C . 266 .

[headdownarseup]

I'm looking for an SD style of prop and an original looking "Dover" tiller grip.

If the grip is still attached to a tiller that's fine too. Must be for a 102.
Nothing else will do for this old bird


Here's hoping

Jon

[headdownarseup]

Fingers crossed, prop now sourced.
Thanks Rick



Still looking for a "Dover" grip, whether it's still attached to a tiller or not. Not too bothered about condition but must be the correct older type, and largely in one piece. (small amounts of damage to the grip i can deal with)


Jon

[Charles uk]

What did your researches reveal about the props, fitted to the AC, AD series JON?

[headdownarseup]

There's plenty of motors out there that have been "upgraded" shall we say with the hydrofan props.

C.266. was no different in this respect.

I very strongly beleive that the original prop for these would have been the SD swept back style. My AC3392 and AD1584 both have these and were fitted when i bought them. It doesn't really mean anything at this stage i know, but it just looks RIGHT to me with the straight out back pumphousing, the same as you'd expect with any of the wartime motors. And seeing as this motor was likely to have been manufactured in a time of hardship right after the wars end, it makes even more sense to me that a small company such as BS were in those days that they would need to draw on wartime reserves. There was nothing else around to fit except wartime stocks.(whatever they might have been)
Later AD's and AC's (with slotted core plugs) tend to have the "bowtie" prop unless they too have been "upgraded" at some point. (different pumphousing on them)

I can see why these props get swapped though. Once they get too badly dinged and bashed up it becomes a pointless exercise to try and repair something that's already been repaired several times before.
So, (maybe) after a quick look through the parts list/catalogue of the time, an owner might well be tempted to fit the current model of prop to their own motor seeing as it's a fairly cost effective way of improving the performance (albeit slightly) of their outboard.
Hence why nearly 60 odd years later we see loads of hydrofan props fitted to 102's. Doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's wrong either, it's just the way things are sometimes.
But you just KNOW when something looks right, and to me the SD prop looks right on a nippled gearbox with the straight out back pumphousing.
There are however the odd photograph or two (on the main site) that shows some motors fitted with a "bowtie" prop on a wartime spec gearbox just to add even more confusion into the mix. I tend to ignore these for now and concentrate on what the data sometimes tells me. Sometimes i'm lucky in that a motor comes across as "original" or mostly original bar the odd swap here and there, but sadly a lot of the time the data shows a later prop fitted.

This is what my research has uncovered to date. Not everything is as it should be. (whatever that might be)

Jon

[Hugz]

And is the prop on the right a transitional prop that came out when the sub-ejector was first introduced? With blade area being larger than both raked 10" prop and bow tie but has less of a pitch than the 10" and more than the bow tie, BS may have found it was a bit much for the 102's hence their scarcity.

An advert describing raked prop as a 10".

[Oyster 49]

Probably more accurate way of researching actually. Those old magazines are a rich vein of period info!

[Hugz]

They are indeed.

Here is a photo/illustration of a sub-ejector in April 1953 with bow tie. We do know they came out prior to this but good to have black and white evidence. Edit. Oh, on closer inspection it is a straight out exhaust.

[Hugz]

Bingo

Found photo/illustration of Straight Exhaust with Bow tie prop.

Trouble being I haven't got a date! But I do know it is between 1946 and 1950. I realise that this is of huge historical importance and may change the very foundation of our belief. Ok, I'll go back to library to re research this period.

[Hugz]

Incidentally I have a 'D' with a 'C' bottom. Some may recall that has been evidence that AD's where often fitted with AC bottoms downunder by the dealer so this may well be the case with this one.

[Collector Inspector]

They are indeed.

Here is a photo/illustration of a sub-ejector in April 1953 with bow tie. We do know they came out prior to this but good to have black and white evidence. Edit. Oh, on closer inspection it is a straight out exhaust.
3 Motors.jpg

On closer inspection.....the Gull has a cooly hat.

The later post and pic you did has a flat top but the rest of the graphic is the same.

Just looking.

BnC

[Keith.P]

The first ad picture is just an artists render of a seagull and the two ads pictured are of the exact same motor.

[Oyster 49]

Still no sign of the 102 data..

[headdownarseup]

I don't know about you guys, but the ignition looks like a flattop to me on both motors.

I'm fascinated by this.
Evidence of different props being used on what we currently think of as early post war seagull 102's. (straight out back exhaust with bowtie props??)
It looks odd doesn't it! Goes against the grain of what we think about these. Is it right? Is it wrong? Who knows...

I've mentioned in the past that maybe, JUST MAYBE, as the literature you're looking at Hugz may be something to do with Aussy motors.
My data without doubt has some grey areas. I've never said this was set in stone, and going by what you've uncovered so far i would like to think there will ALWAYS be the odd motor here and there that doesn't conform to what we know so far.

Props (i think) follow a progression in the 102 line up.(that's post war UK model 102's) Oldest to youngest being SD...BOWTIE...CLOVERLEAF...HYDROFAN...and finally the 2 and 3 bladed "MEATCLEAVER" (as i call it). In other words Hugo i think your 2 bladed "meatcleaver" might be from the 1970's and not the 50's as first thought. (just my thoughts on this)
Plus sized gearboxes with the bigger 13" prop i'm fairly confident there are only 2 variants. Some but not ALL bargepushers have a 3 blade 13" prop which i'm not entirely comfortable with as it just looks wrong with a completely different hub area compared to the rest of the Bargepushers. The other prop being a 4 bladed 13" cloverleaf.
Keep going with this Hugo, i think you might be onto something here.There might be a UK spec and an "over- seas" spec with these 102's. Keep an open mind

If it's any consolation, i have an AD, a post 1950 model (slotted core plug) with a clutched bottom end too. (sub-jector and bowtie prop) Nothing too much to worry about there. It happens!


Adrian, if you want a rough copy of my data (and it will be rough mind you) send me your email adress and i'll get a copy to you.

Jon

[tambikerboy]

Look forward to seeing the Australian seagull outboard the black hole may come to light soon......

[Charles uk]

It might make more sense if you researched how & probably where that graphic image was produced before you rely on it for wishful thinking dating evidence.

If I remember right the other Charles & I explained how dangerous this might be without a good understanding of these printing constraints with examples some years ago.