Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Spitfighter

Pages: [1]
1
Twins / A 65 Rebores and re-sleeves
« on: 08 June, 2018, 17:11:26 »
As is evident from my previous postings I have a 1966 BSA A65 and engine rebuild in progress.

The cylinders have already apparently been rebored to +40 thou over standard and now I see that the lower skirts of the sleeves have been broken and repaired. Cracks are still visible but the engine appears to have been run (successfully?) with the repair in place.

Plan A was that I had been going to have the engine bored out to +60 but now I see this repair more closely I begin to doubt whether that would be sensible given the uncertainty about the repair, especially if reground.

Plan B would be to have the barrel re-sleeved and taken back to standard and go from there but some earlier enquiries elsewhere drew a blank on new sleeves apart from expensive ones from the USA or some UK ones that needed trimming somehow.

Can anyone advise and help on either Plan A or B or even your own suggested plan C, any idea of costs of them and who could do such work?

I am based in North Yorkshire so northern recommendations could be very helpful.

I have also asked PES from South Yorks who advertise in the BSAOC mag the same question but they seem to have gone home for the weekend so I have had to email them. (Is this reasonable for a Friday when some of us are just getting focussed on our tasks for the weekend??  ;) )

Thanks
Alastair

2
Twins / Re: A65 '66 Spitfire Gearbox main bearing
« on: 01 June, 2018, 11:02:13 »
I have now got the correct bearing c/o the nice and helpful Roger Jervis at WMT bearings. I had bought another bearing from him via ebay and he had put his card in so I followed up with him.
He identified and provided replacements for the two gearbox mainshaft bearings as listed by Bess for £37 including 1st class postage and followed up with a call to check they had arrived and were OK. These were for bearings with a rubber seal that could be removed on one side as suggested. (There is also a similar drive side one with metal seals).
It sounds as if he stocks quite a few imperial bearings so could be a good source for future bearing needs. Can't fault his customer service.
He lists on ebay but does a better deal if you go direct - also eliminates errors too I think.
sales@wmtbearings.co.uk
www.wmtbearings.co.uk
01743850618
07411012920
Next job to get the bearing back in the casing...
Thanks all
Alastair

3
Twins / Re: A65 '66 Spitfire Gearbox main bearing
« on: 24 May, 2018, 10:05:25 »
Thank you for this. Sounds like a couple of returns are in order. (It was the drive side one at this point but the timing side one is also going to be done so thanks for details on both).

BTW Where do you get these figures from? Haven't found this kind of detail in the sources I have and clearly sometimes this info is useful if suppliers are not so careful.

Thanks again.

Alastair

4
Twins / A65 '66 Spitfire Gearbox main bearing
« on: 23 May, 2018, 15:58:35 »
I am stripping the engine and replacing various bits and bearings in my '66 Spitfire.

The parts list specifies part number as 68-0023 for gearbox main drive shaft bearing. I have now ordered two replacements from reputable people who list them as 68 0023s but neither match the one removed. (The casing is numbered as coming out of the factory in 1966 and both halves have matched numbers).

The one removed (labelled Hoffman England N241 V2) and has an id of 1.250 and od of 2.5"
The first "replacement' (marked RL59 2RS) has an id of 1.120" and 2.5" od.
The next one (marked 1654RS) and has an id of 1.25" and od 2.56".

Is there something I should know before I ask someone to replace the bearing with one according to measurements and not just a part number (or to correct their listings)?

The other question I have is about the fact that the two replacements are sealed and the "original" open.

Given it would be in the gearbox and hopefully in some oil, is the sealing a help, hinderance, or just irrelevant in this environment?

Thanks

Alastair

5
Twins / Re: QD hub bearing on A65
« on: 04 March, 2018, 12:16:53 »
You’ve beaten me to it! It looks as if I need a new spindle for the drum and potentially a new one for the wheel. If I have read the parts manuals for 66 and 67 correctly the bearings on the wheel remained the same so the spindle I have would fit through them but I guess the thread at the end might have changed as the part number is different. Can anyone confirm before I commit? Thanks.

6
Twins / Re: QD hub bearing on A65
« on: 03 March, 2018, 18:07:14 »
Thank you. That seems quite likely now you come to mention it, as this bike seems to have a few little “variations” from totally original spec. I do have a 67 parts book somewhere so will dig it out. Much appreciated response.

7
Twins / QD hub bearing on A65
« on: 03 March, 2018, 15:44:28 »
I’m fettling the rear hub of my 66 spitfire and having a slight problem with the bearing for the brake drum. According to my parts book it should be the same size as the two bearings in the wheel but it seems to need to be about 40+ Thou bigger otherwise it is loose. I have a bearing with the right external diameter but incorrect inner and another (which matches the wheel bearings) with the right id and wrong od. So far my workshop manual, parts book and Roy Bacon book have not helped. Any suggestions?

8
Twins / Re: A65 swingarm bush removal
« on: 31 October, 2017, 10:56:26 »
Hi the method I was taught and have applied successfully is as follows.
Choose a metal drill bit wider than the width of rubber, but not quite as wide as the thickness of that and both inner and outer metal sleeves. I found something around 5mil worked.
The bit also needs to be as long as the outer sleeve if possible to get to the end of the rubber..
Drill three or better four (or even five) holes down the length of the bush, and in doing so you drill out part of the thickness of both sleeves.
With a slightly smaller bit you can then drill out as much of the rubber still adhering to both inner and outer, and inevitable do even more to weaken both sleeves. Obviously try not to damage the swing arm itself. I managed with only minor scratches to that.
There comes a point when enough rubber is drilled out that you can get something in to collapse the inner sleeve enough to get some mole grips on it. With a bit of riving about (if you have removed enough rubber by drilling) the inner sleeve comes loose and can be puled out.
The outer sleeve should also then be encouraged to collapse and loosen and pull out.
Not as smelly as burning it, and doesn't require welding skills...
Doesn't apply I think to the later kind of bushes not of the rubber type.

9
Twins / Re: A65 swingarm bush removal
« on: 29 October, 2017, 11:53:44 »
If anyone wants a solution to this for removal of the silent bloc bushes I have a method that works learned from other more experienced souls...

10
Twins / Re: How original for an age related plate?
« on: 29 October, 2017, 11:12:55 »
Funny you should mention the frame number and powder coating Julian. On another bike I had just that problem but it at least was already registered and risked being more of an MOT issue. As it happens the shallow stamp on the Spit frame has probably helped me decide against powder and go for spray paint which I can do myself and control more carefully.
Thanks again to you and the editor. Am feeling more relaxed again about my plans...
As a newby to posting where is the right space on the forum for enquiries like this which cuts across types. I posted under twins but this isn't just a twins issue?

11
Twins / Re: How original for an age related plate?
« on: 27 October, 2017, 16:13:25 »
Thanks for the speedy reply Julian. You should take over DVLA by all accounts...

I should have said I have already read the suggested BSAOC guidance and the stuff from DVLA but there still seems to be some latitude/ ambiguity in the rules set out.

I wanted to tap in to the experience of actually doing this - how do the rules get interpreted? Are they consistent?

To take the example I posed, I really don't want to paint the frame one colour only to have that used as grounds for rejection after putting it back together, not least so I don't have to take it apart again just for that.

So who has been through this process and what happened?

12
Twins / How original for an age related plate?
« on: 27 October, 2017, 15:06:40 »
I have recently acquired a reimported Spitfire. It was in "barn find" condition only the barn itself had probably had holes in the roof. I am beginning the business of stripping down and rebuilding and would obviously like an age related plate at the end of the work. (I have read the thread on getting through that process...).
Although the advice is that
1. key components have to be original (I think mine are) but how long is that list and what exactly is on it?
2. there is some latitude for replacement of worn and damaged bits, (how much?) and
3. there is some latitude for "cosmetic" changes. 
What is the experience out there of how these criteria have actually been applied?
I have in mind a number of options for the rebuild, all of which would preserve the integrity of the original frame, the engine and forks, but would I incur problems if I did something like paint the frame a different colour than black, or some other technically reversible thing?

Pages: [1]