MamodFan
|
Is this what Geoff Malins should have made?I have been having a play in the workshop again
|
SillyBilly
|
I LOVE IT!
|
rangerssteamtoys
|
Thats a great model that you have made. very nice but my question is since I'm not to smart with mamods is, was that ever a real mamod model? it would be a nice one if it wasnt.
|
Mamodman123
|
I do like that Ian, very quick and smooth runner
Looks kind of strange but in a good way. Two disc cranks, far too crazy for Malins
|
Chris
|
Wow, are they going to go up for sale too?
How about a twintandemtwin next?
|
Steve_S
|
Beautiful engine!
|
MamodFan
|
| rangerssteamtoys wrote: | Thats a great model that you have made. very nice but my question is since I'm not to smart with mamods is, was that ever a real mamod model? it would be a nice one if it wasnt. |
No, the one that Mamod made is this one, well this is one of my reproduction MFTwins but it is exactly the same
|
MamodFan
|
| Chris wrote: | Wow, are they going to go up for sale too?
How about a twintandemtwin next? |
Does that mean FOUR cylinders, now there's a thought
|
Chris
|
| MamodFan wrote: | | Chris wrote: | Wow, are they going to go up for sale too?
How about a twintandemtwin next? |
Does that mean FOUR cylinders, now there's a thought  |
That is the idea, combination of the twin and the tandem.
|
Mamodman123
|
| rangerssteamtoys wrote: | Thats a great model that you have made. very nice but my question is since I'm not to smart with mamods is, was that ever a real mamod model? it would be a nice one if it wasnt. |
This was the original Mamod model in 1939
|
johnreid
|
Sigh, I now know what to save up for. I hope they are still available next summer.
|
Steve_S
|
Four cylinders would use up the steam much quicker...might need an extra wick. What a sight it would be though!
|
MamodFan
|
| Mamodman123 wrote: | | rangerssteamtoys wrote: | Thats a great model that you have made. very nice but my question is since I'm not to smart with mamods is, was that ever a real mamod model? it would be a nice one if it wasnt. |
This was the original Mamod model in 1939
 |
i've looked at that picture a few times, that is the one that inspired my prototype
As you say MM, its runs very smoothly, i doesn't run with as much vibration as the twin.
|
Mamodman123
|
It's the most famous twin MM2 on the net it's the first one I saw anyway
Do you know where it is now Ian? I see that one has the bent frame but some others have the bent piston rod
|
MamodFan
|
| Steve_S wrote: | | Four cylinders would use up the steam much quicker...might need an extra wick. What a sight it would be though! |
I'm running this one with a two wick burner but with very small flames. I think you are right about steam consumption so the flame would have to be higher
|
MamodFan
|
| Mamodman123 wrote: | It's the most famous twin MM2 on the net it's the first one I saw anyway
Do you know where it is now Ian? I see that one has the bent frame but some others have the bent piston rod  |
It has disappeared, it has not been seen at any shows, nor has anyone boasted about owning it.
I know of 5, one person owns 2!
They are all different, some have bent frames others dont , one has bent frame and bent rod. Bases and connecting rod size are also different.
|
steamgranny
|
What a sense of satisfaction it must be to pop into the workshop to play & come out with something like this
Beautiful craftsmanship as ever..........."The Mamod that never was"
|
SillyBilly
|
I await the 4 cylinder model eagerley !
|
MamodFan
|
| steamgranny wrote: | What a sense of satisfaction it must be to pop into the workshop to play & come out with something like this
Beautiful craftsmanship as ever..........."The Mamod that never was"  |
Its the long lost Post War Prototype MM2, it would sit along side the Prototype SE4 very nicely.
|
Mister Occlusion
|
Now *that* is cool
Just needs a PTO in the middle and a really tall lineshaft
|
Wallace
|
That's great MF. Very smooth runner
|
steamyjim
|
COOOOOOOOL!!!!
I want one! Have you got plans for it?
You want a 4 cylinder one next
|
Mamodman123
|
| steamyjim wrote: | COOOOOOOOL!!!!
I want one! Have you got plans for it?
You want a 4 cylinder one next  |
Ive got a headache even thinking about making that
|
MamodFan
|
| steamyjim wrote: | COOOOOOOOL!!!!
I want one! Have you got plans for it?
You want a 4 cylinder one next  |
No drawings as such just a photocopied twin drawing with lots of scribble on it
|
steamyjim
|
Can you scan it for me pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase
|
MTA
|
Poetry in motion
|
MamodFan
|
| steamyjim wrote: | Can you scan it for me pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase  |
The engine mount sketch is a load of workings out with no real picture, just looking at it now it does not make much sense and i did it.
|
Minor1PJG
|
Now that is very nice. Don't make it otherwise that will be another one that I'll have to add to my wanted list.
Once again a credit to you Sir! !
|
Graham-Jilly
|
very nice MF but where is the drive pully ???
|
wyvern
|
Very nice piece of work, I look forward to the 4 cylinder model that will be crazy . you would probably have to use a few more wicks to create enough steam output but then you could always turbocharge it by using a gas burner
|
Mister Occlusion
|
And then, at that point of having 4 cylinders and a bigger burner, you'll probably need a bigger boiler too, to have a decent run time.
Hardware upgrades become a vicious cycle
|
MamodFan
|
A couple of pics
|
SillyBilly
|
| Mister Occlusion wrote: | And then, at that point of having 4 cylinders and a bigger burner, you'll probably need a bigger boiler too, to have a decent run time.
Hardware upgrades become a vicious cycle  |
The 'MM3 MFQuad'
|
johnreid
|
Excuse me for my ignorance, but are there no drive pulleys on that?
I run my steamers without driving things, but think that would be a big part of the fun.
|
tmuir
|
He only made that engine as a one off for a bit of fun and didn't ever plan on using it to drive anything.
|
MamodFan
|
Ok I give in, I will sort some sort of drive out for it.
|
johnreid
|
I suppose one could cut a small groove in the flywheel. No big deal, that sure looks like one that I would be happy to just sit and watch without driving anything. It sure is pretty.
|
oldstuff
|
Wow! That's just awesome, MF. What an appealing little engine!
The shaft could potentially be the PTO. A spring type band might not fit,
but there looks to be enough clearance for a thin rubber band. You'd have
to be able to take down the shaft to install the band, though.
I like that engine, MF!
|
Mamodman123
|
Groove out one or both of the disc cranks, then you'll have the drive
|
MamodFan
|
There is enough room to run a standard MM1 pulley in between the engine frame and still have clearance on the chimney
|
SillyBilly
|
Very clever yet obvious, nobody ever looks at the simplest answer.
|
Roly Williams
|
Now that I really like. It's good to see someone take an established classic and improve on it. Well done
The 4 cylinder version would be a bit gimmicky but good for a laugh. If the cranks were 90 degrees apart, it would be quite smooth (although not perfectly balanced because there would still only be two crank pins).
|
barry1946
|
C O N G R A T U LA T I O N S
That is a truely awesome model!!!
I think it would spoil the absoltute poetry of motion you have achieved to stick a pulley on it. The symetry would be ruined and that is a great part of it's beauty!
And like everyone else - I WANT ONE! So off to the workshop - sit about and fantasize!
|