Is this a very rare 5R seagull:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/seagull-5hp-outbo ... dZViewItem
I have never seen one of these before?
5R ? - very rare on ebay
Moderators: John@sos, charlesp, Charles uk, RickUK, Petergalileo
Hmm, yes, British Seagull's last gasp attempt to put something a little more modern on the market. More like a QB power head with a Yamaha leg, glued together with an adapter plate.
You can probably tell I'm not a fan, but there again I wouldn't be - it's about forty years too young for me.
There are not many about, and I can't be certain but I think this is the ordinary 5, not the 5R.
I know the other Charles has worked on these and I think he bought one on the bay last year to refurbish. But some of the bits are impossible to find, and I know he has had to have adapters cast and machined, and new conrods made. He's trying to get someone to make a new crankshaft.
So - only for those with access to engineering people, and pockets to match. That would count me out.
As a collector's item I'm not aware of them being sought after.
I have just finished a job on a featherweight for a mate, and I have to say it's a joy to be completely confident that whatever I need is easily available. Mind you the job itself (never do a freebie for anyone!!) was one that I thought was an easy and cheap one - as the motor had no HT lead...
After cleaning out the carbonised spider web from all around the points (no kidding) and taking a pint of what looked like luminous green wallpaper paste from the tank, and spending ages getting the same stuff out of the carb and fuel lines I realised it had a cracked block, too.
But a lot easier than a 5R!
You can probably tell I'm not a fan, but there again I wouldn't be - it's about forty years too young for me.
There are not many about, and I can't be certain but I think this is the ordinary 5, not the 5R.
I know the other Charles has worked on these and I think he bought one on the bay last year to refurbish. But some of the bits are impossible to find, and I know he has had to have adapters cast and machined, and new conrods made. He's trying to get someone to make a new crankshaft.
So - only for those with access to engineering people, and pockets to match. That would count me out.
As a collector's item I'm not aware of them being sought after.
I have just finished a job on a featherweight for a mate, and I have to say it's a joy to be completely confident that whatever I need is easily available. Mind you the job itself (never do a freebie for anyone!!) was one that I thought was an easy and cheap one - as the motor had no HT lead...
After cleaning out the carbonised spider web from all around the points (no kidding) and taking a pint of what looked like luminous green wallpaper paste from the tank, and spending ages getting the same stuff out of the carb and fuel lines I realised it had a cracked block, too.
But a lot easier than a 5R!
It's an interesting piece of history. Looking at the photos, there are some rather nasty plates on the bottom of the leg - presumably to try and use this engine more effectively as a rudder? It will be interesting to see how it much it goes for.
I can see why Seagull in the last days might have thought that a modern outboard leg might have given the impression of modernisation - but it looks a rather nasty adaptation of a yamaha 4hp.
What I can't understand though is why did they muck about with the powerhead? By 1992 the QB was pretty good was it not? So why change components to ones that failed?
The beauty of the orginal seagull separation of the shaft tube from the exhaust and the gear linkage was the ease of separating the engine, and the ease of mending it. My experience of older yamahas and Mariners is that impellor can be really difficult to get to if the screws and leg casing have reacted and corroded. Undoing the gear linkage can also be a pain. The whole lower led once old and corroded becomes incredibly brittle. So I suspect the Seagull 5 imported all these problems as well.
I can see why Seagull in the last days might have thought that a modern outboard leg might have given the impression of modernisation - but it looks a rather nasty adaptation of a yamaha 4hp.
What I can't understand though is why did they muck about with the powerhead? By 1992 the QB was pretty good was it not? So why change components to ones that failed?
The beauty of the orginal seagull separation of the shaft tube from the exhaust and the gear linkage was the ease of separating the engine, and the ease of mending it. My experience of older yamahas and Mariners is that impellor can be really difficult to get to if the screws and leg casing have reacted and corroded. Undoing the gear linkage can also be a pain. The whole lower led once old and corroded becomes incredibly brittle. So I suspect the Seagull 5 imported all these problems as well.
I suspect those plates are, as you suggest, add-ons.
I think the idea of the Seagull 5 was one born almost of desperation. Oh I know that surviving B.S. engineers will tell you it was a step forward, but it wasn't really. They really by then should have produced a motor on their own that would swivel - but for that you need a leg design that will allow for that feature, and the tooling would have been beyong BS's dwindling resources. Thy also, I'm told, had a problem with their gearbox castings - a financial one.
The 5 and 5R were produced at a time when a British Seagull outboard was very expensive compared to the competition, and they were making only a handful of motors. Manufacturing had dropped off nearly twenty years before this point, and the firm was carried along by its spares sales (always profitable) and of course its famous repairs service.
I don't know how many of these were made, but it wasn't many. If you leaf through the early nineties boating and yachting magazines it's not hard to see why.
I think the idea of the Seagull 5 was one born almost of desperation. Oh I know that surviving B.S. engineers will tell you it was a step forward, but it wasn't really. They really by then should have produced a motor on their own that would swivel - but for that you need a leg design that will allow for that feature, and the tooling would have been beyong BS's dwindling resources. Thy also, I'm told, had a problem with their gearbox castings - a financial one.
The 5 and 5R were produced at a time when a British Seagull outboard was very expensive compared to the competition, and they were making only a handful of motors. Manufacturing had dropped off nearly twenty years before this point, and the firm was carried along by its spares sales (always profitable) and of course its famous repairs service.
I don't know how many of these were made, but it wasn't many. If you leaf through the early nineties boating and yachting magazines it's not hard to see why.
I'm p[osting this for the other Charles - his PC is a little dodgy at the moment...
**********************************************************
At the time of writting the the Seagull 5 on the bay is up to £103, so it looks like the ill informed are bidding.
Good luck gentlemen!
Now I feel I should give a little history on this motor series.
In the early 90’s Seagull were in competition with mainly Japanese manufactures who were turning out 5hp outboards, that were running on a 50 or a 100 : 1 oil mix, at this time the best Seagull could run on was 25 : 1 in the QUB series, after fitting the needle roller crankshaft in the Kingfisher they upped the fuel ratio to 50 : 1 to try & keep up.
Only to discover that many of these motors were not lasting the first year before suffering lube problems on the main bearings, often requiring a new crankcase, a very expensive warrenty claim for what was now a small English manufacturer.
So they decided to follow the Japanese example, & move to a fully bearing crankshaft this coincided with the FNR gear box availibility problem, so they looked at buying complete legs first from Selva & then from Yamaha, the decision was taken to follow the Yamaha route & a leg from the 4B single cylinder 4hp outboard was chosen, probably on the grounds of cost, as the Selva would appear more usefull for Seagull traditional user base, with it’s lower gear ratio, larger prop & it’s through the prop exhaust, giving a quieter engine more suitable to the larger hull.
To attach the Yamaha leg to the Kingfisher powerhead an adapter plate was designed, a complicated heavy aluminium casting that solved the problem of delivering the exaust gases to where the leg needed them & the cooling water to the cylinder & the coolant return to cool the exhaust tract in the leg, only to discover that the Seagull tiller arm fouled the adapter plate, so provision for the Yamaha tiller arm/throttle was made in the adapter plate.
To permit the Kingfisher cylinder fit, without it being too high, it was found neccessary to remove the exhaust stubb from the base of the cylinder.
Up to this point Kingfisher crankshafts had always run in phosphor bronze bearings reamed to 0.625â€
**********************************************************
At the time of writting the the Seagull 5 on the bay is up to £103, so it looks like the ill informed are bidding.
Good luck gentlemen!
Now I feel I should give a little history on this motor series.
In the early 90’s Seagull were in competition with mainly Japanese manufactures who were turning out 5hp outboards, that were running on a 50 or a 100 : 1 oil mix, at this time the best Seagull could run on was 25 : 1 in the QUB series, after fitting the needle roller crankshaft in the Kingfisher they upped the fuel ratio to 50 : 1 to try & keep up.
Only to discover that many of these motors were not lasting the first year before suffering lube problems on the main bearings, often requiring a new crankcase, a very expensive warrenty claim for what was now a small English manufacturer.
So they decided to follow the Japanese example, & move to a fully bearing crankshaft this coincided with the FNR gear box availibility problem, so they looked at buying complete legs first from Selva & then from Yamaha, the decision was taken to follow the Yamaha route & a leg from the 4B single cylinder 4hp outboard was chosen, probably on the grounds of cost, as the Selva would appear more usefull for Seagull traditional user base, with it’s lower gear ratio, larger prop & it’s through the prop exhaust, giving a quieter engine more suitable to the larger hull.
To attach the Yamaha leg to the Kingfisher powerhead an adapter plate was designed, a complicated heavy aluminium casting that solved the problem of delivering the exaust gases to where the leg needed them & the cooling water to the cylinder & the coolant return to cool the exhaust tract in the leg, only to discover that the Seagull tiller arm fouled the adapter plate, so provision for the Yamaha tiller arm/throttle was made in the adapter plate.
To permit the Kingfisher cylinder fit, without it being too high, it was found neccessary to remove the exhaust stubb from the base of the cylinder.
Up to this point Kingfisher crankshafts had always run in phosphor bronze bearings reamed to 0.625â€
Just thought I'd add a small point. I notice the vendor has added a comment to the effect that this was the last model produced by BS.
No it wasn't ! They were still selling Forties, Featherweights, and Centuries. Then they had a flirtation with the 'Seagull Sport' - actually a Selva.
They can't be that rare - the other Charles has three of them...
No it wasn't ! They were still selling Forties, Featherweights, and Centuries. Then they had a flirtation with the 'Seagull Sport' - actually a Selva.
They can't be that rare - the other Charles has three of them...
Ok, I am the idiot who won the Seagull 5 - now embarrassed 
Well, the story is, I put a bid down of £100 before the long email from Charles - I just thought it was a QB with a different leg! And then I was relieved because someone outbid me. Great. But then they obviously read the Charles' piece, and retracted their bid. Now me being me, and hating to cheat, thought well I can't retract my bid just because I have been naive - not the sellers fault after all. So I waited and prayed that someone would outbid me....but they didn't - so I won the damn thing.
The guy selling it was very easy to deal with - to be honest I don't think he even knew what it was. I duped DHL into moving it from Fife to Devon for £12 on a next day delivery - that was a small victory!
Now the engine. I removed the horrible shark fins cut out from aluminium sheet to pretend that your could plane with a seagull. And then it looked better.
I didn't fancy stripping the thing, as there are no parts anyway. So I filled her up with 25:1 and started her. The engine ran - but not happily on tickover.
So I had a look at the carb - in a bad way it was, all gunged up. So I have bought some carb cleaner and am having a good clean. I will try again to get her to tick over.
The engine sound - top end perfect, pumping fine gushing tell tale. Bottom end, well suspect - but not terrible.
So presuming the carb clean does the trick, any suggestions as to what I should do with the engine (hint, never drink too much wine on a Sunday evening before going on ebay!!). It would seem from Charles' description to be too fragile to use. But it is a piece of history, and it would be a shame one day if there were no Seagull 5's....or would it. BTW, my favourite item in my garage is a early 1950's 102, so don't accuse me of being a modernist!
Last thing - has anyone got a pdf diagram of the AMAL 420 carb, or do I have to buy the manual??
Well, the story is, I put a bid down of £100 before the long email from Charles - I just thought it was a QB with a different leg! And then I was relieved because someone outbid me. Great. But then they obviously read the Charles' piece, and retracted their bid. Now me being me, and hating to cheat, thought well I can't retract my bid just because I have been naive - not the sellers fault after all. So I waited and prayed that someone would outbid me....but they didn't - so I won the damn thing.
The guy selling it was very easy to deal with - to be honest I don't think he even knew what it was. I duped DHL into moving it from Fife to Devon for £12 on a next day delivery - that was a small victory!
Now the engine. I removed the horrible shark fins cut out from aluminium sheet to pretend that your could plane with a seagull. And then it looked better.
I didn't fancy stripping the thing, as there are no parts anyway. So I filled her up with 25:1 and started her. The engine ran - but not happily on tickover.
So I had a look at the carb - in a bad way it was, all gunged up. So I have bought some carb cleaner and am having a good clean. I will try again to get her to tick over.
The engine sound - top end perfect, pumping fine gushing tell tale. Bottom end, well suspect - but not terrible.
So presuming the carb clean does the trick, any suggestions as to what I should do with the engine (hint, never drink too much wine on a Sunday evening before going on ebay!!). It would seem from Charles' description to be too fragile to use. But it is a piece of history, and it would be a shame one day if there were no Seagull 5's....or would it. BTW, my favourite item in my garage is a early 1950's 102, so don't accuse me of being a modernist!
Last thing - has anyone got a pdf diagram of the AMAL 420 carb, or do I have to buy the manual??
-
rosbullterier
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:23 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
I am very impressed with your aquisition; I am sure when you are more confident with the engine (probably it was the 50:1 which did for them) you will be pleased with what others were scared to try - BUT more importantly
'I duped DHL into moving it from Fife to Devon for £12 on a next day delivery - that was a small victory! '
How do do you do that !?
If I'd known that was possible I would have competed for the 5 myself! I travelled last week from Cornwall to Wales to collect a 170 . . . Andy
'I duped DHL into moving it from Fife to Devon for £12 on a next day delivery - that was a small victory! '
How do do you do that !?
If I'd known that was possible I would have competed for the 5 myself! I travelled last week from Cornwall to Wales to collect a 170 . . . Andy
Mark,
Once Charles posted his message it was like that outboard had the plague. The parts are worth £100 so don't feel bad.
The 400 series all have the same basic layout. see link below.
http://www.saving-old-seagulls.co.uk/amal_carb.htm
Greg
Once Charles posted his message it was like that outboard had the plague. The parts are worth £100 so don't feel bad.
The 400 series all have the same basic layout. see link below.
http://www.saving-old-seagulls.co.uk/amal_carb.htm
Greg
i have spent a bit of time now asessing the seagull 5. The good points are that it is absolutely complete. i have changed the plug, cap and stripped the carb and rebuilt it. The leg shows no sign of corrosion, and neither does the adapter plate. I have run it on load and idling - starts fine, and gears forward, neutral reverse all ok, and it does pump a good stream of water and runs quite cooly. The tank, fuel tap and cap are all perfect.
But I can tell that there is some wear on the crank or crank bearings. so this job is beyond me. The head is fine, but there is some surface corrosion which ought to be dealt with.
so here's the proposition for anyone. if anyone wants a Seagull 5, running and complete, which could be restored completely by a crank rebuild for future running, then do get in touch. i paid the £100 plus £20 on parts. so that's what i am looking for - £120. alternatively i would be interested in a part ex for a working kingfisher (non-roller bearing!). Obviously the part ex is me paying the difference!
But I can tell that there is some wear on the crank or crank bearings. so this job is beyond me. The head is fine, but there is some surface corrosion which ought to be dealt with.
so here's the proposition for anyone. if anyone wants a Seagull 5, running and complete, which could be restored completely by a crank rebuild for future running, then do get in touch. i paid the £100 plus £20 on parts. so that's what i am looking for - £120. alternatively i would be interested in a part ex for a working kingfisher (non-roller bearing!). Obviously the part ex is me paying the difference!