coolie hat cover

[headdownarseup]

bit of a tall order maybe!

i'm after a coolie hat magneto cover (not sure if they are copper or brass) for my SD i will be working on this winter. not too worried about the condition as long as its not too badly dented. reasonably straight will do.

with the help of other members (JAN) i've managed to get just about everything else i need for it

pm me

regards
jon

[Hugz]

I bought a couple from John. I note he still has them available on the for sale page (the silver ones). I believe CharlesUK had some copper ones made up, is yours a naval SD?

[headdownarseup]

HUGO

by naval do you mean does it have lots of brass and bronze?
you bet it does- especially now its got a skeletal bracket to go with it (i've been cleaning and buffing it over the last couple of days)

pictures will follow in time.


coolie hat cover (in brass) now sorted.
panick over

jon

[Keith.P]

Naval or war time coolie hat are copper, others are ali, not seen a brass one.

[headdownarseup]

KEITH
not quite sure what is going to turn up yet!
could be brass or it might be copper, but definitely not ali

wait and see
cant say too much on this at the moment (secret squirrel and all that)!

jon

[Oyster 49]

There is no evidence to support any theory of a "Naval SD" All that is really known is that some engines have copper magneto covers, some had bronze clutch levers, some had brass float bowl covers, most seem to have brass inlet trumpets. Some had all of these, possibly the earlier numbers, but no real evidence to prove that, just a theory of mine.

The army parts book shows the side mount made from angle iron, which are very rare now. The skeletal bracket appears to be early post war, and it did not stay in production for long, as it seems very flimsy. I have one to fit my SD, but it is not the correct bracket for a wartime SD.

I have been told by a retired WW2 Sapper that they were always carried by bridging units to put on pontoon rafts, plus the FBE, folding boat. so that would make them ARMY use, which is backed up by the numerous engines seen with olive drab paint.

It's not a good idea to propagate myths...people start believing them to be true

[Keith.P]

It's not a good idea to propagate myths...people start believing them to be true

Just do a search on this site for naval SD, and you will find thirteen pages, from all the experts and others quoting the Naval SD.

[charlesp]

Besides, why on earth would the navy need or want outboards of that size?

[Charles uk]

When Charles & I were starting our researches many years ago, before we realised that we weren't going to live long enough to finish it, due to the amount of work required if we looked at everything.

We discovered that it appeared that less than 10% of SD's were fitted with copper/brass components & that all these parts were fitted to the same engines & not spread across the whole range randomly, so if you had an SD with a copper flywheel cover it was almost certain that it had a yellow metal clutch lever & carb parts & that these motors all came in 3 small bands of engine numbers.
As we had looked at less than 0.5% of the total, we were unable to draw any firm conclusions, though it did appear that a few of them had evidence of being painted Army green with a number stencilled in white paint on the lower exhaust that corresponded with the same number on it's packing case.
I have also seen 3 with traces of Naval gray paint only one of which had a copper coolie hat from new.

We also tried Oyster's route of talking to the old soldiers, but found no one who could remember small details from a period more than 70 years previous.

Keep up the good work Oyster!

[skyetoyman]

My grandfather would have been able to answer the usage of seagull outboards during the war. Sadly long since gone but was a pontoon bridge builder in Germany and later a quartermaster in charge of stores. RSM warrent officer no1 - the highest rank possible for a non commisioned officer.

Wigan Pier -actually a pontoon bridge over the Rhine. Grandad on left

[headdownarseup]

right then chums
as per KEITH's suggestion, i've looked through most if not all the relevant topics on SD NAVAL.
all very valid points.
CHARLES (uk) are there any records as to WHAT/WHICH serial numbers these 10 percenters were? and what bands of numbers?

my SD's serial number is .288.p3 with a jm number 9196 (charles i think you already know the story behind this particular coolie ignition)

i also agree with CHARLES P why would the navy want a small outboard in the first place? what with all those other boats they had (didn't they have enough or something?)

so, just a quick run down on the specs of my SD as it sits on the stand at the moment.

correct short waterjacket cylinder (no fins)
coolie ignition (that sparks but missing a cover) no green paint on this one?
longshaft brass exhaust tube and absolutely no evidence of any white stencil?
bronze clutch lever
copper fuel/water pipes
slightly later 46n carb fitted
brass inlet trumpet fitted with authentic dents!
brass throttle slide cover
brass fuel bowl cover
steel tiller (big problem here with a broken casting on the mounting stud) i've got somebody that can probably tig weld it so don't panick!
i think the thumb throttle is zinc plated or
skeletal bracket (i like it a lot) but for ADRIAN
gearbox has its nipples on the starboard side (as viewed from the boat) normally situated on the port side. (is this one of those 10% ers?)
pumphousing straight out the back exhaust with oil nipple on the port side?
gearbox doesn't have the skeg stamped (but i've got one in a box that does but it's in bits) so


so, on the face of it does this mean my SD is navy or army?
army or navy does it matter.

by the way CHARLES (UK) does this look about right for "navy grey". this came from my D9666 but the SD has EXACTLY the same tank (in black at the moment)

thoughts and comments always appreciated gents

jon

[Oyster 49]

Yes, the skeletal brackets are nice, I have one for my SD too, but the correct one is the side mount made of angle iron, very rare.

Your tank looks a bit odd, the straps are from a later 102, and the filler cap is wrong. Could this be a tank from a villiers stationary engine or even another outboard?

SDs are not Army or navy, the 2 Charles have found no evidence to support that theory. they were ordered by the War dept, and from what I understand from Charles many were sold off just after the war as surplus. we know that SDs were in the aRmy inventory in the sixties as there is footage showing army use of what looks very much like an SD in the North German floods of 1962 ish.

My theory is that the possible batches of brass/copper bits were related to what was available on the shelf at the time, but the Navy thing is totally unproven, The navy don't use small boats!

[Charles uk]

It gets more complicated than that Adrian, I think it was Jon who asked did Villiers make the coolie hats, now that is a very good question as it's logical that they would have done & if that's the case why would them running out of ally coolies happen at the same time as Amal forgetting to chrome the float chamber tops & fuel pipes & the foundry making a few clutch levers out of bronze.

Those tank pics look very much like the tanks that appear to have been fitted to the early SD's but the grey & green ones were painted military fashion (with a 3 inch brush using flat non gloss battleship grey or olive drab paint) over virtually everything except the carb & perhaps the fuel cap.

I think it was the other Charles that bought all the post war boating periodicals to research who was selling all the surplus Seagulls, from which it appeared that a company called Arthur Bray were the sole vendors & we drew the conclusion from this, that it was quite possible that they reworked/refurbed all that they gathered, to get the best return on their investment.

Which probably included, getting them going, removing any evidence of army surplus i.e. removing the grey & green paint, sourcing a transom bracket that would fit conventional hulls & possibly remove what I feel to be correct, the cumbersome 4:1 gearbox from most of the SDPs, though Charles P's researches do seem to lead to the fact that the skeletal bracket was patented late on in the war years & could have been used on motors, that might have been supplied for use to inshore fishermen.
(I do have a strange shaped 4:1 clutched box on a drive shaft tube that has never seen chrome (SD), oil nipples, straight out the back exhaust, ally clutch lever, but no prop).
Does anyone else have one of these boxes with a machined clutch fork groove & an end cap with a hint of a point, fitted to a 102?

But we never found enough evidence to claim any of this as even 95% accurate.

[headdownarseup]

ADRIAN
Yes i totally agree the straps on the tank pictured above are from a later 102. the cap is probably from some old motorcycle.
BUT grey paint? That perhaps points to something "odd". Its definitely a steel tank, no doubt about that. (and probably fairly rare i think after discussions with CHARLES)

However, the tank that is currently fitted on my SD at the moment is identical in every way (and its got the correct fuel cap with a chain) but painted black!

So perhaps CHARLES (both of them) research into "ARTHUR BRAY" could be right after all.
The paint finish on the grey tank is ROUGH. Looks like it's been painted with a brush which would back up the theory they were "military finish" (rough as a donkey's hind leg)

Incidentally, both the skeletal bracket and the grey tank were removed from a model D (1946) which might suggest an early attempt at a bitsa by a previous owner with whatever parts were available at that time.

So, the plot thickens!

CHARLES/ADRIAN
What i'd like to know if there is any data available, do you know (approx.) at what numbers these so called 10 percenters (with all the brass and bronze bits fitted) were made.
As this particular SD is within the first 300 made (correct me if i'm wrong) is this or was this one of those 10 percenters. The other thing about this SD that's bugging me is with the gearbox oil nipples being on the "wrong"side. Everything else about it is spot on as far as i can make out. I guess it is possible it might have had a gearbox change at some point in its life (which again might point back to ARTHUR BRAY)

Another interesting thing about this SD (and CHARLES UK knows about this) from what i've learned about these engines, with the ignition system they absolutely 100% for sure no doubt about it should have a brass points box. is that correct?
Not with this one! (its got an ali box) ARTHUR BRAY at it again maybe! who knows for sure. I reckon the ignition might have been sent to villiers for repair at some point. Is there any continuity in the jm numbers? This SD's jm number is 9196. Would you think this corresponds to the engine number well enough, or is it much later (which might back up my theory the mag was sent to villiers at a later date after the war ended) Maybe ARHTUR BRAY again?

What i'd like to try and do is get hold of a brass points box with the correct set of points with the lock nuts so i feel at bit more at ease with all of this as its giving me the willies just thinking about this!

If i've said it once i've said it dozens of times, These seagulls are a very strange breed sometimes. Sometimes they make sense and others they make no sense at all!

Detective work all the way with some of these older birds.

This is turning into quite an adventure with this "old dear"

jon

[Oyster 49]

There was a very early 102 plus on eBay a couple of weeks ago, with an odd number. It had the 4:1 box along with oil nipples. Ebay number is 261597144600 . I did contact the seller, but was busy, he told me the engine number was AHOJ 424.

Did one of the forum buy it, if so it could be an engine of interest..

as for oil nipples on the opposite side, I have thought this could be solely due to being machined in a different shop, and quite possibly a a machining error?