I managed to get away for a night's camping this weekend with some of my bike club mates. I took along my No12 British army cooker and, because one of the others asked me to bring a stove for him, I took my paraffin burning Optimus 111T. I'm pleased to say that they both behaved perfectly. However, I have noticed that the No12 has quite a slow heating time, taking noticeably longer to heat the espresso than the Optimus. The No12 gives the impression of being a blowtorch, but sound isn't everything... the silent burner 111 just gets on with it and boils the java quicker. My host for the weekend is an engineer and he was impressed with the build quality of the No12, but to my eyes it's still an ugly stove, albeit highly practical. The 111, on the other hand, combines good looks with ease of use. I have to say that the 111 is becoming my stove of choice for bike trips. My mates Russian 8R copy performed well too, but it was weeping petrol even when shut :-( As for the mate who asked to borrow my Opti, he didn't get to use it because he didn't know how to light it. GC
I forgot to add, one of my bike club members is a Lampie and bought a box at auction because it contained a Tilley. There was a boxed Hipolito No2 in there too and he has sold it on to me. Looks like I'm back in the collecting saddle. Cheers GC
I had a similar experience at Newark when I used my No.12 to drive my oven, which it seemed to have difficulty keeping up to the reqired temperature (200?C)even though it appeared to be running correctly and had been so for best part of an hour. I eventually replaced it with the M1942 which performed much, much better (and made just as much noise.)
I agree about the No12 heating times. When I had my first one, it was not the best at output, but I have found that having lit it a couple of dozen times, its output is much better, why is that? Also agree about the 111, a real hot burner. I see the No12 as a car camp cooker, and the 111 for two person hiking (like next weds and thurs, me and the lad are away again ) Ian, if a 1942 is outburning a 12, then you have a dud 12 mate, sorry
Sorry, haven't seen the item (or stove) in question... I mailed him and he says he will get back to me when he's unearthed a model number under 86 layers of paint. I've asked for a piccy. Cheers GC
Burning the army grease/crap off the components? It's still a hot stove, there's no shame in losing out to a 111T. I'll do a litre-to-boil test tomorrow on those stoves and post the results GC
A piccy it will probably need to be - Tilley weren't big on putting model numbers of their stuff. It wiil most likely have been on a transfer originally. These tend to be easily lost or damaged (or painted over in this case!)
I did a rough boil test on the two stoves last night. I used an aluminium camping kettle with 450ml of water (just enough for a nice cup of tea). In both cases I primed and lit the stove and let it build up to operating temperature before placing the kettle on it. The No12 took 4mins 2secs to get the kettle whistling. The 111(T) took 3mins 45secs. Both stoves were burning the same make of paraffin. The only glitch was that the No12 had a strange flame pattern compared to normal, which occured when I gave it a few extra strokes of the pump... it looked bloody hot though. I might repeat the No12 test tonight. Of course the Opti did all this with a gentle hiss whereas the No12 sounded like a flamethrower. Cheers GC
I performed a similar test tonight. I ran a No.12, a 111 and an M1942. I boiled 1 imp. pint (568ml) in an open 9oz. steel coffee tin (I had 3 to spare) the results are averaged over three runs each If you're given to comparing times, bear in mind I was boiling about 20% more water than OP so my times are greater No. 12: 5' 58" 111 5' 02" M1942 5' 05" By extrapolation my No.12 is somewhat slower than OP's, the roarer 111 was a little (but not much) slower than its silent cousin and the M1942 knocked spots off the No.12 and was on a par with the 111. All three stoves seemed to be running ok. The pictures were taken between the 2nd. and 3rd. boils. 111 M1942 No.12
Aha, the first time I saw the flame pattern in your No12 photo was during my test, after I'd thought 'Bugger it' and pumped it more than usual. Mine hadn't managed to burn like that before... perhaps they really do improve with use. GC p.s. where's your funnel gone?
Ian and OP: Difficult to compare results with any degree of certainty because so many variables haven't been standardised. For instance, you may have started off with water at a different temperature. That's just one... Just my two penn'orth...
I didn't think we were comparing the heating times of each other's No12's, rather the heating times of various stoves. As I lit both stoves in the same lighting session, I'd be happy to state that the temperature of the water I used was roughly similar for both the No12 and 111. The air temperature was reasonably constant and I wore the same shirt for each burn (although sadly not a Spiritburner T-shirt). The two tests reveal that the No12 doesn't heat as fast as a 111(silent or roarer) and that's what I was trying to confirm. GC
I agree. The only reason I compared my no 12 to yours was in an effort to establixh whether mine is, as Rik suggests, a dud or not.
With respect guys, that's exactly what you have been doing... "I performed a similar test tonight." "If you're given to comparing times, bear in mind I was boiling about 20% more water than OP so my times are greater" "By extrapolation my No.12 is somewhat slower than OP's" But, whatever... 8)
