Another Marconi-Stanley

Type and serial number pleeeeeease!

289M is all I can see Nick.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Mine is 330M. Most so far are type M5, just one M4 in NZ.

BTW. Mine also has rather 'non production' looking breeze deflector around the carb area, perhaps testing revealed under/over cooling. I'm still intrigued by the description (in Air Enthusiast article) of the thing being located on the flight deck. Unless it was in some kind of enclosure, it would have made a pretty efficient fan heater to say nothing of the noise. Not a good thing when sitting on the tarmac at Khartoum waiting for a take-off slot!

make and type of plug? Aero engine plugs of that era commonly had heavily finned bodies and insulators. Our paths nearly crossed. I've just got back from Horsham and Brighton. Foul drive up and empty roads on the way back. The obvious and a T600 sans flywheel are still in the car. ttfn Roland

Can't see any marks on the plug, not that I've peered at it, you understand. It is certainly much more heavily finned than anything else I've seen.

I went to Portsmouth on Tuesday, so you were quite safe ;o))

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Right, I've looked at the pics now and immediately notice one interesting difference - extra stud and bridge piece to hold down cylinder. Mine relies on just the one stud, in-between cylinder and mag drive, pulling down on the large ally cowling to retain cylinder and mag.

The story on these engines so far (I think!):-

We have: my M5 No. 330M; the one which appeared in SEM Sept '02 No. 321M; the one in A-to-Z which PK tells me is No.319M; the one at Sodbury, No. unknown but could of course have 321 or 319; and now Kim's, No. 289. Kim's is the first under 200 and clearly considerably extends the range of known serial numbers. In addition to the above we have one type M4 (only obvious difference appears to be inlet/exhaust manifold) No. 243M in New Zealand.

Considering Kim's has the earliest serial number (for M5) yet, if the vendor's story is correct, was presumably in service right 'till the end of the Ensign's life in 1947, it must have had a good long working life. Strikes me that the additional holding down stud etc could well be an in-service modification, just the sort of thing I used to design when I was with EMI radar div'n. As well as doing a better job of retaining the cyl, it would also have made setting ignition timing much easier.

One puzzle is; what was a company hitherto known for building Argson invalid carriages (the motorised versions of which apparently relied on Villiers power, see Wolverhampton virtual museum site) doing building engines for aircraft APUs when there were so many established engine manufacturers around? We are used to that sort of thing in wartime but not in the mid

30's.

I look forward to plenty of discussion on NG (anyone come up with more info on Ensign connection yet?) and a really good article in SEM when this is all sorted out!

Got around to having a good stare at it today. I like doing that - gives you a good feel for the device before one reaches for the spanners.

It has some compression and the engine is stiffish to turn but without any roughness at all - which I think augers well. The crank spins without engaging the crank & I suspect it's gummed up with 60 year old oil.

The whole engine is ali apart from the iron barrel and head & I experimentally took a brass cup brush to the cylinder head cowl this evening. I think it will scrub up quite well. Aside from some grey paint on the magneto, there is no paint at all on the engine casings. I'm pleased with the way the Norman T300 marine engine looks with its lacquered brushed aluminium finish and I think I'll do the MS the same way. An ugly brick of a petrol tank came with it, but I think I'll look for something more in keeping. Not bound with authenticity, of course, as it would have been fed from the main tanks.

The Air Ministry 24 Volt 300 Watt dynamo I had from Nick was offered up and looks about right for the engine to drive. I'll need to fabricate a mounting plate or summut - but it's early days .............

I'll need to fabricate an exhaust system, but at least the finned manifold is still present.

The spark plug is a wonder to behold. It must have cost a fortune to make as it has an all-surfaces machined finish. I can't easily find a number either, so it might be a manufacturer's original fitting.

Probably worth more than the engine ;o))

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Diplomacy done, plates spun, fires fought, maidens eaten - well, three out of four ain't bad

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

One would certainly expect an APU to be hooked up to the main tanks and that would also explain M-S's independent lubrication system (rather than the almost universal petroil). However, the little oval tank on mine is the same as that on No. 321M and this:-

looks suspiciously similar! Can't recall off the top of my head what

319M wears in A-Z.

That was one of my thoughts when I bought the dynamo, but direction of rotation is wrong (if you make it work, I have another though!).

And another Stanley Eng. product:-

I can't find any reference to the MS in the A-Z ........

I do see what you mean about the tank on the invalid carriage. I've got a neat little end-mounted tank off a mower which I was thinking of using - which is at least in keeping.

I thought all you had to do to reverse the rotation of a dynamo was to reverse the field/brush connections. This is what we used to do on our Joe Lucas dynamos on British bikes. Will that not work?

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

Look under Stanley Engineering.

Probably, but brushes on the air min. device are at an angle to commutator - don't know if this makes a differance?

I've found the Stanley reference. The tank is away from camera, of course ;o((

However, the plate is in full view and may reveal the S/N in the original - or do you know of this one already?

At the time of writing it was the only one known.

If the brushes are angled, it will make a difference to the speed at which they wear, but should otherwise should be OK I'd imagine. Any other thoughts about this gentlemen?

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

Pat Knight tells me it is No. 319M

You generally cannot reverse angled brush commutators as the feathered trailing edges will break up.

The only exception I have found for this is for (funnily enough) washing machine motors which are reversible (at low speeds) for the washing action but only one direction for spinning.

No1 son wanted brushes for his w/machine and we had to check the angle of the existing brushes before we could order them. The motor maker (Italian) made two types with brushes angled a different way on each.

Peter

-- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Luton, UK snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk

depending on the design it may be possible to swap the brush holders over and/or reverse them though. ttfn Roland

Yes, that would be a good way around the problem if mechanically possible. Good thinking.... :-))

Peter

-- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Luton, UK snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk

One wonders when APU's were first fitted and when they became commonplace? 'Air Enthusiast' clearly considered it unusual enough at the time of the Ensign to warrent special mention.

Do I take it you have a complete run of 'Aeroplane' o go with the indices?

The 'Areoplane' -monthly indices have arrived. There are no direct references to either Marconi-Stanley or Marconi, nor perhaps surprisingly, to APUs. There are umpteen A-W Ensign references in each of the 30 years so the task is huge and will have to await a cold wet Winter's day. I can't find the reason I bought them either. A long article about Mrs Hewlett of Hewlett and Blondeau - makers of planes and the Omnia stationary engine. regards Roland