Been looking for a stablemate for my WM20 and last week my son in law said "my mate has just brought a 1942 Ariel for £550" I asked my son in law if the guy wanted to sell it, and he said he would ask him. Anyway I was asked to go and view the bike, when I saw the state of it I thought should I bid him a price...upshot is I paid £1500 for it. It has original brown log book, plus new V5C document reg GOH 852 registered in 1946 before that used by the MOD. The frame no is XG29001 and eng no BH9912. According to the British Forces motorcycles book it is one of 27 supplied to the Royal Navy can anyone confirm, now on the old brown log book all the previous owners from 1946 lived in the Chatham area, could it be that the bike was used in the Naval Dockyard from 1942-46?
The bike is in a rough but sound state, missing mudguards, rear stand, toolboxes, chaingaurd, dynamo all lighting equip, saddle, and bent girder forks.
do you think I,ve bought a lemon for the price? I,ll post some pics of the heap later!
P.S Last time bike was used was in 1960 and obviously don't run yet!

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Hi baza57, where do you live? as I'm in Kent and nearly finished a WNG,The Chatham connection is really interesting and very likely, Chatham was a huge dockyard,And very important during WW2, Andrew.h.

email (option): warbikes@gmail.com

Andrew I live in Cuxton, Did you not buy an enfield model c off me some years ago?

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Baz. I got interested in your post because I'd really like a genuine RN bike for my collection. I have my sights on a RN W/NG but although I have first shout on it, the guy is not ready to sell yet.
But Have you typo'd your frame number? I can't find it in those 27 RN bikes....Or anywhere else for that matter! Maybe I've gone number blind

Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Hi Ron, I got it from last Ariel page February 1942 nos 29090-29012 and mine is 29001...perhaps the book is wrong?

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Sorry Baz I don't think it's me? The numbers you just quoted are also a bit mixed up! You must mean 29090-29102....Simple typo mistake. But 29001 doesn't fit in there anywhere though. I doubt the book is wrong Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Ron, my copy is 1995 so perhaps its a printing error perhaps mr Orchard and Mr Madden can confirm, however I do have evidence that it was used by MOD, which dept I know not, that's why I asked if someone could confirm?

P.S The VMCC dates it as 1941, yet it was only registered to civvy life in 1946? And log book says previously used by the MOD?

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Baz I don't doubt that your W/NG is ex WD, and would have been first registered after it was demobbed post war. I'm just trying to work out where it comes in the number sequence. Unfortunately I loaned my early edition of British Forces Motorcycles and never got it back. So I can't cross reference any typos by O&M.
The census numbers for those RN bikes in that contract add up to the 27 machines listed. I just cannot see where your number falls into that contract.

Sorry to be like a ferret hanging onto a bunny. Have you actually checked the frame number on the bike and not just from the log book?

Regards Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Tomorrow I wil be scraping all the s..t off the bike to check the no.
Why in the book are there lots of purchases by war office with no listed frame no,s? I count about 1500+

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Baz. O&M did a brilliant job compiling those lists, and it was all done the old fashioned way by footwork and sitting for hours in museum archives. However lots of records where lost, destroyed or simply not found at the time. There are no RAF/RN records at all to my knowledge. O&M are preparing to make a third edition of the book. With extra information which has come to light through the computer age and other information or corrections that have been sourced by other archivists from this forum.
It's surprising what you can see with a digital photo when you get to your frame/eng numbers........The research is part of the fun

Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Yes It was me baza, the bike is with a friend in Scotland painted desert sand now,we talked at W/P about a 1936 BSA 250 OHV B21/B22 I had just picked up, any way am on phone will drop you a mail,with my number, looks to me like it was a dockyard bike Andrew.h.

email (option): warbikes@gmail.com

Just done some rubbing down and degreasing, eng/frame no correct also olive drab paint on girders, here are some pics of the wreck




%%bbCodeItem_1%%



%%bbCodeItem_2%%



%%bbCodeItem_3%%


Burman gearbox looks like it needs another outer cover, now do I get new forks from curryland or get Jake Robbins to fix, is any of that stuf fron India any good?





%%bbCodeItem_4%%

this will be my biggest job yet, is it gonna be a money pit...Course it is

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Hi Baza
Good buy, looks nice! Forks don't seem too bad, a decent restorer should be able to fix them. I've heard Jake Robbins can take rather a long time for repairs but there are others out there. Don't have anything to do with forks from India, they will kill you, maybe not this week this month but definately one day.
Regards

Has the frame number been altered? that could be other numbers underneath and is that file marks all round the number?

Rob

email (option): robmiller11(at)yahoo.co.uk

Ron, I have both editions here and I can't find XG29001 either. It also doesn't appear on the Chilwell cards so it's almost certainly from another service or a spare frame. It's not clear whether all manufacturers applied the same policy when dealing with spare frames and engines but Ariel could have supplied the usual 10% spares with each contract using numbered frames.

It would require someone really up to speed on Ariels to say whether the number has been altered or if the file marks are the normal fettling of the cast lug. It does look though as if there has been some extra hammer marking around the numbers.

Baza lad, now THAT looks just right for you, and don't give me "It'll take 2yrs" knowing you, like I DO. You'll have that thumping away in 6 months..

Can't wait to see it in the flesh (Tomorrow) and when its done, Gis a go Mister..?

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Government policy in general was not to sell equipment off at the barracks / airfield / dock gates. They were sold off by the Ministry of Supply at large auctions in suitably large batches to ensure that they attracted only trade and not tiresome private buyers.

Finding a bike at Biggin Hill or Kenley wouldn't mean that it was ex-RAF, simply that the buyer had been up to Pride & Clarke's. "GOH" was a Birmingham series issued from July 1946 on.

The lack of any surviving records for this number might well suggest that the frame number, if original, started life other than with the War Department (army) but the engine number BH9912 was supplied under army contract C9387 so unless it has had a post-war engine change, the chances are that it has been through an army workshop at some stage. Does the old green log book show a post-war engine change or have they been together since 1946 ?

There is no suggestion that Air Ministry or Admiralty record keeping was less thorough than that of the War Office, simply that the lottery of what survived has been less kind to them. However, there remain archives to research so we haven't given up yet.

Rik, no engine change, its the same from 1946, and seven owners, all from around Chatham.

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Make sure you get the right Grey..Northern Hemisphere was darker than Southern Hemisphere...(though Grey would probably only have been applied to bikes taken on board, which some were)..
My understanding of the Naval colours is that like the other services the use of 'Admiralty Blue' ended with the outbreak of war...so it would still have been 'khaki' if 'shore based'....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian lad,you don't know Chatham dockyard, over the years I have brought stuff from Chatham ,tools,lathes,WW2 motorbike lifting bench(weighed 6cwt!) all painted battleship grey..

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Yes Barry...but none of those are vehicles...(I'm more familiar with Plymouth dockyard)
A quick look at a couple of sites indicates 'Naval' colours were retained until 1941 when a government directive called for a change to drab colours...Does anyone know the date of this directive?..

I always thought it was far earlier than that..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

It don't matter too much Ian, cause at the end of the day its gonner be a tribute to all the guys and gals that never made it, and whatever colour I,ve got up on the shelf in the fettling shed! I don't think I can see myself dressing up as "Hallo Sailor" though!

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Baz. I don't think anyone hear is trying to piss on your firework. But since you asked the question about your frame and engine number, it becomes a bit of a mission for some of us. I think maybe you glanced too quickly into the number sequence in O&M to come up with it being one of the 27 from that RN contract.
Also according to WO instructions, all vehicles were to be painted in camo colours at the outbreak of war and all subsequent vehicles would be supplied in the same paint colour as the army. Although nothing can be cast in stone!
But as you rightly say, you can paint it as you like as a mark of respect.....Artistic licence prevails Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

yea Ron, my early copy of O and M must be a misprint as numbers don't tally, but it,ll be another bike in the fold whatever the colour,it,ll be a long job though..cant retire yet!

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

I'm still hanging on to that bunny Baz. Which bit do you think is a misprint?

Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Ron, my 95 book says 29090-29012 must be a misprint.

if the first no is wrong and should be 29000-29012 then the amount of bikes would still be 27 but if second nos wrong then its 29090- 29102 but this would make 36 bikes in that group?

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

OK Baz, I get that. The later edition has it printed correctly 29090-29102. But your number is still not in that sequence! Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

There is something odd going on with the forum tonight. It has dropped some posts off the end of this thread.

My last post is accessible via the last post menu but not here, so I'm trying again. It might end up as a double post.

The odd miscalculation is not uncommon in the official records. Steve Madden has a lot of Ariel info which is not available anywhere else. It may be worth mailing him.

I've just noticed looking again that although your engine number should fall within the block BH6150 - 9999 of WD contract C9387, that was only for 3500 machines and BH 9912 is specifically listed as part of the RAF contract of 625 machines from August 1941 (see page 158 of 1st ed. Orchard & Madden)...So I think we can be pretty sure that your engine started life in an RAF machine.

These Ariel numbers really are all over the place.

I'm still not letting go Baz. I'm calculating the numbers listed as follows:-
29059 = 1 bike
29075-29077 = 3 bikes
29079-29088 = 10 bikes
29090-29102 = 13 bikes
Total = 27 bikes
Notice how the number go forward in this sequence not backwards. In the normal course of events 29001 would fall somewhere between contracts C11103 and C12450.
But as Rik states "these Ariel numbers are all over the place". I wish Steve would join in! Ron.

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Hi Baza. I have a set of heavyweight Ariel with check springs in very fine condition that look like the ones in your photos. Send me email if you want more info. Only thing is that I am in the USA.

email (option): unpob@yahoo.com

Hi Rik..If someone deletes their post after others have replied to it the replies go along with the deleted post...That may explain the missing posts...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

yup mine has got the chain retainer and that's the first item I have restored!

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Baza lad, I've done some hard work researching your bike, and it seems it was sent on a ship called... HMS Troutbridge... Chief Petty Officer Pertwee had it, but then Lt. Murray was a tad bemused, cos Chief Petty Officer Pertwee was trying to dodge Capt "Thunderguts" Povey..!

BLIMEY, now that's a grand yarn if ever there was one, get it sorted and back on the road, one day it'll be a right old 'Navy Lark'

Did someone call Uncle Ron ???!

Frame XG 29001..........

Two small contracts may help explain this.........

The first is Contract C/S 12427 with a demand date of around 20.01.42......this is a RAF contract for 300 machines with Ariel allocating 300 "tab" (works) numbers, although the engine number "BH" series allocated shows the range of BH 13020 to 13885, frames XG 28750 to 29050.............
Notes in the records mention that these 300 bikes were as those made under Contract C 11464 to include 26 engines and gearboxes (spares). Delivery at 75 per week. Michelin tyres fitted. Built in small quantities during Contract C 10477...........

The second is an unknown contract from 1942 for the RN for 100 machines with Ariel allocating 100 "tab" numbers......but again the engine number "BH" series shows a broad range from BH 13550 to 14823, frames XG 29000 to 29150.....Notes in the records state that these 100 machines were built in small batches during the same contract (C 10477) as the 300 RAF machines noted above...............

Unfortunately, apart from the broad range of engine and frame numbers available, exactly which ones were used for these two small RAF & RN contracts is unknown............

Worth mentioning that some (not all) RAF W/NG's had the engine "BH" number prefixed by a "R" (for RAF) and RN W/NG's the letter "N" (for Naval).......

The MoS contract ledgers are useful as mentioned in detailing some modifications and additional equipment introduced, such as the chain retainers for the fuel and oil tank caps, pillion and pannier equipment, etc.........but they also detail the discrepancies that can creep in when attempting to compile engine and frame number series, as many contracts show several hundred spare frames, engines, etc, supplied along with quantities of complete machines........and whether these were numbered or not remains unanswered........

Steve thanks for that, so half of it was in the RAF and tother in the Navy

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Fleet Air Arm then... ...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian Wright

Fleet Air Arm then... ...Ian

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Does that mean he's got to paint it white and dangle a torpedo under it ?

And then catapult it off the 'A' Turret of a Battleship... ..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian, PLEASE don't give him ideas, I've got to ride about with him..

Thanks Steve. I'm looking forward to your 2nd revision Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Thanks Steve. I'm looking forward to your 2nd revision Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Something decidedly strange with this site sometimes? It posted my reply twice and without the EDIT/DELETE tit??
Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Baz.
I may have a outer cover for the gearbox, I'll check tomorrow if I get the chance.

TTJohn

email (option): Jomichael@aol.com

Hi Ron..If you click 'post message' and then click it again while it is doing that it will post twice..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

OK Ian, I'll remember that for the future. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Ian Wright

And then catapult it off the 'A' Turret of a Battleship... ..Ian

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Barry,
I have just checked the despatch books, here's whats in there-
Engine BH9912 originally fitted to frame XG27523. Tab No.(internal works no.)43, fitted with Goodyear tyres. Despached to the RAF 21/8/41.
Frame XG29001 originally fitted with engine BH13551. Tab No. 10, fitted with Dunlop tyres.Despatched to the Navy 24/1/42.
Alas no contract info mentioned for either.
Cheers, Mick.

People don't use paint stripper any more Horror because it doesn't seem to work any more!! Is it just me or is Nitromors about as much good as smearing tomato sauce on your paint work and expecting it to take the paint off?

Nice one, Mick. Someone with the time and inclination could make a nice spreadsheet using the despatch books info and probably pin most of them down to the odd RAF and RN contracts. The MoS books give totals delivered but no indication of frame / engine numbers (nor census numbers, unfortunately).

Do the books state colour ?

Hi Rik,
Alas most of the W/NG info in the despatch books is rather scant. Perhaps they didn't have a lot of time to fill them in. However some of the late war Navy bike entries do have alot, some of the bikes even the name of the man who assembled them. We also have copies of the W/NG records held at Kew which gives a lot if info about what spares were supplied with each contract, where panniers were retro fitted to earlier machines etc. According to these a lot of the bikes sent to the far east were "tropicalised" and shipped without tyres etc.
As yet I have found no mention about colours.
Cheers. Mick.

Hi Rik,
Alas most of the W/NG info in the despatch books is rather scant. Perhaps they didn't have a lot of time to fill them in. However some of the late war Navy bike entries do have alot, some of the bikes even the name of the man who assembled them. We also have copies of the W/NG records held at Kew which gives a lot if info about what spares were supplied with each contract, where panniers were retro fitted to earlier machines etc. According to these a lot of the bikes sent to the far east were "tropicalised" and shipped without tyres etc.
As yet I have found no mention about colours.
Cheers. Mick.

Thanks Mick for all that research work to tell me that what I,ve got is a mongrel but what the heck, whatever it turns out like will be presentable....at the moment, engine and gearbox are out,and started removing every nut and bolt from the frame using heat and penetrating oil and so far they have all snapped off

email (option): barryrapley@sky.com

Hey Barry, if truth be told about 90% of the bikes featured here are mongrels!
Cheers, Mick.