Gentlemen, introducing the Rippingille No. 3

[Seagreen]

For those of you interested, I'm reliably informed that this is a Rippingille N0.3 stove.
Now, aren't you glad for Taylors?

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[ccscott49]

What a wonderful piece of equipment! Used to see these in the army!

 

[cliffordpope]

Gosh, we used to have one of those. We tipped it in
The Wash in about 1964 and got a reliable gas cooker instead.
Somewhere near the Lynn Well light vessel, if anyone wants to salvage it. There may be other treasure too.

 

[alan006]

They look so well built, if you came under small arms fire you would be quite safe behind one.

 

[lily]

mine has no. 630 stamped on it

 

[lily]

[No message]

 

[KenMcCulloch]

I say Carruthers, that's quite a cumbersome thing to put in one's baggage don't you think?

 

[Seagreen]

General question to those that use them, so Hilton, this means you - does it produce enough heat to effectively cook with, or is it just a warming tool?

My intelligence suggests it is only a warmer of food, not a cooker.

 

[cliffordpope]

No, as I recall it really did cook. We used to do small joints in the oven. But with a faintly parafinny kind of flavour, and it took half an hour to warm up. It was rather smoky, so best dragged up on deck for use. Then had to cool down before moving back. You can see the temptation to heave it overboard instead.

 

[TrueBlue]

Ah, memories of my yout'

We had a Florence paraffin five burner in my aunts' cottage. Wick fed (like a Valor heater). The fifth burner had an oven on top of it.

They certainly worked; put a very great fire hazard.

I wish I had a picture....

(Just in case anyone else has a memory of the aforementioned items)

 

[Keen_Ed]

At the Stores I asked for a No. 3 Rippingille stove, and was confronted with a formidable and hideous piece of ironmongery, which burned petroleum in two capacious tanks, horribly prophetic of a smell of warm oil. I paid for this miserably, convinced of its grim efficiency, but speculating as to the domestic conditions which caused it to be sent for as an afterthought by telegram.
.
.
.
" 'There's your stove, you see,' he ended; 'I've chucked the old one overboard.' It was a weakness of his, I should say here, to rejoice in throwing things overboard on the flimsiest pretexts. I afterwards suspected that the new stove had not been 'really necessary' any more than the rigging-screws, but was an excuse for gratifying this curious taste."

 

[Seagreen]

[ QUOTE ]
It was a weakness of his, I should say here, to rejoice in throwing things overboard on the flimsiest pretexts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Davies would be frowned upon, and no doubt fined if caught, indulging in his hobby these days.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[colvic987]

riddle of the sands, just in the process of watching bits of it as easy watching just before bed, must remember to see the rest of it tonight...

 

[Seagreen]

Just confine yourself to the opening title. The main body of the film is a travesty of the book - not bad acting by Agutter, MCCorquordale and York, just unimaginative direction and a thin budget.

 

[milltech]

Ah, the days of forelock tugging porters and portmanteaus the size of a mini, nothing to raise the sweat of "The Young Gentlemen".

 

[milltech]

Slight thread hi jack but do porters still exist? Can you roll up at Euston or Heathrow and find a "man" to heave your 20 kilos (in one bag or we'll 'ave you)?

 

[Poignard]

And do they still make suits with a little pocket in which to keep a shilling for his tip? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif