If so, how’d it turn out?
Check the Uilleann Deconstruction Blog. I believe HPinson, a member here, has made one.
Bob
I looked at that thread, but the one HPinson made was the wide bore C.
Yes, it was the wide bore C. It’s a very nice sounding chanter.
Can you provide the URL reference for the narrow bore C dimensions?
As it happens, Dave Daye and I have been corresponding about ‘narrow bores’ and ‘wide bores’.
WannabePiper appears to be smooshing together several different categories. Dave does offer dimensions, as well as finished chanters, in both C and C#. I would hesitate to describe these as ‘wide-bore’ although they are derived somewhat from modern so-called ‘wide-bore’ D chanters. This can be accomplished by ‘scaling’ the dimensions. At one time he also had dimensions posted from measurement of Kevin Rowsome’s C# chanter (reputed to be a Harrington,I think). I’m not sure how much this may have influenced Dave’s development. You’d have to ask him.
AFAIK he does not currently have anything available that could properly be called ‘narrow-bore’, although he has said he may in the future essay to make something like this.
His C and C# chanters use a wide bore reed. In fact, they can use the exact same reed as his D PC. A true narrow-bore chanter would have to use a drastically different design in both reed and staple. . .on the order of 10-11.5 mm width and staples as long as 54 mm.
A good discussion about Coyne’s ‘magic’ reed can be found at the Sean Reid Society website.
Bob
I suppose, to be more clear, it just doesn’t do to conflate so-called ‘flat-chanters’, or at least non-D chanters and sets, with ‘narrow-bore’ chanters and sets. They are nearly different instruments. The historic narrow-bore sets, and any more modern interpretations based on them or attempting to copy them are simply not the same beasts as the Rowsome family of chanters or the later Taylors.
Bob
To clarify, I am really referring to a narrow bore C design, not the wide bore he offers for sale. See http://www.daye1.com/bagpage/makepipe/uppc_krc.html I am not confusing or conflating anything, unless Mr. Daye, whom I am also corresponding with, has mis-represented this design.
Hence the bold NARROW in the thread title, so as not to confuse with his wide bore Cs.
This is indeed the Kevin Rowsome C# set of measurements I was referring to above. Now, since this particular design for a tubing based bore is a Feb 11,2011, release don’t you think it a little early to ask if anyone has tried it? 
Now, this not a wide-bore chanter. And by almost all accounts the Kevin Rowsome chanter is a nice sounding and well behaved chanter. But I would invite you to compare the measurements of this putative Harrington chanter with the measurements for the R.L. Mealy chanters detailed in the Sean Reid Society Journal #3.
I don’t want to argue semantics, but would like to point out some very different approaches to the design of these chanters. There are really four different design criteria at play here, and examining their differences could be instructive. The later Taylor bores and the Leo Rowsome bores can pretty clearly be called wide-bores. They have marked differences in the size of their fingerholes. The few existing Egan and Coyne sets that haven’t been “worked over” have extremely narrow bores and nearly identical sized fingerholes. These can pretty clearly be described as narrow-bore. But the Mealy chanters, generally at C#, and the Kevin Rowsome chanter (nominally a Harrington) at C# are cats of slightly different stripes. Mealy comes off looking considerably narrower bored than the Kevin Rowsome C#.
Were I looking for a truly narrow bored C# chanter, I would look more toward the Mealy design than the “Harrington”.
Bob
deleted
this design was released over a decade ago and has been on Mr. Daye’s site for many years. If you would actually look at the page, it says edited in feb, 2011 (after Mr.Daye and myself found a measurment error.) As for the semantics, Mr. Daye calls the Harrington a narrow bore so, maybe this is better discussed with him. Plus, this is all rather way off topic, isn’t it?
All I can really comment is that someone probably tried to make it recently, and found some errors, hence the measurement updates in red.
Why not just go ahead and attempt a build and let us know the results? Materials are not terribly expensive. If you’ve not made one before it may take more than one attempt, so source some extra tubing, and check out my thread on the other forum for some build details that would be applicable.
I’m really interested in trying that reed recipe out. Looks like it might work for my Stephenson Narrow Bore D.
I don’t think this dialog off topic in the least, but The Reeds and Pipemaking discussion at the other forum may also be a good place to continue this thread. Through this wide-narrow bore dialog i’ve learned more about the history of this design.
That’s exactly what happened. I was starting to build it and found a problem, so Mr. Daye corrected it on his page last week. It came together easily, but given all of the variables, it’s hard to disgnose problems. So far, I am having troubles getting the back D and C# (C and B really) to not go horribly flat. I have gotten one reed to play in tune across both loctaves, but it played almost in D and was pretty loud.
I had similiar issues with wrong measurements, which I flagged to David and he corrected, in red. I think there were two mismeasurements, and they were obviously wrong. More seems wrong with what you are building. You seem to be the Alpha tester. 
It could also well be the reed you made. Have you made up several? Are the issues you experience relativly consistent across the reeds?
With the “Wide Bore” C, I had the benefit of a known good Daye D reed to use as a reference. It might be worth getting David to make you up a reed that he feels should work, and go from there before you start messing with the toneholes.
That about sums it up. Unfortunately, this seems to be a design he hasn’t touched for years, so he doesn’t seem to have a proven reed design that he can just whip one up for me. I agree that the reed is most likely the biggest issue, and i’ve been making several with varying dimensions, each displaying its own issues. Looks like it’ll just be a long trial and error process. I would just make one like yours, but with the wide spread combined with the larger size of the toneholes, I doubt I could manage it, as a concert D is a painful stretch for my short fingers.
Do you use pipers grip? Using the lower flats of your fingers, just above the first knuckle, can really help, if you have small hands.
A bit of consolation-- the narrow bore chanters that I have personally tried to reed have each and every one been a struggle. Finally you find something that works after lots of careful trial and error. There is an interesting dicusussion about reeding a Stephenson Narrow Bore D over at the other forum in the pipemaking area. Various things to try are suggested-- this reed seems similar.
Of course I use piper’s grip. (not trying to sound snarky. Not that I’m an expert of any sort, but i’m not a newb, either - been reading this forum and others for many years. I think it’s time to change my moniker 
.)
I’ll check out the Stephenson thread. Thanks!
Well, i’ve constructed 2 of these things now. One with the “tails” all the way down, and one with straight-cut tubes. I made a reed to specs, rolled staple and all.
Both want to play in D and the C-D notes are horribly flat, relatively. Inner upper bore adjustment seems to have little effect on anything. Thoughts, anyone?
OK, I’ll stick my neck out. I would go the the Sean Reid Society website and download “A South Australian Reed and Pipe Hoard” by Craig Fischer. It is a Pdf. It’s not that large. It has measurements, diagrams, and photographs of working narrow bore reeds. One of which was probably working in a Crotty chanter at C# with a probable length of 377 mm.
These reeds are narrower still than the proposed “Egan” style reed in the Daye article. They are also in some cases slightly shorter, with heads as narrow as 9mm. The staples are made of .022 brass.
I have not yet finished crunching the numbers on the measurements published for the ‘Harrington’ chanter. I’ve found one obvious transcription error, which I will forward to Dave.
I’d like to create plots and analyze them to compare to the tube version.
Bob
I notice that the “throat insert” is “reamed”, but can’t see a mention of how or to what diameter. If the throat tube remained unreamed, at 1/8" I.D., you might expect trouble.
I’m curious to plot this out, too.