Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

  1. #1
    Junior Member awa54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Does anybody have one of these yet and if so, how do they perform?

    It looks like an interesting take on the bulb filler concept, but with a piston in place of the usual diaphragm.
    David-

    So many restoration projects...

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to awa54 For This Useful Post:

    azkid (August 1st, 2019)

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Dallas, as in the 80's TV Series
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    1,593
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    It's not a bulb-filler, it's an implementation of what Parker called "Vacumatic" filling system.

    I have one, style and dimension-wise, it's a copy of Parker 51, even the heft and fit (it doesn't feel "cheaply made").

    The non-diaphragm design is interesting, time will tell if it held up equally or better than Parker's plunger with diaphragm.
    - Will
    A new place to shop for restored vintage pens: Redeem Pens

  4. #3
    Senior Member Sailor Kenshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Where pigs run free!
    Posts
    2,533
    Thanks
    2,927
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 863 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    I have two! And always keep both loaded (the gray one with Quink Blue, the buff-ish one with Monteverde Moonstone). I love them.

    Don't tell anyone, but they write better than my couple of real Parkers.

    There's also a 601-A. These have conical nibs, and are nowhere near as nice; they already leak around the section where the nib is fit.

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    116
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Is Wing Sung 601 barrel filling with a sort of pump action to the plunger? It looks intersting, but not exactly like the old Parkers I had, which as far as I know had ink sacks and were either button fillers, or you pressed on a spring to flatted the sack. It's been a while, but I think to fill the 51 I had to unscrew the barrel, and under there I just pressed a metal bit, and I could see the rubber sack under there. With the old Heros and newer Wing Sung you can find both types very close to Parker models. I may have to get one of the old Parkers with pearly stripes and gold nib too.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Deb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Highlands of Scotland
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    587
    Thanked 975 Times in 458 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    The 51 you are describing is an Aerometric filler, not a Vac, which the 601 emulates reasonably closely.
    Regards,
    Deb
    My Blog
    My Pen Sales

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    116
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Thanks Deb, I even found a wiki on it when I did a search. I think I have been thinking of all the rubber sack pens as vacuum fillers, even piston, since vacuum is involved. All this talk makes me want to order a Wing Sung.

  8. #7
    Junior Member awa54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Parker vacumatics are really just bulb fillers with a button to actuate the sac/diaphragm, there are definitely differences in the implementation, when compared to a basic version, but the mechanism of function is pure bulb filler. This is no slander, as I love bulb fillers! The ability to easily self fill from a bottle and use most of the pen's barrel for ink capacity without relying on any gaskets to keep the ink in is a tremendous advantage... heck even my tiny Wahl Bantams hold more than any cartridge system.

    Thanks for the reviews, I guess I need to order one of these and try it out!
    David-

    So many restoration projects...

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to awa54 For This Useful Post:

    azkid (August 1st, 2019)

  10. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Dallas, as in the 80's TV Series
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    1,593
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by awa54 View Post
    Parker vacumatics are really just bulb fillers with a button to actuate the sac/diaphragm, there are definitely differences in the implementation, when compared to a basic version, but the mechanism of function is pure bulb filler.
    I disagree.

    Bulb-filler relies on the bulb sac being squeezed to push air through the barrel.
    Vacumatic plunger filler relies on the diaphragm being stretched to push the air through the barrel.
    It's the complete opposite mechanism.

    Sure, if we just consider the "pushing air through the barrel" part, a lot of filler can be said to be the same.
    For instance piston filler also pushes air through the barrel, so are we going to say that Piston filler is essentially the same as bulb-filler?

    By the way I love bulb-fillers as well. I converted a Sheaffer Tuckaway into a bulb filler and it works even better than the original fiddly vac-filler.
    - Will
    A new place to shop for restored vintage pens: Redeem Pens

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to penwash For This Useful Post:

    Sailor Kenshin (August 1st, 2019)

  12. #9
    Senior Member Sailor Kenshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Where pigs run free!
    Posts
    2,533
    Thanks
    2,927
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 863 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by penwash View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awa54 View Post
    Parker vacumatics are really just bulb fillers with a button to actuate the sac/diaphragm, there are definitely differences in the implementation, when compared to a basic version, but the mechanism of function is pure bulb filler.
    I disagree.

    Bulb-filler relies on the bulb sac being squeezed to push air through the barrel.
    Vacumatic plunger filler relies on the diaphragm being stretched to push the air through the barrel.
    It's the complete opposite mechanism.

    Sure, if we just consider the "pushing air through the barrel" part, a lot of filler can be said to be the same.
    For instance piston filler also pushes air through the barrel, so are we going to say that Piston filler is essentially the same as bulb-filler?

    By the way I love bulb-fillers as well. I converted a Sheaffer Tuckaway into a bulb filler and it works even better than the original fiddly vac-filler.
    So did we; thanks for the idea.

  13. #10
    Senior Member Deb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Highlands of Scotland
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    587
    Thanked 975 Times in 458 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by arrow View Post
    Thanks Deb, I even found a wiki on it when I did a search. I think I have been thinking of all the rubber sack pens as vacuum fillers, even piston, since vacuum is involved. All this talk makes me want to order a Wing Sung.
    I think you're right. I believe all self fillers use the creation of a vacuum or a lowering of pressure to fill, even unlikely things like the Parker 61.
    Regards,
    Deb
    My Blog
    My Pen Sales

  14. #11
    Junior Member awa54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by penwash View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by awa54 View Post
    Parker vacumatics are really just bulb fillers with a button to actuate the sac/diaphragm, there are definitely differences in the implementation, when compared to a basic version, but the mechanism of function is pure bulb filler.
    I disagree.

    Bulb-filler relies on the bulb sac being squeezed to push air through the barrel.
    Vacumatic plunger filler relies on the diaphragm being stretched to push the air through the barrel.
    It's the complete opposite mechanism.

    Sure, if we just consider the "pushing air through the barrel" part, a lot of filler can be said to be the same.
    For instance piston filler also pushes air through the barrel, so are we going to say that Piston filler is essentially the same as bulb-filler?

    By the way I love bulb-fillers as well. I converted a Sheaffer Tuckaway into a bulb filler and it works even better than the original fiddly vac-filler.

    In the sense that Parker's exact implementation is unique (coupling a plunger rod to a clamped diaphragm) I'll agree with you, but the essence of this type of filler is that you expel air from the barrel via the breather tube, allowing ink to remain in the barrel while air easily vacates, this allows repeated/incremental filling with each expulsion of remaining air ...so the mechanism of filling is essentially the same (as is the piston/pump in the Wing Sung, or the Waterman system that was used on some ladies' and vest pocket models in the 30s).

    Aerometrics with a breather tube experience some of the same benefits, obviously Parker chose to pay attention to that lesson even when they simplified their filler systems.


    I'm fascinated to hear about your vac conversion! do you have pictures of it? Piston vacs are great when they have good seals, but that's a tenuous state for many of them


    Quote Originally Posted by Deb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arrow View Post
    Thanks Deb, I even found a wiki on it when I did a search. I think I have been thinking of all the rubber sack pens as vacuum fillers, even piston, since vacuum is involved. All this talk makes me want to order a Wing Sung.
    I think you're right. I believe all self fillers use the creation of a vacuum or a lowering of pressure to fill, even unlikely things like the Parker 61.

    IIRC, the first gen 61s used a tube packed with very fine filaments to draw ink in by capillary action, I have one, but the nib hood is badly distorted so it doesn't get much use, plus the ink chamber is a bear to fully flush.
    Last edited by awa54; August 1st, 2019 at 04:48 PM.
    David-

    So many restoration projects...

  15. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Dallas, as in the 80's TV Series
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    1,593
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by awa54 View Post
    I'm fascinated to hear about your vac conversion! do you have pictures of it? Piston vacs are great when they have good seals, but that's a tenuous state for many of them
    Here is the thread: https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread...way-Conversion
    - Will
    A new place to shop for restored vintage pens: Redeem Pens

  16. #13
    Member Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 97 Times in 53 Posts
    Rep Power
    7

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin View Post
    I have two! And always keep both loaded (the gray one with Quink Blue, the buff-ish one with Monteverde Moonstone). I love them.

    Don't tell anyone, but they write better than my couple of real Parkers.

    There's also a 601-A. These have conical nibs, and are nowhere near as nice; they already leak around the section where the nib is fit.
    My Wing Sung 601A works fine so far, and does not leak at all. Maybe I just got lucky? Or some other folks got unlucky? It came from seller czxwyst on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07PVDW57W, in case that makes any difference.

    I have read in a couple of places that the 601A nibs are scratchy at first and need to be broken in. That turned out to be true for my pen, but the nib became fairly smooth after writing with it for a week. It was surprising what a difference it made. The nib is not butter smooth like my Parker 51, Hero 100 or Pelikan M215, but sometimes a little feedback is a good thing. The button activated piston mechanism is great, and the pen holds a lot of ink. The quality is very good, the ink capacity large, and the ink windows very handy. Not bad for a $20 pen.

    Having not checked the forums much for several years, it is surprising to see how expensive fountain pens are now. Thank goodness there are still some affordable options around.

  17. #14
    FPG Donor ♕ KrazyIvan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas-USA
    Posts
    4,806
    Thanks
    1,367
    Thanked 1,660 Times in 859 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    The Wing Sung 601 has been on my buy list for a while but the PENBBS 268 caught my attention so the 601 will have to wait a while longer.
    Fountain Pen Sith Lord | Daakusaido | inktronics blog | Twitter | Instagram

  18. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Chester, North West England
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 49 Times in 28 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Wing Sung 601 "vacumatic"

    I've just got a Wing Sung 601 Demonstrator. The picture may help confirm the filling mechanism. Unscrew the blind cap, press the plunger which expells a bit of air, then release it to draw up ink through the little tube. Repeat the pressing, which continues to bring ink in and virtually fills the barrel up to the piston.

    I think it's the same as the Edison "Draw Filler" system.

    I have filled it with water to wash it out, but not inked it yet so can't comment on the writing quality yet.

    Mine came with detailed instructions on how to disassemble, and a little container of grease for the piston. The only problem is that the instructions are in Chinese, but the accompanying diagrams are clear enough.

    DSCN4195[1].JPG

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RWS For This Useful Post:

    azkid (August 12th, 2019), Pendragon (August 13th, 2019)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •