|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 11, 2009 23:37:16 GMT
Several months ago I acquired an all brass S50. Its doesn't actually say Stuart on it, but it is pure S50 and everything is brass including the base, flywheel, cylinder, etc - everything except the bolts (which are BA).
Is it some sort of cheap foreign copy - any ideas of its age or where it came from ?
Steve
|
|
NickM
E-xcellent poster
Posts: 230
|
Post by NickM on Mar 11, 2009 23:57:44 GMT
I seem to remember seeing an all brass S50 on eBay several months ago, it was very highly polished.
I think someone had machined it all from brass stock, possibly using Stuart drawings and I think it was described as being a scratch built S50. Maybe yours is from the same source or was built by someone too mean to pay for the castings!
Are the base, cylinder and fywheel on yours machined or cast?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tel on Mar 12, 2009 7:19:00 GMT
|
|
jasonb
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by jasonb on Mar 12, 2009 8:11:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 12, 2009 14:58:01 GMT
Thanks Guys,
Nick, it did come from eBay, maybe 6 or more months ago, but it didn't describe it as an S50 - and I only realised later that it is identical. The base and flywheel are cast.
Tel, I see MSM do a range of brass engines that look remarkably like Stuart's, though I don't see an S50 - maybe they did one in the past.
I would say the build quality looks a bit amateur (e.g. screws where I would have studs and nuts, and poor big end alignment), so I expect it was a home machined kit. I am smartening it up when I get a moment.
When I can figure out getting pictures on here I'll post pics of a steam boat engine to see if anyone can identify that - it is like a three bearing Stuart No 1 (inboard flywheel) - and, unlike this brass S50, it is a work of art !
I assume there's some steamboat people on here.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Mar 12, 2009 17:04:33 GMT
Steve
There was a Stuart No. 3 compound which looked very like a no. 1, but had 2 cylinders and a 3 bearing crank, but the flywheel was outboard. There were a few parts in common with the no.1 including the standards.
Richard
|
|
|
|
Post by engineernut on Mar 12, 2009 18:02:59 GMT
I do not think Stuarts ever made all brass castings. Well I have never seen one in their old catalogues.
I saw these S50 copies/look alikes on eBay.
The No1 is a vertical single cylinder engine 2" x 2" bore and stroke & 13" height, whereas the No3 was a compound (twin cylinder) engine with 1 1/2" & 2 1/4" bore with 1 1/2" stroke. Although the No1 is still being produced I think the No3 stopped in the late 1920 era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tel on Mar 12, 2009 18:48:45 GMT
Thanks Guys, Tel, I see MSM do a range of brass engines that look remarkably like Stuart's, though I don't see an S50 - maybe they did one in the past. Steve When they first hit the market they were blatant copies of the Stuarts, they might have been modified since for, ahem, 'technical' reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by engineernut on Mar 12, 2009 19:10:22 GMT
I lost count number of engines described on eBay as Stuart's when they are copies.  Or just as bad are the number of sellers that just put in their advert "I think it is a Stuart, or Stuart? when it is probably obviously not.  Relying on someone seeing the name and jumping in paying a premium The other bit sellers say is of an era. I have sent a message to a few sellers asking, for my own benefit if nothing else, how they can be certain it was produced at that period. Non have ever replied.  Having said that I "think" on some of the castings there are numbers but do not know if that indicates year? I will have to ask Stuart's.  |
|
|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 12, 2009 21:05:22 GMT
No worries. Like I said it didn't claim to be a Stuart - just a brass steam engine. I didn't pay a huge sum, and its a nice ornament. I am just curious as to its origins.
I have a Stuart D10 that I bought on eBay - and when it arrived it was the worst bit of machining I have ever seen. The seller said it was good, and I thought - well he probably thought it was, and in case he made it himself I didn't want to tell him it was rubbish. But boy - it was bad freehand work - it amazes me how bad an engine can be and still run - after a fashion.
Some you win, some you lose - no point in complaining - and besides - it makes my own work look pretty good ! I may not be the best, but I sure as hell ain't the worst !
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 12, 2009 21:23:10 GMT
Hope you will excuse me experimenting, but I am trying to add a picture of it :  That works for me ... |
|
|
|
Post by Tel on Mar 12, 2009 23:23:45 GMT
Boy, you weren't kidding when you said all brass - even the rods and slide bars!
That flywheel looks to me like it might have been machined from the solid, so my punt is it's somebody's fabricated version.
|
|
|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 13, 2009 0:28:09 GMT
At least that means you can see my picture OK - thats good. A picture is worth a thousand words.
If you turn it over then the base casting is hollow sand cast, more of a shell. So that bit isn't solid - but yes - it is very brassy ! Even the crankshaft ! Maybe there are different grades in there, but it looks like brass on brass in places and as far as I know, the only time you run the same metal against itself is with cast iron. So I would say that makes it more of a desktop ornament. Still - it will shine up nicely !
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by engineernut on Mar 13, 2009 17:38:41 GMT
At least that means you can see my picture OK - thats good. A picture is worth a thousand words. If you turn it over then the base casting is hollow sand cast, more of a shell. So that bit isn't solid - but yes - it is very brassy ! Even the crankshaft ! Maybe there are different grades in there, but it looks like brass on brass in places and as far as I know, the only time you run the same metal against itself is with cast iron. So I would say that makes it more of a desktop ornament. Still - it will shine up nicely ! Steve Seeing the Pic and as you stated base is hollow I would imagine an accurate guestimate is someone has started making their own castings, base, flywheel, pos cylinder etc and making a few bob.  |
|
|
|
Post by classicsteve on Mar 14, 2009 0:38:48 GMT
Looks like this from underneath  I expected there to be more than one around if someone went to that trouble. In fact I expected half a dozen people to say its a well know Indian copy made in 1972 and imported. So maybe it was a complete one-off. |
|
jasonb
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by jasonb on Mar 14, 2009 7:41:44 GMT
It would be interesting to measure it against a CI Stuart one to see if its a fraction smaller which would suggest that it was cast using a Stuart casting as the pattern or if it's the same size then it would have been from a pattern that allowed for contraction/shrinkage.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Post by engineernut on Mar 14, 2009 17:35:11 GMT
The seller I saw on eBay selling engines similar to this one did keep placing them for sale on quite a regular basis.
|
|
Relying on someone seeing the name and jumping in paying a premium 
