Hi Alan,

 

Disappointingly the you tube video wont open for me – for some reason it says my java script is turned off or I need to down load the latest Flash Player. ??????

 

Though I have no experience with spark ignition I recognise the name of the engine which I believe was intended more for  tethered car racing. When you say it will only run at one speed is this controlled by a throttle on the carb or are you varying it using the fuel needle. A pic or two would help

 

Good you’ve got it running though.

 

regards – Ramon

Hi again Alan, I’ve now managed to get the youtube open – good coverage of a lovely engine.

 

As I say I have no direct knowledge of sparkies but would say that this is running well below what you would expect. The rear view shows what looks to me like an extremely small venturi area. Couple this with the space taken up by the spray bar and the engine is going to be well choked – can you meaure this and see what the actual area is? An engine like this would need to ‘breathe’.

 

The engine is cracker though and sounds great – just wait till it peaks!

 

 

 

 

Get it running nice and steady without all the hunting on the right fuel/oil mix, and be sure the timing is right (which the fuel/oil mix will affect of course)and then start to adjust. Would be wisest IMO.

 

On which note I will leave it to the experts. We’ve had a short video of an engine running, We have no idea what the timing should be, made no effort yet to optimise it, we know we are running on an inorrect mix, and we are already on about mods and spraybar thinning.

 

Get on with it boys.

Hi Alan, Frank, 

Yes ’59’ ’60’ ’61’ all signify a basic ten cc motor.

 

When you have the parameters right Alan you should be able to start this motor by hand though wearing a thick glove might be advisable. In the meantime until you do get the right settings carry on as you are, just be careful not to really flood it and possibly damage the conrod.

 

I’m not sure about the two stroke oil I will find this out for you later but I think Mike last night was refering to thick engine oil.

 

The spring starter you are refering to is probably on a small Davies Charlton motor. This was a feature on their maller engines for many years – ‘Quick Start’ as I recall. It worked well on the smaller of those it was fitted too especially the glow motors. I think Cox had a similar system too.

 

More good news Alan-

 

I have just spoken with Hugh who it transpires has obviously has quite some detailed knowledge of Hallam products.

 

He has a Hallam catalogue and is is going to call later to see if he can identify the example I have which I think is very similar to yours. Having described the engine to him he thinks it may be a ‘nine’ (cc)

Apparently many Hallams were produced as kits of parts for the home builder as well as ready built versions so that may explain the variation on capacity. Likewise the fitting of the flywheel – could have been for boating or car use or just to be able to run the engine on the bench.

Concensus now is definitely the 4-5000 rpm band and fitting that larger 14″ dia prop.

 

 

I have taken some pics of this one for you perhaps you can compare yours in detail.

 

 

 

These last two are for interest. The first shows the Hallam venturi against that for another engine of the same capacity, an OS Max 60 racing marine engine awaiting renovation. Rev band on this is just a tad higher of course!

 

The last shows the Hallam compared to another marine engine this time an OPS 65 which was reclaimed from a very salt encrusted and siezed state. The carburetter fitted is from a Super tigre engine bored to 9mm dia. but this really ought to be larger for this engine to operate ‘where it should’

 

I’m enjoying his Alan, now I’m off to get that engine prepped. Will let you know on further developments

Regards for now

 

Hi again, I didn’t get far with that! – since my last and Meyricks post above some further developments – Meyrick, please, just remember  for most of this I’m just the messenger here

 

Taking the oil first however, yes modern synthetics do have a good reputation for keeping the engine clean as well as lubricating in as efficient manner if not more so than ‘good old’ castor. The downside with using castor is that it will not burn as such and  leaves a deposit on all surfaces, inside and out. Not so much a downside ‘inside’ but the outers are as you say ‘gummy’ to say the least and in most cases downright bloody terrible.

 

I have a new and as yet unrun Ukranian built  (Stalker ST61 LS) ABC engine purely designed for (C/L) aerobatics and there is a gallon of ‘synthetic’ ready for it. My understanding to date is that if pure sythetics are used following castor on a reasonably well run engine then this will remove the varnish and lead to poor sealing and hence performance. Because of his fact some use a mixture.  I would not use this oil in any of my other ‘stunt’ engines or others previously run on castor for that reason. Standing the risk of being accused of stating the obvious high performance engines need a high energy fuel and the less oil (given adequate lubrication) that contains the more that can be achieved. I’m thinking here more of diesels and glow ignition model motors. The more modern model engines are incredible pieces of the engineering art. The quality of machining ensures consistent good fits and tight tolerances – they’re precision instruments to say the least and I agree, good, quality lubrication is important and needs to match the requirement.

 

This engine however is what it is, side ported, made around 1950, possibly at home with no esoteric materials involved. The advice so far from those who have good knowledge of running and operating this engine and those of similar ilk is clear – use it at 4:1 and use a thick SAE70 oil. I don’t doubt your knowledge Meyrick and your sincerity to see Alans engine improve but is this sending someone down a road he doesn’t neccessarily need to take? On this engine, at this stage personally I think it would be.

 

Alan,

 

I have had another look at the video and it appears both engines are identical.

Unfortunately Hugh cannot  get round today but we have had another long conversation

 

Further info is as —— quote

 

His Hallam catalogue states it is the 12th year of production – it doesn’t give a date.

 

Hallams ceased producing most of their line throughout the war as most were aimed at the model aircraft market the flying of which was banned for the period. Here it gets a bit confusing but apparently in 1944 they released and continued to produce the ‘Nine’ which was intended for tethered model cars.

 

The ‘Nine’ was also ‘stroked’ to give a ‘ten’ – the stroke was increased from .875 to 1.00 the bore remaining the same on both engines.

 

The catalogue states that the engine would turn the (recommended) 15 x 9 prop at 3,400 rpm. [To me that’s a big prop and pitch even for a 60!] It does not list any power outputs but does give a static thrust expected with that prop of 31/2 lbs. and strangely, even contradictory given the times, it states that it would power an aircraft of 5 – 8 lbs weight.

 

Now get this – it gives the Flywheel rpm as 15,000  Quite! however before Meyrick gets excited we both felt this is totally unrealistic not least because of the side port layout. I would think that the 1 in front is possibly a typo! but ??? it certainly has bearing on Meyricks thought on the flywheel ‘inhibition’  – BTW remember that was just a quote passed on – Mike called me back specifically to comment on that point.

 

The engine cost just £1-7/6d with a flywheel and £1-5/- as a prop version but whether this was for castings (probably) or the built engine I’m not sure. (You can always think of more questions to ask after the phone goes down)

 

Well that really is about it for now Alan. Like you I am now on the same learning curve, indeed somewhat behind as I have still to get this to run. I’m open to all thoughts though and will take note of all comments but , as I’m sure most would agree, it’s only natural at times to ‘follow ones nose’

 

Best  regards – Ramon

 

 

 

 

 

Ramon  – please don’t be obtuse.

 

Firstly the flywheel. Just think in control line speak – how to get a shaft run. Take the prop blades off. So the whole business of the flywheel is an ill considered red herring. I am surprised that someone as knowledgeable as you on the i/c engines considered letting that one through.

 

Secondly the  oil. You wish to run your engine on SAE 70 treacle and gum and soot up the works unnecessarily –  by all means. But why you should inflict that on a novice, when plainly it will be much easier to get an engine that’s being a bit feminine going well on modern oil, and then, if the vintage bit appeals, change back. As an added bonus it will also protect it better the while.

 

Running the engine on methanol – well that’s fine, but its been checked that it’s compressed correctly for methanol rather than petrol? Methanol likes a lower compression ratio than petrol, and so running it on methanol without changing CR may make life interesting. It also likes a rather different fuel air mixture, so this novice now has to find a different start settings entirely??

 

I don’t quite see the problem. He mixes a low ash 2 stroke fuel at 25%. The engine starts and runs already. All he has ro do is fire it up and move the timing plate a bit, till it runs best and probably stops being awkward. Then he can adjust his needle valve for optimum. 

 

 

As for his piston being in the right way – well its a piston port engine. so there is a hole in the piston to allow the mix through. That is the  inlet timing valve and primary compression seal. So, its quite possible that if the piston were in the wrong way round, we might know about it by now.

 

As for the port timing. It may or may not be perfect, but with a 2 stroke you have a choice. Lift  port height and you lose torque and gain top end. Lower it and vice versa – in principle anyway. So if its not precise, it may not develop its full potential but it won’t be a disaster. However, since it runs, we can at this stage be reasonably sure they are not a mile out. If it were miles out the engine would be partway to being unrunnable.  As long as the transfers open a bit before the exhaust reaches fully open and promote good scavenge, thats about as good as it gets. Since its not a boost ported engine, with open loop scavenge its unlikely to be very critical is it? I mean its hardly likely to have an oversize crankcase and early transfer timing suitable for piped operation with awkward starting thrown in for free?.

.

Thus far we have a page and a half of recommendations, some of which are plainly erroneous and others utterly inconsequential, on an engine that basically works but hasn’t yet been run in.

 

Nor is it fair to claim that you are simply the messenger – you are the one who has all this I/C knowledge and should be well able to filter for the benefit of a beginner. Or, if you are not, then it might be better to cease speaking authoritatively 

 

Lets get off autobabble and start giving Alan steady, reasoned, one step at a time advice as he needs it – and preferably have it right and relevant , so he has the best chance of getting this motor going as is, and then later he can start doing whatever he wants in the vintage world  – he can run it on paint thinners if he wants to, but at least he will have a known workable baseline for reference.

Hi Guys,

Let me start by saying I know very little about model two strokes, but I have a little experience with the real thing. Are we really saying to run these toys on one quarter oil/ petrol ratio?  Or are we confusing one quarter (25%) with 1:25 oil/petrol mix?

On road going two strokes, if memory serves, the ratio could be in the range of 1:25 or 1:40 even less with a decent modern synthetic oil. 

I am willing to be corrected, on the mix issue, but I do find it very strange that little ones need so much more oil compared to their big brothers, considering that the engineering is so very similar. 

If someone has the definitive answer can they quote from an instruction manual and not quote hearsay.

TIA

chriStephens