Can anyone tell me about these? I would guess these are off my Dad's first A Looper.
Attachment 58902[ATTACH]58902
Thanks,
J-Dub
Printable View
Can anyone tell me about these? I would guess these are off my Dad's first A Looper.
Attachment 58902[ATTACH]58902
Thanks,
J-Dub
Boy those are old. The megaphones appear to be Quincy deflectors that were adapted in the field to fit the Looper side plate. I don't remember doing the adaptation, but the megs look like mine. Hope this helps you. What was the S/N on your Dad's FA?
J-Dub has FA-1, he might be referring to that one. It would make sense that these pipes came with the first produced "A" looper. Just a thought.
Yes, Dad still had FA-1. Sounds like when I restore it I should put these back on it!
J-Dub
FA-1!
Wow, what a treasure!
You absolutely must put it back together with those steel pipes. I feel certain I made the megaphones.
I wish I could tell you without doubt that I adapted them to the side plates, but I sometimes forget what I had for breakfast and this was 50 years ago!
The only people who might know would be Jim Schoch or Frank Volker. As far as I know Jim does not do internet.
Frank sometimes monitors BRF. Frank did most of the dyno work @ QW. He often drew up pipe modifications and I built them, then Frank ran them on the dyno. Perhaps he might read this and be able to shed some light.
Personally, I felt all the early Loopers were shipped with the cast aluminum pipes. Maybe Chris sent the modified pipes to your Dad to try since this was one of the first Loopers in competition. I just don't know!
I believe Paul Christner is too young to know the answer, and everyone else who may have known is racing on Lake Paradise!
Thanks Gene! I think that'll be one of my next restorations.
J-Dub
Good Luck and best wishes!
J-Dub, aren't you glad you posted about these now? Haha, had a feeling they were special. Now you know where you're going to put them on. NICE! :cool:
Carl Meyers bought an A Looper in the spring of 1966. This is the same motor I broke the A Runabout Kilo with at Parker, Thanksgiving weekend. 48 years this week. I wonder what serial number Carl's motor was?
I'm thinking late 1964, Paul Christner has all the records. He can tell you the S/R of Carl Meyers' motor
At DePue, 1966, I was half a lap a head of the second place A Runabout when I broke a rod and flipped. Dave Christner begged Carl Meyers for our props. He said, "Any prop that would push that 250 pounder than fast, will push me too." Carl didn't sell him the prop. Our "REBUILT" LOOPER had the new rods...
Anyone ever figure ut why the "A" Looper was so fast and the "B" Looper wasn't much better than the "A"???
Hell, MY Quincy "A" which had been Carl Meyers' was faster than Harry Bartolomei's "B" Looper. Harry ran a pint of degummed castor oil to five gallons of methanol. We ran a quart of Bakers "AA" castor oil to five gallon of methanol. Any thoughts about this??
Also, my dad liked to run the compression ratio up......
What ever happened to the Quincy Looper paterns???
Something strange about the cast elbow. It looks like the bolt right in front of the elbow would be right in the 3rd port machine hole. ??? The looper forward bolts straddled the 3rd port. Maybe something about the design of the first looper I don't know?
Dick, I spoke with Paul Christner today. He has the original cyl. block. He says that set of cylinders was not 3rd ported. I've asked him to post a picture of that block on this forum.
Warning, this is a very crude piece of aluminum with a lot of welding but it had some well pedigreed offsprings
Paul sent me the photos of the "B" Looper prototype. He said he was unable to post the photos, it was not working for him. As you said Gene, it did not have a 3rd Port. Here are all the photos that he sent me. He is very confident that the elbows and horns are indeed Quincy parts. Now we just need pictures of FA-1 to see if it has or does not have a 3rd port!
Attachment 58907
Attachment 58908
Attachment 58909
Every time I see one of these Quincy cross-flow twin cyl blocks, I always wonder why the Swanson Hotrod guys didn't make one of these with flat top pistons?....
Just imagine a 15 or 20ci rotary valve Hotrod looper! That would have took "A" and "B" class alky championships by storm back then.
When Chris first told me he was going to build an engine that had intakes and exhausts on both sides of the cylinder I couldn't comprehend how that could be.
When he came back from the foundry with this chunk of aluminum and then started welding all the chutes and water jackets etc. on it; I thought "My God, he's the Mad Scientist".
The early cylinders were ported by Chris on a mill he built from steel. Steel has too much spring and it was very difficult to hold spec. on the ports.
Chris finally broke down and bought a small Cincinnati vertical end mill and a Bridgeport. Prior to that, the only milling machine we had was a horizontal mill about 100 years old. Al Herrmann machined the castings into cylinder blocks and Chris taught me how to machine the ports. Prior to that I was only a welder.
I drilled a pilot hole the wrong angle on a D cylinder that was for Bill Seebold. I went to Chris with my hat in my hand fully expecting to be fired. Chris simply said, "The man who don't make a mistake once in a while is the man who don't do nothin".
Chris didn't always use proper grammar, but he got his point across. I'd love to hear him say "Biggen it up or little it down" just once more.
Rather than firing me like I expected, Chris had Al weld up my mistake and re-sleeve the block. I then did it right.
That engine turned out to be one of the fastest FD's we ever built. Bill Seebold won a lot of races with that engine!
Bill and I have been friends since we were 17 years old. One day I told him what had happened during the building of his FD. He laughed and said we should build all of them that way.
J-Dub; if you're reading this, please post a picture of the ports on your Dad's FA-1. I'd love to know if it was ported on the home made mill or if it was ported on the Cincinnati.
Believe me, we both would know!
If it was ported on the home made mill, I would imagine it would be more valuable although we both know you would never sell it.
Will do Gene! It looks like that will be my next restoration. I do remember Dad telling me several of his cylinder blocks had a lot of travel back and forth to Quincy Welding back in the day (FA-1, FB-6, FB-110 and I believe another FA as well). I know he still remembered the address to Quincy Welding because he would occasionally recite to me. So with that, I am sure it was updated as time went on, but I am sure you would be able to identify the updates compared to OEM.
*Also, I cant thank you enough for all your incite on the history you are sharing with us. Thanks to you and all the contributors to these topics!**
J-Dub
Gene
You had corrected someone stating that the Looper was out as early as 1664. I remembered some pictures that I have been converting that my father had taken at Lake Spivey at the 1964 NOA Nationals. I browsed through them the other night and found some pictures from the pits.
Let me say first that the block in the pictures of the previous post is not ugly but a thing of beauty and pure genius. The die hard old fashion way, of that time, to bring an idea to something tangible.
Dad had taken some pictures through the pits and as I looked through them, the first picture he had taken of me by my boat and the engine just left of center with a gentleman bent over it looked like it had 2 horizontal exhaust pipes on it so I zoomed in on it. It looked enough like a Looper to confirm they were there in 1964. I zoomed in on the next picture to see if somebody would recognized the individual working on it.
I the continued through the rest of the pictures and found one that had been taken a little closer and more to the aft, however the complete motor was covered with the exception of the back of the pipes. What you see is the aft half of the elbows with the steel cones as pictured in the previous post. I did two zoom ins , although grainy, there can be no mistake of what they are. It looks as they had shorten the steel cone and were just a little shorter that the final aluminum cone.
I reversed the order of the 4th and 5th pictures.
I included a picture of the rocky hill side where the pits of Quincy landed because of your late arrival. I remember that the word was going around through the pits that Quincy was going to build a 4 cylinder version of their new motor.
Was the 3rd port being used in the deflector at that time? I find it interesting that the first Looper did not have the 3rd post if it did exist at that time in the deflecters.
Attachment 58910Attachment 58911Attachment 58912Attachment 58913Attachment 58914Attachment 58915Attachment 58916
Well, looking at the following pics of the block prototype, it did not look like a carefully thought out design. The probable reason why it wasn't faster was likely because the exhaust ports were facing against one another, and all that will do is to expose opposing piston skirts to a un-necessary blast of direct exhaust heat. It could have caused unwanted friction from expansion and/or may have burned away needed lubrication as well if run lean. Quincy did well back then in the larger 30-40+cid classes until the opposed four cylinder 500-700cc konigs came around, but Konig and Anzani seemed like better engines in the two cylinder "A" and "B" classes "early on" probably because of better exhaust port arrangement at least. Even the simple stock based Alky A-B mercs could just about equal them at times.
I'm pretty sure it was the 431 State street.
With all due respect, I disagree with your assessment of Looper vs Konig & Anzani. Your statement regarding "simple stock based Alky A-B mercs" equaling a Looper at times is wishful thinking.
RE your comment, "it didn't look like a carefully thought out design". I'm certain there may be an element of truth there.
However, please be advised the first time this crude power head was run on a boat it was 3 mph faster than our best modified 20-H. Back to back runs with no setup changes, just a P/H swap. I believe most people would consider that a success.
By the way, a simple check of the record books will prove the Merc-Quincy Looper was one "Hell of a good motor" in it's day.
I'm extremely proud to have been associated with the man who didn't carefully think out his design
This my "Poorly Designed" Looper that was built in 19-Who-Knows-When that ran faster on two different occasions than my 2005 700cc Konny... And my Konny ain't no slouch...
Attachment 58918
J-Dub
That's an 1100cc Quincy though and a really nice one at that. I know its not a 700 like your Konny. And its not a poor design. The inline four or six cylinder engines couldn't help but have facing exhaust ports because of cylinder arrangement. I think Quincy did very well for their time in history based from the mercury platform. They just did not have to go that route with their two cylinders though. They may have had better "A" and "B" engines if they hadn't. The 20cid racers of all kinds are my favorites.
Personally I don't believe that you actually know what you are talking about. The A & B's were extremely strong & fast. I won the B championship in 1968 against the almost new 4 cylinder Konigs. Gerry Waldman was winning the A class in to the 70's although I should have beat him with my FA Konig in 1969 but he was just as fast & maybe even faster in to the early 70's.
That is not a cross flow motor, it is the first cast or redo of a standard set of cylinders that were converted to Loop type. Got a little late to the party but back in the day of these motors, they were King. Though there were some good Konig's and Anzanti's but the average racer could buy a Flathead and kick A$$ on the Konig guy's. The A was my favorite as the two cylinders go but All the 4 and 6 cylinder models would turn my Crank. Back in these day's the Quincy Price Sheet showed all the parts and prices if you wanted to build a motor yourself, and they had prices so that you could send a Mk 15 or 20H type block to them to have it converted to a looper. Gene should / remember this. ( I know we are getting old buddy). Steve
Who are you calling old, Steve?
Talk louder, I can't hear you!
Let me turn up my hearing aid. I stood to close to too many Loopers.
Happy Thanksgiving to all my boat racing buddies and their families!
Gene
I hear you loud and clear. I sure had fun making music with my Quincy Loopers!
Bruce
I took this picture at Devils Lake a few months ago... It wasn't a tough decision...
Attachment 58920
J-Dub
I'm assuming you went with the "Tower of Power"!
I did Gene, until learned that the fuel pumps won't maintain sufficient fuel supply at 9500 sustained RPM... On my first attempt we entered the "Traps" at 96 mph and accelerating until the engine went lean... Put the Konny on and averaged 95.5 mph.
I never said it wasn't fast or successful. I was just giving an honest and intelligent critique of what I see based on my abilities which by the way, have and still serve me very well without a doubt. Ron Hill mentioned that a particular Quincy "A" was as fast as another racers Looper "B".... So Im wrong for thinking that taking away exhaust heat exposure between cylinders and against piston skirts wouldn't have made it faster than it already was regardless I suppose.
Ill just leave it alone as a exclusive discussion. Have a good Thanks-Giving everybody!
Steve, Why would you ask such a dumb question???:eek: I really expected more from you...:confused: I will type this out for you reeeeal slow so you can keep up.:p SIXTY SIX! 66, 2 9/16", 2.5625".
Si?
J-Dub:cool:
J-Dub
Cut him some slack. He's old!
Oops; my bad, he's younger than me.
Oh boy! Are we ganging up on Steve? I should join considering the bad news he gave me today. ;)
Fascinating to see that prototype!!
Champ, understand that they very well might have later added material to that experimental block in the photo to aim the exhaust ports out and away from each other, because this was done on the early-version production engines, probably including John Myers' #1 A motor (we need that photo!). On a later version, the ones with the wide-swept pipe elbows, the early exhaust "separator" was extended beyond the block and several inches into the elbow, whereas the early-version separator stopped maybe 3/8" in from the edge of the port. O.F. Christner was out in Seattle one year when the APBA national meeting was held here, and I asked him about the new, very long exhaust splitter and the new wide-swept elbows as versus the previous set-up. He told me that you could modify a first-version block by extending the splitter by the 3/8" out to the edge of the port, and get most of the power improvement even if you kept the old elbows.
I'm pretty sure it was 1966, my second year of racing, that John Myers and then his dad Bill started running their first A and B loopers. The B versions looked like all the early-version loopers everybody has seen, but the first A's had much skinnier, smaller-angle megaphones plugged into the elbows. But I don't remember ever seeing those welded elbows; what a find, J Dub!!
As to early loopers vs. other motors, I doubt that many Anzanis other than the ones that had been heavily developed by Hallum and Anderson would be any more than more-or-less even competition, even in the earliest years of loopers. I saw a lot of this, and I know that by maybe 1969, John Myers had an early-version A Loop that was very fast, and no ordinary Konig and certainly no ordinary Anzani would have kept up with it. I'd love to see J Dub built THAT engine, put it on a period-correct hydro, and run a few laps at an SOA race; that engine sang a sweet song!!
Smitty,
Thanks for joining in on the Looper vs Konig/Anzani debate. No one can deny there were a select few Anzanis that were very fast.
The gentlemen responsible for those engines deserve a lot of credit. I certainly respect their accomplishments. But as you said these were not the typical Anzanis.
Had I been the first to make that statement, it would have sounded like sour grapes. Thank you for saying it for me.
As many have observed, everybody's dyno seems to read different, or at least people are interpreting things differently (if not, uh, exaggerating). Still, if you remember them, Gene, or if Frank Volker does, I'd be interested to see a series of horsepower-at-rpm figures for the various Quincy motors, by version. For one thing, you could dismiss Champ's incorrect idea (assuming I have this right, Champ) that the first version loopers of around 1966 were not much faster at that early stage of development than the cross-flow Mercs and Hot Rods were at what was then their well-developed stage. So if you recall, Gene, what were the figures for the deflector engines by that point, and what were the figures for the first version loopers that were sold in big numbers? And if you know the figures for the next stage of looper development, the ones with the wide-swept pipes, that would also be interesting.
Champ, you are certainly right that if that first crude prototype block had gone into production as we see it in the photo and with no modification, the exhaust arrangement would have been sub-optimal for sure. But I'm pretty sure that by the time Quincy was shipping the first loopers, they had separated the exhaust streams of the upper and lower cylinders on both sides in the block. The porting was different from the prototype, too (that really is an interesting photo!). Subject to J Dub posting a photo of A Loop #1, which I saw on the water many times but never saw in pieces, my guess is that it looks like the rest of the production run.
Champ, let me also say that when I disagree with your idea that in those early looper years a good deflector could almost keep up, I'm not jumping to defend the reputation or feelings of the Christner family, Gene East, Frank Volker, or anybody who owned loopers. I never owned one back then (have three now), and with my early, skinny-pipe Konig I beat John Myers and was beat by him. None of what I say is about protecting anybody's ego, and I hope it doesn't bother you either, Champ, because you always have interesting observations here and on the other site.
In the first couple of years of the first version loopers (talking class A and B here) I got to see several of them and their competitors here in Reg. 10. There were A and B Hubbell and Quincy Mercurys, some FA Konigs with the early skinny expansion chambers, two or three FB Konigs, a few single-carb Anzanis (all A's, IIRC), the faster A and B Anzanis of Hallum and Anderson, two 2-carb B Harrisons, and a couple of Hot Rods. Oh, and I can't forget Bill Myers deflector B Konig, which he ran for a year while John ran the loopers (I have this motor now, and am trying to get J Dub to offer me some absurdly large sum for it for sentimental reasons, but so far he has just yawned).
Now, to compare apples to apples you have to specify that any of the engine types under comparison have to be properly clearanced and assembled, in good tune and running cleanly, and on comparable boats, with similarly good props (and we probably ought to add a condition of warm weather for decent vaporization of the fuel). This was not so easy to do, especially in those days of marginal ignitions. The best ignitions seemed to me to be the heavy Phelon flywheel magneto from the B Stock Mercs, and the somewhat rare, similarly heavy energy-transfer magneto on a few 2 cylinder Konigs. The other mags (Bosch, Sem, and especially Lucas) were less happy for various reasons (not always electrical), and the battery-and-points ignitions were also inadequate. The only big race I ever went out-of-region for was the '68 NOA Nationals at Forest Lake, MN. If Gene remembers that one, it might not be with great pleasure. It was, I'd say, the biggest year for loopers, and there must have been (wild guess) eighty 2-cylinder loopers at that race. And a good seventy of them, with the battery and points, had an ignition miss, just pop-pop-pop every day, all day, about drove me nuts. Of course, very quickly thereafter, the new "transistorized" aftermarket ignitions for cars were widely applied to our outboards to good effect.
So you have to compare a good-running this to a good-running that. With that caveat, Champ, cross-flow Mercs would be doing well to finish within 3/4 of a lap of the early-version loopers (BTW, I never heard the term "flathead" applied to that motor until much later; looper was the Reg. 10 term for them). Same thing with Hot Rods. Stu Lowe, an airline pilot and older brother of Jeff Lowe who was nationally one of the very fastest BSH drivers of the day, had a B Hot Rod built by John Alden in California, meaning it was as good an alky-conversion as you'd find anywhere. Stu Lowe's Hot Rod always ran well, but he wasn't going to beat a B loop or even an A loop that was running right. Most of the non-Hallum Anzanis wouldn't run well long enough to be any threat (a Lucas mag that if it worked at all would tend to shear off the teeth of its drive gear, bad big-end bearings, wimpy gears).
NONE of those engines, as fondly as the old guys remember them, could remotely hope to stay on the same lap with a modern Italian engine, even with modern props and featherlight boats. The ports were all tiny and not well-aimed. They sure were cool in their day, though. The sport owes a huge debt to the Quincy Welding team for turning out a design that let the little guy build a fast motor very inexpensively using a lot of Mercury components he already had, ending up with a simple user-friendly, mechanic-friendly racemotor with a one-piece crankshaft that would run with or beat the more complicated engines from overseas. If you saw your good old deflector equipment made obsolete at a stroke, and had to buy the latest new thing just to keep up, it sure helped that the new thing was relatively cheap, and as easy to work on as racing equipment ever gets.
Thanks, Quincy!!!