A spot of ST luck

Seems an unusual little engine. Something different. You cant really go wrong for £10 can you.

Mike M

miley snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

No, no - not got him down TO a tenner, but got him DOWN a tenner!

Unusual is a word you could use, I know of about half a dozen in the UK, less abroad. They only weigh about thirty pounds or so & are just the thing for aging engine men!

Added to which, I have a Norman T300 & a Coventry Victor MA2, both of which are about the same size. They will make an interesting trio to exhibit.

You Lucky B. that's a real find! As far as I'm aware it is one of only two four-strokes in S-T's non model range, wonder how many were made? S-T employee H. Sanderson wrote in Nov 1938 (pinched from Fairways' site):-

"In 1923 an interesting thing happened. The War Office asked us to a conference. They told us that they wanted a very light aircooled engine and generator for wireless. It was to be carried on a pack mule. The whole plant must not weight more than 84lbs. it must run in any temperature from freezing to 140°F.; it must not be affected by being carried upside down or in any position; it must govern within 5% and there were various other conditions. They said they were inviting us and seven other firms to submit engines for trial. Would we make two engines to their order? Subsequent orders would be placed with the firm submitting the best design. We said we would try and got busy. The result was that five firms produced engines but the Stuart was the only one which fulfilled the requirements and passed the tests. So we have made the W.D. engine ever since."

So they were clearly made for quite a period of time, but the current rarity rather indicates that overall numbers may have been low.

Lucky is a word you could use ;o)) I can still hardly believe it - advert in the wrong place for a quite unusual engine & bingo!

Mine has a manufacturing date of 19th December 1935 & the S/N 7724. Serial numbers rarely start at zero in my experience & I'd hazard a guess at 100 being the starting point. So they *possibly* made 635 annually for 12 years. One assumes that WW2 increased production and that they stopped production at the end of the war - say 15,000 units plus. As you say, where did they all go?

In their favour is that they are visually naked & finned & this would appeal to the motorcyclists amongst us. Against them is their 1920's rather spindly appearance & this would have looked very dated in the thirties & even more so post war when - no doubt - they appeared on the surplus market. I've never seen a complete generating set, but the engine is rated at a measly

1BHP, so it can't have been producing more than (say) 350Watts at 12Volts.

There is a picture in "A-Z" of one driving a generator & I've scanned it in & posted it to Webshots,

As you see, it is suspiciously mounted on a bit of wood & I don't think for a moment that the War Office ordered them that way. I also notice that there are no wires or row of bulbs & I wonder if it was actually generating - or even the correct dynamo.

Anyone got a picture of a *real* complete one? Anyone know the correct model designation?

BTW, the spec noted in "A-Z" indicates that the complete unit weighted

118lbs - 53 kilos for the young 'uns! ;o)) That's a lot of weight for a 12 volt battery charger when mains electricity was reaching most places in the 1950's.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

'Sure I've seen a pic of complete unit somewhere - ISTR a vaguely egg shaped cast ally base plate (with dynamo at the 'pointy' end) and a large fuel tank shaped like a modern beer keg, mounted above the set on a tubular frame - or am I thinking of something else?

If the story from Mr. Sanderson is correct, the 'design weight' for the complete set was 84lb - mind you, none of the bofors gun gen sets (the result of a similar tendering process) apparently met the weight requirements, the WD simply picked the least worst!

I supect that the unit would have been pretty much obsolete by WWII. The the well know 300w Iron Horse set for instance must have been far cheaper, not to mention lighter and more compact.

Absolutely. The Iron Horse has my entire respect. It will always start, runs all day on a sniff of fuel, charges the battery like wot it's supposed to and makes no fuss. It could only be better by being an Aluminium Horse!

It is the only engine I have exhibited that does what it is supposed to every time without exception.

That said, I am really looking forward to running a Norman T300, a C-V MA2 & a ST flat twin in one place at one time!

Life must not be easy ...........

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

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

"miley_bob" wrote

Well found, that's the chap all right!

I cam across this when browsing for Fowler information earlier. Hope you find it intresting.

Seems to be a complete set and matches your description.

Seems a very unusaul set up.

Mike M

miley snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Spot on Mike, you have just surfed on to our site !

Yep, the Stuart set is a nice example and is in the restoration queue.

I assume Kim from the descriptions you don't have the generator or base ? There was a similar engine-only unit at Astle last year as per your Webshots photos.

Its nice to see a few more of these creeping out the woodwork, am quite sure there will be a few more to be found. All the best David

Ah, the power of the Internet - and Wrecked.Engines.Stationary!

Nice to find some pictures of a complete set or two and thanks to Dave McC for a range of pics to pore over. The more the merrier.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

Looking at the S-T dating list, it seems to have been the habit of that company to start serial numbering in the thousands. Eg. P3; 3101 - 4605 from November '19 to June '28 and N; 6000 - 6999 from June '32 to April '33, then 27000 -27382 from April '33 to June '35.

With known flat twin numbers and dates; 7077 19/09/27, 7724 19/12/35, 8298 ?/?/39 (more please) you can draw your own conclusions, but a run of 15,000 is possibly an over estimation.

--

Nick H

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

Looking at the S-T dating list, it seems to have been the habit of that company to start serial numbering in the thousands. Eg. P3; 3101 - 4605 from November '19 to June '28 and N; 6000 - 6999 from June '32 to April '33, then 27000 -27382 from April '33 to June '35.

With known flat twin numbers and dates; 7077 19/09/27, 7724 19/12/35, 8298 ?/?/39 (more please) you can draw your own conclusions, but a run of 15,000 is possibly an over estimation.

"Nick H" wrote(snip):-

Missed out dave Mc C's; 8265 03/07/39 and I have been informed off list that the full date for 8298 is 17/08/39

Two more to add to the pot; 7100 29/09/27 (from ebay a while ago) and 28460

19/04/43 (spotted at sodbury sort-out)

Don't get too exited (you are exited by this aren't you?) about the apparently massive leap in production between 1939 and '43. Yes, it could be a result of the prevailing unpleasantness, but then it could also be that S-T got to the end of the batch of numbers originally allocated to this project and added '2' to the beginning to avoid duplicating numbers already used on other types (CF type N numbering 6000-6999 then 27000-27382)

I read (but didn't reply to due to idleness) your thoughts about production numbers and they are very persuasive. So only a few hundred flat twins were produced - that makes it much more understandable that so few have survived.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

I've managed to spend several hours in the workshop over the last few days.

Having removed both heads & barrels I found that the ST twin needed little more than a cosmetic restoration & this is now approaching completion.

The sand cast aluminium castings are heavily pitted with corrosion in a few places, but nothing to stop it running. They are very well finished & appear to be machined all over, joint lines are smooth & oil tight. There was no sign of any kind of paint on the cases, so I cleaned off the grey oxide coating with a brass bristle brush & sealed the finish with clear lacquer.

The heads and barrels are secured with a stirrup and two long studs. They showed some signs of having once been painted black & so I gave them a brush coat of my favourite gloss & they look very well against the brushed finished ali.

The big ends, mains, pistons & rings are in good condition. There is a little bore wear, but nothing to frighten one. The pistons are cast iron & each carries three compression rings with diagonal cut ends. There are no oil control rings.

Amongst the small jobs to be done was the re-soldering of the oil line unions, finding a number of nuts & bolts (all BSF) and the repair of a broken 3/16" stud which resisted all attempts to remove it. It had a few threads left and I found a long nut to screw onto it, then a short piece of brass studding followed by another nut and washer.

Moving on to the timing, the comprehensive marks of inlet open, ignition, TDC etc so nicely etched onto its brass plate are less than useful as there is no mark on the flywheel! Tomorrow's job

The correct period BTH magneto bought yesterday at the Sortout that proved too deep in the base for this engine was cleaned & tidied anyway & proved to have an excellent spark. It is an ill wind etc as it is exactly the correct height for the L'Aster! It has one HT lead too many, of course, but I have a cunning plan for that ;o))

The EIC magneto really looks the part on the ST & I spent quite some time this evening hunting down a suitable rubber drive coupling & a twin pin drive didger to fit the short taper on the end of the armature. I also found and renovated a matched pair of mica insulated KLG plugs. I couldn't find any terminals at the Sortout - does anyone recall who it is that sells them new? I have a small amount of fabric-covered HT lead that some kind person gave me months ago & it will add a little splash of colour to the monochrome engine.

I have a slightly battered brass cylindrical petrol tank with hemispherical ends - like the ubiquitous ATCO, but a bit bigger. As the engine is a rather battered and corroded, I think it will blend in well with the overall appearance & should sit neatly in the space above the mag coupling.

I'm pleased with the way its going & should have more to report by midweek.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 03:28:01 +0100, "Kim Siddorn" finished tucking into their plate of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the last of their cup of tea, paid the bill and wrote::

Try the Old 20 Parts Company..........................

Brian L Dominic

Web Sites: Canals:

of the Cromford Canal: (Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)

Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read: To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk

Answered my own question!

Regards,

Kim Siddorn