-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Air Force CUCV
- Thread starter pmramsey
- Start date
cucvrus
Well-known member
- 11,281
- 9,631
- 113
- Location
- Jonestown Pennsylvania
Sorry that is not a CUCV. That is a standard 1988 6.2 diesel cab chassis. Not to be a spoiler. Is that even 4 WD?
- 667
- 141
- 43
- Location
- International Falls, MN
I would still say not a CUCV even with your definition. If that was the case, then my 1970 Chevy C-10 that had painted on the doors for government use only would be a CUCV. Just another nice old Chevy the military used.
cucvrus
Well-known member
- 11,281
- 9,631
- 113
- Location
- Jonestown Pennsylvania
Air Force thought it was a CUCV and used it as cargo ramp wagon and trailer mover.
They thought it was? Does it have a nomenclature ID tag that identify's it as a CUCV. I work for a body company and we build military use stake body and dry freight trucks on standard issue GM and Ford light duty cab chassis's and cut away chassis's. I also bought a few trucks from DRMO with the stake body on the back that were used by the military. They are just GSA units and not considered CUCV's They were nothing more then standard cab chassis with stake bodies from various manufactures on the back. I am not sure I see the relevance of the bicycle here. I also bought car from police departments as CUCV acronym. But that is still not the CUCV that this thread is devoted to. Sorry.
Example M1009 CUCV in factory woodland 3 color camo. I never seen any 1984 - 1987 CUCV from the factory with anything but woodland camo. And no 1988 blue duallys.
I am open for correction. But I would need some documentation on that. At least tell me it has B/O lamps and a brushguard and a 24 volt starter with a NATO slave receptacle. I don't see it.
Same CUCV in use in muddy field. No bikes here.
They thought it was? Does it have a nomenclature ID tag that identify's it as a CUCV. I work for a body company and we build military use stake body and dry freight trucks on standard issue GM and Ford light duty cab chassis's and cut away chassis's. I also bought a few trucks from DRMO with the stake body on the back that were used by the military. They are just GSA units and not considered CUCV's They were nothing more then standard cab chassis with stake bodies from various manufactures on the back. I am not sure I see the relevance of the bicycle here. I also bought car from police departments as CUCV acronym. But that is still not the CUCV that this thread is devoted to. Sorry.
Example M1009 CUCV in factory woodland 3 color camo. I never seen any 1984 - 1987 CUCV from the factory with anything but woodland camo. And no 1988 blue duallys.I am open for correction. But I would need some documentation on that. At least tell me it has B/O lamps and a brushguard and a 24 volt starter with a NATO slave receptacle. I don't see it.
Same CUCV in use in muddy field. No bikes here.
reaper556
Member
- 282
- 3
- 18
- Location
- HOCKLEY, TX
oh boy 
I have a super rare one of a kind 83 Bronco CUCV. It was used by special forces to haul the door gunners to the space shuttle.
On a serious note though nice truck, the Air force had bought a bunch of Suburban's, 4x4 1/2 and 3/4 ton I believe painted in the same blue color and even they aren't considered CUCV's
I have a super rare one of a kind 83 Bronco CUCV. It was used by special forces to haul the door gunners to the space shuttle.
On a serious note though nice truck, the Air force had bought a bunch of Suburban's, 4x4 1/2 and 3/4 ton I believe painted in the same blue color and even they aren't considered CUCV's
Last edited:
- 652
- 61
- 28
- Location
- Bucks County, Pa.
Nice truck but its not a CUCV. I have an 86 K30 C&C that started out as a US Army base Fire Truck. I Converted to a Dump. Neat Chevy similar to a CUCV but NOT one.
Attachments
2deuce
Well-known member
- 1,452
- 113
- 63
- Location
- portland, oregon
The military bought many many civilian vehicles. I have a 1953 GMC 450 that has the data plates and a Intl' S160 4x4 with data plates, but as far as CUCV's, I have found that the air force owned examples are the most desirable, because they don't get abused like the ones the army owned. The marines examples fall somewhere in between and sometimes can rival those from the air force. This is my experience.
sschaefer3
New member
- 212
- 3
- 0
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
As bought 
As it sits now, it's still a CUCV.
As it sits now, it's still a CUCV.
- 34,014
- 1,814
- 113
- Location
- GA Mountains
2002ford has an Air Force flatbed just like that. Cool truck.
- 1,577
- 137
- 63
- Location
- Norwood LA
As much as I would like to call my Air Force Flight Line Van a CUCV, it is not a 24 volt system suitable for field tactical use as other CUCVs. Unless it has (or at one time had) a 24 volt plug to jump other tactical vehicles (or be jumped), it probably cannot be considered a CUCV.
cucvrus
Well-known member
- 11,281
- 9,631
- 113
- Location
- Jonestown Pennsylvania
As much as I would like to call my Air Force Flight Line Van a CUCV,
What year is your expediter? And what body company built the body on back. We built hundreds of these in 1996 that had 6.5 turbo diesels in them. Dark Blue for the Air Force and white for the Navy. Most mileage I ever saw on one was 16K and that was just a few months ago at a scrap sale.
What year is your expediter? And what body company built the body on back. We built hundreds of these in 1996 that had 6.5 turbo diesels in them. Dark Blue for the Air Force and white for the Navy. Most mileage I ever saw on one was 16K and that was just a few months ago at a scrap sale.
Jericho
Well-known member
- 1,179
- 68
- 48
- Location
- Landaff NH
Oh you must have seen a guard or reserve launch truck ( the term we used for flight line vans) LOL Regular AF launch trucks were used until they could be fitted in to a Volkswagen ash tray,In 1994 we were still driving some trucks purchased in the early 70s, Some dodge models were from the 60s . Most we had in Propulsion flights had in excess of 150 to 200 k , mostly 0 to 40 mph speeds and countless hours of ideling time waiting on aircraft launchs or a troop to finish a job. they ran 24/7 7 days a week for the most part . They were reasonably maintained . not wanting to fan the flames on the cucv issue , AF seldom bought CUCV independently, hence all the Technical Orders for maintenance (ARMY AIR FORCE REPAIR MANUALS have both services listed if we were joint users, If the manual only listed AF it was because Army wasn't a user. All most all of our TACTICAL VEHICAL purchases were completed thru the ARMY Automotive or tank command , they were the prime contractors, we sometimes bought on the tail of the purchase, or in the case of joint assigned units we simply DREW our trucks from the Army motorpool as part of the "Memorandum of Understanding" for vehicles that delineated our mission. The AF purchased "civilian " vehicals in larger numbers for our SUPPLY ( logistics) units directly , Although it was by no means a positive One writer is basicly correct, Our tactical, army purchased , vehicals did come equipped with slave ports , our civilian AF sourced trucks generally did not . We had no use for slave ports, User level personnel wouldn't have jumped a truck anyway, That was a vehical maintainence function .We had very FEW tactical trucks Our focus was / is / aircraft and those vehicals that support aviation operations
davo727
New member
- 742
- 2
- 0
- Location
- Cleveland, TX , Spring , TX
Tough crowd but anyway that blue chevy is very nice.
- 4,256
- 1,707
- 113
- Location
- Edmond, Oklahoma
I think the non-CUCV point has been made.
cucvrus
Well-known member
- 11,281
- 9,631
- 113
- Location
- Jonestown Pennsylvania
NOT a CUCV but nice and handy
Is a CUCV M1008 
This is a CUCV M1008 that has been modified over the last 20 years. 
Honda 3013 in 686 desert tan. Has CUCV parts and paint on it. Still NOT a CUCV. This is all in fun if you take it any other way. I am real sorry. We are all adults here.