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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Simplex E-7 Collectors (Page 1)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Simplex E-7 Collectors Will Kutler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1506 From: Tucson, AZ, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-07-2014 07:06 PM                     I was just interested in starting a new thread for E-7 collectors. Who is still collecting/restoring/operating and if there are still any untapped sources for spare parts. E-7 topics have been covered extensively in other threads...but maybe we can collate here.  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-07-2014 07:57 PM                     I love these old E7's;It was the first 35mm Projector I ever saw when I went into my first projection booth at 6 years old.All four Downtown theaters here in the 50's had E7's that were installed right at the beginning of WWII.When the XL came along in 48 None of the theaters upgraded and continued with their E7's until they Closed up or changed Venues. Let's see if these Digital Projectors have the Longevity these Great Old Projectors had...  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-07-2014 08:39 PM                        What is so great about the E-7? For historical value, there are probably more Super Simplexes still in use, while the X-L is a much better design and very innovative for its time. The photograph is interesting: that is a nice-looking projector, but the soundhead needs a door for the exciter-lamp compartment. Also, what is that lamphouse, and is that an anamorphic lens that was designed for 16mm projectors? Is that a home-built automation system?  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-07-2014 09:07 PM                     The reason there are probably more Supers around is they were made almost 10 years before(1928) the E7 main Production started(1938), As far as comparison; E7 out classes a Super all over.It had revised features that made it a Superior Unit. Front and Rear Syncronized Shutters on the same shaft. Each Shutter acting on a Half Beam giving a Disolve effect and producing more Light(12.5%) Used a One shot oiling system that sent oil to every Part that need lubrication with the push of your Thumb. Used Hunting Tooth Gearing where the gears revolved on stationary shafts;no revolving in Bushing in the Main Frame.Pretty nice projector for 30's technology! As far as the XL goes. The Idea when you introduce a new model is it's supposed to be a better unit. But the reliability of the E7 kept 100's of theaters from updating to them; and as I said previously all 4 Theaters here used them way past when the XL came along(48/49) and continued until the theaters closed... I'm not knocking a Super, they were good units but updated Technology related to the E7 makes them a better Projector IMHO...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-08-2014 03:05 AM                     A former company I used to work for took over a single palace house that was closed up for years. Booth had E-7's, Simplex Mag penthouses and Enarc lamphouses. My task was to convert the booth to be ready for xenon and platter. Thus, I took out the No.2 machine for the platter and No.1 machine to be cleaned up and converted to LED reverse scan. Both projectors had noisy intermittents, yet found parts in the location to do one rebuild. Being the old taper pin starwheel shafts, I dismantled the assembly and cleaned out all the goo that resided in the case. The starwheel was in bad shape due to a bad cam pin. Replaced both with the new found parts along with reversing the sprocket to use the other side. I fine tuned in the assembly to where one can feel the pin enter into the starwheel at the right moment, tightened it all up, filled it with oil and let it run in for a while. Ran film through that thing and it was ghostly quiet for film to pass through an E-7 after that rebuild. Owner was impressed along with the manager on how quiet that machine ran - quieter than a PR-1050 at the other locations.. Two weeks later, a high school booth clown made his loops too small causing a splice break which the upper sprocket took the break en to wrap it good around the upper sprocket to stop it and to shred out the oblique gear .. and had to rebuild that E-7 again with parts that were still on location. He was told on how the loops supposed to look like, but he didn't care - he lost his job that same day. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Jim Henk Master Film Handler Posts: 364 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 08-08-2014 04:12 AM                     Steve, I think that E-7 looks great! I think it's actually a Dalek about to EXTERMINATE!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2014 11:03 AM                     I have an oblique shaft E-7 that's never ever run film. It's going in the dumpster next month when I clean out the warehouse. Come haul it away if you want it. I am keeping the three Supers and all the Phillips stuff I have though. They are much better projectors than the E-7! Put a set of Posi-Trol,sprockets on a Super and the things will blow away any other projector on the planet. They are nearly bullet proof and ran great on platters with a once a day oiling. I pulled countless Supers that NEVER broke down. Monte... E-7's never ever had taper pin star shaft's! Always screw and nut. Steve Matz... There is nothing that's really superior in an E-7 over a Super. The double shutters had to be abandoned for CinemaScope and the one shot oilers tubing plugged up over the years causing some projectors to bind up. The shutter efficiency is exactly the same as a Super and the E-7 is a big pain in the ass to disassemble. You can rebuild two Supers for every E-7. The E-7 introduced studio guides (some call them dirt holders) to projection but they really did not improve lateral steadiness at all. The one thing it had that was nice were easily removable gate and trap. The oblique gearing was very failure prone and most were converted to a vertical shaft configuration which was only marginally stronger. The gearing on both was too tiny for the job! By the way The theater in Big Timber ran an E-7 until about an year ago. Far as I know it was the last one on the planet. Simplex X-L's varied in overall quality since the day they were introduced. The older main castings are awful pot metal that is very porous. Later main castings improved as they began heat treating them. The rest of the covers were also pot metal and almost all covers warped. This projector design was bought and sold at least five times during it's production life. Some that had high power arcs behind them warped in place. Strong fixed many of the cover issues and also produced very good main castings. But by then intermittent parts quality became inconsistent and the simplex bounce appeared on screens all over the world. Strong jazzed up the intermittent ruining it at the same time and the case halves were no longer interchangeable. So the best X-L's might be defined as having a main casting and covers made by strong with original Simplex gearing and intermittent in it. They all leaked oil to varying degrees. The conical,shutter approached 50% efficiency. I think Singer produced the best ones. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-08-2014 11:39 AM                     Well Mark we can agree to disagree. If I was a Theater Owner in 1939 I probably would have bought CENTURY P's over the Simplex's to begin with....  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 08-08-2014 11:59 AM                     Nice Pair Of E-7's At The UA Farmingdale (NY) [1978] I ran these machines for almost 9years and never had any problems. These were the original projectors installed when the theater opened in 1939. I just kept them clean & lubricated & they ran great! (Note the 'modern' air & emergency lighting systems!) !  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2014 01:19 PM                     Interesting combination of equipment there. That had to be the last set of those Ashcraft lamps operating on the planet even in 1978! Steve Matz... Although you no doubt have nearly 40 years experience servicing and rebuilding projectors I will say that the 1939-1940 Century's were the best ones period. The Model C was cast iron in those days. I rebuilt a number of the cast iron Centuries in the 1990's and the casting was hard as diamond. I installed Kelmar turrets on them and normally one just uses a sawzall to cut out the front for the turret. Not on these, four blades later I was about an inch into the casting. Had to have them plasma cut! Not even sure water jet cutting wolda worked. Mark  |  IP: Logged Tony Ratcliff Expert Film Handler Posts: 216 From: Madison, IN, USA Registered: Mar 2002 posted 08-08-2014 01:24 PM                     I'm still running an E-7 in my theatre right now. Other than oblique gear and very leaky on oil, they have been rock solid. Mark, I'd love to have that E-7 if you are just going to toss it. I am in Indiana, though, so it would have to be shipped. PM me if you want to work out something.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2014 01:26 PM                     Tony, It's yours. Just pay the packing and shipping. I can drop it off at Navis Pack And Ship here in town. It may have to be crated because of it's weight. I just shipped an X-L and they quoited me 125 to build the crate. It could probably go Fed-Ex Ground even in the crate. I think they do up to 150 pounds. Mark  |  IP: Logged Will Kutler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1506 From: Tucson, AZ, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-08-2014 02:38 PM                     Tony beat me to it! Mark, what else are you sending to the dump? Please email or p.m. me your phone number so we can talk tonight or over the weekend. Cheers K  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 08-08-2014 02:38 PM                     Mark, send me a message when you are going to clean the warehouse out...I'd like to help and maybe intercept some stuff headed to the dumpster. I have to sched a doc's appt in Ogden early next month, will let you know what day and time.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2014 02:44 PM                     The E7 had a adjustable gate tension unlike the early supers they had far less issues with abrading the perf area than the supers they had by far a better image than the super or the Xl Until it had a mishap the oblique shaft was far more quiet than the vertical that was more robust never heard of a oiler plugging up and the E7 was the most common head till the change to Vic8 and VIc 5 occured up here they were a rock solid machine overall Steve what is that lamphouse  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

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.