1/4t lunette assembly pictures?

[ntsqd]

I'm looking for pictures of the 1/4 ton military trailer lunette assembly. Together, disassembled, anything.
Also interested if someone has a complete assembly for sale.

 

[Corprin]

I'm looking for pictures of the 1/4 ton military trailer lunette assembly. Together, disassembled, anything.
Also interested if someone has a complete assembly for sale.

I can go snap some of mine, I have both a hi/low for the M416/M101cdn, and the M100 style. What exactly are you looking for?

Here are some pics/measurements I took a couple years ago of the M100 style.

 

[wesintl]

https://forum.ih8mud.com/sale-parts/499063-m416-parts-axle-tires-e-brake-hitch.html

 

[ntsqd]

I'm wondering how easy it might be to adapt one to a single leg tongue.

What does the bolt at the top, 90* from the zerk, do?

thanks for the link. I did search, but didn't see that.

 

[Corprin]

That lunette is actually from my Japanese Type-73, but may be the same as the M100. The top bolt could or could not be on the M100, and it only allows access to the lunette shaft's ring.

On the M416 type, the top bolt is the location for the zerk.

What you could make an assembly which mimicked the angled draw-bars of the military trailer to form a U, or two zig-zag brackets to bolt to the sides of the center bar, and the angled face of the lunette housing.

 

[greentruck]

The Yahoo M101 CDN group has illustrations in manuals psoted in its Files section. You gotta be a member to view, IIRC, but that's free:
M101CDN : Canadian M101, 1/4 Ton Trailer

I'm pretty sure that the lunette and drawbar assembly use cast and other parts that are identical to US-spec, although the A-arms for the drawbar may be different, etc.

 

[ntsqd]

From the start I assumed that I'd be much modifying the piece with the tapered hole for the lunette itself. Or worst case having to make one from bar stock. Cast parts are OK as long as they're steel and not iron. I think that I need to find one and start playing with it. Sent the guy linked above a PM. Looked on Steel Soldiers too, no love.

 

[Corprin]

From the start I assumed that I'd be much modifying the piece with the tapered hole for the lunette itself. Or worst case having to make one from bar stock. Cast parts are OK as long as they're steel and not iron. I think that I need to find one and start playing with it. Sent the guy linked above a PM. Looked on Steel Soldiers too, no love.

What exactly are you trying to do?

 

[ntsqd]

End up with a swiveling lunette for this:


The way that the military swivel works is particularly appealing. Much easier to adapt one of them than to re-create it from scratch. The trailer frame was built with a 2" socket on the tongue for the coupler. The PO was going to use a Lock-N-Roll, but never did. If I can modify a swiveling lunette to have a 2" tube at the rear of it then it's easy to replace the ball coupler. I usually remove the ball coupler when parked as a theft deterrent anyway.

 

[Corprin]

I paid $75 for my lunette housing, and have seen them go for up to $125. The rings are ~$65... or the whole assembly tend to be right about $200 plus shipping. You will also need a pintle hook to go with it all, another $30.

At that point, since you are already set up for one, why not go with something like the Max Coupler?
Multi-Axis Couplers by Adventure Trailers

 

[ntsqd]

I designed my own "Max Coupler" in 1998. A fellow with a 416 dokka and a machinist friend of his built it for the dokka's western US trip towing an off road prepped tent trailer. At the time I was convinced from examination that a pintle/lunette coupling would be noisy. I've decided that I want to know if this is true or not first hand.

I do not like the details that are lacking in the Max Coupler. All of the tongue weight and tensile loading goes thru a couple of welds that really aren't all that long, nor is their 'wrist' terribly confidence inspiring. Perhaps better than the LnR's, but not by a lot. Had they simply wrapped a strap around the eyelet their weakest joint would be a non-issue. I'm also not real fond of urethane.

One of the bits that came with the TrailBlazer was a pintle hitch. I was going to simply attach a lunette ring forging to a piece of 2" tube (& may still), but the swiveling ability of the 1/4t stuff caught my eye and it makes way more sense.

In the link above the guy wants $300 for the lunette assembly. I thought that might be a bit steep, but I figured to see how negotiable he might be. Know of any other likely sources for those parts? I looked on Steel Soldiers yesterday with no luck.

 

[Mace]

NT, I picked up this lunette ring on here. I am not sure where it came from or who made it (it's at Woody's house in Wis) But it would probably be a heck of a lot easier to adapt to your trailer than the military one.

KT may remember where he originally got it from.

https://forum.ih8mud.com/sale-parts/528258-driveway-parts-sale.html

 

[ntsqd]

Mace, That one looks to be one of the larger sizes, like for a tandem axle tilt-bed backhoe trailer or similar. Other than that it does look like it would be an easier adaptation. Hum, more research.....

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

I designed my own "Max Coupler" in 1998. A fellow with a 416 dokka and a machinist friend of his built it for the dokka's western US trip towing an off road prepped tent trailer. At the time I was convinced from examination that a pintle/lunette coupling would be noisy. I've decided that I want to know if this is true or not first hand.

I do not like the details that are lacking in the Max Coupler. All of the tongue weight and tensile loading goes thru a couple of welds that really aren't all that long, nor is their 'wrist' terribly confidence inspiring. Perhaps better than the LnR's, but not by a lot. Had they simply wrapped a strap around the eyelet their weakest joint would be a non-issue. I'm also not real fond of urethane.

One of the bits that came with the TrailBlazer was a pintle hitch. I was going to simply attach a lunette ring forging to a piece of 2" tube (& may still), but the swiveling ability of the 1/4t stuff caught my eye and it makes way more sense.

In the link above the guy wants $300 for the lunette assembly. I thought that might be a bit steep, but I figured to see how negotiable he might be. Know of any other likely sources for those parts? I looked on Steel Soldiers yesterday with no luck.

CAn you post more info on the coupler you designed in 1998?

 

[Mace]

If it's the larger one it won't rattle around as much either then

 

[Corprin]

At the time I was convinced from examination that a pintle/lunette coupling would be noisy. I've decided that I want to know if this is true or not first hand.

With a few hundred thousand miles dragging pintle hitched trailers, I can attest they are noisy and not exacting when backing... but they are sure tough.

In the link above the guy wants $300 for the lunette assembly. I thought that might be a bit steep, but I figured to see how negotiable he might be. Know of any other likely sources for those parts? I looked on Steel Soldiers yesterday with no luck.

WAY too much, unless it is brand spanking new... and comes with the entire landing leg assembly.

Trailer Parts

lunette ring - 188.00 with nut
lunette housing - 175.00

Or

Pintle Hooks | Lunette Rings | Hitches Online
#PH141121 - 49.99

 

[ntsqd]

LCPhil, All of the drawings were in AutoCAD R12. If I could find them I no longer have a good way to access them. I might be able to recreate it, but it would take a lot of time. Not that I haven't contemplated it......
The basics were that the design was a lot like the Tregg, but with both ends intending to fit into a 2" socket receiver and the toggle block was in tension rather than compression like the Tregg. There was no means for qwik disconnect, you had to pull one or the other hitch pin to uncouple. In that regard it sucked.
The lay-out was such that very little welding needed to happen (mostly inter-locking machined parts) and the 'wrist' was longer (more bearing area) than any current design that I've seen by at least twice. For a production item it would have had to rely heavily on near-net shape castings and forgings. Which in one part's case a forging would make for a stronger part than one that was machined. It was never intended to be a production item, just a proof of concept. I'm not sure if the LnR was available when I started, but it was by the time we finished.

Corprin, My thought too, way too much for those used parts but perhaps the guy is flexible. Have yet to hear from him. (what's up with that? I mean, if I wanted to talk to him tomorrow I'd PM him tomorrow. ) I had found those lunettes with the threaded shank that you linked and was looking at how much bearing area is available once the nut is put on. Looks like a 1.5" castle nut is about 1.5" tall, which really eats into that short stud. Looks like about 1.85" is all you get, which probably means that by the time I put a stack of Bellevilles on there to control rotation I'll only have ~1.5" of exposed shank.

 

[Corprin]

Did you still want some pics of the M416?

Honestly I would grab the lunette off an M101a1. They are a bit thicker on the shank, but because they are much more common the prices are much lower. The ring thickness and opening are the same as the M416, but are offset with an s-curve so you can adjust the ring height by simply flipping it over. It still uses a tapered mounting like the M416 type, but is a bit longer as well.

The other option is to build hitch adapter for the tow-rig to use the HMMWV pintle type.

This would allow the use of a solid lunette ring that mounts directly into your current drawbar.

This is what I have been tempted to build around, as the hitch rotates so I am able to drag trailers with surge brakes, like the M101A2.

 

[ntsqd]

Turns out that a friend's 416 that I thought had been converted to a ball coupler wasn't, so I'll go have a look at it if need be.

Searching fleabag, $135:

I'm guessing that this is the casting that has two of the tapered holes?
If the flats on the shoulder and the lack of spring loading are something to go by, it doesn't look like these are intended to rotate in use.

Looking at the pic below, those rotating pintles aren't tiny. That one is over a foot long.

 

[Living in the Past]

Turns out that a friend's 416 that I thought had been converted to a ball coupler wasn't, so I'll go have a look at it if need be.

Searching fleabag, $135:

I'm guessing that this is the casting that has two of the tapered holes?
If the flats on the shoulder and the lack of spring loading are something to go by, it doesn't look like these are intended to rotate in use.

I believe this set up is from a M101. It only has the one tapered hole and you are right it does not rotate. I have one of the M101 and I have the lunette flip the other way. This are also not spring loaded.