Stuart victoria

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

This may help Bill

I have used the 6.25" conrod length, you can see that if a line of that length is drawn from the middle of the guides it the circle described by the crank pin it will be at about the twenty to eleven o'clock position not noon

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think we are both saying the same thing Ramon, just different thoughts on the order.

Here is another image of a similar style engine. If Arthur mounts up the cylinder, guide bars and bearing block then the two dimensions X and Y shown at the bottom can be taken from what has been built and ignoring the drawings from now on. X being ctr of cylinder to ctr of guides and Y being ctr of guides to ctr of crankshaft

Then it is just a case of making the distance between the conrod holes equal Y and the distance from crosshead pin to middle of the piston when both are assembled onto the piston rod equal X

Edited By JasonB on 07/02/2021 15:51:15

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

I stand corrected Jason I'll be honest – I had to draw it out myself but yes it is 85* not 90* as I thought it would be.

It isn't vertical that's for sure!

Tug

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

Posted by JasonB on 07/02/2021 15:26:52:

I think we are both saying the same thing Ramon, just different thoughts on the order.

Here is another image of a similar style engine. If Arthur mounts up the cylinder, guide bars and bearing block then the two dimensions X and Y shown at the bottom can be taken from what has been built and ignoring the drawings from now on.

Then it is just a case of making the distance between the conrod holes equal Y and the distance from crosshead pin to middle of the piston when both are assembled onto the piston rod equal X

Yes that's exactly what Ive been meaning Jason

The differing dimensions from varying sources are one issue – solving the problem on a built engine is potentially another.

One thing is for sure whoever has intentions of building a Victoria from current castings needs to be certain to check all drawing dimensions before machining anything. I'm afraid to say at the cost they now are I won't be joining the queue

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Andy_CParticipant @andy_c]

Bought a set of single victoria plans and castings in 2017 (at Great Dorset steam fair – happy days). The plans came with an errata sheet which shows a number of changed dimensions on sole plate, piston and con rod. Con rod for example shows 6 5/32 between centres. Not built yet unfortunately but following this thread with interest.

Edited By Andy_C on 07/02/2021 16:12:00

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

Yes – have seen it Bill but it's not for me these days – sorry mate!

It's a shame the brand is bringing this kind of attention as there is no doubt about it the original Stuart models were successfully made by so, so many people over many years.

Though I began with the twin cylinder launch engine it was beyond my skill at the time but later I made a Twin Victoria though I did buy the main castings for the No 9 again from Henley in the early eighties. I swapped those for a M'cOnie casting set so never did make it though.

Currently I'm machining another compound from cast but it's all from slab and block – I must get round to posting some pics.

Regards – Tug

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I'd best not show my Metricated version of the Victoria /Twin Victoria otherwise that will just muddy the waters further.

But if Stuarts are looking in and want to lend me a base, cylinder and bearing casting I'll do them a decent drawing of what can be got out of the current castings.

[Andy_CParticipant @andy_c]

Victoria errata.

[Arthur GoodwinParticipant @arthurgoodwin45738]

Hi all

WOW what a response. I dont know who to answer first.

Apologies for late reply had a family crisis today which diverted me.

Jason. I bought the kit and drawings together. Not from Stuarts but of a colleague who had purchased them years before from Stuarts and everything was sealed up in the original box. Re the main bearing I set it equal equal on the pad to accommodate the 1.5 inch centres, Have got the book for building but was very aware of dimesion mismatch and always adhered to main drawing which coincidently doesnt have a number. just a statement that says it supercedes al pre 1993 drawings

Tug have took on board all your observations and will work thro them tomo.

Phoning stuarts tomo so will give you an update then.

Thanks to all

Arthur

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Arthur GoodwinParticipant @arthurgoodwin45738]

Hello

Spoke to Stuarts this morning and they confirmed I should have had the errata sheet in with my kit and the con rod crnters ate correct at 6 and 5/32.

Also the piston rod lenght at 3 and 1/32 from x head center to back of piston.

The one good thing to come out of it was he iffered to replace the con rod material and also waived the p&p.

Thanks to all for your input. My next post hopefully will be a working engine.

Regards Arthur

[Arthur GoodwinParticipant @arthurgoodwin45738]

Hello

Spoke to Stuarts this morning and they confirmed I should have had the errata sheet in with my kit and the con rod crnters ate correct at 6 and 5/32.

Also the piston rod lenght at 3 and 1/32 from x head center to back of piston.

The one good thing to come out of it was he iffered to replace the con rod material and also waived the p&p.

Thanks to all for your input. My next post hopefully will be a working engine.

Regards Arthur

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Thanks for the update Arthur and keep us posted on progress.

As for me getting hold of some castings to measure and draw up all I will say for now is watch this space forum.

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

Glad to hear you're on your way to sorting things out Arthur – and yes, do keep us informed of progress.

Jason – you must have a silver tongue if you mean what I think you mean

All's well that ends well – keep on smiling everyone – bit too much snow for my liking here at the moment.

Regards – Tug

[Andy_CParticipant @andy_c]

Arthur, don’t miss the dimension changes on the sole plate which are consistent with those of con rod and piston rod.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think Ramon and myself feel the soleplate can stay as is but the new conrod should be made to a dimension taken from the work that has been done so far.

As I said earlier measure from centre of the guide bars to centre of the crankshaft and make this the length of the conrod for THIS ENGINE. I might suggest cutting a bit of stiff card and making suitable holes in it as a test conrod to double check things are lining up OK before you cut into the replacement metal, crosshead should move 1" either side of guide bar ctr when crank is at TDC and BDC

Ramon, you are not thinking quite right but it will be a bit more than just a loan

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel McBurney 1Participant @nigelmcburney1]

Looking at the Stuart flywheel on this engine and some others in their range,I cannot see any reason why at the outer end of each spoke there is an odd shapped lump where the spoke meets the rim,never seen anything like this in full size practice,any ideas as to why.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think they have only got the one pattern now and the odd shapes are for when you bolt two together for the twin victoria. Even then the bumps are best removed from the outer edges and left where they tough in the middle.

Unlike me most other people don't remove the odd bits when using the single flywheel and leave then on the finished engine, it's not hard to turn off most of them while turning the flywheel and then a bit of Dremel work will take care of the rest

Two Stuart flywheels with the offending lumps removed

 

Edited By JasonB on 08/02/2021 15:21:20

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember12892]

[This posting has been removed]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

It may just have been from an older casting Bill, I know when I built my beam back in the early 80s that it did not have the bumps cast in.

[Author]

Posts