csg Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 my strand pricelist from 1975 states that patt 49, patt243 etc lanterns are not suitable for the ref.247 swivel wall bracket so this gives a good indication of the brackets original intended working load Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx999 Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 my strand pricelist from 1975 states that patt 49, patt243 etc lanterns are not suitable for the ref.247 swivel wall bracket so this gives a good indication of the brackets original intended working load Excellent, that is exactly what I was hoping to hear, many thanks : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 original intended working loadExcellent, that is exactly what I was hoping to hear, many thanks : )Err... I'll bet that this is due to the size rather than the weight. A Patt 49 weighs about nothing; a 243 on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx999 Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 original intended working loadExcellent, that is exactly what I was hoping to hear, many thanks : )Err... I'll bet that this is due to the size rather than the weight. A Patt 49 weighs about nothing; a 243 on the other hand... Patt 49 weighs 27lbs (over 12kg), 243 also weighs c.12kg, that useful piece of info is in the strand archive : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 My ghast is truly flabbered! I'll have to go and have a look, my instinct (and I haven't used our 49s for years) that they would be less than 1/2 the 243 weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx999 Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 My ghast is truly flabbered! I'll have to go and have a look, my instinct (and I haven't used our 49s for years) that they would be less than 1/2 the 243 weight. It surprised me too, I don't remember them ever being so heavy, but then I've only ever used them as props. Strand did have a tendency to build solid, I can remember my arms aching for days after putting in a big rig of T84s (12.5kg). I'm beginning to see a thread here, is every old lantern made by strand about 12kg, or am I just getting lucky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Hampson Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 ...is every old lantern made by strand about 12kg, or am I just getting lucky! By all means no, some are VERY heavy, a Pat808 2K profile comes in at about 22Kg, by comparison a pat23 is a lightweight at about 3Kg. From memory I had assume that the Pat 49 and 243 would be unsuitable due to the size, I doubt that the wall arm is long enough for those lanterns to allow the yoke to swivel enough to be useful (and yes Andy I do remember the older Pat 49 being that heavy, I think the newer, green ones were a bit lighter).As others have said I think the weakest point on these old brackets will be the fixing into the wall, Strand did build things to last in those days (hence there are still so many of them around) I would normally be happy to hang a modern 1K fresnel, or a souce 4 on them. I have seen students literally swing on lower mounted ones in a school theatre, on the other hand, I have seen installs where they are screwed into a plasterboard wall with a couple of rawlplugs and some woodscrews. At the end of the day, the bracket is not being used for it's intended purpose, it was designed to hold 1 (Maybe at a push 2) small lanterns. regardless of its age, and even if it did have an SWL stamped on it it's the wrong tool for the job, and really it needs to be changed out for something suitable. I realise this doesn't really move your argument forward, but in my industry the phrase 'Not fit for purpose' carries a lot of weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.