2005 Unimog U500 w/ flat alaskan camper

adam88

Explorer
Found this on the web for sale and it is pretty unique. 2005 U500 unimog looks totally loaded with all options (CTIS, Vario, etc). and it has a huge custom alaskan camper on the back, looks custom made for a flatbed. The rear tires sure look tucked like there is no room for flex or anything... looks very odd. That steel flatbed frame must weigh a lot. Also looks rusty? Not my cup of tea at all.... but thought I'd post it

http://www.unimog.net/sales/u500camper/

u500camper-left.jpg
 

cwsqbm

Explorer
There USED TO BE a build thread and a "for sale" thread on that here, but given that the powers-that-be let people delete threads willy-nilly, its gone from the internet now. :(
 

adam88

Explorer
Why would anyone build a departure angle like that into a truck that has an approach angle like that?

That is why I am not a big fan of this one. To me, the space between the cab and alaskan is wasted and creates a bad departure angle and a longer overall truck. If you moved the alaskan up 5 feet towards the cab and cut off 5 feet of the bed it would be much better. Probably why this person deleted their build thread and has it for sale I'd guess? Not trying to dump on this build, like I said, not my cup of tea... just wondering why it was built this way etc. Wish the build thread was still here.
 

sixbennetts

Adventurer
Yeah, I guess I can see that. If you're in flat desert terrain, departure angles don't mean as much as ability to transport your dirt bike.

Makes sense. And both the Alaskan and Unimog are proven many times over.
 
The truck is set up perfectly for a 5.4m (18') GXV or Unicat camper.
An Alaska is kind of underkill for this chassis.
I wonder how big the fuel tanks are?
The main thing that hurts the departure angle is the rear underride protection. U500s have about a 39 deg approach angle but only a 29 deg departure angle in long wheelbase.

Charlie
 

Carlyle

Explorer
The truck is set up perfectly for a 5.4m (18') GXV or Unicat camper.
An Alaska is kind of underkill for this chassis.
I wonder how big the fuel tanks are?
The main thing that hurts the departure angle is the rear underride protection. U500s have about a 39 deg approach angle but only a 29 deg departure angle in long wheelbase.

Charlie

I don't mean to step on any toes, but in what respect would you consider an Alaskan to be underkill on a U500? I seriously considered going with a U500 before I ended up with the Dodge. For several reasons, highway driving and parts availability in North America, I ended up going domestic. I would have put an Alaskan on a U500 as well, just not that one.
 
If you want an Alaskan on a U500 by all means go for it. But the chassis is capable of safely carrying a bigger heavier and incidentally more expensive camper with more amenites.
And yes, considering the extended wheelbase, I'd have a 5.2-5.4m GXV or Unicat on it with a squared off back (for better storage space utilization, not slanted like mine) - not an Alaskan.
That's what I meant.

Charlie
 
Last edited:

dwh

Tail-End Charlie
But, I believe he is talking about "space claim" and that the Alaskan on the truck is smaller than necessary given the extended wheelbase.

I wouldn't say "smaller than necessary"...I'd say "smaller than possible".

Sure, with that chassis, a much larger camper is certainly "possible" - but is it "necessary"? I don't think so.

As I recall, Don built the truck to accommodate himself and a border collie. I don't recall any mention of a significant other, so for just one guy and a dog, I would think that a 10' Alaskan NCO would be all that is really "necessary".

Tennmogger travels all over in a 1300 series Mog with a (I think) 8' Alaskan NCO - AND a wife (and I seem to recall children as well), and that is apparently all that is "necessary" for them to have a bloody good time.

Bill Caid did the same thing, with just himself and his significant other, and decided it wasn't enough - so he built the Hi-Lo on the Mercedes 817 chassis.



Different strokes for different folks. Just because every available inch of space wasn't used, that doesn't mean that it was "wasted". It just means that it wasn't "necessary" to use every available inch of space.

I personally really like the layout of Don's truck, though I would have reversed the camper to put the door at the front and leave a 4' gap to the cab.

Then I'd've hung the bike and spare tire(s) off the back and used the gap between the camper and cab as a mudroom/crawlthrough/(possibly) shower area with a generator in a box low on the port side (on top of the deck, so no need to pressurize the compartment ala Unicat), with storage above that, and hung a gangplank/stairway on the starboard side.



EDIT: And there is certainly something to be said for not maxing out the GVWR of the chassis as well.
 
Last edited:

Carlyle

Explorer
Of course Charlie is more than capable of explaining what he meant...

But, I believe he is talking about "space claim" and that the Alaskan on the truck is smaller than necessary given the extended wheelbase.

I've actually worked on the truck and have to say that it was the "oddest" layout I'd ever seen.


I saw the camper at the Alaskan factory when it was being built, odd is a good description for it, but everyone desires different things.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,966
Messages
2,880,314
Members
225,627
Latest member
Deleman
Top