Another (suspected) F22 found

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Thanks very much Hanno and Rick. I've just emailed the seller requesting the issues you suggested Hanno. Don't worry about scanning the articles until I hear back from him.

Tony,

At that price you you might as well consider buying ALL W&T's with CMP articles (click to follow link).

Rick, thanks for the heads up.

Hanno

[Tony Wheeler]

Good idea Hanno, will do! Thanks again, I'll let you know how I go.

[Lauren Child]

Bart took an interest in Dolly and came for a look (before my ownership) after seeing Maurice Doncker's one (Issue 43). He's signed one of the manuals that came with her. His investigation is probably where the mention in the vehicle directory comes from. I wish we knew more of what he found.

Incidentally you can see the carrier on Hanno's page in the photo. It's got a H50 box in it which is pretty well spot on for size (although there's more depth available). An H50 (2x303 ammo boxes) case doesn't make a whole lot of sense to carry there though, so it's probably meant fir something else. It's been a mystery to everyone who's owned her.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Lauren Child

Incidentally you can see the carrier on Hanno's page in the photo. It's got a H50 box in it which is pretty well spot on for size (although there's more depth available). An H50 (2x303 ammo boxes) case doesn't make a whole lot of sense to carry there though, so it's probably meant fir something else. It's been a mystery to everyone who's owned her.

The one fitted to the lower left hand corner of the cargo body, you mean?



Interesting, but I have no clue either. Could it have come from a British truck?

H.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

So, what do we have here?



Picture was taken in South Sumatra, Indonesia, somewhere during 1946-1948.

This CMP truck is in use with Dutch troops, who inherited a lot of vehicles from the British Indian Army units which first occupied Indonesia in 1945.

http://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/me...1-13966e870614

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

So, what do we have here?

Hi Hanno,
As per my Facebook post the CMP type pictured is C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water. Here’s my general take on this type with known images.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

As per my Facebook post the CMP type pictured is C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water. Here’s my general take on this type with known images.

Hello Tony,

Yes, we need to do some more research on Ford's 1945 C291Q models. I think we should go back and study:

1) available source documentation to get a clear listing of contracts and corresponding vehicle configurations;

2) a field survey of known surviving examples;

3) "counting heads" or the ongoing study of period photographs (as you have done above).

Due to the limited nature of available reference sources, there is a risk of "educated guesswork". If we have made any assumptions, we should make note of them.

In this case it, is vital to state that the designation "1945 C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water" you have labelled the above photos with, is your own interpretation of what "C291Q.L-W" stands for.

Thanks,
Hanno

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

In this case it, is vital to state that the designation "1945 C291Q.L-W Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water" you have labelled the above photos with, is your own interpretation of what "C291Q.L-W" stands for.

Hanno the designation “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” was provided by Lauren Child, not me. It appears on the C291Q.L-W contract card reported by Lauren three years ago. Also the late Peter Ford had previously explained the “L” suffix, as quoted on your very own “F22” webpage: “Which brings us to the ".L". Simply stated, this was the end user's way of telling us that the truck was a Lorry version of a C291Q.” Hanno I’m at a loss to understand why you continue to ignore the official Ford designation in favour of Brian Nunn’s false and misleading “F22” designation. Putting it in quotation marks renders it no less false or misleading, especially with constant repetition over nearly two decades via your “F22” webpage. Personally I’m anxious to dissociate myself from Brian’s false and misleading “F22” designation and any promotion of his rebodied vehicle as an originally configured “winchless FAT”. There are laws against falsifying vehicle provenance and promoting it to unsuspecting buyers. Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough, but now that we have Lauren’s contract card information we can no longer plead ignorance. It’s no skin off my nose but I think you’d be wise to update your webpage to reflect this information.

Hanno I've posted this message verbatim on Keith's Facebook page to avoid potential confusion. Cheers, Tony.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hanno the designation “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” was provided by Lauren Child, not me. It appears on the C291Q.L-W contract card reported by Lauren three years ago. Also the late Peter Ford had previously explained the “L” suffix, as quoted on your very own “F22” webpage: “Which brings us to the ".L". Simply stated, this was the end user's way of telling us that the truck was a Lorry version of a C291Q.” Hanno I’m at a loss to understand why you continue to ignore the official Ford designation in favour of Brian Nunn’s false and misleading “F22” designation. Putting it in quotation marks renders it no less false or misleading, especially with constant repetition over nearly two decades via your “F22” webpage. Personally I’m anxious to dissociate myself from Brian’s false and misleading “F22” designation and any promotion of his rebodied vehicle as an originally configured “winchless FAT”. There are laws against falsifying vehicle provenance and promoting it to unsuspecting buyers. Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough, but now that we have Lauren’s contract card information we can no longer plead ignorance. It’s no skin off my nose but I think you’d be wise to update your webpage to reflect this information.

Hanno I've posted this message verbatim on Keith's Facebook page to avoid potential confusion. Cheers, Tony.

Tony,

I was preparing a proper answer to your posting, but I see you have since changed it. Frankly, I am a bit miffed by your demeanour to all concerned and how you address this very important research topic. It is solely because of your attitude that I don't feel I need to discuss this any further with you. I was hoping we could have gone to the bottom and turn the last stone on this subject. Alas. I have removed my postings on FB regarding what you think is a mythical vehicle anyway.

Have a good day.

[Tony Wheeler]

No worries Hanno, I figured this discussion would end in tears. That’s why I’ve avoided the subject for three years. You guys have too much vested interest for frank and fearless discussion. Like I said, no skin off my nose, it’s purely academic for me.

Cheers,
Tony.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Brian’s “F22 winchless FAT” myth may have started innocently enough

It occurred to me I should clarify this point in case my comments are misconstrued.

Brian purchased this vehicle almost 40 years ago as a disused tow truck, so he had no idea of the original configuration. His only clue was the previous owner’s recollection of having bought two trucks at auction many years earlier, one of them a Water Bowser and the other fitted with a steel GS body. Brian guessed it had been the GS bodied truck, and speculated on its purpose: “Well, basically this vehicle is a F15A with a few uprated bits and pieces, to make it a little bit more suited for towing a gun.” Thus was born the “winchless FAT” theory.

In hindsight the far simpler explanation is that Brian purchased the former Water Bowser, designated “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” on the contract card, and the other truck was F15A.

Brian of course had no inkling of the “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water”, so his “winchless FAT” theory seemed reasonable at the time, and we’ve all entertained it over the years. However, now that we have Lauren’s contract card info, it does not take a rocket scientist to join the dots, all the way back to the forgotten Water Bowser. Once joined, everything about this vehicle as found makes sense, including the previously unexplained PTO.

Following excerpt from Brian’s account of the purchase on Hanno’s “F22” webpage:

"I purchased the vehicle back in 1979/80 from a garage in Hampshire, where it had stood unwanted and unloved for about 15 years. The garage owner told me that he had bought two Ford V8 trucks at an auction, one was fitted with a GS steel body, and the other was a Water Bowser. Both bodies were removed by him, and the trucks were fitted out with a Harvey Frost crane and winch fitted to the back for use as a tow truck….The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body”.

Repeat: The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It occurred to me I should clarify this point in case my comments are misconstrued.

Brian purchased this vehicle almost 40 years ago as a disused tow truck, so he had no idea of the original configuration. His only clue was the previous owner’s recollection of having bought two trucks at auction many years earlier, one of them a Water Bowser and the other fitted with a steel GS body. Brian guessed it had been the GS bodied truck, and speculated on its purpose: “Well, basically this vehicle is a F15A with a few uprated bits and pieces, to make it a little bit more suited for towing a gun.” Thus was born the “winchless FAT” theory.

In hindsight the far simpler explanation is that Brian purchased the former Water Bowser, designated “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water” on the contract card, and the other truck was F15A.

Brian of course had no inkling of the “Lorry, 30cwt, 4x4, Water”, so his “winchless FAT” theory seemed reasonable at the time, and we’ve all entertained it over the years. However, now that we have Lauren’s contract card info, it does not take a rocket scientist to join the dots, all the way back to the forgotten Water Bowser. Once joined, everything about this vehicle as found makes sense, including the previously unexplained PTO.

Following excerpt from Brian’s account of the purchase on Hanno’s “F22” webpage:

"I purchased the vehicle back in 1979/80 from a garage in Hampshire, where it had stood unwanted and unloved for about 15 years. The garage owner told me that he had bought two Ford V8 trucks at an auction, one was fitted with a GS steel body, and the other was a Water Bowser. Both bodies were removed by him, and the trucks were fitted out with a Harvey Frost crane and winch fitted to the back for use as a tow truck….The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body”.

Repeat: The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body.

Tony,

Misconstrued is the operative word here. I am no longer going to continue to debate on this matter with you. Others have done so already, or may do so in the future, that is up to them to decide.

1) But I have to stand up for Peter Ford here, as he is no longer with us to defend himself against you twisting and turning his words. I quoted him as follows from a number of emails we exchanged on this subject:

Peter Ford of CMP-INFOEX comments:
"Before looking at the details of Brian's particular vehicle, let's refresh our memories about the model codes:
Ford C291Q: C = Canadian, 2 = 1942 model introduction year, 9 = 95-hp V8 engine, Q = 4-wheel drive. Other than what we've seen in Wheels & Tracks, etc., I find no references to a production C291QL. Ford's own export records do list, in addition to the standard C291Q FAT, a number of C291QH FATs and C291QR RE vehicles being sent to India in 1943, but no C291QLs. I don't know what the H and R types were. I find no references to a factory-produced F22.

The extensive stampings on the chassis tells me that much of its present state is due to a lot of modification in an end-user's shops. Chassis of 1943-44-45 vintage were stamped only with two marks, the model code and the vehicle serial number, the latter usually being found on the outer face of the right rail near the rear end. All the other info would be provided on the data plates. Given what I now know, I'm strongly of the opinion that Brian's truck was a British Army assembly modified for their own purposes. The CK- prefix, I assume, means "complete knockdown" just as SU- stands for (postwar) supplementary production however I have not seen any official explanation to confirm these meanings.

The information shown on the data plate doesn't seem right either. To start with, is it an actual Ford plate or a made-up replacement? I don't have a record of SM-6389 but it seems a bit young for the November 12, 1945 date given as does the serial number. By example, I offer a Ford F60L/WP built to contract SM-6537 on 4 Sept. 1945 which has s/n SU301065 and e/n 5G-11449F. This vehicle had a full set of original data plates, which matched the vehicle, and was seen by me a dozen years ago, that's long before CMP restorers started fabricating their own imitation plates.
Ford issued its serial numbers in the order of production, regardless of the model. This allowed home office to know exactly, and quite simply, what their monthly output was. Brian's truck therefore could not have been produced 64925 units later than one built two months earlier. One must assume that it was assembled in the UK, from parts, on Nov. 12th.

Which brings us to the ".L". Simply stated, this was the end user's way of telling us that the truck was a Lorry version of a C291Q. The F.22 is telling us that this is the WD's model 22 modification of a Ford. I know that this logic is seems all too simple to be true but my gut feeling is that that is the case. If one of you has access to FVE archived records for the late 1940ies, perhaps you'll find some interesting drawings and reports on a Model 22 truck.

It really doesn't contain any new facts, just a few extended thoughts as I see them. Perhaps the logic does make sense and if so, may turn out to be of help."

If one reads carefully, one can see Peter and I were openly discussing the possibilities, and also that Peter both delved into his knowledge of known facts (like the model codes) and his extended thoughts on what “.L” and “F.22” could mean. So it is you, Tony Wheeler, who turned Peter Ford’s extended thoughts on the “.L” suffix being the “Lorry version of a C291Q” into “the official Ford designation”. Peter Ford never said it was any official designation - it was his “gut feeling”. Enough about Peter Ford, may he Rest in Peace.


2) The same holds true for Brian Nunn. He is not on this forum and I am not even sure he is still alive. Therefore I am going to speak up for him too, or at least for his words as printed by me on my webpage 17 years ago. You say “his “winchless FAT” theory seemed reasonable at the time”. I see you toned down from “myth” to “theory”. This I will take as the start of an apology towards Brian.


3) I resent your remark “You guys have too much vested interest for frank and fearless discussion”. In fact it is you who made the “logical interpretation for C291Q.L-W would be "Lorry, 30 cwt, 4x4, Water"” (ref. your quote below), based upon which only you drew the conclusion that Brian’s truck must be a Water Lorry and could not have been anything else.


4) Let me end my posting with this: anyone can have a strong opinion, but once you start vehemently accrediting them to other people, you are crossing a line. Also, your posts are bordering on the just plain rude and offensive and by doing this, you have alienated respected members of this forum at least twice. In the interest of MLU Forum, let me be clear about my warning: if you do this again, you leave me no option but apply the “three strikes you’re out” ruling. So for the record - you have been warned.

PS: I have closed this thread to prevent it to derail any further. Contact me via email if you feel the need to vent your opinion.

Hanno
MLU Administrator

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

At this stage we know of two C291QL types supplied to India in 1945:

C291Q.L-I under SM6389 was for Tractor 4x4 C291Q Less Tyres for India, 1418 vehicles (amended from 2112).
C291Q.L-W under SM6337 was for Tractor 4x4 FA W/Out Winch C291Q for India, 350 vehicles.

Unfortunately this low res image does not permit full identification so I'm unable to include the final suffix. Hence my use of "C291QL" to include both possibilities, plus any others that may have existed. Just like "C291Q" includes all possible variants - C291QR, C291QH, C291QL, etc.

Did we ever decide what the "L" suffix actually denotes? I'm inclined to agree with the late Peter Ford: "a Lorry version of a C291Q." That would imply full cab supplied, as opposed to chassis/cowl supplied to India previously. Of course, that doesn't mean they were all BUILT with full cabs - Indians having a distinct aversion to roofs! However we do have evidence of two Indian built full cab configurations: GS (Indian Pattern timber body) and 200 gallon water tanker.

If the "L" suffix does in fact denote "Lorry", it would logically follow that the additional suffix denotes configuration. That being the case, the logical interpretation for C291Q.L-W would be "Lorry, 30 cwt, 4x4, Water".

Does any of the above make sense? It would be good to arrive at some interpretations for these suffixes, if only as a working hypothesis.