M149A2 water tank trailer/ for fuel

[RWG421]

I was looking to pick up a M149A2 for water, but I was wondering if it could be used to haul diesel.

I think these tanks are stainless so I don't see that as being an issue, but I’m not sure if they have a internal slosh baffle.

I would probably cut and weld shut the dispensing manifold and draw fuel from above. Also I’m not sure the lid seal is fuel compatible.

Thank's for any insight into this matter.

 

[73m819]

DO not know the M number, but in vietnam we used a lot of our water trailers to haul fuel, some we mounted a gas powered 1 lunger pump, others we just used jerry cans to move the fuel

 

[emmado22]

No baffles in a water trailer by design so you can clean it inside.

 

[RWG421]

Do you think hauling fuel with or without a baffle makes a difference?

 

[73m819]

NO, same as water

 

[wreckerman893]

No baffles in a water trailer by design so you can clean it inside.

They have a high center of gravity and get real squirrilly when half empty....the liquid will roll up the sides of the tank and try to roll it over in a turn.

If you have to stop quick the liquid will move forward and try to push the trailer....this is bad news if you are towing it with a vehicle that is light in the rear end.

You would also have to run HAZMAT placards if you have fuel in it (even empty due to fumes).

This sets you up with insurance issues since a fuel spill will attract the attention of every emergency and environmental agency for miles around. Regular insurance will not pay enough to clean up a large fuel spill.

You may also need a CDL with HAZMAT endorsement to pull it.....that means a Medical Card and a background check with the Drivers License Bureau.

I worked for a company that did HAZMAT response and a small spill from a traffic accident (commercial vehicle fuel tank ruptured and spilled around 100 gallons) cost over 10 grand to abate.

Not all good ideas are cost effective.

 

[BKubu]

These responses are great, especially WRECKERMAN's. Another thing to consider is the cost of the M149A2. They generally bring really good money. I'm talking over a grand if they are as clean as the one in the pic. I paid $1100 for mine and I've seen them go as high as $2K at auction. I bet you could find a civilian fuel tank for less.

 

[73m819]

OR a fuel pod in a 105

 

[emmado22]

No baffles + towing it not totally full or totally empty = accident waiting to happen. I have seen first hand a 1/2 full water buffalo overturn a M113A2 going down a tank trail.

 

[RWG421]

I was thinking about putting a fuel pod in my 105, do you think this will fit?

 

[73m819]

I was thinking about putting a fuel pod in my 105, do you think this will fit?

YES, I have seen several set up like that, put the bows and cover on, nobody knows there is a fuel pod there

 

[wreckerman893]

I was thinking about putting a fuel pod in my 105, do you think this will fit?

That was a common modification...often used to carry MOGAS (reg gasoline) for stoves before everything was switched to diesel. Some had pumps others just used gravity flow.

Some units used a dual tire set up to improve flotation on soft ground.

More stable than a Water Buff but still leaves you open to some of the things I mentioned above.

 

[RWG421]

Thanks all for your help. I decided to pass on the M149A2, and will be looking for a pod to put on my 105.

Thanks again for all the input and great advice.

 

[jasonjc]

If you do go with the M149 and remove the pluming PLEASE let me know.

But I also think you would be better off with the M105 and pod. Or better a M200 with the pod it woul be lower and more stable. Plus the pod are 500 or 600 gal. The military also had a fuel trailer with pump not sure of the # but have seen a few on GL.

 

[mckeeranger]

No baffles in a water trailer by design so you can clean it inside.

Our M107E2's have baffles. And yes, they are hard to clean. I've found it's a lot easier to keep them clean than to get them clean.

DO not know the M number, but in vietnam we used a lot of our water trailers to haul fuel, some we mounted a gas powered 1 lunger pump, others we just used jerry cans to move the fuel

I think Vietnam would have been the M107's.

 

[NEIOWA]

Fuel in a M149 would be less an issue with surge/sloosh than water as the specific gravity of the fuel is less than water (less mass floating around).

M105 is not the right answer for a 600gal pod. That is a 5000lb load and more top heavy that an M149. Worry about CG of a 400gal M149 (same chassis as M105) but not a 50% larger load higher in the air with a pod mounted in an M105? That makes no sense

The Army changed in the 80s to using 600gal pods mounted on a bolster trailer due to may rollover/spills of the 105 w/pod. During my active duty days then I recall a DO NOT USE mesage for M105 w/pod. I had 3x bolster trl with pod in my Support Plt, made a very nice and much safer rig - lower CG on a higher capacity trailer with much wider track. A very good solution. Bolster trailers have been selling cheap. Add a pod and still should be under the cost of an M149. Look for pod with surge baffle.

 

[indy4x4fab]

Fuel in a M149 would be less an issue with surge/sloosh than water as the specific gravity of the fuel is less than water (less mass floating around).

M105 is not the right answer for a 600gal pod. That is a 5000lb load and more top heavy that an M149. Worry about CG of a 400gal M149 (same chassis as M105) but not a 50% larger load higher in the air with a pod mounted in an M105? That makes no sense

The Army changed in the 80s to using 600gal pods mounted on a bolster trailer due to may rollover/spills of the 105 w/pod. During my active duty days then I recall a DO NOT USE mesage for M105 w/pod. I had 3x bolster trl with pod in my Support Plt, made a very nice and much safer rig - lower CG on a higher capacity trailer with much wider track. A very good solution. Bolster trailers have been selling cheap. Add a pod and still should be under the cost of an M149. Look for pod with surge baffle.

A m200a1 trailer would be better suited for mounting a 600gal fuel pod. the m200a1 has a much more stouter spring pack plus it has dauls which would help with lowering the CG.

 

[jasonjc]

M105 is not the right answer for a 600gal pod. That is a 5000lb load and more top heavy that an M149. Worry about CG of a 400gal M149 (same chassis as M105) but not a 50% larger load higher in the air with a pod mounted in an M105? That makes no sense

The M105 and M149 DO NOT have the same chassis. The M107 uses the M103 (M105) chassis. The M149 has a chassis all its own.

 

[jasonjc]

A m200a1 trailer would be better suited for mounting a 600gal fuel pod. the m200a1 has a much more stouter spring pack plus it has dauls which would help with lowering the CG.

Gee why did I not think of that.

 

[topo]

If your trailer has the fuel tank mounted to it a lot of DOT rules do apply . but if you have a engine mounted that runs off of the fuel tank . the rules do not apply .