Author Topic: Stuart No 1  (Read 13640 times)

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
  • Hampshire, england.
Stuart No 1
« on: January 16, 2019, 03:22:13 PM »
A very good friend of mine has just started building his No 1 Stuart. To attempt to encourage him to continue with this Surus has suggested that he would like his done at the same time (One doesn't turn down the opportunity of getting at ones castings  ;) ) So lets start with a little history of this engine:

Towards the end of the 1890's Sidney Marmaduke Stuart Turner designed, built and began to market the first of his engines, aptly named the No 1. While we might think of this as a model we really should think of it as a close scale replica of the type of power unit that at that time were used to drive things like water pumps and workshop machinery - with a bore and stroke of 2" and its very sturdy construction it is still capable of doing useful work:

The original engine as designed is simple:



I call it simple as it was originally designed to not have reversing gear but of late there seems to be a trend to fit it with some  ::)



I am not convinced as the engine seems to be designed with that nice strong guide on one side to run in one direction only. So my plan is to not fit reversing gear to mine. (I have the drawings for it should I feel the need )

Lets move on to the history of the first of these engines... Three years ago my good friend Eric had a set of castings for this engine with the reversing gear... he kept wafting them under my nose  :ShakeHead: but at 325 I was immune to temptation so to spite me he sold them to Norman   :wallbang:  This was actually not a bad thing as a month later Station road Steam advertised a set for 195 delivered so I promptly let them put them in the post  :ThumbsUp:







In the meantime dear Eric regretted selling his casting set so had to buy another and he was lucky enough to buy an orphaned set for 20   :o  :censored: His is the second No1 that is being build in parallel and I hope to encourage him to contribute photos to this thread but don't expect him to write his up he doesn't find typing on computers very easy any more  :(

Jo

P.S. The engine in the first photo belongs to one of our forum members Dave ( Chipswitheverything)  :)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 04:12:18 PM by Jo »
Usus est optimum magister

Offline steamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10131
  • Central Massachusetts, USA
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2019, 03:34:59 PM »
Always liked this engine.   Ill be following along as well!
"Mister M'Andrew, don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit!

Offline bent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • Wet side of Washington State, USA
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2019, 05:28:38 PM »
I didn't get what draws me to the Stuart engines...but your descriptions give part of the reason Jo.  The other part I think is the green paint, dunno why but it makes them look purposeful.

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
  • Hampshire, england.
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2019, 06:33:14 PM »
Welcome to the build guys  :)

I have been doing a little more digging: This set of castings dates from before 1978, after that date Stuarts dropped the valve rod support. The drawings that came with it are dated 1975 I also have a later set which is different  :o

So to the castings. By looks of the machining marks these have been started by someone who only had use of a lathe, there are a couple of bits missing which I have found suitable replacements in the orphaned castings box. The outstanding bits of note are the piston which can come out of a piece of 2" CI bar and the crankshaft which will be assembled.

Centres have been put in the rods, the standard might be slightly short (which can be taken up on the sole plate), the connecting rod has been started but lots of metal is still there  :ThumbsUp: The only bit that I question is the big end caps which have had their two sides turned leaving only 13.3mm rather than the 14.3mm width it should be.

I need to do a bit of casting/drawing fondling to decide where there are variations which drawing of each part to follow  :thinking:

Jo
Usus est optimum magister

Offline b.lindsey

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13336
  • Dallas, NC, USA
    • Workbench-Miniatures
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2019, 07:23:45 PM »
Great to see this Jo. Lots of nice details on the design as well and I do like that valve rod support which your earlier set has from the looks of it. Will be following along also.

Bill

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
  • Hampshire, england.
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2019, 07:46:56 PM »
Thanks Bill,

I have completed the drawing review and it has confirmed again that this is an earlier casting set  :)  The differences between the two are (early/late)

1, Piston rod diameter - 8.73mm / 8mm (also on cover and gland)

2, Piston rod length - 25.4mm thread on end /16mm thread = thread for the nut to fit on split pistons.

3, Piston - split piston one ring / solid piston two rings

4, Studs on standard - 5BA /4BA.

5, Crankshaft diameter through flywheel - 12.7mm / 11.1mm, the earlier engine is keyed the later has grub screw.

6, Eccentric arm - one 4BA mounting screw/two 5BA mounting screws.

7, Earlier drawings have no allowance for cylinder lagging.


Jo
Usus est optimum magister

Offline Roger B

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Switzerland
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2019, 08:02:09 PM »
Another interesting rescue to follow along  :ThumbsUp:  :ThumbsUp:
Best regards

Roger

Offline john mills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2019, 06:09:53 AM »
I wil be following along I have two sets of castings for a similar engine and it is about time i finished them.

  John

Offline kvom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2019, 10:43:20 AM »
Are you going to actually finish this one?   :stir: :stickpoke:

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
  • Hampshire, england.
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2019, 10:49:17 AM »
Welcome Roger and John  :)

Lets start at the bottom... I am going to choose to suggest that the original builder thought it would be nicer not to have any mounting studs coming through the soleplate (I suspect he drilled the box bed first with 6.35mm then realised it should have been 1/4 BSF tapping size and decided to drill/tap the soleplate instead) and used bolts to join the two together:



At some point he no doubt realised that if he used 1/4 BSF nuts on the spacing suggested there was not enough space on the top of the soleplate, which reinforced the idea that hidden bolts were better:






The most important thing here is that everything squares up at the top and having "adjusted the position of the holes" with a hand file  ;) it looks ok:




Maybe 2BA studs and nuts would look better from the top  :thinking:



I think I am happy with the box bed and that can go for painting, while I think about the soleplate and give Eric a  :stickpoke: for some pics.

Jo
Usus est optimum magister

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2019, 12:43:08 PM »
I myself would shy away from something someone else started, had some problems, and then walked away.  Looks like you have a plan for resurrecting what was done.  These engines are fascinating, I have a friend who built several.  I'll be stopping bg by now and again to see your progress. :popcorn:
Craig

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
  • Hampshire, england.
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2019, 12:49:58 PM »
Welcome Craig  :)

I needed to check that standard:



Its short by 0.6mm  :-\ But worse than that:




 :facepalm: The ends are not square to the sliding face. So they needed squaring up, first do a test cut to set up:







Not square... Of course if one end is out that means the other end probably is as well  :facepalm:




Measure again and it is now a full 1mm too short, so alter the measurements one off the standard



means one onto the Soleplate:



Eric has been encouraged to provide photo's of his build. He has been zooming ahead and is currently trying to set up to cut the 8 degree angle on his soleplate.

Jo

Usus est optimum magister

Offline Chipswitheverything

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2019, 12:57:33 PM »
Hello Jo, the No 1 engine in your first photo is the one I made, or finally got finished,  a while ago.  I wrote it up with some photos in "Engines", March 07, 2016,  A Stuart No1 with a few modifications.    The mods are mainly a more shapely and prototypical con rod, and the balance weights on the c' shaft, and the oval glands and matching stuffing box detailing.   Personally, I tend to prefer the less cluttered look of the non reversing engine, but it might depend on the purpose that the builder has...

Dave

Offline ettingtonliam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2019, 01:20:17 PM »
Just a pedantic quibble, Mr Stuart Turner started his business at the end of the 19th Century, not the 18th Century.
The earliest catalogue I have is 1906, which features the No. 1, No.2 (a high speed short stroke version of the No.1), No. 3 compound, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6 compound, No. 7, No. 8 and No.9. A At this date, the No. 4 and No.7 had single standards like the No. 1, the trunk guides not being introduced until the 1930s.
A casting set for the No.1 was 20/- 'packed in a strong box' and reversing gear was available for an additional 6/6. A valve rod support casting is listed, though it isn't apparent in the illustration.
By  1921, the price had gone up 2 2s, with an additional 12/6 for the reversing gear. The No. 2 was still available and is noted as using most of the same castings as the No.1, but using a deeper piston 'having a shorter stroke is suitable for very high speeds'
A disc flywheel was available in place of the usual spoked flywheel.
At some point in the 1920s, the No. 2 was dropped from the list, as it doesn't appear in the 1931 catalogue.
If you've got 2 sets of No.1 castings, why not build a No.2, as far as I can see, all it needs is the thicker piston and a reduced stroke crank, with a balanced disc flywheel?

Richard
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 01:24:17 PM by ettingtonliam »

Online Jasonb

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6416
  • Surrey, UK
Re: Stuart No 1
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2019, 01:39:46 PM »
Off to a good Start Jo.

For anyone who wants to read a bit more about the design evolution of some of the Stuart Engines this site is a good read. The No2 complete with generator would make a handsome display. I think a hollow piston would be in order if making a No2 or risk it jumping off the bench, I seem to recall the No1 book shows that option.

http://stuartturnersteam.com/No.1/No1.html