Ford Blitz Restoration/Rebuild

[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.

[Private_collector]

f60tchassis.jpg
Is this what it should look like?

I don't like the 'bobbed' look.

Not on CMPs, hair......or even a cat!

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Attachment 49776
Is this what it should look like?

I don't like the 'bobbed' look.

Not on CMPs, hair......or even a cat!

Yes, like a standard CMP with the fishplates.

Here's the cover of the handbook:

[Private_collector]

f60tchassis.jpg
With regards to the chassis drawing above. The crossmember that sits across the front most rear spring hanger, is it an optical illusion, or is it actually crooked? As in left side looks further back than right side. May be that angled line right near it making it look that way!?!?!?

Actually, the whole rear axle looks crooked too

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Attachment 49777
With regards to the chassis drawing above. The crossmember that sits across the front most rear spring hanger, is it an optical illusion, or is it actually crooked? As in left side looks further back than right side. May be that angled line right near it making it look that way!?!?!?

Actually, the whole rear axle looks crooked too

I think it's an optical illusion. Do you have the handbook?

[Zbyszko Kruszona]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Yes, like a standard CMP with the fishplates.

Here's the cover of the handbook:

Hi,
I finish a project related to Ford F60T. I have a problem with attachment to the trailer. I do not have any drawings or pictures that show it would be mount. I ask you for help. Maybe in this book are some drawings.
By the way I do not have the original tanks. Can You tell me the something about dimensions? Maybe it is in this book ...
Best Regards
Zbyszko
P.S. It,s my Ford

[Private_collector]

These are the only photos I have, but you would need to have the turntable confirmed as correct / original. Never seen one in real life.
photo 008-resized-960.jpg photo 007-resized-960.jpg photo 004-resized-960.jpg

photo 003-resized-960.jpg photo 006-resized-960.jpg

[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

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It's also a little too fat in section, because they've left off the fishplates.

I think I may be wrong here Tony. Looking at the photos again I think it does have fishplates.

Anyway it doesn't matter, because I've just measured up my F60L chassis, and you'll definitely have to make up a new rear crossmember. It has to be quite a bit fatter, just like the one in the photos.

[Private_collector]

Tony, I have read through your post several times now and it has FINALLY sunk in I'm a bit worried now about the shortening of my chassis. Do I understand that the two rails narrow together as they travel back to rear portion? If so, I expect that may cause problems with either use of a correct cross member or a manufactured piece. I realise it would be essential to get it right, or issues would arise with rear springs width apart and where they must attach to the rear axle.

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

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!

I agree with your comment regarding the chassis drawing. The rear spring hangers are crooked aren't they! That's an interesting oversight on the artists part. I have a REAL thing for symetry and that sort of thing gives the the proverbials. Things always annoy me if not square and true. Of course, sometimes that issue is unavoidable.......but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Years ago when I was a spraypainter and working with a smash repair and restoration shop, I bought a Ford Fairlane, and after driving it for several days I remarked to one a panel beater friend that I felt the front of the vehicle was not 'square' when veiwing the guards and bonnet against the windscreen base. He took a look and declared it was fine. I was not convinced, and as a result of my whinging over next couple of weeks, he felt he had to put the car onto a measuring machine they used to chassis repair. When the car was attached correctly and measured in a number of locations, it became aparent that the front WAS definately sitting higher on one side..........by 3mm. I never let him forget that I was right. As I said, I have a thing for symetry. Not much else though.

Years later, and in another work envioronment, one bastard I worked with went so far as taping a 50c piece behind one corner of a large picture that hung in my office. He knew that picture would just about drive me insane with failing to straighten it. Every time I straightened the picture, it would move within minutes. I did this for several hours, with all the associated swearing that naturally follows such frustration. It was towards the end of the day, when I took the picture off the wall (adding blu-tack to hold in place) that I found the coin. Naturally I removed it.........and pocketed it, of course Well you didn't think I would give the coin back surely?

Anyhow, moving on. Visited the upholsterer this afternoon. Door curtains will be ready for me to take tomorrow afternoon. They were half finished when I was there, and they look REALLY good. I have asked the guys to keep the canvas color on file, because I will be wanting mud flaps, bag for storing curtains & possibly other stuff in coming months.

P.S: Tony, P.M sent. Much appreciated

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Tony, I have read through your post several times now and it has FINALLY sunk in I'm a bit worried now about the shortening of my chassis. Do I understand that the two rails narrow together as they travel back to rear portion?

No, they're perfectly parallel all the way. When I spoke of "tapering" I was referring to the profile of the chassis rail itself, not the distance between the two chassis rails. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

You'll have no trouble shortening the chassis, it's just that you'll have to make up a new rear crossmember. It has to be fatter than the original one, so it will fit snugly inside the chassis rail. By that I mean fit vertically - ie. inside the chassis rail not between the chassis rails. You're inserting the crossmember into the channel of the chassis rail, and the end of your chopped chassis rail is wider than the end of a full length chassis rail. The channel is wider, so you need a fatter crossmember to fill it.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense than my previous post. It's all about the profile of a blitz chassis rail, which tapers from the midsection towards the rear section. Or as Anne Elk explained on the Monty Python show: "All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end."

[Tony Wheeler]

Hi Tony,
Your large fishplates were posted today. Unfortunately I don't have the little brackets for the top. Evidently they didn't come with the pintle hook assy I bought. I must have been imagining them.

However it looks like you have a pair on your F15 chassis, judging by pic 1 below. You could pinch those ones, although it would probably be less work to copy them and leave that crossmember undisturbed.

You'll note on your F15 chassis that the rivets holding the rear spring hangers also hold the little top brackets in place. It's the same on all CMPs, even though the F15 springhanger itself is different from 4x4 models. This will give you the correct position for your rear crossmember.

Depending where the previous owner drilled the spring hanger holes, you may not have enough chassis rail sticking out past the rear crossmember. Correct length is 13 1/2 inches from the rear edge of the spring hanger to the tip of the chassis rail (measured at the lower edge of the rail).

This is more than just a cosmetic consideration - if you ever want to fit a pintle hook you'll need enough chassis rail sticking out (see pic 2). You can get by with as little as 7 inches (no wonder my girlfriend left me ) if you're prepared to butt the pintle hook mount hard up against the rear spring hanger. Personally I'd prefer to drill new spring hanger holes to get the full 13 1/2 inches, for the sake of appearance. I imagine your chassis repair mob could do a good job, and maybe even rivet everything instead of using bolts.

Good luck with it all Tony, I look forward to seeing the result.

Cheers

[Tony Wheeler]

Hi again Tony,
It has just occurred to me that this pic demonstrates clearly why you'll need a fatter rear crossmember. Imagine sliding this F15 rear crossmember forward inside the chassis rails, to a point underneath the tyre somewhere. As you can see it would be very sloppy inside the chassis rail channel, because it's much wider there, due to the taper.

This is exactly what you are doing by shortening your F60L chassis by a massive 43". Remember that the rearmost 7 foot or so of a blitz chassis is identical on all models, so in looking at this pic, you are looking at an F60L chassis.

I realize it's difficult for you to visualize on your chassis, because the rear section is no longer there. Hopefully this pic helps.

Cheers

[Private_collector]

Firstly, Tony, NOW I get what you meant, and I am very relieved that I don't have to worry about chassis width. The length is enough of a headache as it is. I have read you PM, and thankyou!

This afternoon I got the canvas side curtains from the upholsterer. I am glad they are back so I don't need to write 'upholsterer' for much longer. I often spell it wrong and have to go back to fix up.
Side curtains 1.jpg Side curtains 2.jpg Side curtains 3.jpg Side curtains 4.jpg Side curtains 5.jpg
Anyhoo, I am pleased with the finished product overall. My only criticism (that word's as bad as upholsterer ) is that I wish I had asked for a green piping around the access flaps. The originals did have black too, but it seems the black stands out far more when it's new. Maybe I could dull it down with a little brown boot polish? Probably won't do that because I am likely to get some on the canvas.

For those who are overly observant (yes, you Keith! ), there is one fastener missing on each side of the windscreen support panel. I have two from the upholsterer (oh...that bloody word), but have not put them on yet.

The slight warp of the canvas in front of door won't be as bad once the window support is moved back a little when the roof is to be attached. I measured it, to find it is too far forward, but without the roof to bring it to correct position, I will leave it where it is for now. If the canvas fits alright now, it should fit a bit better with roof on.

The magnetic catches for the access flaps work as good as I had hoped. You wouldn't want to have used 'regular' magnets though, they wouldn't have been strong enough. I believe the little metal piece I welded to the frame where the magents are to stick to, caused a nightmare for the guys (notice I didn't use the word upholsterer......oh crap!) to sew around and they had to make a bit of a detour around this with one of the stitch runs. That's my fault entirely, and I will have to live with the result.

[Private_collector]

This afternoon I received the bridge loading plate I had ordered from Axholme Signs in U.K. See: http://www.axholmesigns.co.uk/
Bridge Loading Plate 1.jpg
I had ordered a bridge plate, number for same and a reusable stencil for the fuel tanks saying "Caution, Do not overfill, Allow for expansion". The CMPs may or may not have had such a caution, but I will be greatful of the reminder with each filling of fuel. Lets face it, being a V8, it will happen often enough. Axholmes even sent an extra copy of the number sticker for bridge plate, as a spare. My reputation must have preceeded me!

The bridge plate is NOS and nearly perfect condition, with only a couple of very small areas of paint chipped around the edges. I will see if I can find a flat yellow paint tomorrow at the paint shop, to touch these areas up.

Care to place bets on my chances? Line marker yellow may be suitable. It's only for the damaged bits after all.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense than my previous post. It's all about the profile of a blitz chassis rail, which tapers from the midsection towards the rear section.

This was discussed in a thread on a chopped Ford for sale in Belgium:

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Alex, AFAIK both the long and short chassis had tapered rear ends - see attached pics from Keith's web page www.oldcmp.net/Lloyd_Cab12_FGT_1.html

Is seems the Belgian one is indeed a shortened F60L, the chassis being lobbed before the point where the side rails taper upwards.

[Phil Waterman]

Hi Tony

I'll be reinstalling the windscreens on my HUP this week so I'll have a chance to see what could be causing the problem. If my memory is correct the windows should swing down so that the outer "T" gasket is nicely seated and the frame is flush with the outside frame.

Did you have the two hinge sides apart at the same time? My thinking is that if the inner or outer parts got exchanged that could be causing a problem as then might not be seating well together.

Cheers Phil

[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.