> The shot of the engine revealed what appears to be a
> single down-draft carburetor, but didn't show how the
> drive train was setup to be able to drive the rear
> wheels and the twin propellers, nor what kind of
> transmission/differential was used.
Joe, knowing the documentary resources of this list, I guess someone
will come hurtling out of the undergrowth shouting "WRONG!"
In the meantime, the downdraught carb would have been a Solex, in
common with other Heralds. As for engine position, I vaguely recall
it was mounted some way forward in the rear, so that the flywheel was
rearmost. There was some form of rear mounted transfer box with a
shaft running forwards to a non-Triumph gearbox in the rear axle -
much like the set-up found in RWD Alfas. I believe a further output
shaft controlled from the driving compartment simultaneously
disengaged road wheel traction with a dog-clutch to the propellors.
Clearly, there were two - I thought just one, anyway........
Am I right in commenting on the absence of a rudder? I think the
front wheels did that. I do remember seeing an Amphi-Car being put
through its paces in the mid-sixties and how they kept water out of
the engine is something of a mystery. It sat very low in the water -
especially when moving. Quite a bow wave and the water rippling along
the side seemed to get perilously close to the rear deck and the rear
seat with the soft top folded. It only seemed to need the contra-wash
from an meandering goldfish to slop over the rear quarter - and it
would have been Titanic all over again. Maybe that's why so few of
them have survived. Examine your ponds, America!
John Mac
|