@kerophile has enthused about this model before now and with good reason, with its large (2 1/4 pint) fuel capacity, powerful roarer burner and its versatility as a collapsible equivalent to a Primus No.1. Kerophile’s gone into the essentials in THIS post on his No.221, also from 1927. I’ll just make some additional observations. Such as the fact that should the fancy take you, the burner fitting will accommodate a lipstick burner from a No.100 stove, which with its 0.23mm jet size as opposed to the 221’s tubular burner jet of 0.32mm could eke out fuel even longer for a simmering session - silently too with the 100’s silent burner converter cap. The pump on the 221 is of larger bore than that on a ‘100’, so less effort pressurising the tank. Packed away. Kerophile has said that a 221 is perhaps what a 210 grew up to be. More so when compared with a boxed Primus 96. 2 1/4 pint; 1 pint (Radius 21); half-pint Primus 96. I’d a repair to do, a tear in the flame ring. Silbrazed, back in business. Flame shots. Admittedly not of the 221 in its entirety, I’d borrowed its burner to instal on my Svea 100 for a session boiling crab apples to make jam. Radius 21 was reducing a batch of the seived juice. John
Brilliant. The 221 is a fantastic stove, but it does have a weak spot - or dare i say couple. I like the versatile setup with the lipstick or riser, makeing change of burners so easy - lipstick, roarer or silent, I even have a special silent on one of those risers (somewhere). I like jam to. All the best, e
One of the main advantages of the lipstick risers, as described by the manufacturers, is that it does not get blocked with carbon as normal roarer burners do.
Yes, I expected you saw that one, well … Womp womp wooomp 221 top 210 left 96 right The feet of the 221 the 210 and the 96 are the same, the fastening of the feet are the same, the soldered area taking the load are the same for 221 and 210 and close for the 96, the width of the brass strip (that includes the pocket for the potlegs) taking the secondary load are the same for 221 and 210 and close for the 96. For a 210 and a 96 this is OK, for a 221 many will handle as a No 1 or similar household stove, not so much. Not long ago I had three 221s with loose feet holders. A 221 is still a 221 and not difficult to sell, so now I have only this one (and a few more OK ones). A 10–12 liter water pot on a 221 for a few years – bad bad idea. In my experience people did not necessary use a stove as intended, a travelling stove could easily be used for laundry day All the best, e Edit: We have a saying “Achilles heel” here …
@tofta An Achilles Heel indeed! I must look out for that one. So far so good, but the temptation is to use pots as one would with a No.5 or No.1. Meanwhile, a couple of flame shots of the roarer burner reinstalled on the 221 tank.
Thank you for sharing John. I dont have much need for any more large stoves, my Optimus 531 is way too big. Just cool. Duane
I've always thought it was just a little too big for the configuration. Can't quite put my finger on it.....
I have one 210 with a deformed foot also. Even if the feet of Primus is nicer to look at, I prefer the more robust feet of Optimus and Radius.
Always ran mine with the feet folded in for this reason , never liked the idea of putting too much stress on them, with the feet folded inwards a large size pan seems to be no issue I use mine pretty regularly
