Saving Old Seagulls

If in AU I would be all over it.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/130953967509 ... 1423.l2649

ITEM 130953967509

B

Its not the only one, or is this one an LS?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/rare-vintage- ... 19df89fad2

The first one has also the rare amal carb!!!

Hmm nice carb

Those that know me know how much I would like one of these little chaps. Rather more than any other Seagull - and that includes Marstons.

But - and it's a big BUT - I have had dreadful experiences of arranging a courier and all that goes with it. Oh I'm sure there are good ones out there, but I simply don't need the stress.

Good luck whoever gets it, I hope its a forum member, and above all I hope as the only one in captivity it doesn't get polished up and spoiled.

I won't be bidding

Its more likely to be an fvp,I already have some, but it doesn't look like its had a good life and suspect it maybe a parts motor at best, not seen one with that amount of corrosion.

I reckon that the top 3/4 is an F and it has an FVP gearbox on it. The gearbox pic is unclear and it has the wrong prop for an F.

Someone on the forum wanted one of those carbs?

B

PS: I will update the progress of my FVP shortly.

The F is a pretty much complete Little Model Forty of the earliest type, complete with Amal carburettor. Lots of other details are different on these early ones, like cylinder head, clamp thrust blocks, block casting. So the carb is for a specific motor. Keith has an F without this carb.

The other one is also a Little Model Forty from a few months or a couple of years later. It has a later tiller arm and throttle, but all there apparently apart from that.

Both are equipped with 3 blade props. The very first ones - in small numbers - had a 2 blade prop, then 3, then 4. So I would say they're both OK. Both look to have the little gearbox and that's fine.

After all this time we'll probably never know exactly what was happening. The little model forty was the first engine designed entirely by Bill Pinniger, earlier motors had been either adaptations of the Marston series or pure Marstons.

The other Charles and I have discussed at huge length of the wisdom of the little forty design, with its through bolts surrounded by sea water. The early propellers were probably just guess work or folk-lore-as-applied-to-outboards, nobody knows. It must have been quickly apparent that the first attempt-with two blades-just wasn't giving enough power. The three bladed version followed quite rapidly. Similarly that dinky little Amal carburettor obviously gave them problems in some way. Perhaps it was the cost, perhaps it was something else. At any rate the changes after the first thousand motors were quite comprehensive.

But all during it short life the little model 40 obviously had problems. Corrosion of the crankcase, corrosion of the steel gaskets, changes to carburettor, prop, impeller, thrust block etc all occurred over a relatively small production run.

The little motor was well received by customers. Glowing reports of the little model 40 were published in British Seagull publicity material, and the 'little girl' icon became well known. Superb drawings of her carrying a motor, or single-handedly conducting of a vastly overloaded tender in open water with the family labrador are some of my favourite advertising material.

It still remains my favourite from the whole British Seagull historical catalogue.

Charles,
I think that is a very interesting review of some of the design and development history of our beloved little engines. I know nothing of the smaller engines the pre-date the little 40, but am quite familar with the Marston/sd/102 series type engines.

Was the little 40 the first engine to have a detachable cylinder head?
I have an SJP and an LS and comparing the two on my rack it is apparent that there was a major re-design as you say, although it is surprising that to the casual observer the engines look pretty similar.

One thing that you did not mention is the unusual arrangement for the drive shaft tube attachement on these engines. I am not sure why it was designed like that but I see on the re-design this set up was deleted in favour of the two stud type that is so familiar.

On another topic, there is quite clearly a lot of knowkledge out there, or here, more precisely. It sounds a bit anorak but I would quite like to have an afternoon session where we could show up and do a show and tell on an engine or discuss some of the design and development type things. Are there any get togethers planned? It'd be nice to see some of these more unusual engines.

and of course the golden question..

Right you lot who got the little 40 motor??

Billy.

My avatar may have given it away, as like Charles P I like the little 40.
I think most have one or two hanging about and as I'm pulling an LS apart at the moment, I can see why they made changes.
Full length stubs though the water jacket, screw in drive tube is near on impossible to undo 99% of the time, the LS cylinder head tank mounts are half as thick, also the LS has a brass fuel line, like the FV/FVP.
FVP/FV transom mount and tank mount is different. I think it has the only transom that is plated, plus it's smaller than all the others, including the LS that is just bronze.

Not to mention cotton reels and two distinct zinc plated fuel poipes and at least four props.

Those threaded drive shaft tubes are, I must agree, a real pain in the whatnot. I no longer even try...

wisdom of the little forty design, with its through bolts surrounded by sea water

Lack of 4 extra boring/threading operations, reduced material, ease of casting etc etc. The wisdom part was likely brilliance in so far as they were able to produce a recreational product with so little carbon steel/coal/man hours. The other consideration is that the seawater exposed fasteners are only a problem if your too lazy to tend to them. In an era when folks were keenly honed to maintain material goods needing to back out a few bolts once in a while is no big deal. There is and never was a problem with the design, the problem lays sqaurely on the shoulders of who ever turned us all into morons who demand machines that have 40 year maintenance schedules!

Per above it would be interesting to know how post war rationing might have impacted the design of the 1949-1954 Little forty. When you see all the material missing from the block it certainly smacks of austerity. Not sure how recreational goods compare to tea, eggs, and credit but there may have been some guidelines/regulations that Seagull had to conform to in order to bring the product to market? At the very least Seagull did not have access to tons of credit and what ever they were going to do to reinvent themselves post war needed to be done on rationed credit or existing wealth.

Personally I think the little 40 shows some great touches, but as mentioned some bad ones also. Or the more reason to have a couple!

I have some little 40 spares if anybody is struggling.