Ugliest Rig Ever Built (Hijacked to Loftus Suction Collector)

Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
3,980
A while back we had an intermittent discussion about the ugliest fire rig ever built.  Contenders were the Ward LaFrance Firebrand, the ALF Pioneer, and the Comcoach Satellites.  Well, it's not FDNY, but I think I've found the winner . . . the 1949 Spangler Dual built by Hahn:

16608.jpg


It had TWO 100hp Ford engines, and TWO front mount 500 gpm Barton American pumps with a 1500 gallon booster tank.  Only two were built.  One went to the Friendship Fire Company of Morgantown, PA.  Apparently they were very displeased with the unit and returned it to Hahn.  The other went to the US Army, where it was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and rejected for army use. As best as I have been able to determine, both units were scrapped (I wonder why).




span03.jpg





0e68fbc9-9375-4d75-af56-0539.jpg

:eek:
What do you think?  Did I find the winner?
 

HCO

Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
408
After discussion with those more knowledgeable than I am, the nomination for the ugliest FDNY rigs goes to FDNY Smoke Ejector and Foamite Trucks 41 and 42. They were 1921 Pirsch city service trucks on White body and chassis, part of an order of ten city service ladders. They were retrofitted by the FDNY Shops in 1937 and 1942 to carry two large capacity smoke ejectors and six large twelve-inch diameter lengths of smoke ejector hose. The two trucks carried cans of foam powder and two large capacity Foamite generators. For a time, one was painted a dull gray, which added to the overall ugliness. They were assigned on special calls and were eventually disposed of in 1957. It is my understanding there are photos in ?Wheels of the Bravest.?
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
3,980
I think this is one of the rigs HCO is talking about.  Pretty?  No.  FDNY?  Yes.  Ugliest ever built?  Not in my opinion.

index.php


Photo credit to Al Trojanowicz, Supervising Dispatcher FDNY (ret)
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
8,450
Wasn't there a smoke ejector  called the Loftus Smoke Ejector?  After former Chief of Department Peter Loftus.  Interesting that at least two Chiefs of Department lived in Flushing Queens in E 274 territory - Peter Loftus and Ed Kilduff.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
3,980
I think it was called the Loftus Suction Collector, Kevin.  No luck finding a picture of it.  Chief JK posted a while back that it was last carried on the 1950's Ward LaFrance CD rigs. He also said there was an article on it in the April 1951 WNYF
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
2,487
raybrag said:
I think it was called the Loftus Suction Collector, Kevin.  No luck finding a picture of it.  Chief JK posted a while back that it was last carried on the 1950's Ward LaFrance CD rigs. He also said there was an article on it in the April 1951 WNYF
You are correct. It was a water ejector invented by Chief Loftus. Just a side note-he would shop at the Key Food on Northern Blvd. with his aide in the car awaiting his return.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
3,980
Do you mean Key, Memory . . . or King Kullen?  One of my old girlfriend's father was the head butcher there in the mid to late 50's.
 

811

Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
288
Article on Loftus Suction Collector in WNYF April 1951. (the E53 photo is not from the article)

Loftus%20E53%20jpg_zpshgbejhek.jpg

20Suction%20Collector%20WNYF%20apr1951_zpso7gf1gzt.jpg
 

811

Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
288
Loftus Suction Collector stored on running board just behind rear fender. CD45 195? Ward LaFrance pumper.
CD45%20WLF%20loftus%20collector_zpsqeml9w3q.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
8,450
raybrag said:
I think it was called the Loftus Suction Collector, Kevin.  No luck finding a picture of it.  Chief JK posted a while back that it was last carried on the 1950's Ward LaFrance CD rigs. He also said there was an article on it in the April 1951 WNYF

Thanks
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
5,392
811 said:
Loftus Suction Collector stored on running board just behind rear fender. CD45 195? Ward LaFrance pumper.
CD45%20WLF%20loftus%20collector_zpsqeml9w3q.jpg
  C.D.45 was one of the last 25 (#C.D. 41 thru C.D. 65) 1954 Ward LaFrance Civil Defense pumpers. It used to be quartered at E96. ;)
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
15,670
Thanks to all who have added to this post on a piece of old no longer used equipment like the Loftus Suction Collector ( i knew 811 would have some great info to add).....as stated Chief Peter Loftus was a former COD in the FDNY who designed it ....it was primarily a WW2/post WW2 appliance which could be used if there was an attack on US soil that crippled the water mains....as in the name "collector" it collected any available lines w/water into a Pumper intake as a water source .....the CD pumper's as pictured in the photo 811 provided were never used during an actual attack (which never occurred here in the US) but were around for many years & by the '60s became a valuable resource as part of (or maybe a majority of the FDNY spare pool)... the early models of these Rig's themselves had no muffler & were very loud plus Buckeye "exhaust whistle equipped".....many ENG's had these as there regular Rig aside for the bunch that were designated as CD (Civil Defense) Pumpers....i don't think the CD Pumpers qualify as ugly but certainly were FDNY workhorses in the late '50s/early'60s.
 

811

Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
288
The Loftus Collector is not that ancient, or dedicated for one specific use.  The WNYF article cited other examples, such as taking multiple feeds from tunnel standpipes, or from a number of buildings' standpipes (supplied by their roof tanks).

A friend assigned to the Super Pumper System remembers at least one of the Satellites carried a Loftus Collector into the 1970s.  The photo above with Engine 53 (I think it was one of 10 1963 International/H&H pumpers - g'man should be able to confirm this) shows multiple lines supplying Large Diameter Hose - LDH through a Collector.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
2,487
raybrag said:
Do you mean Key, Memory . . . or King Kullen?  One of my old girlfriend's father was the head butcher there in the mid to late 50's.
You are correct Ray, it was King Kullen. Well, I knew there was a "K" in it somewhere.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
156
My two cents on the Loftus collector. Back in the late fifties  the collector was put back in service for a very short while as a MANIFOLD to be supplied by the 4-1/2 LDH that was carried by the Supper Pumper.  That was short lived as the welded seams of the aluminum casing would let go under pressure. We had one issued to us back then that was carried tied down on the rear step. That was the only place we could find to put the thing and to say the least, not too well appreciated by those riding the back step of our 47 Mack.  It also had a nick name given to it: the Loftus dust collector. based on it never being used. A good idea for what it was originally made for as mentioned in the WNYF article but not as a manifold for multiple hand lines. Credit where credit is due it most likely did inspire the creation of the modern manifolds now carried by the Satellites and the Mini manifold carried by chief cars.
 

811

Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
288
I think the difference is that "manifolds" had multiple OUTLETS whereas the "collector" had multiple INLETS; basically the difference between a SIAMESE and a WYE.

Still, the same basic idea - so probably one led to the other.

Still I also heard that the aluminum casting of the Loftus device was not that reliable; and wouldn't if one supply line of say 125# psi cause the clapper valves on the other inlets (of less pressure) to be shut?  I'm no expert on hydraulics, but it is one issue to consider.
 

Bulldog

Bulldog
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
2,291
811 said:
Still I also heard that the aluminum casting of the Loftus device was not that reliable; and wouldn't if one supply line of say 125# psi cause the clapper valves on the other inlets (of less pressure) to be shut?  I'm no expert on hydraulics, but it is one issue to consider.
The Clapper Valves and Wouldn't Close until the downstream pressure (pressure of the line leaving the manifold) exceeded the inlet pressure of a line. One of the lines feeding the manifold could be a considerably higher pressure and still not cause a problem until the downstream pressure rose significantly.
 
Top