Stuart victoria

[This posting has been removed]

My drawing number is 90071. The base casting changed when the twin set up was introduced?

Just seen your drawing and noticed piston rod 3/32 in shorter than my drawing!

So - with several differing drawing versions and now two 'How to Build' books conflicting, the phrase 'where to start' springs to mind. How many bloody variables are there now.

I don't remember any issues when I built mine from the basic castings and drawings obtained from Henley. Those drawings are currently being used by a friend to make a half sized version - haven't heard anything about mistakes on them so far

The question to me is do we respond to the OP and help get Arthurs actual made model going or do we sort out what Stuarts should be doing in the first place and ensure drawings match castings or vice versa and then suggest to Arthur he remakes his model to suit - hmmmm?? Not quite as I see it but each to his own I guess.

Good luck with it however you decide Arthur the Victoria is a lovely design and nice to watch. You'll get there I'm sure

Tug

[This posting has been removed]

[This posting has been removed]

You don't want it at noon as the angle of the conrod will make the measurement longer due it it being on the diagonal..

Get piston rod length correct to have cross head mid guide when piston middle of cylinder and then measure from cross head pin to crankshaft and make the conrod that length then at TDC and BDC it will move 1" each way.

Personally is would do it conrod first as if you make a slight error its less work to then make the piston rod to suit where you have some adjustment on the therad rather than make the rod then find you have it a bit too long or short and get the piston hitting a cylinder cover.

Ramon, keep us posted on the little Victoria, would be nice to see it when complete, is it one of Chris's?

[This posting has been removed]

Bill, Jason, this is just what I've been saying before - set the piston at mid stroke, make sure the cross head slide is in the same position and check the (disconnected) con rod - the crank will not be vertical - it should be at right angles to the rod at mid stroke.

Mid stroke on the piston is not mid stroke (6 - 12 oclock) on the crank web. The angle will depend on the throw of the crank.

My short lived but informative time working with multi stage presstools was to eliminate the known and look for the unknown when things were wrong. This is what I have been trying to convey - get the piston and slide right first then 'fix' the remainder.

Making a new con rod is a longish job only to be done when you are certain of its dimensions

Yes it is another one of Chris's specials, near finished I believe so I'll have some pics soon I would think - 3 1/2" flywheel!

Tug

Edited By Ramon Wilson on 07/02/2021 15:13:55

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

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

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

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

[This posting has been removed]

[This posting has been removed]

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

[This posting has been removed]

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

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.

Victoria errata.