Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

1940 - 1941 BRC, MA, GP, Preproduction Prototypes. Knowledge Base NO EBAY or COMMERCIAL SALES.

Moderator: DavidA

Post Reply
Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Michael Browne » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:19 pm

Hi Fred,
This fresh chance to correctly name the Bantam quarter-tons should not be squandered by using the (in my mind) broader and less honorary term "pilot" to describe the very first "jeep." There can be only one first jeep, and the very first BRC should be awarded that title by properly calling it the "prototype", which unarguably it is. That honor should not be unintentionally diluted by naming it a "pilot" model, a mere trial undertaking prior to full scale production. It was far more than a mere experimental undertaking prior to full scale MB/GPW production; it was the genesis of the jeep.
Yes, this a fresh look at the terms we use to identify the various American Bantam jeeps but in order to be correct then , I believe, we need to use the correct terms. Sure the use of 'pilot' may seem to dilute the importance and significance of the development of the now standardized jeep, it is however the official term used by the people concerned in that period in history. If you look closer and a little further back there were various other "prototype" vehicles invented leading up to the "invitation to bid" and subsequent order for 70 cars from AB.....

BTW I'm still looking for a copy of the original invitation to bid document.... it was reportedly sent to 135 vehicle manufacturers and no copy exists today :shock:
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.


Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:27 pm

Boy…a lot of ground to cover here, and, sorry don't have time to sort through everything, but, a few things…and, of course I always get carried away :~) …

Someone wanted a PFD of the original Rifkin which I can supply ..how would I do that?

Just noting, the Hemfling interview was in the 80s, so, he may have just picked up the restorers lingo himself by then…

Lt. Hogan is my last choice for authoritative reference…he is I think what we would call a "flack" for the QMC , okay, public relations specialist. But his job is to make QMC look as good as possible. Indeed, when the Quartermaster General is doing his best to denigrate the Bantam accomplishments in a gratuitous letter of criticism he lifts one of Hogans' lines right out of one of Hogans journal articles right in the letter without attribution. Guessing the letter was drafted by Hogan, especially given that Gregory wasn't in the position long enough to know what happened in Butler and no one form QMC had ever even been to Butler except Brown the engineer.

Anyway..in both places he is making the claim that the Bantam was "developed" at Holabird which is a bunch of …well, not true by any evidence I am able to find. The QMC, through Bob Brown, did what it was supposed to do, help spec the car in co-operation with the contractor. And yes, there is no doubt that various people in the Army QMC, Infantry what have you, had been thinking about the problem of a small recon car for quite a while…but, the May 23 meeting went by with the question of what to replace the half ton or the motorcycle with " left in abeyance"…Nobody mentioned ANYTHING jeep like at this big review of all vehicles.

The fact is, the QMC had to be dragged to Butler and went only because Bantam's Harry Payne had gone to the Secretary of War himself (Woodring) and Woodring, having been Asst Sec War for procurement for eight yeas prior to being Secretary, knew the QMC inside out. He read them the riot act and told them to get down to Butler and get this car thing going. At that QMC sent only one guy, a civilian contractor (Brown) or, maybe there was an officer who left the first day...with orders to deep six Bantam as soon as possible. However, the overall committee was impressed with Bantam presentation, and Brown was impressed with Crist, so they got to work. Whatever the ideas about the car were, no one came to the meeting (including Payne) with any drawings or history of a previous car…the seminal drawing is made on Fenns' desk by Beasley (Ordnance) drawing up what they had all discussed. That is the "cocktail napkin drawing" and the first thing that could be called a "conception" of the jeep.

After they left, Harold Crist at Bantam was laying out the car and sourcing the essential parts. Brown and Crist and Fenn worked hand in glove getting the specs and drawings together, and Crist was intimately familiar with every aspect of the specs, and made changes to the drawing that Captain Engler had made at Holabird (and which included many obvious elements of the Bantam civilian cars). What Crist could not sell was a realistic horsepower figure for the performance envelope asked for. QMC would not budge. Blame it on the Infantry for insisting on low weight, or the QMC for going along with it (or setting Bantam up (and Infantry) for failure by asking for an impossible to build car)..but it was Bantam's courage in ignoring the specs and going for the performance that made the jeep. Keep in mind the car described in the bid specs IS NOT a jeep because no jeep until the Suzuki LJ10 in 1972 weighed 1275 pounds.

And of course the actual bid PLANS, (not spec drawings, handed in on July 5, but the Probst drawings from which an actual car could be built) were entirely a Bantam product with absolutely NO QMC input. (And by the way they originally included a Hercules Engine 1 ci smaller than the Willys..but the low weight spec forced them to the lighter Continental while Ford and Willys could use heavier engines for some unknown reason). There is no evidence whatsoever that there were ANY QMC personnel in Butler during the build in Butler, so that part which is clearly the most difficult is 100% Bantam.

Anyway, add it all up and weight the value of each element and if you are generous you can give "the Army" 10 or 20% credit of the finished project, so, as far as I am concerned, Hogan can go soak his head saying it is a Holabird project. (Holabird CO Maj Lawes himself says he wishes it had been!) And, frankly Rifkin, also a QMC hagiographer begins his treatise by claiming that the year or was it year and a half long procurement was the most "spectacular" accomplishment of QMC..even after they had the best weapon of the war handed to them on a sliver platter in September of 1940. Indeed, OPM got so tired of them fiddling around they just took the whole thing away from them and put it out to competitive bid. Keep in mind, if it is up to QMC WWII would have featured Ford GPs…

What DOES interest me about Hogan, and is hinted at here with the 1938 date…Was there a 1937 Bantam jeep? In one of his articles he mentions such a project at Bantam…it is easy to over look i and think he is talking about 1940…but no it is 1937. But, this is only 3 years before…so why is there no mention of it at all, or any left over drawings or the car or parts of it or anything..even a picture…when the 1940 events happen. W-O SUREKY would have trotted out any evidence of such a project in the FTC hearing if they had any knowledge of it…If there was qa 1937 Bantam, this one would have been built by Harry Miller..the the worlds 4 wheel drive expert who had raced 4WD at Indianapoplis in 1932... Anyway, Hogan says that no, it wasn't Americas greatest automotive engineer who had anything to do with it..it was all don at Holabird. Right. "We could'a had 'em any day, so the Federales say... :lol:
S

User avatar
DavidA
Equipment Operator, Heavy -2nd Class
Equipment Operator, Heavy -2nd Class
Posts: 6305
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Millbrae, CA
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by DavidA » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:07 pm

Oh. :shock:
David Aro - USN SEABEES '66-'70
1941 WILLYS MB-104354
1942 WILLYS MB-131350

User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:23 am

Michael Browne wrote:Hi Fred, Yes, this a fresh look at the terms we use to identify the various American Bantam jeeps but in order to be correct then , I believe, we need to use the correct terms. Sure the use of 'pilot' may seem to dilute the importance and significance of the development of the now standardized jeep, it is however the official term used by the people concerned in that period in history. If you look closer and a little further back there were various other "prototype" vehicles invented leading up to the "invitation to bid" and subsequent order for 70 cars from AB.....
Hi Michael:

OK, I see your point about tracking the original Army contract language to describe the first Bantam to be delivered for testing and approval before production of the remaining 69 Bantams proceeded under Contract No. W-398-qm-8269 (O.I. #137). So to avoid confusion by creating a new and different name for the very first Bantam car than the name actually used in the contract, I'll go along with BRC Pilot Model instead of BRC Prototype. Since "Pilot Model" was not typed in all capital letters in the Contract, I would not capitalize all its letters today. So I revise my suggestion to the following names for the various Bantam 1/4 ton 4x4 cars:

BRC Pilot Model (or BRC Pilot for those pinched for space)
1940 BRC
1941 BRC

Nevertheless, I think the BRC Pilot Model should still be recognized and referred to in general discussions as the singular (small "p') prototype 1/4 ton 4x4 "jeep". :wink:
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:08 am

Fred…as you say, if we are going to use this as a good point sort things out, you bring up another related issue when you refer to the other "69" cars…As you can see also on the Hempfling list the numbers of the 1940 cars start at 1 and go to 70 1001-1070…I had to use my fingers, but the point is you start with one, not 0000...the Pilot is not included in this list of 70 cars, having been given no production number….So..including the Pilot (or prototype) that would be 71 Bantams.

I like your argument for "prototype" as pilot has always sounded kind of funky to me too…but, weighing the possible confusion with what has already been written versus how many linguists there are out there with an OED, I can see Michaels' point too. Frankly, I like to solve the problem by referring to it as the worlds first jeep! :~)
s

User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:44 am

Polar Roller wrote:Fred…I like your argument for "prototype" as pilot has always sounded kind of funky to me too…but, weighing the possible confusion with what has already been written versus how many linguists there are out there with an OED, I can see Michaels' point too. Frankly, I like to solve the problem by referring to it as the worlds first jeep! :~)

. . . as you say, if we are going to use this as a good point sort things out, you bring up another related issue when you refer to the other "69" cars…As you can see also on the Hempfling list the numbers of the 1940 cars start at 1 and go to 70 1001-1070…I had to use my fingers, but the point is you start with one, not 0000...the Pilot is not included in this list of 70 cars, having been given no production number….So..including the Pilot (or prototype) that would be 71 Bantams. s
Hi Bill:

Yeah, I'm kind of OED myself so understand the argument for following the Contract term exactly, without lifting our eyes up from the page, hence BRC Pilot Model.

As for the other "69" Bantams, I arrived at that number from the Contract itself, which after requiring the Pilot Model to be delivered on September 20, 1940 (later amended somehow to Sept 23, 1940 ??), continues to address the other 61 two wheel drive cars mentioned under item 1.a. and the last 8 four-wheel-steer cars under item 1.b. (61+ 8 = 69) as follows:

As set forth in your bid you agree to complete deliveries as follows: Pilot Model within forty-nine (49) days, that is on or before September 20, 1940; Sixty-one (61) vehicles under Item 1.a. to be delivered twenty-six (26) days after delivery and approval of Pilot Model; an additional two (2) weeks will by granted for delivery of the eight (8) vehicles under Item 1.b,

Moreover, Chester's list of chassis and engine serial numbers has a blank line at chassis number 1061, which I assume means it was never delivered to the Army. After chassis number 1062 Hemphling states "Camp Holabird", which I interpret to mean either (A) the Pilot Model was assigned chassis number 1062 (and 1061 was built but not recorded by Chester, perhaps because it was delivered to Canada?), or (B) the car built using parts from the wrecked Pilot Model was assigned chassis number 1062 and 1061 was assigned to the Pilot Model, which no longer existed after the wreck when Chester wrote the list. Under possibility A, could car chassis number 1061 be the Bantam that was seen on film in Canada and thus didn't have a U.S.A. Registration number?

In any event, Hemphling's list can be seen by going to this page and clicking around:

http://www.willys-overland.com/documents/index.htm

So apparently there remains some confusion whether Contract No. W-398-qm-8269 (O.I. #137) for 70 cars included the Pilot Model, which is specifically mentioned in the contract? (1 + 61 + 8 = 70)
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Michael Browne » Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:11 pm

Hi Fred, Bill, and all,

This discussion has got people thinking and talking, and that was one of the original aims :wink:

Sure I have laboured the point on the pilot being called a pilot because that is what the contract identified it as....it is also a term commonly used in the automotive industry, and a lot of other industries as well, for a trial or experimental project/idea/development.... and this fits exactly what the pilot and the balance of the 1st lot of Bantams are. They were ordered to facilitate extensive testing for a vehicle to fill the gap between a horse and a truck, and was very successful as history has shown. And aside from that they look cool 8)

Another aim of the discussion was to enable us the chance to get our 'own house in order' before the push to recognize the year 2015 as being the 75th anniversary of the first jeep.. that being the pilot. I believe the first thing the capital J for jeep guys will throw back is our own mixed up terminology and it would be good to have all our ducks in a row and backed up by research. Maybe it really is a a time wasting folly but more time has been wasted on lesser causes before.
I do find it quite funny that the capital J..jeep guys advertise the jeep starting in 1941 when W-O first 2 cars, the 2ws and 4ws quads were delivered in 1940... go figure :lol: :lol:

Yet another aim was for some of the 'missing' documents to possibly materialize, I live in hope. Somewhere out there are all the original American Bantam production records, they do exist as ABS members have seen them. Also out in the world has to be a copy, or an original of the original request for bids document...'Invitation for Bids No.398-4I-9"... now this document will spell out just how much input the QMC actually had in the design of the jeep..period. The contract (Contract No. W-398-qm-8269) for the very first 70 jeeps clearly identifies the areas that American Bantam had deviated from the invitation to bid document in their quote/tender and shows that the boys at Butler had put a lot of thought in how the vehicle should be made / look / perform.

The invitation to bid document may also shed some light on how much input Col. RH Howie (of Howie Carrier fame) had in "helping" AB to design the original jeep as he has claimed in a statement dated June 23 1943. He claimed he had been ordered to Butler to turn over his designs and plans and to formulate plans and specifications of the new vehicle about to be ordered (70 cars). He also stated that Mr Robert F. Brown, civilian engineer,(may be a relative) remained with him for 2 days to discuss engineering features of the future cars and that he stayed on another 7 days at Butler where he wrote and submitted the specifications for the vehicle and went to great lengths to tell them how to build the cars. It is interesting that he was transferred out to an Armored Force School at Fort Knox in July of 1940 precluding any further involvement in the project :|

Just remembered another document that has eluded me...Q.M.C. Tentative spec. ES-No.475. this was furnished with the confirmation of the contract to AB on August 1 1940.

Anyone else with an interest in early jeep land have any comments?
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:53 pm

Now you've gone and done it Michael! The Ford and Willys jeeps were great jeeps, and so is the Suzuki Samurai and dozens of others. They were a lot of things, if you like even better…but, they were not first. So, not getting into the capital J thing except this…I for one do not want to hear any of this b.s. that the Bantam was the "ancestor of the jeep". For this reason I will not correct you but suggest to you that the 75th Anniversary in 2015 is not the anniversary of the "first jeep"..it is the anniversary of the jeep period. (And speaking of which as I am trying to design us stationary, am I going to get sued by saying "jeep"? Is there going to be a lobbying campaign against a US stamp commemorating the first jeep?) Fred?

I believe I have a copy of the bid, and I believe I have posted copies of the bid drawing…In fact a sort of tracing for clarity has been on my badly unattended website for ten or twelve years, where I compare the bid drawing with the car that was built and they are more or l see identical…so how could Karl Probst have "invented the jeep" since this drawing had been made at least three weeks before Karl Probst had ever heard of the project? I am sorting though some of this, and if I find it I will send, or post here is there is a way. As I remember it is mostly boiler plate about what kind of lights etc…a fill in the blanks sort of form..at the end as I remember there is a bit of narrative.

The REAL PRIZE..the holy grail for Bantam people (especially restorers) is a SET OF DRAWINGS! The build drawings that were passed around as party favors ar holabird...I have seen one sheet of these which must have consisted of hundreds if not thousands of individual parts drawings and subassembly drawings like for the civilian cars…so, I know they exist..and this is what Probst and his crew was doing all day for there entire build…drawing up during the day what Crist, Turner and Hempfling had built the night before…

ALSO missing and greatly missed are the BID DRAWINGS that Probst famously drew up in 18 hours. The set that Probst kept and used apparently as a shroud (so the family says) was burned as trash by a sister in law. Thes would be THREE SHEETS of I forget, 1/8th scale? drawings. ..and a spec sheet showing what items they were using in the car…It would have featured not a Continental but a Hercules engine, and the gear shifting would have been more standard. It was the Hercules representative btw who called Crist to tell them they had gotten the contract.

Other Bantam mysteries…anything to do with the alleged 1937 jeep. Anything to do with the Checker episode (and here is where a set of plans should be because Probst ant them, against Fenns orders, in three tranches, so, you now it was a lot of drawings…

Army contribution could REALLY be nailed down if we knew anything about Robert Brown. If he left notes or papers or anything…He was the only guy I can point to who had anything to do with the actual physical shape of the car, and amazingly he was not called as a witness even though he was in Washington at the time by EITHER the FTC lawyers or Willys-Overland…If anyone could tell where the jeep came from it would have been him. I can see why Willys might not call him as he would testify that W-O was no where near the creation of the first jeep…but how would he have hurt the FTC case?

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:33 pm

Okay..gonna try to post a copy of the spec drawing…and an old note showing the dash detail...
Attachments
Threedash comparison copy.jpg
Threedash comparison copy.jpg (191 KiB) Viewed 2936 times

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:35 pm

Heres the very weak copy ..all I have…of the spec drawing…this was largely completed and under review by Harold Crist by July 1, 1940
Attachments
BRC#1sticthed copy.jpg
BRC#1sticthed copy.jpg (180.88 KiB) Viewed 2936 times

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:46 pm

Looking at the dash picture again, I realize also that in addition to the dash and the cowl that the steering wheel is identical to the civilian car. (However, that old sleuth George Hollins has discovered that later cars, at least 4 steers had a bigger steering wheel, all the better to wrestle that beast around!) One thing that has to be remembered here, especially by those critical of the Bantam design with a round hood which would have been a production problem, and of course not as useful in the field,,these guys were in A HURRY. Supposedly these cars were to be ready to run in the Fall Maneuvers, forget the Pilot test! Each of those round hoods was beat out by hand by a German metal smith with a lot of little hammers the first batch of cars were all hand built…a pretty amazing achievement, And, if it hadn't been for the QMC DC guys, they would have had the cars for the fall maneuvers, but, in an effort to get rid of Bantam (my opinion) they did the ridiculous "competitive bid" to 135 companies with five days notice...

Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Michael Browne » Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:59 pm

HI bill, and all,
I for one do not want to hear any of this b.s. that the Bantam was the "ancestor of the jeep". For this reason I will not correct you but suggest to you that the 75th Anniversary in 2015 is not the anniversary of the "first jeep"..it is the anniversary of the jeep period.
I stand corrected :wink:

would the sentence.... the 2015 year is the 75th anniversary of the first jeep and the beginning of the jeep in all its forms.... be more in keeping with the correct terms?

There is one drawing I know of that is from that era and is in general circulation

Image

The lube chart is an overlay of the original chassis layout showing the offset motor centreline and inset showing 4ws parts
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.

Robinb
G-Master Sergeant
G-Master Sergeant
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Essex, England

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Robinb » Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:16 pm

Hi Fred and Guys,

Very interesting post, good work.

I don't think 1061 or 1062 were allocated to the Pilot or Canadian's (2 x Canadian's). I think they were experimental BRC's as I have original photos of both 1061 - hood number: 2015384 and 1062 - hood number: 2015385. It seems the hood has been extended which explains why the rear vertical part of the front fender is a lot further forward of the hinged end of the hood compared to the standard 1940 BRC (making this panel much wider). My assumption is that maybe a 6 cylinder engine was used as I can't see any other reason why they would want to extend the engine bay. If they kept the same wheel base and frame then the body would have to of been shortened to allow for the extended engine bay. If you look at the photos below the flat section of the entrance has disappeared completely and is curved similar to the later model BRC, GP's and MA's (this entrance now looks narrower as if the body was shortened at this point).

This doesn't help to explain why the Hemphling's list has 70 flat fenders and not 69 as expected.

This BRC has hood number 2015384 so I have taken as being 1061 as it is one number before BRC 1062's hood number 2015385.
Image

This is also BRC 1061. This photo clearly shows the larger side panel behind the fender and the smaller and curved body entrance.
Image

This is BRC 1062 with hood number 2015385 also showing the curved entrance.
Image

This is also BRC 1062 now with damaged entrance.
Image


Here is a standard 1940 BRC showing the smaller fender panel and flat and wider entrance for comparison.
Image




Just going back to Michael's original question I have an extract of Bantams tune up diagram (1937-1941) showing Series 60, 65 etc. So clearly Bantam themselves designated their vehicles using numerical codes. So is it not possible that the BRC 60 and 40 came from Bantam themselves and not from editorial influences? Just wanted to be sure before we deleted these model names from history.


Image

Regards,
Robin

Robinb
G-Master Sergeant
G-Master Sergeant
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Essex, England

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Robinb » Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:36 pm

Forgot to mention that these two BRC's (1061 and 1062) also have inner hinged windscreen as on all of the later Jeeps. However the later 1940 4WS did not have the inner hinged windscreen which leads us to believe 1061 and 1062 were either experimental or built after the last 4WS at the end of production.

Regards,
Robin

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:35 pm

Good stuff Robin…I am sure I remember the one with the "pointed" door entrance by the ruler in some other context…armed with a cannon or something…I'll have to dig it out. Also, as I remember two of the original 70 were to have been delivered without bodies to Aberdeen where some special body was to be tried out…I have always thought this might be where the modifications for the 1941 car came from, but, I like your analysis here…(bigger engine)…BTW I also recall in the fog that these two cars were supposed to have been retained for "history" at Aberdeen..or at any rate two others. Inquiries brought up a blank.

It slips me know why they called the civilian Bantam of 39 the "60" but, it was related to performance, like speed or milage as I remember…and I think was the only number ever used…I'll put that my list too. It's good to keep bringing this stuff up if for no other reason than to keep the memory fresh…

About the bigger engine I have often wondered why Crist didn't just go ahead and develop a variation of the BRC as originally planned with a Hercules engine the size of the Willys. But, when you think about it, it isn't too hard. I think the main reason is money..It is one of the hardest things for us in modern times to realize how close to the bone these guys played it. Evans offered to build the Army a jeep in 1938..it would cost 25,000 (which was a good guess, because that is what it cost in 1940)…but, the Army itself did not have the money for this. They said, you build it at your expense, and we'll see if we like it. Impossible of course. Even just modifying a car out of parts, and buying and adapting a new engine would have been expensive and time consuming at a time when they were in a total rush.

The second reason is why would they? They clearly had the best jeep as it was…Crist says later in the 70's that he wished he had gone with the Hercules as originally designed, but, he could not know that the QMC was going to let the dogs out on the weight the way they did, and the "bigger engine" thing is an after contract PR issue, not a who gets the contract issue. I think when Fenn saw the Quad wallowing around at Holabird he got overconfident maybe and just figured that Bantam and Ford were going to build a standardized jeep in two different places. By the time the MA ever got delivered and tried out Bantam had been starved to death, and in any event the Willys wasn't chosen because of a bigger power plant..it was picked as a low bid, any of the three being okay with QMC.

The real issue that I am hounding down is the alleged "free samples" which I think is not just BS but a genuine dirty trick. Bantam was in debt for $275,000 to RFC, but Willys owed 3 MILLION! Where were THEY going to get the money to build a "free sample"? Basically until the Bantam ordered Spicer axles came into being, Willys had a standard engine on a standard 99 frame and maybe a cardboard box or something mimicking they Banta body work shown in the spec drawing. When they slapped it together they found out that building a jeep was a lot harder than it looked, and the Quad virtually a disaster.

What I think we are going to find is that rather than Ford and Willys coming forward with this great idea on the QMCs mere "encouragement" that QMC told them both secretly and illegally that if they would just build a sample, they would both get a contract for cars if they did. That way Willys could cover the cost (if they got the contract right away). The first hint of this is the first thing Monday morning after the Bantam delivery QMC comes down with this hair brained idea that, all of a sudden they don't want sole source anymore (a long standing QMC policy) but want "multiple sources" in case of sabotage…as if. So, they want to give everybody 500 cars….even WITHOUT A PILOT. This is even before the Quad or the Pygmy. You could write this off to "looking for the best weapon" if you are generous, but, later on, when W-O is months late delivering even a pilot let alone its contract cars (by this time upped to 1500..another story), Marshalls office says, hey, everybody wants jeeps…Bantam and Ford are both having to slow down to a crawl of production, in fact have already delivered, lets let them build the 1500 jeeps W-O was going to do,and when and if W-O gets their act together, they can do another 1500, not problem. What's not to like about this, a completely obvious solution not prejudicing w-O at all. However, QMC fought this to the point of practically insubordination! But WHY? (And, keep in mind that by the end of May there are probably only a handful of MAs delivered. Marshall eventually caved, and the reason given, without further elaboration was that they felt QMC had made promises to the other companies that would basically be held up in court! Moreover practically the instant the MA's start to trickle in QMC is off to the races trying to sole source to Ford.They don'tt even test the MA the way Bantam and Ford had been tested. Outside of a comparison test,(where it came out overpowered :lol: [ Bantam made it up the hill fine. Ford did not make the drafe. Willys made it with "power to spare" , a clear engineering failure :lol: ]) they hardly even looked at the MA. QMC had zero interest in what was the "best" jeep. They were interested in the production facilities at Ford.


Post Reply

Return to “BRC MA GP Prototypes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests