39 replies to this topic

[dodge44]

It's evident from the witness marks and the bend in it that it was fitted back to front.

The F Stamping is heavy and can be seen on both sides, but if you look carefully, you'll see one side is backwards

Earlier manuals are as clear as mud as they all illustrate the deeper flinger which does go the other way round but later manuals have it with the F facing outward so it looks like it's been fitted right to me. Here's the image in a later works manual for clarity.

Attached Files

•  Haynes Flinger crop.jpg   130.53K   3 downloads

[GraemeC]

I did wonder if there is (was) actually a difference between simplex and duplex flingers and its one of those things overlooked when doing conversions or building engines up from various sources.

[Spider]

This'll teach me to check clearances better:

 

 

Should I have fitted an oil flinger with a duplex setup?

 

If so why is it contacting the chain?

 

It's actually been stamped on the wrong side !

[GraemeC]

Not according to this:

http://www.minispare...n.aspx?2~12~109

[unburntfuelinthemorning]

Well now you've all seen by backside, here's my frontside:

 

 

 

and here's and undamaged one from another engine:

 

 

I've only ever know them to be fitted with the 'F', facing towards the oil seal as shown in the workshop manuals.  Fitting the other way round would of course move it away from the chain...

[Rorf]

Something that has always concerned me as the manuals say the lip must face the front but to me the F is on the rear of the lip so was incorrect. I suppose it did not really matter on a single row chain as the gap is fairly large. Not so when the duplex chain is fitted as wth the F facing the front the gap is only 1.4mm as opposed to 4.1mm when turned around.

 

I would therefore concur with Moke that this F has definitely been stamped on the wrong side

Attached Files

•  4.1mm clearance.jpg   51.24K   0 downloads
•  1.4mm clearance.jpg   57.02K   1 downloads

[imack]

I'm sure I fit them as per the bottom picture. Will the flinger clear the timing cover fitted the other way around?

[dodge44]

Something that has always concerned me as the manuals say the lip must face the front but to me the F is on the rear of the lip so was incorrect. I suppose it did not really matter on a single row chain as the gap is fairly large. Not so when the duplex chain is fitted as wth the F facing the front the gap is only 1.4mm as opposed to 4.1mm when turned around.

 

I would therefore concur with Moke that this F has definitely been stamped on the wrong side

The issue is really a legacy thing in the manuals. The original 'A' series engines had a much deeper thrower, where the lip did face away from the timing chain but was replaced by the type that is the subject of this thread in the early 1960's (8AMUH925507 according to AKD3502). The problem is that the original 'A' series drawings and manual text have been perpetuated in books and manuals long after the early thrower ceased to be used. For reference, here are the two (Types 2A2015 & 12A1148) both facing in the direction that they are fitted to the crank.

Attached Files

•  Throwers.jpg   160.9K   1 downloads

[unburntfuelinthemorning]

The Austin Morris manual I have states "note that the face marked 'F' faces outwards" and shows it the way round that I had it fitted, however this is of course with a simplex chain. 

 

If it clears the timing cover I'll just fit it the other way round next time. 

[Rorf]

I'm sure I fit them as per the bottom picture. Will the flinger clear the timing cover fitted the other way around?

 

I will check that when I install the timing cover, I hope it does though.

[dodge44]

The Austin Morris manual I have states "note that the face marked 'F' faces outwards" and shows it the way round that I had it fitted, however this is of course with a simplex chain. 

 

If it clears the timing cover I'll just fit it the other way round next time. 

You've certainly fitted it the right way round as it's the same whether simplex with tensioner or with a duplex chain, and the 'F' is on the correct side of the pressing so the fault is elsewhere. Do you have a picture of the chain on the sprocket with the thrower in position? That might help. Is there any wear on the side faces of the sprocket teeth or is it just simply that the chain is 'naff'? This is the sort of gnarling you get:-

Attached Files

•  Naff sprocket.jpg   128.12K   1 downloads

[unburntfuelinthemorning]

Here's the sprocket and chain:

 

 

Here's the flinger on the sprocket.  It does touch, I should have noticed that:

 

 

And fitted backwards:

 

[imack]

Is that chain joining link causing the problem? It's taller than the other links.

Attached Files

•  2019-03-29 15.53.15.jpg   53.13K   2 downloads

Edited by imack, 29 March 2019 - 03:55 PM.

[dodge44]

Is that chain joining link causing the problem? It's taller than the other links.

I think you've probably nailed it there sir, but as I've just undertaken a voyage to the workshop - This is assembled with the same make of chain (JWS) but it has *no join*, an original MOWOG oil thrower and original AEA695 sprocket and the closest I can get the chain to the thrower by compressing with my fingers is a heathly 0.030". All parts are in 'used' condition.

I was going to suggest an offset error on either your sprocket or thrower but given the joiner observation don't think that is valid now but for the record on my components the distance from the face the oil thrower sits on to the sprocket face on AEA695 is 17/64" (6.75mm), Thickness across teeth is 0.612" (15.55mm), and the total depth of the thrower is 7/64" (2.75mm). Hope that adds something...

Attached Files

•  Sprocket assembly.jpg   125.8K   1 downloads

[Spider]

Yes, you've all got me thinking now !

 

I'll check when I get down the shed later,,,,it seems it's one of those tasks that I do almost on auto-pilot.

 

If indeed it was the correct way around, then I'm inclined to think that the wrong chain has been supplied.

 

Also, all the slingers I have used, apart from the step in them, have been 'flat' on the bigger face. These look like they have a small bevel in them, granted, that maybe the camera.