Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Newton Cargo Carrier


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 910
Date:
Newton Cargo Carrier
Permalink Closed


Gentleman


Hello, I am currently searching for information concerning the Newton Cargo Carrier, designed and built in late 1918 by England and the United States, by firms such as Ford in England, Buick and Studebaker in the US.


I have the information on the web site Tanks, and a few references from other sources, and Roger has supplied me with a couple of great photo’s, to which I appreciate.


Any information concerning these vehicles, and the Newton tank designed for the 1919, would be very much appreciated.


All the best


Tim R



__________________
"The life given us by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal"
-Cicero 106-43BC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3616
Date:
Permalink Closed

Tim - I don't know if you've already got these. Hope they're useful.


The first one is supposed to be the prototype of the Newton, driver unknown.


The second is captioned as U.S.-made Newton with Tank Corps crew at Bovington.


Which reminds me - we never got to the bottom of the Studebaker Tank matter. I couldn't find anyone with enough computer to CGI it. But D. Fletcher says that one of the two known pics of it was taken in Britain, and that it was "probably not much bigger than the Newton Tractor from which it was derived".



Attachments
__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

and another one

Attachments
__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 910
Date:
Permalink Closed

Thanks a million guys, just what I was looking for.


All the best


Tim R



__________________
"The life given us by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal"
-Cicero 106-43BC


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3616
Date:
Permalink Closed

Centurion wrote:


and another one



Not one, but two! That's another one in the distance, looming out of the mist. It looks as if mine and yours were taken at the same place. I'd know that cap anywhere. Does anyone know where the photos were taken? Newtons were based in Derby and that looks like Derbyshire architecture and weather.


Its roots as a farm tractor are very obvious from Centurion's pic. When I first read about this I pictured Col. Newton getting the order for 20,000 machines and having to explain to the War Office that there was just him and his son working in a railway arch. Thus the order went to America.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

I'd noticed the object in the mist - I tried blowing up the shot but can't get much detail but, may be my imagination, is not the engine housing bigger and the front of the tracks higher. Could it be a Studebaker?

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3616
Date:
Permalink Closed

Hmmm. I've tinkered with the picture, and I think it's just the perspective. You can see the l/hand track protruding above the r/hand and see right through the vehicle to the mist beyond. The photos of the Studebaker look as if that shouldn't be possible, some sort of structure filling the gap. There's no sign of the armoured turret and the housing that appears to have been much closer behind it, whatever that was. One possibility for the higher profile of the engine housing, given the men clustered round it, is that it's conked out and they've got the bonnet up.


On the other hand, DF says the Studebaker was in the UK at some point, and why make two prototypes?


Given that such a huge order was placed, it's surprising that there isn't more surviving documentation. Newton's doesn't appear to exist any more, and I suppose Studebaker have been tried. Highly frustrating.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

None of the Newtons in photos I've seen have a bonnet to put up! That's the fuel tank on top. There obviously were more than one Newton The 2nd of James H's photos has a double seat at the back and the two housings that can be seen on the first picture and the one I posted are not visible. Also I think that it has more plating on the side.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3616
Date:
Permalink Closed

Ah. Then this is where that part of my argument falls to the ground.


The Tanks site says, "Buick, Studebaker, and Overland all made virtual copies - right down to placement of the bolts (though it is claimed that Buick actually made some slight improvements in the structure). The only real exception was that each used their own engines in place of the British one." But presumably the prototype was a single-seater and the production ones twin-seaters. Looking at the Studebaker again, the armour at the front seems to be sloped on the port side and the upright section has a vision slit/flap. I wonder if it was just protection for the cargo and crew, somewhere for the driver and his mate to take refuge, mounted on a normal Newton? Maybe there's a clue in the engine - a 4-cylinder aircraft engine. Is that too much for a Newton or not enough for something more tank-like?



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

Much would depend on which aircraft engine it was. At four cylinder it isn't very large. Also some of the early Curtis engines had a distinctly agricultural air to them.  I assume it was an American engine and at this time the US was lagging behind Europe in the field of in line liquid cooled aero engine design (they caught up in late 1918 with the Liberty and then fell behind again until post WW2) so I wouldn't expect it to be very powerful. I'd guess at about 40 -60 hp not enough for a real tank but probably more than enough for a cargo carrier.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1393
Date:
Permalink Closed

The Studebaker Supply Tank of 1918 had a 100hp 4-cylinder aero-engine according to Chamerlain & Ellis.


I've attached a photo which shows the potential driver's port on the tank's starboard side that James H refers to.


The second photo shows clearly a pair of sprung rollers halfway along the top, similar to those on the Ford 3-tonner.



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

Roger Todd wrote:



The Studebaker Supply Tank of 1918 had a 100hp 4-cylinder aero-engine according to Chamerlain & Ellis.





The problem with this is that I can find no aero engine, Allied or Central Powers that fits this spec. All but one of the aero engines of 100hp or over had six or more cylinders. The only one in this power range with only four cylinders was built by Dusenberg and was 120 hp - it does not appear to have been a success as they quickly replaced it with a eight cylinder V engine of about the same power. If C&E had said that it had a six cylinder engine there would have been a number of possible candidates.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

Looking at the photos again I notice that the driver in the second photo of a single seat Newton is seated much higher than in the first  which would suggest that either the two photos were taken of the same machine at different times and some modification had taken place or these are two different prototypes? of the Newton. Looking at both single seat photos the driver seems to have a control lever for each hand (which would make sense - one for each track) but on the two seater this is not possible. Given that the prominent transmission casings seen on the single seater(s) are not visible  on the two seater (and would seem too large to have been hiden under the seat) does this betoken a different transmission system?

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

Looking at the three 'Newtons' on the Tanks site a number of differences can be seen. The seats and mountings are different  and so are the engine housings. I've cut and pasted details so they can be compared - see attached.


Now the two seater Newton in JamesH's posting appears to have an Overland style seat and mounting and a Buick type engine housing (or lack of it)! How many Newtons were actually built?



Attachments
__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3616
Date:
Permalink Closed

David F. just says, "deliveries did not begin until the War was virtually over, and further production was cancelled."


Fred Crismon says that the original newton had a Model T engine and a later type used two Ford engines. He goes on to say of the Studebaker version that some references say it had protective armour.


Of the Buick he says it "showed some improvements over the Studebaker design. Actually, all of the vehicles were basically almost identical, even down to the number and location of the structural rivets. The major difference was that each company used its own engine. In the case of the Buick a crude brushguard helped to protect the radiator and all engine shrouding was removed, exposing the engine and top-mounted fuel tank."


Centurion - are the two driving positions different, or is it the way the driver is sitting? Seriously. In the pic where he's just about to go over the knife-edge, he looks in danger of being catapulted over the top of the vehicle. Maybe he's standing or crouching to absorb the landing, like you do on a bike. Just a thought.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

James H wrote:



David F. just says, "deliveries did not begin until the War was virtually over, and further production was cancelled."


It would be interesting to know how many were delivered. I suspect looking at the difference in the various phots that it was slightly more than just one from each supplier.


Fred Crismon says that the original newton had a Model T engine and a later type used two Ford engines. He goes on to say of the Studebaker version that some references say it had protective armour.


I suspect he is conflating the Studebaker Newton and the Studebakert Supply Tank. The photo of the former on Tanks clearly has no armour. Looking at those photos of the latter I wonder if in fact it was basically a Newton with armoured boxes in the cargo space and suspension beefed up to handle the extra weight.


Of the Buick he says it "showed some improvements over the Studebaker design. Actually, all of the vehicles were basically almost identical, even down to the number and location of the structural rivets. The major difference was that each company used its own engine. In the case of the Buick a crude brushguard helped to protect the radiator and all engine shrouding was removed, exposing the engine and top-mounted fuel tank."


Certainly the seating was different.


Centurion - are the two driving positions different, or is it the way the driver is sitting? Seriously. In the pic where he's just about to go over the knife-edge, he looks in danger of being catapulted over the top of the vehicle. Maybe he's standing or crouching to absorb the landing, like you do on a bike. Just a thought.


If you look at the drivers legs in both photos he has to be seated in both cases






__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard