my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Going from Simplex E7 to Simplex PR-1014? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Going from Simplex E7 to Simplex PR-1014? Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 02-01-2010 12:18 PM                        For me, this would all boil down to: A. What's the likelihood of an E7 going down in the middle of a show, compared to a newer machine and, B. What would that breakdown mean to your bottom line or reputation. I feel the same way about the E7 that many here do. It's a rock solid machine that puts out a very steady picture. When I bought my place, I put Brenkert heads in... also very reliable and steady. The problem with the Brenkerts was that, like the E7, (new) parts were becoming hard to get, most notably the fiber shutter gear. In my case, a shutdown could mean the loss of many thousands of dollars... more, if I couldn't get the machine fixed overnight. If a shutdown wasn't such a big deal, I would have stayed with the Brenkerts & scrounged parts, like some have suggested here. But that wouldn't work for me, so I have XL-series machines now. They work fine and parts are available.  |  IP: Logged Celine Negrete Film Handler Posts: 70 From: Nevada City, CA Registered: Nov 2009 posted 02-01-2010 06:17 PM                        Hey John, come on by anytime! Some things have changed, some have not! And Jack, agreed...that is what it comes down to. I want a machine I can really rely on. Especially out here in the 'boonies'! ~Celine  |  IP: Logged John Eickhof Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 588 From: Wendell, ID USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-01-2010 07:02 PM                        Thanks Celine, One other advantage to the XL is the use of 24 tooth feed sprockets, especially when running on reels like you are, they have more contact with the film and are less likely to have problems near the end of the reel if the reel tension is too great. Plus the XL is self oiling, eliminating the need to oil daily and the associated mess that occurs on the film, machine and floor! Please email fone numbers and contact info.. I'd love to see the place again! John  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-01-2010 08:00 PM                     I agree with John on all points except you WILL still have an oil mess on the floor... not right away but you will eventually. X-Ls, especially the older black wrinkle ones have very porus(and very poorly made) main castings. Those old main castings were never heat treated!!! Strong has since rectified the casting issue with their version of the 1014. Mark  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-01-2010 08:16 PM                     ..why you don't want to have too much oil in them,esp when running them level. Just enough oil in there to work the pump and that's about it on those black wrinkle walled XL's.. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-02-2010 03:36 PM                     Monte, With the old ones you need to keep making sure there IS oil in them... The few onces normally put in will leak out of some of them in fairly short order... especially if the projector sits idle. The Strong PR-1014's are by far the best of the bunch and hardly leak a drop... Mark  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 02-02-2010 04:49 PM                     Markie-poo, you need to see first hand my old Simplex XL serial #128..it doesn't leak and suffer from the porous casting issue you always bring up. It has sat idle for over five years and still has all it's oil. Now the SH-1000 is another story..it is missing a few bearing retainer gaskets and it tends to leave it's mark all the time. I just haven't gotten around to installing those gaskets.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 02-02-2010 07:14 PM                       I have three different XL's of varying years all built around the 70's to 80's and all are sitting there completely leak free for years as I have not been able to sell them.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-02-2010 08:56 PM                     quote: Tony Bandiera Jr my old Simplex XL serial #128 Dang, that has to be from the 1949-50 era being of that early number. That one XL projector in No.1 at the Magna, UT 5plex had a serial number of #1567..thus not too far ahead of Tony's.. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-02-2010 09:34 PM                     Tony, My observations of the many X-Ls that I have turrettized and stripped to bare metal and rebuilt over the years... probably around 80 or so machines... starting at SN 108(Still running in a Janesville, WI theater to this day) and up trough the Singer built machines are as follows. The IPC built machines all had non-heat treated castings. When you machine those castings the alumnium turns to more of a powder with chips in it than it does just to chips as it should. I've also run into more then my share of stripped out gate mechanism holes in these castings. Early X-Ls main castings and shutter guards that had big arc lamps behind them actually became warped from the excessive heat. Several castings I turretized had front walls only about 1/16th of an inch thick! Another interesting thing is that when you strip one of these older machines down to bare metal for refinish the alumnium bleeds oil. Castings have to be either heated to get the oil to bleed out or soaked in solvent to dissolve the oil before finishing them. The best way I've found to really seal up these old castings is to Powder Coat them. There is also available a pressure treatment done by Loc-Tite that would work even better but is quite expensive. The Singer built machines had much thicker walled castings, especially the front wall of the main casting... probably three to four times as thick as the IPC castings or up to 1/4" thick. These machines had much higher quality castings that machined perfectly normal and just generated the usual metal chips. They generally don't bleed any oil when striped. Strong has gone further to improve the casting and has made the best castings of the bunch by far, much heavier than even the Singer produced X-Ls and they have the correct heat treatment resulting in a much harder metal and stronger structure. The alumnium of the Strong castings is very similar in appearance and hardness to the DP-70 lens bushings that I made... from heat treated spin poured castings. Mark  |  IP: Logged Jon Miller Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 973 From: San Diego, CA, USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 02-02-2010 09:35 PM                     Another thing that will keep an X-L from being Xtra Leaky is a Seal Kit, consisting of an improved main drive seal and appropriate main drive gear or pulley. Older X-Ls and Simplex 35s (I don't know when Strong made the revised seal and main drive standard) leaked a lot through the main drive seal, something I found out quite messily on a 1955 X-L I once christened the Simplex Valdez for its tendency to leave a large oil slick. The seal kit not only stopped the leak; it also allowed more oil to be added for improved lubrication. Definitely a worthwhile upgrade for an older leaker!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-02-2010 09:40 PM                     I completely agree Jon! The seal kit is one of the best additions for any X-L. More oil where there was never quite enough oil in the first place. Compare the amount of oil in a bRenkert(1 pint) to the mey amount of oil in an X-L. Now the X-L oil system is really just an oil mist for the gears and adding the seal kit doesn't change how that works. The real benefit to the increase in oil in the sump results in the oil staying cleaner much longer and not breaking down. I wasn't going to bring up the whole seal thing because that can turn into another entire thread of it's own. All the X-L's I service have had seal kits installed on them.  |  IP: Logged John Eickhof Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 588 From: Wendell, ID USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-03-2010 10:20 PM                        Geeze... most the xl leaks I ever encountered were either the back cover leaking due to a shot gasket or the cover being warped from overtightening! I stll have 4 xls sitting in the booth of my theatre ( closed since 2001 ) serials 189, 202, 207 & 221 and they have not lost a drop of oil! The other leak point is the main drive shaft that the seal kit remedies quite well! Although, proper setting of the oil pick-up in the sump will allow the oil to be kept at the specified level as set forth in the manual without leakage from the main drive shaft! The worst cause of this is the later oil pickup that runs through a connecting block ( to be reversed for drive-in use ) and not directly into the pump like the early heads. It did not quite set right in the oils sump. Plus the occaisional bad rear cover glass gasket that dries up and shrinks causing leakage around the glass..I used to make a piece for the Army-Airforce XLs that engaged the upper part of the cover and the upper fastening screw thus pulling the cover tight without warping it... the AAFES heads were pretty much leakproof unless an over zealous operator put oil in while the head was running instead of oiling to the ring when idle!! Oh well, in any event, I still think a gear driven machine is far superior to any dry belt drive!! I guess i'm old fashioned!!!  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 02-04-2010 09:03 PM                     Our XLs, 1003s, s/n 3545 & 3556 leak almost no oil after I switched them to Amsoil synthetic ATF. I anticipated a significant increase in oil loss with the synthetic but have been pleasantly surprised, only have to top them up about every 6 to 8 months. The ATF is viscosity 10, the Simplex brand oil is according to many posts on this site is 9, probably not enough difference to account for the reduced oil loss.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-04-2010 09:50 PM                     John, I pretty much agree with your statements. But in all honesty there are just too many leak spots and too many troublesome areas on the older X-Ls. The new back covers and new red door gaskets take care of that leak problem 100% but at some expense. The seal kit with new gear isn't cheap either. One can easily sink another 500 bucks into an X-L just stopping the leaks. Again, I still like the meachine as a whole... just not the associated oil seepage on the older machines. I wish I had saved some of the fronts I had removed to install turrets. Charlie Wolk happpened by for lunch(and to see what equipment he cold abscond from me) at my shop one day and was completely shocked when he saw the poor quality of the older X-L castings.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.