my new deuce, 1994 m35a3

[319]

The lawsuits are nothng compared to the criminal charges!

The whole point, as most of us are trying to convey, is that knowingly exceeding the "designed" capacity or capability of a piece of fire apparatus is dangerous. No one will know who is going to drive on the next run, an eighteen year old with almost no experience or a thirty-five year old with fifteen years of experience. If the vehicle modifications can be engineered safely to NFPA standards by a qualified company, then go for it.

No one is attempting to bash anyone here, we're just trying to prevent a tragedy.

 

[EdMontana]

Re: RE: dangerous truck

The bulk of the argument here is not about whether anyone thinks the truck is ugly. I only saw one post about that and I assumed it was in jest, maybe not.

Agree with you in part, but one bad comment is OK?....How many bad comments will take? I remember the M35A3 being called a gay truck too and other derrogatory comments.....enough is enough, I understand that everyone is entitled to have your own opinion, but be polite expressing yourself and exercising the freedom that is given by the Board owner.

I have heard too many bad comments about an excellent truck, it just show me lack of knowledge or lack of money to buy one....either way , is very sad.

I rest my point here, flame away....

 

[chicklin]

Re: RE: dangerous truck

Agree with you in part, but one bad comment is OK?....How many bad comments will take? I remember the M35A3 being called a gay truck too and other derrogatory comments.....enough is enough, I understand that everyone is entitled to have your own opinion, but be polite expressing yourself and exercising the freedom that is given by the Board owner.

I have heard too many bad comments about an excellent truck, it just show me lack of knowledge or lack of money to buy one....either way , is very sad.

I rest my point here, flame away....

I took maddawg's comment as good-natured ribbing for the new guy. Then again, I'm new here and haven't come across anything in poor taste regarding any trucks yet, so maybe I'm naive.

BTW, I think the A3's are kinda cool in their own way. Yes they are different than the A2's, but if you'd never seen an A2 I think you'd look at the A3 and say "that's coolest freaking truck I've ever seen".....not unlike most of our reactions to the A2 the first time we saw them.

 

[jim-m35a2]

In a nut shell............"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Ben Franklin
________
AVANDIA LAWSUIT INFORMATION

 

[DDoyle]

RE: Re: RE: dangerous truck

I belong to a military vehicle club that has one rule - don't talk bad about the way another man's truck looks. I believe this is a very good rule indeed.

There are some well meaning people here who have a vast amount of experience (and training, at the US Government's expense) with these vehicles. These fellows are pointing out the potentially dangerous situation that will exist if a FULL 900 gallon tank of water is taken off-road with a M35A3 (or any G-742 series truck). And, there is a naturally tendency to fill a truck to its maximum cubic capacity, be that with water, dirt, sand, gravel - where as in reality the true numbers that should be looked at are gross weight and center of gravity.

I don't think that the viability of the M35A3 as the basis of a brush truck has been questioned, it is the combination of the M35A3 and a full 900 gallon tank of water that raises concerns as the weight of the water alone exceeds the manufactuer's rated off-road capacity of the chassis.

Saying that your brother's uncle's cousin's neighbor hauled a D-9 Cat from Oklahoma to Montana on the back of a deuce twice a year for 20 years for the annual ground hog harvest doesn't really mean anything - other than this guy has no sense of good citizenship - ie regard for his fellow motorist's lives.

There is no one on this forum, there is no one at a truck dealer, there is no one on a construction company/farm/fire department/logging operation/GSA depot as knowledgable about the limts of these trucks as the engineers at Reo Motors in 1949 that designed these things, or AM General who engineered the A3 conversions. Any time you climb behind the wheel of one of these things you are betting YOUR LIFE and the lives of peoples mothers/brothers/children on your driving skills, and the expertise of the folks that designed and made the vehicle. Whose hands do you wanna place those lives in - the folks who designed and built them - or bubba down the road who said "Awww, that truck will hold that, I know this guy who used to haul a D-9 Cat to Montana....."??

Regards,
David Doyle

 

[gringeltaube]

Exactly my way of thinking, David!
When I questioned the inverted wheels it wasn't because of the looks. I know it will give better stability but I also know that specially the front axle and steering components where not designed to handle that much extra leverage for to long. Not to mention overloading the truck!
In my opinion an M35A3 (or any M35) fire truck makes sense if it is kept as designed, lightweight, light duty, agile and fast enough to be the first to arrive at the scene.
Time counts when a fire just got out of control! And even 900gal and the best equipment wouldn’t help much if it took to long (or forever!) to get there…!

G.

 

[cranetruck]

Re: RE: Re: RE: dangerous truck

......
There is no one on this forum, there is no one at a truck dealer, there is no one on a construction company/farm/fire department/logging operation/GSA depot as knowledgable about the limts of these trucks as the engineers at Reo Motors in 1949 that designed these things, or AM General who engineered the A3 conversions....

It is interesting how the A3 and FMTV trucks only have one rating, what used to be "off-road" configuration, but it's probably not an engineering problem...sad that not even the military can trust that the trucks are loaded correctly for the occasion.

 

[Somemedic]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: dangerous truck

While Id say a D-9 is heavy and so is a full 900gal poly tank Id say the issue would be the fluid movement of 800 gals of water quickly sloshing from one side to the other. D-9s dont slosh... if chained properly.

I believe there was an article in fire engineering recently about running a water tanker (tender for you wildland types) with lights and sirens. The issues pointed out were that if the incident was so large you needed tanker shuttles, speed/time wasnt an issue. Whatever is burning will either be burning for days or it is already gone before youre gonna get there. This being the case, there is no valid reason for running hot to a scene. A majority of crashes occur when our lights are activated, at intersections. NFPA rules are written in our blood since some FF probably had to die before the rule was adopted. I dont think anyone was really bashing colors or telling the builder hes a murderer but maybe was looking to point out theres some load limits and they may have been overlooked. The guy is bustin his hump fixing a fire truck up made out of a cool ass army truck. Who on this board would jump at the chance? Playing with a duece, helping the fire dept, keeping the community safe...? Hell, Im in!

 

[smokeydabear]

Roscommon Equipment Center

RoscommonEquipmentCenter.com

Welcome to the Roscommon Equipment Center! REC, a cooperative program between the National Association of State Foresters and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, develops and tests equipment for wildland fire control. It is located at the Forest Fire Experiment Station, Roscommon, Michigan. Founded in 1972, REC specializes in the conversion of U.S. Military vehicles to wildland fire suppression units. It also focuses on the equipment development needs of state and local wildfire forces.

REC designed a 900 gallon Wildland Fire Engine on a 2.5 Ton 6x6 chassis.

This a look at what they have done. The tank they make weight 3500 lbs without water. Keeping our original bed and using a poly tank specific designed for this chassis we are lighter by over 2000 lbs and have a lower center of gravity. I have went by what the REC has provided, the poly tank manufacturer, and the Fire apparatus builder engineer have came up with. We do not operate on grades or slopes, just loose sand in jackpine plantations. We are responsible for over 48,000 acres of state land and part of the camp grayling national guard base. This will be used for putting out grass and pine wildland fires. We do not pump and roll. We park, pull hose( whether it is 25' of 1" forestry hose or 1000' of 1") We have plenty of other trucks to get where we need to go. We do the best we can with what we have.

 

[M1075]

We do the best we can with what we have.

That is a very good point and I commend you for that. Ideally, all of our nation's fire departments would have the neccessary funding to purchase new apparatus that has been engineered/designed to the hilt. In reality, many fire departments, especially the smaller ones, must make do with what they have.

 

[tamangel]

GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING WILDLAND FIRE ENGINES

found this : as mentioned above..

GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING WILDLAND FIRE ENGINES

http://www.roscommonequipmentcenter.com/

2 steps:

Click on "Wildland Engines "

then click on "Guidelines for Designing Wildland Fire Engines"

interesting reading...

Mike

 

[yorkgulch2]

RE: GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING WILDLAND FIRE ENGINES

I have a fine set of 11 9.00 ndts on rims if you decide you need duals on the back and want to swap!

 

[sburns]

I elected to ask them about their design and questioned the weight issue. Here was the response:

The 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton nomenclature is very general terminology and the actual payload varies widely depending on the truck model, it can actually be as little as 1000-1500 lbs. We normally deal with the gross vehicle weight rating GVWR and the gross axle load ratings (GAWR) of a particular unit. Each unit within the series has its own weight ratings and is placarded on the dash board with these ratings. Also the early M35 series had two different ratings, one for Cross Country (CCR) and one for On Highway (OHR). The nominal payload rating for the CCR was 2.5 tons and for the OHR it was 5 tons. The GVWR and GAWR ratings were doubled for on highway use also.

This dual rating system was removed on later models and teh CCR is the only rating available now. This makes them less suitable for conversion.

The CCR for the military is very severe duty and the limiting factor was durability. Most agencies that use these units do not use them off road and even if they do the severity of use does not compare to the military’s agenda. Most agencies will load the units to a point somewhere between the two ratings, if availalbe, and sacrifice a little longevity for more water.

The units for which the tank in the report is design for have a wheel base that defines them as either Truck Tractors or Dump Trucks. The truck tractor’s weight rating is substantially higher than all other trucks in the series. This makes it a better unit for conversion. The dump truck does not have the extra capacity of the truck tractor but when the dump box and dump system are removed it equates to around 60-75% of the weight of the tank in the report. Thus the added tank weight is effectively reduced by 2000 – 2500 lbs.

Any other equipment removed from the original truck directly increases payload. Payload can be varied in this manner but the gross vehicle and axle ratings are fixed and this is why they are better to use during the design process.

There are a lot of factors that go into the design of these units and the Project 63 report includes many cautionary notes that hopefully assist in determining the proper amount of water for a given military unit. The main one is to never exceed the GWVR or GAWR placarded on the vehicle.

 

[bevanet]

I agree that it is good to stay within weight and balance limitations especially if you are providing a truck for someone else who may not be very skilled in feeling when a truck is about to flip. However, if you are careful and us some finesse it is amazing how much you can do. I drove my 22' truck in the picture below with a 45' shipping container up a 15 degree slope on a winding dirt road. That is a 27% grade. Many people said it would never work. The container extended 23' past the bed which was about 33' past the back tires. A tractor trailer would have never gotten around the corners. A helicopter would have been too expensive. The only problems I had were on a couple of inside corners. We had to pull the container off to the side to fit around two corners. On the outside corners, the container was hanging over a huge drop off.

 

[panzerjunky]

I agree that it is good to stay within weight and balance limitations especially if you are providing a truck for someone else who may not be very skilled in feeling when a truck is about to flip. However, if you are careful and us some finesse it is amazing how much you can do. I drove my 22' truck in the picture below with a 45' shipping container up a 15 degree slope on a winding dirt road. That is a 27% grade. Many people said it would never work. The container extended 23' past the bed which was about 33' past the back tires. A tractor trailer would have never gotten around the corners. A helicopter would have been too expensive. The only problems I had were on a couple of inside corners. We had to pull the container off to the side to fit around two corners. On the outside corners, the container was hanging over a huge drop off.

Whats a rednecks famous last words?
Hey guys watch this!
Wow man that looks nuts
Jerry