|
Post by cruisindoug on Dec 10, 2011 19:44:58 GMT 10
Photo from Aussie Caravans
|
|
|
Post by humpyboy on Dec 10, 2011 21:32:57 GMT 10
Ummmm, an old caravan?
|
|
|
Post by cruisindoug on Dec 10, 2011 21:39:59 GMT 10
Yeh Yeh I knew there would be one, and coulda guessed it would be you Derk ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Any guesses on who might of made it (I reckon its home made but I know nothin!)
|
|
|
Post by humpyboy on Dec 10, 2011 22:23:36 GMT 10
Looks a bit like this one here in reply 12 from cobber and yes Doug, I coundn't help myself, it's just my warped sense of humour
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 11, 2011 5:57:30 GMT 10
Crikey Derk it is the same 1940's van... aye?.... and you were right.... it is old Thanks for finding the previous post, I would have spent half the day looking for it..... would have said something like " I have a feeling I've seen a similar van somewhere on the forum....... but I can't find it" Hey Doug Is the original post on aussie caravanners forum ?.... does it say anything else about the van ?. (I can't find it ) Cobber.
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Traveller on Dec 11, 2011 6:50:14 GMT 10
G'day Cobber, You'd need to join aussiecaravanners.proboards.com , which you're most welcome to do, to see the the original post as it's in a trip report, which are only available to members. The old van was spotted on the side of a bush track by the originator of the trip report. Cheers, Mike from Aussie Caravanners.
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 11, 2011 7:20:56 GMT 10
G'day Mike, OK.... I've registered at Aussie caravanners....... I even read the "Forum Rules" Just got to wait to see if I'm acceptable now I have been a browser of the forum on and off since it's inception because there is often good stuff there for all Aussie Caravanners, regardless of whether they are doing it a modern or vintage caravan. That 1940's caravan deserves to be saved, it can't have been beside the bush track for long. Cobber. Cobber
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Traveller on Dec 11, 2011 7:48:09 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Don Ricardo on Dec 11, 2011 20:53:30 GMT 10
Crikey Derk it is the same 1940's van... aye?.... and you were right.... it is old Hi gents, There do seem to be a number of similarities between the two vans, but there a couple of aspects which seem a bit odd. The side profile of the two vans do indeed appear to be the same or very similar: But the first rather odd thing is that the Armstrong's van (on the left) apparently doesn't have a draw bar on it... ...which made me wonder if the end we can see is actually the back end of the van, and the lights we can see are the tail lights? If that is the case then the door of the van is on the off (driver's side), which is unusual for an Australian caravan... ...unless the pic of the van has been reversed when it was published, which wouldn't be the first case of that we have come across... So if we reverse the photo we get: But then the two vans would be mirror images of each other... Unless the two cabins were mounted the opposite way around on the chassis...which wouldn't be the first case of that we've come across either...and if they were home built? Maybe somebody couldn't read plans? Or maybe somebody couldn't tell their right hand from their left? Oh, wait - that'd be me... Oh, I give up. Any of you chaps got a theory? Don Ricardo
|
|
|
Post by humpyboy on Dec 11, 2011 21:09:43 GMT 10
DR, my thoughts, most older vans I've seen usually have, I notice short draw bars I believe due to the availability of materials in the day, keeping this in mind the pic that Doug put up and the angle it has been taken at, it is probable that the draw bar is hidden from view having said that when you look at the pic of the other home made van it is very difficult to see any draw bar at all, in my opinion one would have the curved end as the front of the van but as we can see no draw bar at all, one possibility could be a removable draw bar but why?
|
|
|
Post by Don Ricardo on Dec 11, 2011 21:43:12 GMT 10
Hi HB,
Yes, I think your explanation about the angle of view on the van in the photo posted by Cruisindoug is quite right. I assumed that the drawbar was out of sight because of the angle, or was hidden in the grass. I was more struck by the lack of a drawbar on the Armstrong's van from the 1943 pic.
I agree with your comment that the curved end of the van is most likely to be the front, but then as you say, why would you fit a detachable drawbar...and even if they did such a thing, then surely you would see part of the chassis under the van where the drawbar attached?
I guess we'll never know the answer, but it's fun to speculate, and I quite like the idea that Mr Armstrong - or maybe it was Mrs Armstrong? - misread the plans and mounted the caravan cabin the wrong way around on the chassis. ;D ;D ;D
Don Ricardo
|
|
|
Post by humpyboy on Dec 11, 2011 22:24:10 GMT 10
Ahhhh, maybe they photo shoped it, hang on 1943 you say, was bill gates around then? ;D
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 12, 2011 8:00:20 GMT 10
Humpyboy........ we should not let Don R provoke us with his analytical investigative dissection of the intricate details of each and every crummy old caravan he sees . OK OK............ I will admit to some slight advantage in this discussion........ being in possession of the actual plans for this caravan I can tell you all both........... it doesn't have much of a tow bar. Fact is it does have a pretty long “A” frame.... 8ft 6in long and the caravan is only 11ft long, so most of the "A" frame is under the caravan, the “A” frame only protrudes beyond the actual outward curve of the body by about 15'' . To make it work so that you could go around corners you would need a tow coupling on the tow vehicle with a “goose neck” about 3ft long...... but on the other hand there is a paragraph in the instructions that states.... “keep the tow-bar short and coupled close to your towing-car as a long tow-bar has a powerful leverage on your car and it is not a pleasant experience when driving”.... so the bloke who drew the plans doesn't believe in going around corners Because of Mr. Armstrong's body being in the way we can't see if the shape of the rear of the van is similar to that in the photo Doug stole from the Aussie Caravanners site or not, so I am prepared to concede it might not be the same van but...... I am inclined to think maybe it is possible that both caravans might possibly have been built using the same plans....maybe in different decades and with slight deviations from the original drawings to accommodate the individual requirements of the builder. I could send the plans to anybody who would like to knock up a similar looking van tomorrow. You have to remember these plans were in a magazine called “Caravans and Boats--- A Home Beautiful Handbook for Amateurs”. It doesn't actually explain if it is the plans that are drawn by amateurs or not The relevant section of the 13 page article Cobber.
|
|
|
Post by cruisindoug on Dec 12, 2011 8:18:40 GMT 10
similar to that in the photo Doug stole from the Aussie Caravanners site Steady on Cobber I did put a credit in!! (although I will admit to not quite getting the full name quite right ) Photo from Aussie Caravans Hopefully Mike wasn’t too upset he did gain another member for his forum out of it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am with you though Cobber it would be a shame to let this van crumble if it is saveable now .... Bit far for me though Cheers Doug
|
|
|
Post by Roehm3108 on Dec 12, 2011 13:00:46 GMT 10
I raised the question of the drawbar with cobber on the original thread back in May (reply 15), but typically he chose to overlook it After seeing the plans, I tend to think that DR is onto something about the pic being printed in reverse. According to the plan, the front and rear of the plan shows the van has the same shape along the bottom faring, so the drawbar could very well be invisible. This makes Doug's pic the odd-bod, because it DOES have different faring at the back. Possibly still built from the same plans, but with a variation to the rear. OR ..... it COULD be a different van and all our input is for nought ;D ;D ;D ;D Ray
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 12, 2011 13:37:30 GMT 10
Ray........ I was going to mention that you had raised the question about the tow bar previously but I didn't because....I didn't respond to your question then and...I hoped you had forgotten about it Personally... I don't think the Home Beautiful photo is reversed, what we are seeing is the front of the van with the two white clearance lights and the rego label on the left front of the van, as was required by law. One of the clearance lights is being used to hold one end of the towel rope. The photo Doug stole shows the rear of the van..... we can see the left hand blinker light and I reckon the number plate is on the other side hidden behind the grass. Sure..... the shape of the rear end is different to the plans but remember the plurry thing was/is home made..... people could, and did, make changes if they wanted to. But basically, I reckon they were both built using the same plan Cobber.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff & Jude on Dec 12, 2011 14:15:33 GMT 10
one thing that everybody's failed to notice is that mrs. armstrong is using the very same style of (tea) towel hanger that was seen at coledale last year on a modern (by comparison) roadmaster.
so tried and true designs endure, don't they.
geoff 'n jude
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 12, 2011 16:59:44 GMT 10
Geoff, I noticed it.... and mentioned it, but decided to ignore it as a viable alternative to a proper tea towel rail Now...... what do you think about the more serious points of this discussion like......... where's the tow coupling?..... is the Home Beautiful photo reversed? eh ? eh? Cobber.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff & Jude on Dec 12, 2011 17:38:57 GMT 10
hi cobber my thoughts are that it's not reversed because: what do you think? geoff 'n jude
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 12, 2011 17:51:18 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Geoff & Jude on Dec 12, 2011 17:55:33 GMT 10
hi again cobber one other interesting observation is that your plans show the chassis being 6'6" forward of the axle and 4'6" behind the axle but in both the pictures the chassis seems (finger measurement) to have the longer dimension behind the axle. what have you got to say about that - is the drawbar reversed on the axle or are they from a different set of plans altogether? geoff 'n jude
|
|
|
Post by cobber on Dec 12, 2011 19:31:29 GMT 10
Hey Geoff.....I bet Jude's having nothing to do with this post Like I suggested, they didn't clarify if these plans were drawn by an amateur or if the plans were meant for amateur builders, bit of both I suspect. All I can say is.... the Armstrong van looks like the longest part of the van appears to be in front of the axle, to me, and that's where you would expect it to be, and the caption says it was built from the Home Beautiful plans, and it looks to be pretty close to those plans. Thing is.....why can't we see the tow coupling Cobber.
|
|
|
Post by Roehm3108 on Dec 12, 2011 20:49:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Don Ricardo on Dec 12, 2011 21:46:36 GMT 10
Thing is.....why can't we see the tow coupling Hi Cobber, Geoff (n Jude), and Humpyboy, I think not installing a drawbar and tow coupling must have been a design trend on NSW built caravans for a time. Here's another example: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Being more serious, I think Cobber is correct in saying that it is the front of the Armstrong van we can see, and that the little objects either side of the front may possibly be riding lights. He may also be correct about the other object on the front being a registration sticker, although I don't think it was a requirement that caravans be separately registered in 1943 - that was certainly true in Victoria, but maybe not for NSW? In any case if it was the back of the van we would expect to see a tail light and number plate either in the centre of the panel, or more likely on the right hand side, but they are not there. So, if it is the front of the van then the door is on the near side and at the front of the van, both of which we would normally expect to see on an Australian van. That means that the photo hasn't been reversed. I have been trying to work out what is holding the van level. At first I thought there were no corner jacks. However, after looking carefully at the pic I think you can just make them out. The one on the near corner is the most visible, but does appear to be on an odd angle... Be that as it may, if we are agreed that it is the front of the van we can see, then we're still missing the drawbar, and it leads me to the conclusion that the pic has been photoshopped in some way (or the 1940's version). But why? Don Ricardo
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Dec 13, 2011 9:56:15 GMT 10
For my two bobs worth I agree with Don R that the photo has been retouched to remove the unsightly draw bar. After all, Home Beautiful was a classy ladies magazine and they didn't need to be bored and affronted by such unsightly things as draw bars if they were to be persuaded to go caravanning. Someone at Glida's management may have thought the same for their advertisement.
Retouching was part of a photographers job and a good one could do amazing things, like the 'photoshopper' of today. I have a few old press photos in my collections and it's amazing just what they did to highlight or remove bits and pieces before printing. My own elementary darkroom skills could achieve quite good results with a bit of 'puddling' and other tinkering, taking the draw bar off was probably beyond me though.
Kieth Winser certainly manipulated photos in Modern Motor and his caravan books with montages that placed cars and vans onto background scenes to make them more interesting.
Just for interest I've turned the photo around to see what it would look like if the neg had been reversed and it would be quite an acceptable photo. The door remains on the nearside but behind the axle which some early vans had. The home builder could have made this alteration if he desired, the plan was only a guide.
It leaves the fact there is no number plate/tail light or support legs and I think retouching is the answer, the reason for which we can only ever guess.
George
|
|