Which of the Bargepusher props did the HSD wear?

[charlesp]

My eyes did glaze over a bit, and I'm sure I must have missed something, but what conclusions have you reached?

[Charles uk]

Sorry about that Charles, I did intend to summarize this debate, but got caught up in other things, & was sort of hoping Jon would do it, as he likes typing way more than I do.

Because of it's family characteristics there seems to be little doubt that the 3 bladed barge-pusher must have been born sometime before the end of the war.
I did check with the gentleman who's writing The A to Z of British Outboard Motors to see if he knew anywhere that this prop could have been obtained from as per Jon's suggestion, his reply was it was too big in diameter & low pitched for all the UK outboard manufacturers & that no one else sprang to mind that used Birmal or Birmabright for casting their props.

The 4 bladed barge-pusher exhibits all the characteristics of the cloverleaf family, so is too late for the HSD.

So at this point the 3 bladed barge-pusher seems to be the only viable candidate.

And that the Birmabright machined back 4:1 lower units could well be left overs from the HSD production, lets hope Hugo can find some more during his database compiling.

Jon's lower unit removal from some of his 102's did point out my error in thinking that some of the later 102's had shorter pinion shafts above the water pump impeller, don't know where I got that belief from, but illustrates my point "check before typing"!

[Charles uk]

Here are a couple of better pics of the prop in question, I hope.

Quite Marston in appearance!

It's closer to 12.5" diameter than 13".

[Nudge]

That looks a lot better than I thought. Thanks for the pic.

Dam shame it was sunny when you took the photo..... It's much better when it is raining all the time

[Hugz]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-Seagu ... 2193311053

[Keith.P]

That's the problem with having to spend money on replacement parts for a motor that was maybe too far gone in the first place, It doesn't make it worth any more, especially now its not original.
Polished shit doesn't always shine I'm afraid.

[headdownarseup]

AND it's a THC by the looks of it.

I agree with Keith here, just how far do you go with some of this junk. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder i suppose.


Jon

[Keith.P]

102 Seagull engine No.AD12249 which makes this either 1946/7 manufacture with clutch.

[headdownarseup]

Ok then, it's a "bitsa" with an oversized gearbox and prop.

Just goes to highlight how changeable a LOT of things actually are with these 102's. New bits onto old and vice versa.
A bit later than 46/7 too.
I put it closer to 49. I have 2 within the same date range and similar serial numbers with corresponding flywheel dates to match.


Jon