From: Glenn Shaw (mpmutt@mtaofnj.us)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 07:17:17 PDT
Hi
After pulling many different trailers with the M1009 vehicles I can
agree totally with Chance on this. It is a question of making sure that
you dont get the tail wagging the dog. After all it is just a short
wheelbase light weight SUV like a Bronco etc. An M416 is not even
noticed behind a M1009. An M101 series is OK too. Bigger trailers than
that will bring on various issues. Consider a bigger tow vehicle for
the larger loads.
Glenn
M1009
MVPA MTANJ
-----Original Message-----
From: chance wolf [mailto:chance_wolf@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:23 AM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] M-416 trailers and CUCVs
----- Original Message -----
From: "mark baxter" <alleywayguns@bacavalley.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:37 PM
Subject: [MV] M-416 trailers and CUCVs
> Folks
> I have heard from alot of sources that pulling a trailer, even a
> light
one,
> is not the best thing for a M-1009 CUCV Blazer.
> Is the older M-416 1/4 ton trailers a bit of a strain on these
> trucks? Mark M-886 and M-1009
I've towed an M416 lots with my 1009. No problems at all. I've also
towed M101A1 trailers (3/4 ton) with light loads, and again, no problem.
They have a maximum weight spec in the manual for towed loads and tongue
weight and what-not, but as was referenced here awhile ago, apparently
they had some brag sheet when the vehicles were first introduced showing
an M1009 hauling some great jet across the tarmac, so naturally the
question arises as to why they publish such a pessimistic 'max load' in
the CUCV manual.
I have a pet theory on that one. I don't think the weight spec has much
to do with the physical nuts and bolts/strength/construction of the
M1009 back end as it does preventing people from towing loads which
would steer you through corners and cause a loss of control on such a
short wheelbase vehicle. Again, that's my pet theory and not backed up
by anything remotely 'official', but it makes sense if you look at it.
I find the M1009 quite 'tippy' in some circumstances and can only
imagine that a fully loaded 3/4 ton trailer would amplify that
considerably. Could be that those publishing the specs in the manual
felt much the same way.
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:34:20 PDT