Operation Market Garden (The lorry thread)

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by airborne medic, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    My knowledge is restricted but "all" the wartime WD motorcycles were specified to use HD oil. In the case of Nortons, HD50 - the number will certainly indicate a monograde of that viscosity. It was a mineral oil and probably a pretty basic spec.

    I don't know what the 'HD' stood for but post-war, they changed to 'OMD' specifications which I believe stands for 'Oil, Mineral, Detergent'
     
  2. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

  3. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

  4. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Ooooo a minor bingo!

    http://www.martynlnutland.com/uploads/1/1/8/5/11850066/austintimes_june_2005.pdf

    A decent article on the K5; it doesn't answer any questions - but it does contain THIS!



    ...and technical information on the K2 is FAR more widely available!!!
     
  5. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Vanderveen quotes 85 BHP 3.99 litre for the 4x4s (K5 and K5 Portee, which had been in service for some years prior to 1944). However, he gives the K2 as a 3.46 litre 60 BHP unit and the K6 as a 3.99 litre but only producing 72 BHP.

    So broadly the same engine but the 4x4s had a more powerful version.

    Someone's figures are not quite right.
     
  6. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Could depend on whether it's crank- or rear wheel-measured ;) The engine might be the same...but the gearbox/transfer box internals might be different...
     
  7. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Phylo, I see that you've been 'fishing' for clues on HMVF. I did scour what literature I have for info re. oil specs. Unfortunately, the 'Manual of Driving and Maintenance for Mechanical vehicles (Wheeled) 1937' included no information whatsoever on oil grades.

    My Norton literature was a little more promising but Nortons supplied the War Office with little-altered versions of the pre-war civilian manuals and the oil information was on a separate chart which is frequently missing.

    I did find that in 1937, Nortons used M265 in the engine and M220 in the chaincase and gearbox. By 1939 this had changed to M220 for all of these areas and this continued into 1940. In an RASC booklet dated October 1943 and the REME inspired Norton M&I manual which must date from around the same time both list 50 HD for engine and gearbox.

    This probably doesn't help much but suggests that at some point between 1940 and 1943, there was a change of clasification from the 'M' series to 'HD'

    I (and most others) generally use a light detergent 40 monograde.

    *I've found a reference to 'M' classification oils in an account from an NZ Petrol Company dated October 1942 so the general issue of 'HD' oil must have occurred between October 1942 and October 1943

    http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz//tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Petr-c13.html
     
  8. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Oooooooo thanks for that Rich!

    There's been some replies to my HMVF thread...and you'll see that I've asked the guys with manuals to confirm the publication dates for me ;) The three guys with them who replied all seem to have manuals dating from 1943/44...even for the "earlier" K2! So of course 1943/44 manuals for the K2 would specify HD 30 rather than anything earlier...

    What I'm hoping for is for someone to show up with an early K2 manual of course...1939-42....

    EDIT - the "M" class oils do indeed seem to be a rather old classification...! http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?uri=C1806627
     
  9. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    By the way, Tom...

    You're not going round boring complete strangers, are you???

    Twas not I, much too shy to talk about my research, it does sound interesting though!

    Regards

    Tom
     
  10. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Chaps,
    As this is sounding a bit like the fuels discussion, I will have a look in the REME Staff History later to see what it says about lubricants. Given the timing of the change, I expect it will have something to do with standardisation with the Yanks, i.e. we change everything to suit them...
     
  11. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Here we go:
     

    Attached Files:

    dbf likes this.
  12. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Oooooh! That does indeed put the change...yes, to suit the Yanks!...in the second half of 1942 - straight mineral oils before - and detergent-laced oils later.

    And while it was thought that there would indeed be "flushing" issues, nothing came of it....UNTIL as we now know Austin had to make specification/design changes to their piston rings because of it!
     
  13. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Okaaaay - time to copy over some posts I've put up on AHF in the last two days, as I think I've at last got to the bottom of all this; sorry if it gets technical in places!

    First of all I asked Tom to post up the September 1944 "test report" from a 21 AG REME Advanced Workshop about some experiemntal remedial work they had tried on a K5....and it confirmed a "Eureka!" moment I'd just had. Here it is...

    ...and here was my several replies after seeing that report at last!
     
  14. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Obviously they wanted to check the efficacy of various possible replacement strategies depending on the results of the test; it's a pity they didn't specify WHAT cylinders each type of valve repair/replacement was fitted to....


    HOWEVER - what I'm seeing here, now....I should have asked before, right at the start of the thread when you first found this [​IMG] ...is signs of ALL THREE of the problems we've been discussing! [​IMG]

    Unfortunately, the one thing I HOPED to see from the account was missing - quite literally the colour of the smoke the engine was undoubltedly puffing out by then! Blue smoke= valves and guides, white smoke = rings! As sadly THAT section doesn't specify where the oil was coming from...above or below! [​IMG]

    But THIS is the most interesting section...

    THIS - but the exhaust valve heads were distorted in all cases, and there were signs of pitting. One of the built-up valves was showing definite signs of leakage - is valves burning [​IMG] That's the octane rating vs. ignition timing issue...

    THIS - There was excessive oil present on the guides of Nos. 3 and 4 valves - is a high wear issue I.E. the engine oil was dirty/carbonised/graphited up...I.E. the high-detergent oil was carrying blow-by on the rings around the engine, causing wear at the valve guides.

    There's the smoking gun all right - but it's more like "Murder On The Orient Express", there are signs of several culprits ALL working hand-in hand [​IMG]

    Now...

    There's one more VERY interesting sentence in that report [​IMG] It's THIS...

    The 1,400 "wading" Austin K5s didn't have "standard" pistons and rings fitted! To be exact - rigns of THIS specification...

    ...and that was the same spec in 1943 as in 1945! So those details didn't change...

    But as we know from Tom's work early in the thread - at the very least the material used did!

    But it ALSO looks like the "design" of the rings themselves changed - not only have we that comment from above..."new and interchangeable piston rings of improved material and design should be incorporated into production now"...but we have THIS from my HMVF thread -

    ...from - the "Austin Service Journal - War Department Issue" [​IMG] !!!

    So - THIS "Ring gap ·008/·012-in. Groove widths: Compression ·1265/·1270-in. Oil Control ·1577/·1582-ins. Groove clearance, ·002-in. to ·0025-in" remained the same, but other design aspects of the rigns themselves were changed as well as the material they were made from.

    ***But what was it about the "wading" K5's engines that MADE these changes necessary to stop carbon "blowback" past the rings heavily contaminating the HD30 oil, that in turn was being circulated around the engine and (possibly) causing the high wear visible on valve guides???***

    It was THIS...
     
  15. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Courtesy of Richard Farrant on HMVF


    It's not the oil scraper/oil control ring that REMOVES oil from the cylinder walls as a piston goes up and down; it's the edge of the piston skirt [​IMG] The "oil control ring" makes sure a certain metered amount REMAINS on the bore!

    The clearance between the piston skirt and the cylinder wall was increased I.E. it was a sloppier fit from the factory - to allow for overheating and a greater expansion of working parts due to the "wading" regime on the K5's engines making them run hotter than normal [​IMG] In layman's terms - they arrived NEW from the factory with a what we would interpret/regard as a degree of wear already present! Within a short time, the increased "sealing" load put upon the "standard" rings would result in premature wear...and increasing carbon "bow-back"...contaminating/absorbed by the high-detergent oil, leading to the high wear rate on the valve guides...in turn leading to oil in the combustion mixture and in turn the combustion chamber I.E. "the heavy deposit of carbonised oil and the sparking plugs were heavily oiled".

    Richard Farrant had one more thing to note that applies to this scenario... the -


    So...the new rings sealed better (due to the extra pressure - I'm guessing the change in material was to make the increased-pressure rings last longer...)...AND were specifically designed to cope with HD30 oil and its effects/attributes. And it's these modified rings - particularly I would assume the oil control ring? - that had to be fitted the correct way up as indicated by the "HD30" mark. That must therefore have been one of the "design" changes to the modified rings - whatever was changed about their design, they became "single faced", only useable/fitable one way round.

    And finally...
     
  16. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    ....THIS; Tom...


    ...this reads to be a test of a number of possible workrounds that REME in Normandy came up with to deal with the valve/top end aspects of the issue.

    But it was a failure [​IMG] It looks as if none of the kludges held up to the rigours of the test...and they had tested them in the face of the worst deeds of the culprit -"this vehicle had been fitted with new standard pistons and rings". And the piston/ring problem beat the best efforts of REME with what they had at their disposal in France [​IMG]

    So...the affected vehicles REMAINED "at present frozen in V.R.Ds" until the end of the testing period on "..3.12.44..." - when "new and interchangeable piston rings of improved material and design should be incorporated into production now, and fitted to the 3,000 vehicles at present frozen in V.R.Ds".

    The "test period" itself had lasted from some time before the 8th of November 1944...


    ....to the 3rd of December 1944.

    And THAT was the official end of the Austin K5 problem in Normandy, as far as the Director of Mechanical Engineering at the War Office was concerned...having found a cure that involved "new and interchangeable piston rings of improved material and design".

    Less blowby to contaminate the HD30 oil...which could therefore carry on being used; as could the "standard" (standard that is for the "assault" K5s) increased-clearance "wading" pistons. No contaminated, heavily-graphited "dirty" oil circulating around the engine creating high wear rates in the top end. No coking up of the valves or the combustion chamber, no oiled-up plugs.

    And just to square the circle on the above - I doubt there is much coincidence to the fact that there were 1,400 Austin K5s in "wading" kit provided for issue before the start of June '44 to assault GT companies for D-Day according to other details that Tom found....and 1,400 Austin K5s in Normandy affected by problems of faulty parts and accelerated wear three months later; some with as little as 2,000 miles on "new" engines.

    It's also worth noting that Tom had also discovered and recorded on the lorry thread on ww2talk that 1,400 K5s were pulled and prepared for issue to the assault companies in May '44...by Austins themselves...I wonder if THIS was when the increased-clearance "wading" pistons were fitted??? [​IMG]

    Finally - the issue of the change to MT 80. We know from various locations and histories that this change on the eve of OVERLORD did cause problems...and that litany of valve problems on the REME "test" K5 does mention two symptoms of overheating/poor cooling of the valves - the pitting of the valve faces and the "definite signs of leakage" I.E. the valves not dsealing on their seats. It's a bit "chicken and egg" whether the SECOND of these would be down to the valves burning OR the valves rocking around due to the guide wear [​IMG] ....but pitting on the valve faces would be a sign of overheating/poor cooling all right...

    One of the British Army veterans on ww2talk confirmed that the Austin manual for these engines (in 1946 at least!) DID contain instructions for advancing for retarding the ignition timing to match the fuel used...so as a problem this one was easily dealt with. But it IS interesting that Austins (and I presume the War Office!) thought it essential to fit "wading" pistons with increased piston skirt clearance to deal with extra thermal expansion A MONTH before D-Day! [​IMG]THAT is definitely "last minute" stuff!!!

    So - one set of problems brought on/complemented the other??? Need for increased piston skirt clearance due to overheating in waterproofed engines -> fast bore/ring wear 'cos the new pistons used the old design/grade of rings -> high oil consumption AND carbon blowback contaminating engine oil -> worn valve guides...which are ALSO going to be hit by overheating issues anyway because of the MT 80...

    It's worth noting that from everything I've read, and comments from several members on ww2talk - that while altering the timing on internal combustion engines to prevent pre-detonation etc. with higher-octane fuels is one action that's necessary...it doesn't ACTUALLY make the engine run any cooler! THAT is a problem that an engine still has to cope with....or in the case of the K5, exhibit overheating valve issues as well as worn valve guide issues.

    However, looking at that final closure of the book on the K5 problem as of 3/12/44 by the War Office - I think we have to assume that the overheating issues brought on by MT80 were "officially" thought to be by far the lesser issue involved compared to the damage done by the fast-wearing piston/rings issue. Once THAT was addressed, the K5s could handle a little overheating...??? [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]




    (I put that last caveat in there, because the K5 doesn't seem to have had that long a career in the British Army after the war, it seems to have vanished out of khaki toot sweet! The K6, with the same engine but lower compression and lower power output had a MUCH longer Cold War career in many and various uses and is still favoured by restorers today...maybe it ran cooler? [​IMG][​IMG] )
     
  17. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Part of the problem has been us all contributing to a number of threads at once; It was only on checking today that I noticed there was no mention on here of Wellworthy's "consulative" role in developing the new piston ring spec for Austin's, for example [​IMG] THAT was something you and I turned up on ww2talk...

    And the importance of the D.M.E. meeting and the other, October meeting accounts didn't fully hit home until I put everything in date order and the relevance of the "test period" for the new rings, and its coming to an end early in December, became obvious...

    In effect we really DID see the resolution of the problem first! But because of how the rest appeared in dribs and drabs, and some of the HMVF-supplied details turned up very "late in the day", so to speak...which NEITHER of us was ever going to find out on our own!...the "big picture" was like one of those objectionable jigsaw puzzles where you MAY indeed have the picture on the box....but ALL the "edge bits" are the same colour! [​IMG]

    It took a lot of cutting and pasting into a Wordpad document over an evening to realise we really DID have an end-to-end account!

    In the meantime - how is this relevant to Rich's concerns? (not YOU, Rich - a Rich on AHF!!!) Well -

    It reveals that everything recorded in the 21st AG Admin History from the middle of September to the middle of December...good and bad...occured with up to "3,000 vehicles frozen in V.R.Ds"!!!

    Looking again at all the above - it struck me that your post on ww2talk about one GT company having its faulty K5s replaced by Bedford OYs didn't appear here; thus we DO have proof that the shortfall created by the K5s was being made good from the reserve.

    Something else I've noticed in the last few hours - somewhere between the middle of September and the 3/12/44 - the problem actually GREW from 1,400 K5s to 3,000 in V.R.Ds!

    I think we've missed....or just not been looking!...that Austin K5s were STILL coming out of the factory in the problem spec when the issues arose at the end of the summer! In other words - as well as the 1,400 "wading" K5s specifically converted in May, the WO D.M.E. meeting account confirms that NEW K5s on the production lines would have to get the new-spec piston rings I.E. whatever number of them was built new THROUGH the summer was similarly affected!

    This would go back a few months to the brief discussion on here you and I had regarding "new" B vehicles coming across by their hundreds each week and into the reserve, if you remember; I would guess that Austin K5s, complete with problem-spec piston rings, were streaming across the Channel along with every other make of truck!

    And this would possibly be where the "extra" 1,600 Austins "frozen in V.R.Ds." come from [​IMG] We don't have it specified by name, but as "new" vehicles were being taken out of the reserve and pressed into service, K5s must have CONTINUED going U/S for a time! I wonder - did the D.M.E. ever order the issuing of K5s halted until the problem was dientified/resolution found...?

    The above comment has reminded me - putting everything in "time" order has allowed me to identify a few things we don't have yet - though they're not "needed", really. Here's an example...


    We have no more detail on THOSE tests; who's idea they were, when it was decided on - was it another REME test in the field, or an Austin's project? It doesn't really matter, we know the results - but it provides a hint of what's been missing from the visible papertrail for decades [​IMG] All that previous discussion. The stuff that should...should have been...somewhere but seems lost to posterity now.

    As for this...



    ...similarly it shows what else must be missing now from the records/diaries/files at Kew now if a problem major enough to force REME into THAT sort of a test had indeed manifested itself. We should be seeing more sign of the problem than we are; again, it doesn't matter now, but it shows how patchy the files really are [​IMG]
     
  18. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

  19. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    I recently came across a small group of photos on an on-line auction site and one was captioned:-

    'Two Soldiers, RE Fixing Truck...Austin K5'

    ...which of course attracted my attention...Especially when the reverse stated:-

    'Austin "K5" - Always Breaking down!! 1945'

    [​IMG]


    The trouble is that the vehicle they're working on isn't an Austin at all but a Foden DG6/12. It looks to be one of the RE Darkroom bodied versions.

    No wonder they gave trouble if the fitters didn't know what they were working on !


    [​IMG]
     
    Drew5233 likes this.
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Great stuff, Rich: and sort of informative about any line of historical enquiry.
    Lots of fog out there.
     

Share This Page