Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric

[Richard]

Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric.

 

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no squeeze converter is, or can be, Aero-metric. Nor are most squeeze-filling pens with fixed sacs Aero-metric.

 

The Aero-metric system requires a breather tube extending the length of the reservoir and fitted with a tiny lateral hole very near the feed to allow trapped air to escape when the pen is taken up in an airplane while being held nib upward (as when clipped in a pocket). The only Aero-metric pens ever made are the Parker "51" Mark I and Mark II, and certain Chinese pens such as the Hero 100 (but not the Hero 329, 616, etc.).

 

I'd really like to start here with correcting this horrible misapplication of the term "aerometric." FPN has enough membership to make an impact on the world. Who's with me?

[yucki8aby]

me, and is there any difference in the workings of flighter models and the regular ones? thanks in advance.

 

regards,

 

shaowei

[Richard]

is there any difference in the workings of flighter models and the regular ones?

No. The "51" Flighter is a standard Aero-metric "51" Mark I, differing only in the material of which its body is made.

[Shangas]

Yes, great master.

 

*Bows*

 

---

 

I too have noticed this shocking trend and have attempted to correct it by making sure I use the proper term when referring to squeeze-fillers.

 

So, which pens DID use the PROPER AEROMETRIC filler?

[twdpens]

Y'know, I very nearly put this in my reply to this post yesterday. In the end I thought it may either make me look pedantic or else just complicate the issue :embarrassed_smile: .

 

If people view Parker's Aerometric system as a development, or indeed alternative embodiment, of the earlier Vacumatic system maybe that will help to clear up any misunderstanding? Or maybe not...

 

Martin

[nkk]

If I may ask, what does a Hero 606 use? Rather, why does it not need a breather tube, yet the 51 did? Is this why my 51 fills more than my 616 even though they *appear* to have to have the same filling system?

 

-Nkk

[Clydesdave]

I need a drawing of an Aero-metric system to understand this, please.

[Calbei]

I need a drawing of an Aero-metric system to understand this, please.

I suggest this page from Richard's site.

 

http://www.richardspens.com/ref_info/anatomy-51.htm

 

[richardandtracy]

I think you are being both strictly correct & somewhat pedantic.

It's like Iridium on the tip. Everyone knows it isn't iridium, but that's what it's called.

 

However I shall try to be [more] pedantic from now on.

 

Regards

 

Richard.

 

[Robert Hughes]

How about a Skyliner? It's got a breather tube running the length of the sac; even though it is a lever filler.

[OldGriz]

How about a Skyliner? It's got a breather tube running the length of the sac; even though it is a lever filler.

 

 

Read the description of an Aerometric filler "The Aero-metric system requires a breather tube extending the length of the reservoir and fitted with a tiny lateral hole very near the feed to allow trapped air to escape when the pen is taken up in an airplane while being held nib upward (as when clipped in a pocket)."

 

The Skyline does not have the tiny lateral hole and therefore is not an aerometric filler.... that is the big difference....

[menick]

I think you are being both strictly correct & somewhat pedantic.

It's like Iridium on the tip. Everyone knows it isn't iridium, but that's what it's called.

 

It ain't? I think I'm still too new around here...

[QM2]

I'd really like to start here with correcting this horrible misapplication of the term "aerometric." FPN has enough membership to make an impact on the world.

 

I think that the misconception has already been firmly planted. I have seen every type of squeeze filling system described as aerometric, from the late vintage Conway Stewart squeeze-sac to the modern squeeze converter. It may take a lot of work : )

 

[Federalist Pens]

Esterbrook M2?

 

I have one in gray, and it is only a squeeze filler!

[twdpens]

The only Aero-metric pens ever made are the Parker "51" Mark I and Mark II, and certain Chinese pens such as the Hero 100

 

You should also include the UK-made post-'52 Duofolds in that list. In these models, the lateral hole is provided in the feed just ahead of where the breather tube is fitted. I don't know whether this implementation is as effective as it is in the 51 or whether Parker just put it in to adhere to their own patent!

 

Martin

[Rufus]

I love this type of thread. I can now regale my friends and aquaintances at cocktail parties and dinner parties on the intricacies of the inner workings of the Aerometric filler versus the squeeze filler. I kid you not, as I love doing this to see the looks on some of their faces not to mention their comments. Keep up the good work; it's great fun.

[OldGriz]

I love this type of thread. I can now regale my friends and aquaintances at cocktail parties and dinner parties on the intricacies of the inner workings of the Aerometric filler versus the squeeze filler. I kid you not, as I love doing this to see the looks on some of their faces not to mention their comments. Keep up the good work; it's great fun.

 

You do that and STILL get invited to parties... :roflmho:

[psfred]

The difference between a "51" filler and the Hero 616 filler, besides the hole in the breather tube, is that the press bar in the "51" does a vastly better job of compressing the sac, which is also larger. If you pull the sac protector off a Hero 616 or 329 (and similar pens) and use your fingers to flatten the sac, they fill quite well. Still don't hold much ink, though, as the sac is narrower and shorter.

 

This sort of thing is the usual difference between a quality pen made to work very well and an inexpensive "look alike" where function takes third or fourth place to cheap construction.

 

Peter

[Rufus]

I love this type of thread. I can now regale my friends and aquaintances at cocktail parties and dinner parties on the intricacies of the inner workings of the Aerometric filler versus the squeeze filler. I kid you not, as I love doing this to see the looks on some of their faces not to mention their comments. Keep up the good work; it's great fun.

 

You do that and STILL get invited to parties... :roflmho:

 

Interestingly enough, yes. But I do have to pick my moments and not belabour a point. I also keep a close eye on SWMBO's face and body language to see if I should change the conversation to a more "conventional" topic. However, people who know me come to expect at least one discursive on some arcane topic at a party. I'm not just a pretty face you know.

 

[andyk]

Hi,

 

Whilst I can't disagree with what Richard says, to me the words Aerometric conjure some sort of metal sleeve, with a rubber/silicon or whatever bladder that is squeezed to suck up ink, so most people know what you are talking about even if you are technically off the mark.

 

I think it is a generic term in FP circle much like the word hoover is to vacuum cleaners, may not be a real hoover, but everyone knows what you mean.

 

In the overall scheme of things does it really matter.

 

Andy