Author Topic: Handed Stuart Triple  (Read 2875 times)

Offline Admiral_dk

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3750
  • Søften - Denmark
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2022, 10:58:49 AM »
Quote
One of the most frustrating things about the Stuart drawings for me is the lack of any datum’s, and the fractions

Amen to that - not that I have any experince with Stuart drawings ....
But Poor drawings and Fractions are extremely annoying  :wallbang:

Per

Offline ettingtonliam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2022, 12:20:20 PM »
Thousands of us managed OK with fractional dimensions back in the day, mainly because thats all we knew (I am very old and built my first Stuart engine about 1961).
We understood how to deal with a crankshaft dimensioned at 3/8" dia to fit in a bearing bore dimensioned at 3/8", or a 1 1/2" piston to fit in a 1  1/2" bore cylinder. There weren't any 'build manuals' either, we had to work it out ourselves.

I suppose its expected now for drawings to be metric, or at least decimal inch, and have- shock horror- tolerances, but I haven't seen any current Stuart drawings, so don't know if they've been redrawn or not for modern requirements.

Offline Mcgyver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • Toronto
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2022, 02:19:27 PM »
Quote
One of the most frustrating things about the Stuart drawings for me is the lack of any datum’s, and the fractions

I occasionally like stating metric dimensions in fractions, just to drive the die-hards nuts :D.  Anything in 16th's is a decimal committed to memory, but confess I don't care much for 32'nd fractions.

The drawings harken from the hand lettering era when it seemed like sport for draftsmen to put the absolute minimum on a drawing that you could and still have it buildable.  The triple had a few bits that required chin scratching, but eventually I figured it all out.  All the info is there, just not well displayed.

Drawings are so easy to make now, its imo poor drafting practice to no anticipate needed dimensions and display them; despite old school critics saying its over dimensioned.   Baloney I say, I'd rather avoid a shop floor calculation error;  who should have done their job better matters little when the business faces the cost of rework.  My own little drafting soapbox :)


Recently I've been studying drawings from LBSCs' Jeanie Dean.  In one sense, they are not well done in that you would have a very hard time building it without a lot of implied knowledge that would let one fill in the blanks.  The flip slide in fairness is its marvel that one, in a hobby setting, managed to drawing something as complex as a locomotive without 3 cad programs.   I can see the lure for omitting info when its painstaking to record and one sees it as a common knowledge, however challenged the accuracy of their judgment (its not bloody common knowledge to me when I go to make the part!)

Sorry to ramble on.... thanks for posting the build .....it looks good and keep 'em coming!

Quote
I have never seen a solution for supplying oil to the big ends,

I like that idea.  As mine is my avatar, I thought I'd show a larger version (from a Stuart Triple build that circulates to the front burner every 3-5 years).  Its made up but I got the idea from a prototype photo seen somewhere

« Last Edit: September 01, 2022, 06:35:15 PM by Mcgyver »

Offline crueby

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18554
  • Rochester NY
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2022, 02:58:31 PM »
I've seen the drip-cup-leading-to-tube-to-big-end method used on all three of the big water pumping engines I've seen, also on a number of the marine engines, all ones with automatic drip oiler feeds.

If you really want to give fraction-haters fits, put some in the plans like 5/7", or 13/23".   :LittleDevil:

Offline internal_fire

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Punta Gorda, FL
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2022, 04:05:28 PM »
If you really want to give fraction-haters fits, put some in the plans like 5/7", or 13/23".   :LittleDevil:

I have some re-ground endmills that would feel right at home with those dimensions.  :Lol:

Gene

Offline Michael S.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1110
  • Germany, Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2022, 07:31:38 PM »
The oil cup and pipe to the bearing is of good construction.
I used it similarly on the Stuart No 1.

Michael

Offline Steamingandy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 51
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2022, 10:21:19 PM »
The cup pipe bearing system works well for the larger engines, but the triple is quite small so would be very vulnerable so I thought the hole through the centre could do just the same, we shall see.

As for fractions the way it is doesn’t encourage the people with less experience (or no experience of fraction’s), and if you have a product in a limited market that is your main source of income don’t you want to make it desirable to the largest range of potential customers?

Offline simplyloco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Handed Stuart Triple
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2022, 11:58:30 AM »
Good sequence on the con rods. I like the 'Part on a stick' approach, and I use it whenever possible!
Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” ― Socrates

 

SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal