign the shock mounts. I have started building
some shock hoops for it, and in order to get the shock length I want under
the wings, the hoops might actually have to protrude from the upper wing
surface a bit. The rear shocks I am having a heck of a time figuring out...
I'll probably just go for stock location right now until I get an
inspiration or something...

More to come later... Right now I'm foaming at the mouth...

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:46:34 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Hand throttles
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Paul Quin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Hand throttles
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Marin Writes: It's also recommended in Land
>> Rover's little exedition booklet that came with my vehicle that if you are
> traversing rough terrain, say a plowed field or heavily rutted road in
> 4wdLO that you set the speed with the hand throttle instead of using the
> pedal.  Your foot might bounce on the pedal, making the lurching even
>worse in such a low gear.  The hand throttle will keep the engine speed
>constant, and will eliminate any lurching and jerking caused by an
>unsteady >>foot onthe pedal.  I've done this a few times and it works as
>advertised.

>This makes sense.  My SII has a hand throttle.  I've always wondered what
uses it might have....I've read about an optional engine governor that
keeps the engine at a steady rpm under varying loads when running PTO
equipment like saws and generators.

In the little accessories catalog that came with my new SIII it listed an
engine governor as you describe.  It was to do exactly as you say- keep
engine rpms constant under the varying loads of PTO equipment like
belt-driven saws, air compressors, and towed equipment like hay baylers,
etc.  The hand-throttle can be used for this purpose, too (I use it to set
an engine speed of just under 1,000 rpm which is the maximum speed for a
Fairey capstan winch), but the hand throttle won't compensate for loads
that lug down the engine.  The governor will.  Or would.  I suspect it
would be dificult to find a working engine governor for the 2.25 engine
these days.  I recall from the illustration in the catalog it was a kind of
bulky thing that bolted onto the engine somewhere or another.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA

--__--__--

Message: 20
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:25:09 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Andrew H. Litkowiak" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] B-17 and B-29 (no LR content, sorry)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>A substantial part of the B-17's notoriety came from its ability to
absorb punishment and still return its crews to base.... The B-17 may be an
old design (early-mid 1930's, I believe), but the US had no sturdier
airframe in combat during WWII.

The B-29's construction was, overall, far more robust than the B-17s.  The
primary thing that gave the B-17 its "always gets home" reputation (not
really deserved if you look at the numbers- a large proportion of them
didn't get home), was the construction of its wing.  Unlike later bombers
during the war, the Model 299 used the same wing construction that Boeing
had pioneered in their initial all-metal monoplanes.  These were the
Monomail and the Model 247 airliner.  Instead of having the now-tradtional
leading and trailing spars with ribs in between with the skin riveted to
the spars and ribs, the early Boeing metal planes used a series of
bridge-truss components that gave shape and rigidity to the wing.  The
downside is that this wing structure was complicated to build and rather
heavy.  This limited range and altitude.  The upside in wartime was that
because there were so many components making up the wing's frame, shooting
holes in some of them didn't necessarily compromise the wing's strength.
So damage that might bring down another airplane was tolerated by the B-17.
This was a happy accident, by the way.  Boeing didn't use this structure
with an idea toward battle-damage survival, it was simply the best wing
construction technique they knew of at the time.  The Model 299 was
designed in the mid-1930s, before WWII was even an issue (for the US,
anyway).

For a current and rather depressing analogy, a more modern wing structure
is a bit like the World Trade Center towers.  The strength is in a
relatively few number of components, the outer steel columns in the case of
the WTC.   The B-17 wing was more like the Empire State Building and other
skyscrapers of that era, which have very complex interior frames made up of
many interlocking, heavy, steel girders.  While speculation is not worth
the electrons it's printed with, it's highly possible a building like the
Empire State could have taken a 767 hit (a B-25 did hit it accidentally
just after the war) and not collapsed, simply because there are so many
structural components holding it up.  The WTC on the other hand, had
nothing going for it strength-wise other than the outer shell.  There was
no supporting structure inside the outer walls, other than the transverse
trusses that supported each acre-size floor.  So when the thin outer
"shell" was compromised initially by impact and then by heat, there was
nothing left to hold up the weight above the damaged section, and the whole
thing collapsed down on itself.

So the B-17, with its complex, heavy, and redundant wing structure, could
take some pretty dramatic hits, but there was still enough of that complex
bridge struture left to hold things together for awhile.  Most B-17s were
lost to fire and/or control loss rather than losing major pieces of
structure.

The big problem with the B-24 is that for whatever reason (I don't know
much about their construction) they tended to explode when hit.  They also
had a totally different kind of wing than the B-17.  It was long, narrow,
and had a high lift-over drag ratio.  What this means in lay terms is that
aerodynamically, it had a very critical airfoil.  Not very forgiving, in
other words.  The B-17, in contrast, had a very basic airfoil and as such
was quite forgiving aerodynamically.  The B-24 also utilized (I believe)
the spars-and-ribs structure that is common today.  So it did't take much
to do major damage, and aerodynamically, it didn't take much damage before
the wing's ability to fly was compromised.

The B-29 also used a spars-and-ribs design, but by then Boeing had learned
a lot, and the wing was much stronger and more damage resistant than one
might think.

I suppose you could make the same B-17/B-24 analogy with the Land Rover.
Like the B-17, the Series is made up of a lot of interlocking parts, with a
fairly complex frame structure.  In contrast you have the more modern
monocoque, or at best "semi-frame" construction of a number of SUVs on the
market.  This makes for a lighter vehicle, which means better fuel economy
(relatively speaking), better acceleration, better handling, and so forth.
On the other hand, I wonder how today's generaton of monocoque SUVs would
hold up under hard use over time as compared to the Series Land Rover?

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA

--__--__--

Message: 21
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:46:49 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Re: V8 series 109
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Organization: AfricanAdrenalin.com
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] V8 series 109
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Two major issues with the older Rover V8's: The wretched distributor
with the dwell angle adjustment on the outside of the dissy body, and
the terrible twin Strombergs. Oh, yeah, and sticky valve followers (put
a litre of ATF in the oil every service, it'll scrub the gunk off the
insides of the engine and keep things sweet).

The sticky lifters is not a problem isolated to the older Rover V-8s.  I don't
know about the new versions (4.0/4.6) of this engine, but sticky lifters is
a problem all the way up through the 3.9 fuel injected version.
Chemotherapy (ATF) as described by Mr. Oxley is a good solution.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA

--__--__--

Message: 22
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:32:55 -1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From conversations with my Uncles, all B-17 pilots and crew, the B-24 was a 
truck.  It simply wasn't a fun plane to fly so didn't endear itself to the 
pilots.

Another thing that Marin alluded to was the spar construction of the wing.  
There is a picture taken just after a hit by AA fire, probably an 88, at the 
wing root.  From the looks, the shell passed through and didn't explode but 
took out the main spar.  The wing is just beginning to fold at the root like 
a carrier based Navy plane when the picture was taken.  The photograph was 
taken from almost directly above and must have been snapped seconds after 
the shell hit.  Even though the rest of the plane was intact, doubt that 
anyone got out with the centrifugal forces that a one winged airplane would 
generate.

As Marin said, a lot of B17's were lost, especially in 1943.  The casualty 
rate was over 10% per mission.  Lost two uncles in Bombers, B-25's not 17's 
though, in 1943.  Run the numbers and that should put Memphis Bell's 
achieving the 25 mission send home in perspective. If it wasn't for the 
P-51, its doubtful that even 1,000 plane Heavy bomber raids, with their huge 
massed fire power, would have succeeded.  The Air Force was forced to stand 
down from raids over Germany in '43 because of the heavy losses.  They 
didn't resume till they had sufficient P-51s to protect the bomber fleet.  
Interestingly enough, even with the protection of night and the primitive 
nature of German Fighter Aircraft radar, the RAF suffered a very high 
casualty rate, also.  Few crews survived beyond 10 missions.  At least the 
attrition rate wasn't as great as in WWI where pilot survival beyond the 2nd 
mission was a miracle.  With the exception of our two most recent conflicts, 
being a member of an aircrew was a good way to be sure your life insurance 
paid off.  Only the submarine service took more casualties, percentage wise, 
than the 8th, believe it was the 8th, Air Force in England.

Just got through reading Queens Die Proudly.  It was a contemporary book 
about the B-17 crews in the Phillipines and South Pacific at the beginning 
of the war.  Fascinating reading, especially how most of the US air craft 
were destroyed on the ground in the PI the day after Pearl Harbor.  
According to the Author, they'd just gotten the order to disperse from their 
airplane's parade ground formations at Clark AFB and he was walking to his 
plane to take off when the Japanese struck.  Only reason that there were any 
surviving aircraft is that some were dispersed to an outlying field that the 
Japanese, apparently, didn't know about.  Anyway, its a tale of a pitifully 
small number of surviving planes and green crew improvising to fight the 
battle hardened, vastly numerically superior Japanese.  Great praise for the 
B-17 which usually brought its crew back but often so full of holes that the 
planes never flew again.  Apparently there were a lot of B-17's in the 
pipeline to the South Pacific, so reinforcements poured in steadily, 
initially.  Unfortunately, there were not enough to stem the tide and the 
Japanese steadily drove them from base to base till they were forced to fly 
ineffective 12 hour missions out of Australia.

It didn't take the Japanese long to discover the early model B-17's weakness 
to a frontal assault, BTW.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lro] Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content)
>Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:25:09 -0700
>
>
>From: "Andrew H. Litkowiak" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [lro] B-17 and B-29 (no LR content, sorry)
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> >A substantial part of the B-17's notoriety came from its ability to
>absorb punishment and still return its crews to base.... The B-17 may be an
>old design (early-mid 1930's, I believe), but the US had no sturdier
>airframe in combat during WWII.
>
>The B-29's construction was, overall, far more robust than the B-17s.  The
>primary thing that gave the B-17 its "always gets home" reputation (not
>really deserved if you look at the numbers- a large proportion of them
>didn't get home), was the construction of its wing.  Unlike later bombers
>during the war, the Model 299 used the same wing construction that Boeing
>had pioneered in their initial all-metal monoplanes.  These were the
>Monomail and the Model 247 airliner.  Instead of having the now-tradtional
>leading and trailing spars with ribs in between with the skin riveted to
>the spars and ribs, the early Boeing metal planes used a series of
>bridge-truss components that gave shape and rigidity to the wing.  The
>downside is that this wing structure was complicated to build and rather
>heavy.  This limited range and altitude.  The upside in wartime was that
>because there were so many components making up the wing's frame, shooting
>holes in some of them didn't necessarily compromise the wing's strength.
>So damage that might bring down another airplane was tolerated by the B-17.
>This was a happy accident, by the way.  Boeing didn't use this structure
>with an idea toward battle-damage survival, it was simply the best wing
>construction technique they knew of at the time.  The Model 299 was
>designed in the mid-1930s, before WWII was even an issue (for the US,
>anyway).
>
>For a current and rather depressing analogy, a more modern wing structure
>is a bit like the World Trade Center towers.  The strength is in a
>relatively few number of components, the outer steel columns in the case of
>the WTC.   The B-17 wing was more like the Empire State Building and other
>skyscrapers of that era, which have very complex interior frames made up of
>many interlocking, heavy, steel girders.  While speculation is not worth
>the electrons it's printed with, it's highly possible a building like the
>Empire State could have taken a 767 hit (a B-25 did hit it accidentally
>just after the war) and not collapsed, simply because there are so many
>structural components holding it up.  The WTC on the other hand, had
>nothing going for it strength-wise other than the outer shell.  There was
>no supporting structure inside the outer walls, other than the transverse
>trusses that supported each acre-size floor.  So when the thin outer
>"shell" was compromised initially by impact and then by heat, there was
>nothing left to hold up the weight above the damaged section, and the whole
>thing collapsed down on itself.
>
>So the B-17, with its complex, heavy, and redundant wing structure, could
>take some pretty dramatic hits, but there was still enough of that complex
>bridge struture left to hold things together for awhile.  Most B-17s were
>lost to fire and/or control loss rather than losing major pieces of
>structure.
>
>The big problem with the B-24 is that for whatever reason (I don't know
>much about their construction) they tended to explode when hit.  They also
>had a totally different kind of wing than the B-17.  It was long, narrow,
>and had a high lift-over drag ratio.  What this means in lay terms is that
>aerodynamically, it had a very critical airfoil.  Not very forgiving, in
>other words.  The B-17, in contrast, had a very basic airfoil and as such
>was quite forgiving aerodynamically.  The B-24 also utilized (I believe)
>the spars-and-ribs structure that is common today.  So it did't take much
>to do major damage, and aerodynamically, it didn't take much damage before
>the wing's ability to fly was compromised.
>
>The B-29 also used a spars-and-ribs design, but by then Boeing had learned
>a lot, and the wing was much stronger and more damage resistant than one
>might think.
>
>I suppose you could make the same B-17/B-24 analogy with the Land Rover.
>Like the B-17, the Series is made up of a lot of interlocking parts, with a
>fairly complex frame structure.  In contrast you have the more modern
>monocoque, or at best "semi-frame" construction of a number of SUVs on the
>market.  This makes for a lighter vehicle, which means better fuel economy
>(relatively speaking), better acceleration, better handling, and so forth.
>On the other hand, I wonder how today's generaton of monocoque SUVs would
>hold up under hard use over time as compared to the Series Land Rover?
>
>
>________________________
>C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>    Seattle, WA
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

--__--__--

Message: 23
From: "Bill Fishel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] List Memory
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:36:11 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Kevin
Are you sure that wasn't the one in/near Menlo, Georgia?
If you find one in Kentucky let me know.
Bill Fishel 

----------
> From: Kevin and Crew <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [lro] List Memory
> Date: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> 
> 
> Greetings and Happy New Year
> 
> I have been digging through my archives trying to find a reference to a Land
> Rover event in Kentucky (?) last spring.
> I can't find it.  Can anyone help?
> I seem to remember that the event had a wee bit o competition happening as
> well.  Week long if I recall correctly.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kevin Willey
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 24
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: B-17 and B-29 (some LR content)
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 05:01:19 +0000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>being a member of an aircrew was a good way to be sure >your life
insurance
>paid off.  Only the submarine service took more >casualties, percentage
wise,
>than the 8th, believe it was the 8th, Air Force in >England.

I could be wrong but I believe that percentage wise, the merchant marines
running supply convoys were actually the hardest hit.

Niall Forbes 66 IIa 88SW - The Red Zit Dartmouth, Nova Scotia The Nova
Scotian Rover - http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/forbes/intro.htm "See the
happy moron, He doesn't give a damn. I wish I were a moron. My God!
Perhaps I am!" --author unknown

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here

--__--__--

Message: 25
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Bead unseating???
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:19:15 -1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Used the High Lift with the front of the 109 as leverage.  Usually can 
unseat the bead on the first try.  Have to be sure the High Lift base plate 
slides all the way up against the wheel.  I jack the High lift up till it 
begins deforming the tire's side wall and then pounded the base plate under 
the lip of the tire and hard up against the wheel.  Even though these tires 
have been on the wheels for over 5 years, breaking the bead was not a 
problem.

I have also used a short 2x4. Drove the truck up on the tire with the end of 
the 2x4 butted up against the wheel rim to give a hard edge to force the 
bead downwards.  Works but very cumbersome for a one man operation as its 
hard to keep the 2x4 in position.
Actually works best if you jack up the truck, put the tire and board under 
the wheel and lower the truck onto the wheel.

I have several sets of 15" wheels that I'll be using four with 33/9.50/15 
BFG MT's.  These wheels have been mated to the tires for eternity.  Have 
been working on breaking the bead on one.  Its the  only one I've tried but 
I've been at it, off and on, for going on six months.  Tried the 2x4 method 
all the way around the rim with 'no joy'.  Even left the truck sitting on 
the tire for months at a time.  Have been trying the High Lift lately but am 
destroying the side wall of the tire.  Can just see the wheel with only the 
ragged remains of the tire side wall left but the bead still firmly attached 
to the rim.

I tried beating on the tire with a sledge hammer while the high lift applied 
pressure.  All I can say is, swinging a sledge hammer at a rubber tire gives 
new meaning to the 'equal and opposite reaction' law of physics.  Don't try 
it unless your medical insurance is paid up and you want time off from work. 
  No, I didn't hurt myself but it was close, both for myself and the 88.

The only thing that I can think of doing is cutting the tire off at the bead 
with a sawzall and then carefully sawing through the bead.  Anyone have a 
better idea??????

>From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
>>BTW Peter,
>how did you break down the bead before using the tire spoon?
>I have always found this to be the hardest part of doing them by hand.
>Takes me a couple of tries but I can do it now with the hi-lift.  Was
>thinking of making a new bottom plate for the H-L with a 16" diameter half
>moon in it.
>
>Pete
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* Team.Net hosted courtesy of Amaranth Networks, Inc. http://Amaranth.com/ *
* Powered by SUN(r). The network is the computer.(tm) *
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

End of LRO Digest