# Chevy V8 Scale Engine Plane



## TrashCo

Hey Guys,

I am looking for a long time, the plans for a chevy v8 scale motor. can any one help where can I get the plans? 

Mfg
TrashCo


----------



## gbritnell

Steve Huck will probably see this post and respond. He has drawings for a V-8 engine that is based on a Chevy. He is a member so you could search his name and then send him an email.
gbritnell


----------



## barnesrickw

If only I had the skill. So is that a small block, or a big block?


----------



## stevehuckss396

I have plans for a V8. If you are interested send me an email and i'll send some information. [email protected]


----------



## brian13b

This is nice!!


Sent from my iPhone using Model Engines


----------



## crankincraig

For anyone that is even thinking of a build like this I just want to say that his plans are amazing as well as pictures of the build and his support. 
Looking forward to getting started on the build.


----------



## djalal

thanx it's very cool


----------



## CamaroNut

stevehuckss396 said:


> I have plans for a V8. If you are interested send me an email and i'll send some information. [email protected]


is this engine made from castings or bar stock?


----------



## stevehuckss396

Bar stock

https://www.ministeam.com/cgi-bin/s...-Down-Load-NOW--Demon_V8_Plans_D.html#SID=327


----------



## CamaroNut

thanks didn't realize that was the Demon engine.  Are there specs on it somewhere?


----------



## stevehuckss396

5/8 Inch Bore & Stroke
#8-40 Spark plugs
22 Degree Heads
¼ inch Valves
Roller Tip Rockers
280/280 Cam with .070 lift
Fully Functional Water Pump
3 CFM Demon Carburetor
Electronic CDI Ignition
Full length 5/16 inch Headers
Runs on Regular Gasoline
Designed by Steve Huck


----------



## CFLBob

This is probably one of those "if you have to ask, you won't like the answer" questions, but how many engines should one have made before they try this one? 

I'm at exactly zero internal combustion engines.  I've done one flame eater and one steam engine.


----------



## stevehuckss396

You should be fine. Just keep in mind that you will be making 8 times as many parts. Dont be in a big hurry to run it. The block and crankshaft are many hour pieces and then it gets a little easier.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

You guys got me excited so I purchased a set of plans. Any recommendations for a manual machine build log? I can find several using CNC but bupkiss for manual.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Bob Shutt built one on manual machines. He used to stop in here. Not sure if he has recently.


Got this from a search of his name:  bob shutt was last seen: Thursday at 12:24 PM


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I found a thread bob shutt started for building the Demon.

https://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads/my-start-to-steves-v8.15275/


----------



## doc1955

Yes you need to remember it will take some time if you are slow like me took 5 years. And I found the intake and the cam the most challenging parts to make.


----------



## stevehuckss396

But just so you know doc built 2 of them.


----------



## bob shutt

Start on the block. It will give you something to show around. All my milling was manual. Did cheat with drilling all the holes. Did the drill on a Cnc. Only used it to position and then pecked by hand   Great engine


----------



## doc1955

Yes I started with block and then the intake just take your time and don't get in a rush you'll do fine.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I'm going through all the drawings and trying to model it in Fusion 360. I've gotten up to the crank shaft. It is a good learning exercise for Fusion and helps me understand the components. Most every time I have a question I look back at the drawings and find my answer. Steve, you did a great job putting these together. 

What is the best way to ask questions about this build, here or start a new thread?


----------



## doc1955

If I can help you out here is a good spot yes Steve did a good job on the drawings. I finally put headers (or collectors) on mine and am not going to use the zoomie pipes.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Okay, here are a few questions I have come up with for now. I suspect I will have more once I review the other parts in detail.

Which method did you use for the crankshaft, one piece or built up?
What parts have critical tolerances? I don't see any tolerances on anything except for a few notes.
Should the lifter be brass/bronze as well as the guide? I'm used to steel lifters at least in full size engines.
How do you enlarge the water jacket in the cylinders on a manual mill? It would be a piece of cake with a CNC. The only practical way I see is using a rotary table with a separate setup for each cylinder.
By the way, the heads and intake manifold look like nightmares.


----------



## doc1955

My cranks both were one piece 
My lifters are not per drawing I went a different route they were made of aluminum 7075.
The water jackets I used a wood ruff cutter also known as keyway cutters. I did use cnc but it's not necessaryto get it all the way around if you just go it an x and a y move.
Tol the clank journals will need to be within I'd say +- .001 the valve guides you can be  a little loose on the tol as long as the valve going into it is a nice snug slip fit.
The part I had the most trouble with was the intake the heads not so much if you make holding fixtures to hold them while machining.


----------



## stevehuckss396

I did a one piece crankshaft from 1144 steel. It's a bit harder to do but well worth the effort.







Pistons and crankshaft bearings need to have a good fit. 6061 pistons I made 1-1.5 thou smaller than the bore. Bearings are .5-1 thou larger than the crank diameter. Slip fits should be just that so about .001. Press fits for the cam gear and bearing should be .0005-.001 smaller.



The lifter bushing should be brass or bronze. The lifter should be 12L14 steel







Use a 5/8 key cutter to machine the jackets. Center over the bore and lower the tool to height. From center move north .093, south .093, Back to center, east .093, west .093, back to zero. Then move north .063, east .063, south .063, west.063, north .063, back to center. So basically you go up, down, left , right in a plus sign pattern and then up, right, down, left, up in a square pattern. Then back to center and advance the tool into the bore some more and repeat until you get the entire bore cleaned out.


----------



## stevehuckss396

SailplaneDriver said:


> I'm going through all the drawings and trying to model it in Fusion 360. I've gotten up to the crank shaft. It is a good learning exercise for Fusion and helps me understand the components. Most every time I have a question I look back at the drawings and find my answer. Steve, you did a great job putting these together.
> 
> What is the best way to ask questions about this build, here or start a new thread?




If it is a general question about engine building you can start a thread. If it is a specific question about the Demon V8 you can ask in the "small V8" thread. That way all the Demon questions are in the same place.


----------



## CamaroNut

Steve, do you have a video of a little Demon with the super charger running?


----------



## stevehuckss396

CamaroNut said:


> Steve, do you have a video of a little Demon with the super charger running?




No I do not. I started working on it again and then I decided to get into the spark plug business. It is at the top of the list.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

The crankshaft doesn't show any counterweights. Is that an issue with balance?


----------



## stevehuckss396

SailplaneDriver said:


> The crankshaft doesn't show any counterweights. Is that an issue with balance?



No. but the next one will be more conventional. See what happens


----------



## doc1955

I did the crank both ways and really didn't notice much difference at all.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I'm now looking at the camshaft. I tried in vain to locate Steve's thread on making the cam. Can you point me in the correct direction?


----------



## stevehuckss396

Here is the write up.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Thanks. Now I understand how the fixture and the chart works. Please confirm my interpretation that the cam lobes on the blank (page 17) are EX1, EX2, IN1 ... EX8.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Front of the cam is on the right on page 17.  EX8. . . . . EX1

When turning the front will go toward the spindle (left) so the lobes will match the chart while turning.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

How critical is the squareness and parallelism of the initial engine block stock? I'm fighting jaw lift with my import vise.


----------



## stevehuckss396

SailplaneDriver said:


> How critical is the squareness and parallelism of the initial engine block stock? I'm fighting jaw lift with my import vise.



Hard to say really. Everything can tollerate a little but how much I cant say.


----------



## doc1955

Use a piece of small round stock on movable side when clamping that way your stock will set up against the solid jaw and it should take care of the movable jaw lift.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I had to resort to using a piece of paper on the fixed jaw to compensate for the lift. The faces are now within .oo15 for square and parallelism. Closer than that and I will have to clamp directly to the table and forgo the vise.


----------



## doc1955

If your back jaw is perfectly trammed in to 90 degrees to your machine head using the method I suggested you can get within .0005 fairly easy.  You take the jaw lift totally out of play that way.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

doc1955 said:


> If your back jaw is perfectly trammed in to 90 degrees to your machine head using the method I suggested you can get within .0005 fairly easy.  You take the jaw lift totally out of play that way.



I tried using a piece of round stock and was having no luck. I changed to a piece of copper wire and got slightly better. In both cases they were about the width of the chuck. I don't know if a shorter piece would make any difference.

I checked the vise ways and they are level within .0002 over their exposed length. The vise fixed jaw  is square within .0001 over its height. The fixed jaw flexes .0003 when tightening stock. Mill is trammed well within a half thou over about 6 inches. The only thing I have found that helps is a piece of paper extending about .25 from the top of the fixed jaw. It overcorrects by between 1 to 1.5 thou but I don't have anything thinner at the moment. I think I'll pick up some cigarette paper and try that since it is thinner. I'm probably chasing my tail but I would like things square a parallel within a thou for the start of the block.


----------



## doc1955

When using a piece of round stock use only 1 thin parallel up against the back jaw. Just tap the block down on the parallel don't hammer it to hard. After that for the next cut put the face you just milled against the solid jaw and do the same.  If your jaw is within .0001 if you are real careful you should have no problem getting the block within .001.  
  PS don't over tighten you will push the fixed jaw out and loose your perpendicularity of the jaw on you finish pas just snug the vise no need to clamp the crap out of it.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Yep. That's the process I've been doing. I've got a single parallel at the fixed jaw, the shortest one I have. I give it three medium hits with a dead blow hammer at left, right then center. I have been giving a snug - tightening the jaws - after hammering the stock down. I'm using a fly cutter until I get things dialed in. I face side one then put 1 against the fixed jaw and face the next side. I then put side 2 down with side 1 on the fixed jaw and repeat.

I'll try no snug after tapping stock down and shorter piece of round stock (individually) to see if that helps. Otherwise, I'm at a loss as to why the difficulty in getting the stock square.


----------



## doc1955

Try this put an indicator on the back side of your solid vise jaw before you tighten and check the movement when you tighten your vise.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I previously had put an indicator on the top face of the fixed jaw and tightened a 1-2-3 block. I measured .0003 when cranking down fairly heavily. 

I think the main issue is moving jaw lift. I get significant lift unless I barely tighten the jaws. I may need to take it apart to see if something is wrong between the nut and the sliding jaw. 

I've gotten three sides square a parallel within a thou and dimensionally within a thou. It takes a lot of time to keep going from the mill to the surface plate and back - what a pain. I am getting much better results if don't tighten the vise too much. That also resulted in the part shifting when I was milling .100 off to get a side to dimension. Fortunately I caught it in time before the block was ruined.


----------



## doc1955

If you use a round stock on the movable side the lift of the movable jaw doesn't matter. The solid jaw has to be moving put the indicator on the back side of the solid jaw when tightening. If it moves then it is no longer perpendicular to the base which will make your part come out like you are getting.


----------



## doc1955

Here is a little demo video I put together today to show the effects of solid jaw when clamping and how it will not stay perpendicular when to much clamping pressure is used.


----------



## michael-au

Good video Doc


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Thanks for the video, Doc.  I did some tests on my vise to see what was happening and took photos along the way. I swept the fixed and moving jaws unclamped. The rear jaw tilts away from the moving jaw .00015. The moving jaw has a .0001 bow with the middle protruding to the fixed jaw.  Pretty good really. The vise is a Precision Mathews 5-inch. They claim it is quite accurate and they are correct. It is clamped directly to the mill table but only with two bolts at the mid-point. I used an old beam type torque wrench and did measurements of both rear jaw movement and front while clamping the 3-inch side of a 1-2-3 block. The torque values are written on the right side of the photos.

Basic setup. I have a .00005 resolution Tesastat on the clamping face of the rear jaw. A cheap Chinese knockoff on the top of the 1-2-3 block at the moving jaw. Both have been checked against gage blocks and are very accurate although the knockoff has more hysterisis.






With only 5 ft-lb the block lifts .001. The rear jaw flexes back just under .0004. 5 ft-lb is barely tightening the jaws.





Here is 10 ft-lb which is barely snugging the work piece.





Here is 15 ft-lb which is a reasonable tightness; .001 deflection of the rear jaw and .0015 lift at the front.





A jump to 25 ft-lb which is very tight.





And 30 ft-lb which is about the most I can crank using the short vise handle.





Last is a check to make sure the indicators reset to zero after releasing the vise.





The combination of the rear jaw flex and front jaw lift were biting me. With the back tilting away from the work the rear lowers. Combine that with the front lifting and you get even more tilt of the workpiece.  I'm now snugging the vise for critical work somewhere between 5 and 10 ft-lbs as close as I can tell. Much less than that and the work is too loose. I have to bear down for roughing or things get to loosy goosey.

I think I'll try four clamps like you suggested to see if it makes much difference.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

No significant difference between 2, 4 or 6 clamping points. The differences were insignificant and likely caused by inaccuracies in the torque since I was using an old beam torque wrench with 5 ft-lb resolution. One thing that was interesting was 4 points had more lift (only half a thou) compared to the 2 or 6 points. Might be a bow of the vise frame allowing for more lift? In any case, I'll stick to 2 points and minimize torque.

I've got 5 sides of the block square, parallel and in dimension within .001. Now to get the last side done and start the real work.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I took three quarters (the equivalent of two semesters) of maching classes from a local technical college. Classes were 5 days a week for 5 hours a day. They didn't teach this stuff. As Stefan Gotteswinter puts it, "everything is rubber."


----------



## CFLBob

SailplaneDriver said:


> I took three quarters (the equivalent of two semesters) of maching classes from a local technical college. Classes were 5 days a week for 5 hours a day. They didn't teach this stuff. As Stefan Gotteswinter puts it, "everything is rubber."



I took some mechanical engineering classes while I was in electrical.  One was called "Deformable Bodies" by the students, which is the first class where ME students learn that everything bends, sags, stretches, squeezes and distorts.  

The most valuable thing that got me through that class was a Pink Pearl eraser.  (These if the name doesn't ring a bell)  Everything they taught could be seen with rubber.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

CFLBob said:


> I took some mechanical engineering classes while I was in electrical.  One was called "Deformable Bodies" by the students, which is the first class where ME students learn that everything bends, sags, stretches, squeezes and distorts.
> 
> The most valuable thing that got me through that class was a Pink Pearl eraser.  (These if the name doesn't ring a bell)  Everything they taught could be seen with rubber.



Oh yeah, I remember them but I used the white ones, they left less mess.

I'm a retired EE. I went to UC Santa Barbara. They loaded us up with so much electrical and math that I couldn't take an ME class if I wanted to. No strengths of materials, statics, dynamics or other interdiciplinary courses. It was so single disipline it was rediculous. Since the department head was into semiconductors we were required to take statistical thermodynamics - thremodynamics on a quantum level - but no classical thermodynamics. How stupid is that?


----------



## CFLBob

SailplaneDriver said:


> Oh yeah, I remember them but I used the white ones, they left less mess.
> 
> I'm a retired EE. I went to UC Santa Barbara. They loaded us up with so much electrical and math that I couldn't take an ME class if I wanted to. No strengths of materials, statics, dynamics or other interdiciplinary courses. It was so single disipline it was rediculous. Since the department head was into semiconductors we were required to take statistical thermodynamics - thremodynamics on a quantum level - but no classical thermodynamics. How stupid is that?



Cool to meet another retired EE.  I took Statics, Dynamics, Mechanics of Deformable Bodies, Materials, and a classical Thermodynamics class (steam tables).  Back in the mid-80s.   Then went on to circuit design in radio systems and weather radars.  They were worthwhile classes, though, even though I really didn't use a thing out of those classes at work.


----------



## John Antliff

Thank you for posting those observations.  I always suspected that this was going on and one day I will do the same tests but I would expect very similar displacements.  This I know because I have never been able to get something absolutely square/cuboid!  I usually finish off a precision angle using a file, chalk and a an accurate set square! I know how much the stock moves when one taps it down onto a parallel, it's quite significant.  My 2 identical vises are Vertex swivel 4 inch ones, nothing special.


----------



## Mark Duquette

One of the hardest things to learn is how to square a block.   I do think that you should find a better vice because it is making you work way too hard.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Mark Duquette said:


> One of the hardest things to learn is how to square a block.   I do think that you should find a better vice because it is making you work way too hard.



There is a lot more to it than the vise. I did some further measurements. The table flexes as well depending upon the position of the vise relative to the center of the table and position of the table to the spindle. For my Bridgeport clone I presently can get up to 2 thou deflection of the table. That impacts tram significantly. Next step for me is to look at tuning up the gibs to see if that helps. Any vise is going to flex and you rarely have the vise centered for every operation. I'm learning the limitations of my equipment and how to compensate for them. Like I said earlier, everything is rubber. Fortunately, I'm just a hobbyist and not trying to make a living at this.


----------



## doc1955

Kurt NC vise will not flex under normal tightening. If the bottom of your vice is clean flat and parallel to the top and you table top is clean and flat with no dings and you clamp it down tight in 4 spots it will significantly be better. Unless your vise back jaw mounting block  where it is bolted to the main part of the vise is not flat and clean when bolted together in that case it would be the same. The vise I use is a cheap knock off of a Kurt. The first thing I did with it was to disassemble it. I debured  all parts and ground the bottom and top on the surface grinder then ground the solid jaw mounting block. Then cleaned everything up good and bolted the solid jaw mounting to the main vise base and tightened the hell out of it.
 And I still get deflection itf it is on a swivel but on the machine table not much at all with 4 clamps. I'm just speaking of my experience that I had I know there are a lot of variables that can change the out come.


----------



## ALEX1952

As an engineer of 40 plus years I feel the topic could be misleading to novices! Most drawings used in industry show tolerances to allow for inaccuracies in the process, to strive for absolute accuracy is needless unless the components eventual use demands such, we are in the position where generally the drawings we use do not show tolerances or even an open tolerance in the drawings legend therefore leading the novice to think that a dimension has to be bang on, before high accuracy and repeatability in a machining process was available could be relied upon an assembly would need some fitting before a satisfactory functional result could be achieved e.g an engines big and main bearings wold be scraped and matched to each other they would not be interchangeable no two assemblies would be the same. To get to the level you are describing for squareness an parallelism  you are heading to the component needing grinding which does not need such high clamping forces therefore negating the issue of lift etc. many times magnetic clamping would be used so very little if any distortion would occur. Please excuse poor punctuation etc. and the rant.


----------



## doc1955

ALEX1952 said:


> As an engineer of 40 plus years I feel the topic could be misleading to novices! Most drawings used in industry show tolerances to allow for inaccuracies in the process, to strive for absolute accuracy is needless unless the components eventual use demands such, we are in the position where generally the drawings we use do not show tolerances or even an open tolerance in the drawings legend therefore leading the novice to think that a dimension has to be bang on, before high accuracy and repeatability in a machining process was available could be relied upon an assembly would need some fitting before a satisfactory functional result could be achieved e.g an engines big and main bearings wold be scraped and matched to each other they would not be interchangeable no two assemblies would be the same. To get to the level you are describing for squareness an parallelism  you are heading to the component needing grinding which does not need such high clamping forces therefore negating the issue of lift etc. many times magnetic clamping would be used so very little if any distortion would occur. Please excuse poor punctuation etc. and the rant.



I was a Tooling engineer for about 25 years and about 15 years as a tool and die worker. You are very correct there is not anything perfect and for the most part I find that on most things if you are within .005 it is plenty good. But remember the smaller the part and engine the tighter the tolerances.


----------



## GRAYHIL

Hi All
One of the first things I used to see with apprentices on milling machines was them hammering the !!!! out of the job trying to get the parallels to fit snug between vice and job. I used to go over ,  tap the job once and it was done. 
The secret I explained was a reasonably light tap and _NO_ rebound of the mallet off  the  job_._
Graham


----------



## GRAYHIL

Sorry wrong forum
Graham


----------



## GRAYHIL

Hi All
One of the first things I used to see with apprentices on milling machines was them hammering the !!!! out of the job trying to get the parallels to fit snug between vice and job. I used to go over , tap the job once and it was done. 
The secret I explained was a reasonably light tap and _NO_ rebound of the mallet off the job_._
Graham


----------



## GRAYHIL

Now  I am totally confused must be  my age
Graham
PS
It is about vices and parallels


----------



## doc1955

GRAYHIL said:


> Hi All
> One of the first things I used to see with apprentices on milling machines was them hammering the !!!! out of the job trying to get the parallels to fit snug between vice and job. I used to go over , tap the job once and it was done.
> The secret I explained was a reasonably light tap and _NO_ rebound of the mallet off the job_._
> Graham


----------



## doc1955

GRAYHIL said:


> Hi All
> One of the first things I used to see with apprentices on milling machines was them hammering the !!!! out of the job trying to get the parallels to fit snug between vice and job. I used to go over , tap the job once and it was done.
> The secret I explained was a reasonably light tap and _NO_ rebound of the mallet off the job_._
> Graham



Ok now I messed up  LOL
I was just going to say also I see new to the trade people tighten the crap out of a vise and over time it will ruin the vise. If you keep your part or material low in the vise just sticking up high enough to get the job done it isn't necessary to tighten the crap out of it.


----------



## john g

forget the vice ! mill one side in the vice , then mount that surface on a angle plate . mount the angle plate on the machine table, not in the vice ! your part will be as square as the angle plate . I have been doing it this way for 40 plus years ( retired gage maker, routinely worked to very close tolerances +/- .0001 ) John


----------



## ALEX1952

I agree with your comment but! how many of us have to ease fettle etc to get something to run correctly even a tool room which would have high end machines could get a job back from the end user not to remake just to make things easier, in other words to fit it that's it from me as I think we are in danger of going of at a tangent to the main topic.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Thanks for all the help guys. I think I have my vise issues under control. Now to get on with this build.

I did the block left bank with no drama.







Not so lucky on the right bank. The arrow shows where I spot drilled an incorrect hole. Likely not a problem since its only about a tenth deep. The circle is a hole that is .060 off. I dialed in the DRO at 2.228 instead of 2.288. Since this one is very close to the cylinder I think I will have to drill it out and plug it. I could use JB weld or Loctite 603 to hold in the plug. What do you guys think?


----------



## stevehuckss396

Are you going to counter bore and sleeve the cylinders? If so I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

That would be easier. I'll have to remember to adjust it when I make the head. Out of curiosity, would the plug option work as I described it?

Right bank is almost done except for that one hole needs to be tapped and the 2-56 hole. I've hogged out the valley for that side but note of my 1/4 end mills have a long enough LOC. Have to order one.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Just use a center cutting endmill to start a new hole in the correct location. Drill down with the endmill until you are lower than the bad hole and then drill your hole with the correct drill bit. Use an endmill about the size of the drill or a hair bigger.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

The incorrect hole was drilled to full depth. If I understand what you suggested, I would need to use a much longer screw/stud for that hole. Is there enough material to go around .750 deep in that area? To get .500 of depth as on the plans, I would need to go 1.0 deep. The spot drilled hole I am going to ignore or fill with JB Weld if it looks like an issue.


----------



## doc1955

Just drill a hole a couple thread sizes larger put a piece of ready rod in place with Locktite and mill or file flush to the engine block face then drill and tap the correct size in it. Its the same as using a threaded insert.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Thanks Doc. I looked at the hole location in more detail. There is not enough room from the hole to the edge of the block to go much larger; the center to edge is only .104. If I leave .030 from the edge, the largest major diameter thread that would fit is #6. I can try and make a 6-40 plug out of 6160 and screw it in. Anything larger and I risk tearing when I mill the side of the block. I don't have much faith that it would survive being threaded in so I'll try a test run on some scrap. Steve's option of milling a hole is problematic since the miniature end mills have a larger shank and LOC is not long enough to go .500. If the test doesn't work, I think I'll just leave it where it is and adjust one of the heads. Fortunately it wasn't the adjacent hole on the other side of the cylinder or it would likely have intercepted the exhaust port on the head.

Wow! Amazon just delivered the longer 1/4" end mill I ordered yesterday afternoon, less than 24 hours and standard shipping. Can't beat that. I need the longer LOC on this new end mill to finish the valley areas.


----------



## doc1955

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Just put a hole on location and put a plug in ant theen the correct thread size. You don't even have to clean up all the wrong hole as long as the one you put in on location has about 3/4 of the circumference. Ive corrected hole locations this way and as long as you have more than I'd say about 60% it will work.


----------



## stevehuckss396

You wrote that you spot drilled an incorrect hole. I did not know that it was drilled full depth.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

doc1955 said:


> I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Just put a hole on location and put a plug in ant theen the correct thread size. You don't even have to clean up all the wrong hole as long as the one you put in on location has about 3/4 of the circumference. Ive corrected hole locations this way and as long as you have more than I'd say about 60% it will work.



I think I understand. The maximum major diameter that will fit at the correct hole location is .148 if I keep .030 edge clearance. The largest thread that will fit in that diameter is #6, only one size above the required #4. I can go bigger if I offset the plug. The incorrect hole is .060 away from the correct location. See the diagram below. The yellow circle is about the biggest I can fit and it has a .156 diameter and doesn't help. An alternative is to reduce the edge clearance to .020 which would get me to .176 and up to a #8. How likely is 6160 to tear out with .020 clearance?


----------



## SailplaneDriver

stevehuckss396 said:


> You wrote that you spot drilled an incorrect hole. I did not know that it was drilled full depth.


 I did one of each as shown in the photo. I caught the one that was spot drilled but not the other. My eyes are not calibrated well enough to catch .060 at an angle and my scribe mark was scratched over by chips.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Steve, did you use a chucking reamer to get the .230 diameter holes for the lifter bushings? I could try and make a boring bar and do them that way but it would be a long reach for a skinny bar.


----------



## Mark Duquette

From your sketch it looks like you can just plug the wrong hole using locktite and an aluminum plug and redrill on the correct location.  There seems to be a sufficient amount of stock remaining.


----------



## doc1955

I personally would put a threaded  plug in with loctite leave it a little proud of the surface and then mill it flush.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I made a 4-40 plug out of 6061, threaded the hole, flushed it with acetone and let it dry. I screwed in the plug tight after applying Loctite 603 (green stuff). Waiting for it to dry so I can mill the surface flush and drill the new hole. It takes 24 hours to get to 50% strength in aluminum so I will need to wait a day or two before I can drill the new hole.


----------



## stevehuckss396

No reamer. Just drilled with a drill bit.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

i'm guessing that you used a #1 since it is .228. Nothing seems to match .230.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Plugged the wrong hole, milled it flush, drilled and tapped the new one in the correct location. Looks good and should work.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Nice! Now you can continue moving forward.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Made some good progress. Got the rest of the valley milled out, all the lifter holes drilled, and the top milled flat. Start on the bottom end tomorrow.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Scared the bejesus out of myself. I was decking the bottom and shooting for the 2.200 width on the drawing. I stopped with what I thought was quite a bit to go when I realized that the 2.200 measurement was after the sides were milled. I popped the block off the mill and took it to the surface plate to find I had only .009 extra left. Damn near ruined it. I finished decking the bottom and started setting up to mill out the crank clearnce pockets. I kept making stupid mistakes just setting it up. Too tired or something so I called it a day rather than screw something up.


----------



## stevehuckss396

smart move. I have literally gone out to the shop, done something stupid right off the bat, and turned off the lights and gone in.


----------



## doc1955

Haha I'm right with you Steve!


----------



## davidyat

Always like to see lessons I've seen in the past to remind me. If something doesn't seem right, sounds wrong, hearing noises you don't like or you get a funny feeling, STOP!!! When I was learning auto mechanics 60 years ago, my mentor taught me a valuable lesson. If you're working on an engine and you get to the point where you're staring at your work with a ball peen hammer in your hand, put the hammer down, close the garage door and go have a beer. After the beer, if you pick up the ball peen hammer again, put it down, and go have another beer. Every time this worked. At some point, I figured out what I was doing wrong and didn't damage the project beating the heck out of it with the ball peen hammer. And, yes, I didn't go back to the project until I sobered up!
Grasshopper


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I was working on the third of the four bottom crank relief areas when I noticed a slight movement. Fortunately I was cleaning up the inside of the relief so no issues. My clamping had started to loosen on one side. I don't have Steve's fancy vise jaws and had a rather tenuous clamp arrangement. So I cleaned up for the day. Have to take the wife back east for a doctor visit with a specialist tomorrow and will be gone for a few days.


----------



## Guido007

What is the newest Rev? My drawings are Rev 1.14


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Guido007 said:


> What is the newest Rev? My drawings are Rev 1.14


 
Mine are Rev 1.14 as well.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Got back from our medical excursoin yesterday. Got great news from the docs - my wife's brain tumor has shrunk as a result of the medications they are giving her. Made for a happy trip.

Finally got motivated enough this afternoon to get back to work on the block. Finished milling out the four crank relief areas and the oil pockets. Tomorrow I start drilling and tapping a bucket load of holes.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Bucket load of tapped holes complete. Now to figure out what's next.


----------



## retailer

Your work looks pretty good so far - Steve Huck's plans I hear are very well done - I'm sure your engine will turn out a success there is already quite a few running examples out there. 
I'm also attempting to build a running V8 but am working from my own plans,  I have made a start and I'm trying to keep the plans one or two steps ahead of the construction but I'm finding that the machining seems to take less time than the drawing up of the plans


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I know what you mean, retailer. I've been modeling the Li'l Demon in Fusion 360. I frequently could do the machining faster than the modelling but it helps me understand the parts and hopefully keeps me from making too many mistakes. I also find that setting up and holding the part frequently take much more time than machining. 

On what are you basing your design?


----------



## Mr.McKinney

Late to the thread.  But awesome job!  
It looks remarkably like mine (my own design).  But being a gluton for punishment, I machined my block from steel.  Looking forward to following the progress.


----------



## retailer

Apart from the bore and stroke being copied from the PeeWee V4 my plans are not really based on any particular engine, the crank layout and firing order are the same as a small block chev but then there's probably many engines out there that follow the same firing order, while I call it my own design, you could say that word design is used rather loosely as I can see many many images of V8 engines on the internet and then it's just a matter of scaling it down and juggling dimensions and clearances to get it to fit, once I have a part drawn I print it full size so I can get an idea of what it will look like in real life, so I guess you could it is just copying.

 I'm drawing it up in autocad  and also modelling it in fusion360 mainly to get practice at 3d modelling, I've been using autocad for around 10 yrs and feel quite comfortable with it and even though I know I don't use all the features offered I can get by and produce reasonable drawings. Fusion360 is new to me since last xmas and is something I would like to get better at.


----------



## doc1955

SailplaneDriver said:


> I know what you mean, retailer. I've been modeling the Li'l Demon in Fusion 360. I frequently could do the machining faster than the modelling but it helps me understand the parts and hopefully keeps me from making too many mistakes. I also find that setting up and holding the part frequently take much more time than machining.


Yes I like to have things modeled up before building anything. I like to check fits and stuff first.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Echesak said:


> But being a gluton for punishment, I machined my block from steel.



Saves on making liners.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Spent a bunch of time sizing stock and screwing up the dimensions of the main bearing caps. Why is it I screw up on the simple things like cutting these steps? Both sides went too far to the center and the right side excessively so. I was using a vise stop so I screwed up all three. Not paying enough attention I guess. Will try again today.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Got the main bearing caps done yesterday. Don't have the right length cap screws so ordered them from McMaster. Bored the cylinders to size today, at least the first diameter. Have to do three more operations on each cylinder, two more bores stepped plus a relief for the water jackets. Tedious and unrewarding work since it is merely refining a feature I already made.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Finished the block except for the crank and cam bores. Working on the oil pan. Screwed up the first attempt at the pan and working on the second. I don't have any long LOC end mills so ordered some. Can't finish the pan until they arrive. I tried using short LOC mills for the inside of the pan and they rub messing up the finish. Not a problem on the inside but not the look I want on the outside. In the meantime, I made the valve covers.






I'm debating whether to start on the crankshaft or the heads next. I'm going to need some help and suggestions on the crank since I have not made a single piece crank before. Any input or links to crank builds would be appreciated.


----------



## gbritnell

I have made and documented several crankshaft builds on the forum but I'll be darned if I can find them so here's one from the other forum. 
gbritnell
http://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php/topic,3846.210.html


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Got started on one of the heads. Figured I'd do one complete which will probably wind up as a practice run. Here it is with the head bolt holes drilled and countersunk, and the pushrod holes. The plans show a standard 5.5:1 compression ratio with an option for 8:1. Is there an advantage of one over the other? I know that higher comression typically results in higher power output but this is a working display model.


----------



## stevehuckss396

The higher compression ratio will give more power. It will also put more stress on the pistons, wrist pins, rods, and crankshaft. It will also affect the ability of the engine to idle down. I built the prototype Demon with the 5.5:1 ratio because it is a display and will never do any real work.


----------



## retailer

You look to be getting on with it at a good pace, I'm still working on the block and crankshaft and have not yet finished the head drawings - I checked out the crankshaft building posts made by gbritnell, well worth a look, he does some really good work - much better than I'll ever be.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

retailer said:


> You look to be getting on with it at a good pace, I'm still working on the block and crankshaft and have not yet finished the head drawings - I checked out the crankshaft building posts made by gbritnell, well worth a look, he does some really good work - much better than I'll ever be.



I keep getting stalled with either lack of material or tooling. I just got the long LOC end mills I ordered so I can try and finish up the oil pan and get the block bored for the cam and crank. I looked at gbritnell link. I think he's forgotten more than I know about this stuff - and his work is first rate.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I got the two heads mostly done and have found a mistake.






Bottom looks good and matches the drawings.






Problem is in the top. The valve locations are off on the top but not on the bottom. The rocker stud locations break into the valve bores.  This really sucks. I put a lot of time into these. Now I have to figure out what I did wrong.


----------



## bob shutt

From what I can see from the pictures  it looks like your .875, .912, and .666 are not measured at the 22 deg.  Page 27 of the plans


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Yes. I misunderstood the plans and thought the dimensions were on the plane of the head bottom, not with the head angled at 22 deg. I will have to redo them.


----------



## retailer

It's a bummer when that sort of thing happens not sure about you but for me when I make those sort of mistakes  I can never make up my mind if the loss of time or loss of material is worse.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Got both of the heads done. I got two good onesout of five tries. Now to try the crankshaft.






Progress so far.


----------



## davidyat

OH, how many times have I misunderstood plans. 22 degrees is not the same as O degrees. GGGRRRHHH and I never throw away my mistakes. I keep them to remind me, "Don't do that again!!!"
Grasshopper


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I was practicing making a crankshaft out of aluminum 6160. Sequence was to do the rod journals first then the mains starting from the front and going to the rear with the rear driven and the stock between centers. I milled out much of the excess but only for the journal I was working on. Got the 1-2 journal done without drama. It grabbed on the 3-4 journal, bent at the 1-2 journal and spit it out.

Is aluminum too soft to try this or was it just lousy technique?


----------



## davidyat

What worked for me when I was making Bazmak's 2 times Cirrus Compressed Air V-8 and botching up 3 cranks, was to do the mains first. Then with the crank in the offset jigs, using a parting tool (about 0.125 wide) to start on the rod journals. Start from the tail stock and work on the journals towards the chuck. After each rod journal is made, make some biscuits to slip into the rod journal space that you just made rather snugly. Then when you go to the next journal, give a little snug pressure on the off set jig in the tailstock with the biscuit and this should give you some stability. It's time consuming with the cut off blade, but you shouldn't twist another crank.
Grasshopper


----------



## retailer

Quite a few forum members (me included) find that if the bulk of the metal is machined away in the mill there is less chance of a disaster in the lathe.


----------



## davidyat

Retailer,
   You make a good point about removing material at the mill and then over to the lathe. What scares me are those squared off, interrupted cuts. In my short learning experience, no matter what cutting tool I use, narrow or wide, there is more chance of the tool grabbing that square end and twisting the part. It takes much longer doing the turning without removing material, but I have the time now that I'm retired and I seem to have a lot less problems.
Grasshopper


----------



## editor123

SailplaneDriver said:


> I was practicing making a crankshaft out of aluminum 6160. Sequence was to do the rod journals first then the mains starting from the front and going to the rear with the rear driven and the stock between centers. I milled out much of the excess but only for the journal I was working on. Got the 1-2 journal done without drama. It grabbed on the 3-4 journal, bent at the 1-2 journal and spit it out.
> 
> Is aluminum too soft to try this or was it just lousy technique?
> 
> View attachment 110806


You need to make a series of tube stiffeners that can be clamped on the bar stock diameter. Use worm gear hose clamps to hold the stiffeners on the workpiece if you cannot weld tabs on the tube for clamping screws. The tab approach is better and stiffer. You should also mill out most of the metal before you put it on the lathe. A great time saver and you don't end up making interrupted cuts.








Pictures from Issue # 30 of an article in Model Engine Builder on making multi-plane crankshafts. Note the special cutting tool.




 Setup for milling out throws before using a lathe to finish them.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

davidyat said:


> What worked for me when I was making Bazmak's 2 times Cirrus Compressed Air V-8 and botching up 3 cranks, was to do the mains first. Then with the crank in the offset jigs, using a parting tool (about 0.125 wide) to start on the rod journals. Start from the tail stock and work on the journals towards the chuck. After each rod journal is made, make some biscuits to slip into the rod journal space that you just made rather snugly. Then when you go to the next journal, give a little snug pressure on the off set jig in the tailstock with the biscuit and this should give you some stability. It's time consuming with the cut off blade, but you shouldn't twist another crank.
> Grasshopper



What do you mean by "biscuits"? Are they spacers to minimize the flex when you crank the tailstock in?


----------



## SailplaneDriver

retailer said:


> Quite a few forum members (me included) find that if the bulk of the metal is machined away in the mill there is less chance of a disaster in the lathe.


I did mill away excess but only for the journal I was working on. That way the stock from the driven end was solid and would not flex. It is more time consuming since you have to remove the stock from the lathe and take it to the mill, tram it in and mill it.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

editor123, I like your idea of stiffeners. I thought of something similar using worm gear clamps and sheet stock but a tube would be much better. It also means I can mill all the journals at once since the stiffeners will provide the necessary support. Welding or soldering on the outside looks time consuming. I'll try the worm hose clamps first since they would be faster.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I bought a 30" length of 1" schedule 40 pipe and  a 10 pack of worm hose clamps. The pipe has an internal diameter of 1.049. I had to cut about a .200 slit at the weld to be able to get it to close down to a bit below 1". I made three lengths: 2, 3 and 4". Hopefully those will be enough. I managed to squash the 2 and 3" down to where they will grip the 1" OD of the crank by squeezing them in the three-jaw so they would be reasonably symmetrical. I don't have enough leverage to do that to the 4" so I resorted to a thick piece of paper. Looks like it will work. I'll try it tomorrow on the almost straightend bent piece to see how they work.






I screwed up the threads on three of the clamps by overtightening them; they don't have enough strength to compress the pipe unless you deform the pipe somewhat first. I put some scrap underneath them to allow them to still work on an undamaged portion of thread.


----------



## davidyat

What do you mean by "biscuits"? Are they spacers to minimize the flex when you crank the tailstock in?

That's exactly what I mean by "biscuits". Spacers made to fit into the web you just made for the rod journal. Mill a piece of scrap, work to get it to fit snugly with hand pressure into the rod journal space and when you move your live center into your offset jig at the tail stock, a small bit of pressure will lock in the "biscuit" and you then lock the tail stock.
Grasshopper


----------



## davidyat

Found the images I was looking for. Crank (when I was working on the mains) with the biscuits installed and the crank. Pressure from the tailstock usually keeps the biscuits steady.
Grasshopper


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Broke the crank in two this time. I had so much stickout of the parting tool that it was just slightly above center height, best guess around .020. Worked fine until I got to a finished diameter of around .300 where it grabbed and twisted the end off. I need to either reduce the stickout or cut a chipbreaker into the parting tool to reduce height. If I am having this much trouble with aluminum, I hate to think what will happen when I go to steel. I'll practice some more with the aluminum remains to see if I can get better at this.


----------



## davidyat

Don't know if this could work for you. Build up a crankshaft. I did it on a 2 cylinder, 1 rod throw with 2 rods and it worked just fine. Let's see if I can cut and paste some photos. I just drilled 2, one half inch holes (reamed) 1/2 inch off each center into the rectangular pieces. Pushed the 2 rods through that way everything stays in line. Silver soldered (with 53% silver solder, very expensive but worth it) everything together, then just machined it out. Ended up with only 0.006 thou run out at the ends. After installation with ball bearings at each end, it turns like butter.
Grasshopper


----------



## retailer

I made up an offset machining holder for my crank - have a look at this post https://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads/first-ic-engine-design-and-build.31266/ and the second page shows how it was used, it allowed me to do all of the machining right up next to the holder or chuck.
While it did not work 100% how I had intended it to it was a reasonable sucess, the main downside was lateral play of the crank in the holder, while I couldn't feel any play it turned out that I was able to detect the play with a DTI as the grub screws were tightened down and the bigend journals ended varying in size by a few thou, not a disaster but also not made to the design size. I found it was better to move the cutting tool at a steady pace from side to side while at the same time feeding it in only a few thou at a time.

If I ever make another multi cylinder crank I'll look at making a set of vee clamps machined up from angle iron - a length of vee stock clamped with exhaust type c lamps to each side of the crank I envisage that the vee clamps will need to be custom made in pairs of varying lengths so they can be clamped one each side with exhaust style c clamps. If you ignore the bad perspespective of the pic I quickly drew you will get the idea.

Just a thought on the material you are practising on maybe aluminium while it is soft does tend to gall up on the cutting edge of a tool and in addition possibly is just not strong enough and you might do better with an easy machining type of mild steel. I made my crank from an unknown grade of steel described by the seller as either 4140 or similar to it.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

davidyat, I'm not sure your method for a  built-up crank would be practical for a multi-plane crank. Steve's drawings have an option for a built-up crank and it looks more difficult to build without runout.

retailer, I like your offset holder. I tried making a clamping offset holder with a recessed square for indexing. I turned it with a 1.00 spigot so it coud be used in a 1" collet. It doesn't work well in practice. Probably needs some refinement.


----------



## johnl

Try making a practice crank out of 12L14 leaded steel.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I put the crank aside and decided to work on the rest of the parts for the heads


----------



## SailplaneDriver

I vehemently hate the rocker arms. They are tiny, difficult to hold, require many many operations on different planes and are fiddly. My attempts to set up a production run resulted in about 2 out of 36 close to spec. And I thought this would be a good break from the crankshaft.


----------



## stevehuckss396

The rockers are hidden so there is no reason why you couldn't simplify the design.


----------



## retailer

What ever happens don't give up - keep at it, you will get there in the end.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Hey,  Steve. The problem is not the design, it's my skills.  I'll keep at it until I get a good set. Hopefully that will occur before I pull all my hair out. You have to admit, they are fiddly little bits.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Make some kind of fixture to hold them. Do as many operations that are possible. Doesn't have to hold mare than one but it might make it easier if you do.


----------



## davidyat

Sailplane,
   I had so much stickout of the parting tool that it was just slightly above center height.
   My machining mentor taught me a simple method that has been working for me. Take a 6 inch stainless ruler, run your cutting tool to the work, put the ruler in between the cutting tool and the work with very little pressure holding it. If the top of the ruler bends away from you, you're too high, straight up, your probably at center. I always see if I can get the ruler to bend ever so slightly towards me. Then I know for sure, I'm below center. 
Grasshopper


----------



## Cogsy

davidyat said:


> I always see if I can get the ruler to bend ever so slightly towards me. Then I know for sure, I'm below center.


Lower than center on a parting tool is not the recommended way to set it up. If your parting tool isn't sticking out much then bang on center is best but if you've got a bit sticking out then slightly (very slightly) high will account for some flex in the blade and get you back to center. If you're a bit too low you run the risk of the part riding up over the blade as you get to the center and potentially wrecking the part and the blade/insert.


----------



## davidyat

Thanks for the advice. Most of my parting is on soft metal, brass, aluminum, etc. Yes there is a slight nub after parting, but I'm cutting the part a little bigger than I need it and mill it down to what I want with a fly cutter on both sides. If I'm doing multiple pieces, I face off the round I'm working on for the next piece, zero out the parting tool and take it to the dimension I want. Most of the time, by the time the parting tool gets close to center, the nub is so small that the weight of the part causes it to just fall off. But, again, thanks for all the advice. I never want to stop learning.
Grasshopper


----------



## SailplaneDriver

After a long break, I finally got all the rocker arms and rollers done but the roller pins are my new issue. My ER32 metric collets won't grip the 1/16" stock and I don't have a 5C 1/16" collet. Will order one and go that route.

I'm looking at making the valves next so I can finish up the heads. I need advice on how to turn the stems. I've found recommendations for step cutting, using a follow rest, a center, a female center, and Joe Pie's single cut to diameter. I think these are in the order of complexity high to low for cutting. What do you guys do? These valves have .094 diameter .866 long stems and I anticipate using .25 drill rod for stock. I could go to larger stock to improve stickout for Joe Pie's method.


----------



## johnl

I used a center. I left the stem 1" long and used a #1 center drill. Trimmed to length.
I tried the step method but didn't have much luck.


----------



## John Antliff

Jo Pie's method is certainly quick once you have the right setting however you don't have any control of the surface finish although you can cut slightly oversize and reduce using a file and emery paper. Slowly slowly catchee monkey for me!  I've used the step method but once again you have to reduce the length tothe  required size with abrasive to remove the inevitable steps.  A centre is the time served method which works!


----------



## Cogsy

I only ever make them using the step method but generally my stems are a bit bigger at 1/8". I aim to hit +0.01mm oversize to allow me to blend the steps with wet and dry and have them polish up for a nice fit in the guide. Generally the very first step of the very first valve is the tough/slow one as I use a finished guide as a stop/go gauge to get my number to aim for. From there it's not too difficult a task and it's fairly rare to mess one up. I do try to make them all in one session once I get into the rhythm. 1/4" stock sounds about the right starting size to me.


----------



## deverett

Or consider two piece construction.
Use the correct size rod for the stem, put in the groove/cross drill for the retainer, cut off a bit longer than required.  The extra length is reduced so the head won't slip up the shaft then silver solder a piece of stock to that.  Hold the stem in the collet and finish machining the head.  You can use the extra length and put a screwdriver slot in it for lapping valve and seat.  Finally cut off the extra.

Dave
The Emerald Isle


----------



## justintime

davidyat said:


> Sailplane,
> I had so much stickout of the parting tool that it was just slightly above center height.
> My machining mentor taught me a simple method that has been working for me. Take a 6 inch stainless ruler, run your cutting tool to the work, put the ruler in between the cutting tool and the work with very little pressure holding it. If the top of the ruler bends away from you, you're too high, straight up, your probably at center. I always see if I can get the ruler to bend ever so slightly towards me. Then I know for sure, I'm below center.
> Grasshopper


Never use the cut-off tool below center.  Dead on or a few thousandths high is preferred.  Scale method is really only applicable when doing full cut off operation, to get " close enough "  to what your machine can handle without " fighting " the tool.  Good Luck. 
.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Got all the rocker arms done a bit ago. Holding these tiny parts was a real challenge. I accidently juggled the container I had the rollers in and tossed them all over the shop. I found three of the 12 I had in the container. The rest are keeping the dust bunnies company.







After numerous attempts I finally succeeded in making one valve. I settled on a step method with a single cut to depth with roughly .25 steps. Only 15 more to go. I still have to put the seat on the valve but I'll do the valve seats the same time as I do the valve cages to make sure I get them at the same angle. These miniscule parts are a pain - very easy to shear off if you aren't very careful. And don't drop them otherwise you'll never see them again.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Did you deviate from the drawing? It looks like there is a radius cut into the under side of the rocker by the roller.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Steve, you have a good eye! The one on the left does have a radius where I overturned the rotating table. I used it for a test fit. The image below is a bit closer and should show in better detail the spring relief. I don't believe I deviated from the plans. All of the other rockers match this one - well at least half since the other half reverse offset.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Good deal. That material needs to be there.


----------



## rmalsen

stevehuckss396 said:


> I have plans for a V8. If you are interested send me an email and i'll send some information. [email protected]


----------



## rmalsen

This is awesome , this is what I wish to make can you help out Cheers Rob


----------



## rmalsen

stevehuckss396 said:


> I have plans for a V8. If you are interested send me an email and i'll send some information. [email protected]


I just bought the plans for this and the blower , they are very good , but not sure if I will make it very easy as I only work in metric


----------



## bluejets

rmalsen said:


> I just bought the plans for this and the blower , they are very good , but not sure if I will make it very easy as I only work in metric



In most instances it doesn't really matter so long as it is a close conversion.
Critical point is that whatever you make your part it matches your build.
1" = 25.4mm works for me.


----------



## rmalsen

bluejets said:


> In most instances it doesn't really matter so long as it is a close conversion.
> Critical point is that whatever you make your part it matches your build.
> 1" = 25.4mm works for me.


thanks for the heads up


----------



## SailplaneDriver

One completed head. I finished the other head first but the valves wound up proud. Steve Huck indicated that there is only .017 clearance between the valve and the piston if everything is built perfectly and I know that isn't going to happen with my skills. I'm in the process of removing the offending valve cages and making new ones. I should have two complete heads shortly.






Installing the e-clips onto the valve while holding down the spring and spring retainer can get real exciting. One slip and the spring retainer gets ejected at lightspeed somewhere as it bounces of you, the ceiling, walls and whatever other surface is close. At .21 diameter they are darned hard to find. Fortuately I made extras in anticipation of launching them into the abyss. With my luck a cat will eat one and need to go to the vet.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Here are the components which have achieved low earth orbit.


----------



## rmalsen

SailplaneDriver said:


> Got all the rocker arms done a bit ago. Holding these tiny parts was a real challenge. I accidently juggled the container I had the rollers in and tossed them all over the shop. I found three of the 12 I had in the container. The rest are keeping the dust bunnies company.
> 
> View attachment 113885
> 
> 
> After numerous attempts I finally succeeded in making one valve. I settled on a step method with a single cut to depth with roughly .25 steps. Only 15 more to go. I still have to put the seat on the valve but I'll do the valve seats the same time as I do the valve cages to make sure I get them at the same angle. These miniscule parts are a pain - very easy to shear off if you aren't very careful. And don't drop them otherwise you'll never see them again.
> 
> View attachment 113886


what do you make the values from ,what do you make the valve case from , and where can you get 1/16' drill rod x 1.475 long from for push rods 
thanks I'm new to this just starting my build


----------



## rmalsen

my first part ,timing cover


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Valves are made from 1/4" drill rod (silver steel for the UK). You can get it from most metal suppliers including Hobby Metal Kits.


----------



## rmalsen

Thanks for that so drill rod and silver steel are alike then . is that hard enough , sorry all new to this


----------



## SailplaneDriver

rmalsen said:


> Thanks for that so drill rod and silver steel are alike then . is that hard enough , sorry all new to this



Yes, it's hard enough. You can always heat treat it to improve the hardness but the plans don't call for it.


----------



## rmalsen

SailplaneDriver said:


> Yes, it's hard enough. You can always heat treat it to improve the hardness but the plans don't call for it.


thanks , do I make the Valve cages out of the same ,


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Drawings show the material. Valve cages are brass.


----------



## rmalsen

SailplaneDriver said:


> Drawings show the material. Valve cages are brass.


Sorry I did not find that on my drawings , thanks for heads ups


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Material type is typically in the bottom of the title block in the lower right corner of the drawings or noted next to the part. Looks like the material was not noted for the valve cages.

A word of advice. Ream the .250 holes in the head for the valve cages. Be sure to make the indicated hole depth or a slight bit deeper. Make the valve cages .0005 to .0015 larger than the reamed hole and be careful with the length of the large diameter of the valve cage. I neglected to ream my holes and my setup didn't accuately repeat hole depths or the length of the valve cages which created the problems I am now having with the valves sitting proud. There is only .017 clearance between the valve and the piston at top dead center so the valves need to be as close to flush as you can make them.

Also, set the lathe compound to 45 degrees and cut both the seats on the valves and the valve cages. Don't move the compound until you have all the valves and cages done. That way you are guaranteed to have the same angle on both. I cut the valve seats with the valve stem in a collet and the lathe running in reverse with the tool upside down.


----------



## teeleevs

rmalsen said:


> what do you make the values from ,what do you make the valve case from , and where can you get 1/16' drill rod x 1.475 long from for push rods
> thanks I'm new to this just starting my build


Bicycle spokes are 2mm approx 0.080" and are straight, either s steel or almost spring quality steel.


----------



## stevehuckss396

Look at the bottom right corner of the page. Material will be in the box. If there is something on that page NOT made out of that material it will have a note on the page near that part. 

Valves are drill rod
Cages are Brass
Push rods are drill rod but you could also use "music" or "spring" wire


----------



## peter smith

rmalsen said:


> what do you make the values from ,what do you make the valve case from , and where can you get 1/16' drill rod x 1.475 long from for push rods
> thanks I'm new to this just starting my build


I have built a few engines this one I built in the last 6 months, all made from drawings I have purchased from various places, some valves I have made from stainless and some from EN 24. I machine them as the picture using tailstock. m/c it to long then saw off the centre end, then make a small collet so you can face it to length and m/c the groove. I make push rods from piano wire available from model shops.
I have had very good success with this method, hope this helps you. If I can give you any more advise I will do my best.
  Cheers Pete.


----------



## rmalsen

rmalsen said:


> my first part ,timing coverView attachment 115321
> View attachment 115323


timing pointer now done


----------



## Carbuilder

Threads like this are great for people like myself who have started their own Little Demon. I'm working on the block now. I did notice that yours is going to be a little heavier than the original one.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Carbuilder said:


> I did notice that yours is going to be a little heavier than the original one.



I have not yet trimmed the sides of the block. I will do so after all the other machining is finished. I have not drilled through for the cam and crank and will not do so until I build those two. My test pieces for the crank have not gone well but I used aluminum. I'm going to practice again with 12L14 and see if that goes better. I only have manual machines so my progress is a bit slow.


----------



## Carbuilder

I was referring to the step in the face I've circled; the area that is machined out of the flat between the lifter galleries. I only noticed it because I'm at the stage of machining that area on mine and was trying to figure out where that step should be. It is sort of a result of the machining of the 2 lifter gallery areas. I don't think it is a functional surface, so it probably doesn't matter where that step is. I modelled up the block in Autodesk Inventor to get a better idea of how all the machining should look. 

Thank you very much for your postings and pictures. It really helps a lot. I found that I needed to model things up (especially the heads and intake) as it is hard to figure out from the drawings exactly what they look like. And this is from someone with almost 40 years of designing precision components!

It is this area I was referring to:


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Thanks, I see it now. Looks like I missed that feature when I milled the top of the lifter valley. What I missed is the .375 offset of the lifter valley from the front of the block shown on page 4. I'll pick it up when I drill for the distributor.


----------



## Carbuilder

What do you think of using PEEK for the spark plug insulators? Corian is pretty much impossible to find, especially with many businesses closed these days. So I bought a piece of PEEK. It is not expensive for the size needed here ($6 from McMaster-Carr for more than enough). I broke the first attempt, but the second one worked well. Easy to machine, slightly flexible. It is supposed to be good to temperatures higher than Corian can take. So I've made one spark plug....not perfect, but I'm pretty happy with it. I'd hate to make 7 more only to find out later that I shouldn't have used it.

One other question. What should the gap be for the spark plug? The plans use the tolerance of all the pieces to end up with a gap, but in case I've got things off a little, I can bend the outer electrode to adjust it. I suppose I can go through the plans and assume everything is dead-on and see what the gap should be, but how critical is it with the ignition system it uses?

thank you,
Rick


----------



## stevehuckss396

You can use anything you want to make them. Your model! What ever you make them out of, gap them at .015


----------



## Carbuilder

Thank you Steve for the quick reply. I just didn't want to hear "whatever you do, don't use PEEK!".


----------



## stevehuckss396

Deleted post


----------



## JohnH

I just read this post. Awesome work on this engine!
Can't wait to get mine started.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Looks like there are at least three of us working on the Li'l Demon. That's really cool. Keep the info coming.


----------



## johnl

Getting close, still a lot of small stuff to make and final assembly.


----------



## Carbuilder

Those brass carbs are beautiful! And the linkage is really something.


----------



## Carbuilder

My Little Demon block (partially finished) is having a soak in an Alum solution to dissolve out a broken tap and broken drill bit. The tap I blame myself, the drill bit I blame the mill.  

Rick
Bolton, Ontario, Canada


----------



## ozzie46

I had to do that once and it works faster if you put it on the stove and bring it to a simmer. Worked like a charm.
 Be sure to use a glass or aluminum pan.
Ron


----------



## Carbuilder

I’ve been putting it in the microwave every now and then to keep it hot. The first time I did this I put the measuring cup on the stove burner. CRACK! Then I read that it is not for stovetop use. My wife was not amused. I can see the tiny stream of bubbles coming from the steel parts, so it is working.


----------



## Peter Twissell

Kitchen engineering operations can be a source of domestic friction. I set a useful precedent when I used the oven to sweat the valve guides out of the cylinder head of my wife's bike!


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Carbuilder said:


> My Little Demon block (partially finished) is having a soak in an Alum solution to dissolve out a broken tap and broken drill bit. The tap I blame myself, the drill bit I blame the mill.



I feel your pain. I did the same thing to the oil pan. The alum works but you need to keep it hot.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Carbuilder said:


> I’ve been putting it in the microwave every now and then to keep it hot. The first time I did this I put the measuring cup on the stove burner. CRACK! Then I read that it is not for stovetop use. My wife was not amused. I can see the tiny stream of bubbles coming from the steel parts, so it is working.



I bought a cheap electric burner off Amazon and ceramic Corningware pan from eBay. For some reason, the spouse didn't want me using her Corningware or the stove top.


----------



## Carbuilder

Keeping it warm didn’t do much yesterday. I removed a broken tap from the carb this way, maybe the extra mass of the block is making it difficult to keep it hot. So I put it in the oven set at just below the boiling point and I’ll leave it for several hours. I can see more bubbles streaming from the steel parts, so I think it is working better.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

It took most of a day for me. You can pick out some of the loosened pieces to give the alum a better chance at getting to the remaining bits.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Novice question. I'm having no luck with the crankshaft. Bent another trial crank, this time with 12L14 instead of aluminum. I got through the four rod journals and was working on the farthest end from the spindle when it grabbed, spit out two "cookies" and bent the crank. I get lots of chatter and then the tool grabs. I have the tool as close to on center as I can get it and have it honed quite sharp. Using HSS at 180 rpm. Stock is 1" round.






The process I tried is to do all the offset turning first, the four rod journals. I mill away the excess of the furthest journal away from the spindle and turn it to size. I then mill away the second rod journal and stick a "cookie" in the first and turn. Rinse and repeat for the third and fourth. I then started to turn the crank end furthest from the spindle to size. That was where it grabbed and bent the crank.

Should I do the work sequentially from the end away from the spindle instead so that the crank is stiffer from the driven end?


----------



## Cogsy

For my V4 I milled all the excess away before I started any turning and then finish machined starting from the tailstock end and worked towards the spindle. I used 1144 stressproof which machines very nicely and is less prone to warping after machining.

I wonder about your 'cookies' and how well they fit. If they're not a tight fit your crank can flex and if they're too tight it'll bow. I made up some mini jack-screws just using a short bolt with an adjusting nut and a second nut to lock it in place.

I can't remember what tool I used for the crank ends but for the journals and mains I used a narrow parting blade which I ground a bifurcated end on, so that I basically had a narrow, combined, left and right handed cutter. It was no good for plunge cutting of course, but you just walk it side to side with a shallow depth of cut and it works well. Chatter was virtually nonexistent.


----------



## rrocky

Can any member tell me what I can use for the crankshaft instead of 1144, have tried to buy from USA but sellers say because of America export laws we decline the sale to you. I am in Australia


----------



## johwen

SailplaneDriver said:


> Novice question. I'm having no luck with the crankshaft. Bent another trial crank, this time with 12L14 instead of aluminum. I got through the four rod journals and was working on the farthest end from the spindle when it grabbed, spit out two "cookies" and bent the crank. I get lots of chatter and then the tool grabs. I have the tool as close to on center as I can get it and have it honed quite sharp. Using HSS at 180 rpm. Stock is 1" round.
> 
> View attachment 116772
> 
> 
> The process I tried is to do all the offset turning first, the four rod journals. I mill away the excess of the furthest journal away from the spindle and turn it to size. I then mill away the second rod journal and stick a "cookie" in the first and turn. Rinse and repeat for the third and fourth. I then started to turn the crank end furthest from the spindle to size. That was where it grabbed and bent the crank.
> 
> Should I do the work sequentially from the end away from the spindle instead so that the crank is stiffer from the driven end?


Hi John from down under! One of the ways I use is to rough out all the journals a bit at a time this seems to spread the turning load proportionately as you go. In your case I would suggest using a fixed steady to support  the shaft to turn the end main journals and i would shorten the length of the shaft to just over finished length this will reduce the flexing at the weak points where you have finished the journals. Looking at the photo you maybe could have chucked the shaft and turned the main journal at the head stock end and put no load on the  weaker areas. Hope this helps


----------



## minh-thanh

More..
Remove as little material as possible
When you adjust the tool or adjust something, rotate the chuck by hand before you turn on the lathe
calm down and be patient , Drink a cup of coffee if needed


----------



## mrehmus

There are some tricks to making a multi-plane crankshaft that we use to build crankshafts for the Black Widow V-8s which are supercharged and regularly run up to 10,000 RPM for short periods of time. We make them from 4130 or 4140 alloy steel (chromealloy) and they are not hardened. The majority of the metal is removed by milling so the final turning is relatively easy. An article on how to do this is in Issue #30 of Model Engine Builder but here are the major 'tricks' of the trade:
The raw crankshaft is supported everywhere but at the journal or throw this is being machined. Milling is done with a conventional cutter but the lathe work is with a specially ground tool.







Crankshaft reinforcement is a clamped sleeve in two parts.




Ready to rough mill another journal







The tool bit looks like this and is just slightly narrower than the width of the bearing surfaces so it can cut from cheek-to-cheek. Other than a final finish with abrasive cloth, this is the way the journals are brought down to almost final diameter. The tool bit cuts just slightly over one-half of the journal width. The tips of the tool HAVE to be parallel to the long axis of the crankshaft or you will get a 'stepped' bearing in the middle.
The crankshafts are not hardened and some of the engines are now over 15 years old with no rebuilds required even though they have endured running at many shows.
I hope this helps.
Mike Rehmus
Editor
Model Engine Builder magazine


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Good suggestions all.

Cogsy, the cookies were a good light press fit. They were tapered a couple of tenths on the rod journal end. The two that fell out were due to the twisting of the rod journals. I milled away the rod journals one at a time, not all at once, to minimize the twist they would be subjected to. That went reasonably well but there was a lot of chatter. My tool is wide, .163 with no center relief which may be the culpret. I tried a 3/32" parting toolbut it was worse due to the extensioin required to clear when offset turning. The tool I am using is much stiffer and resists twisting better. I think there is some twisting going on due to the length of the stock. The finished OAL will be 7". The stock I am using 12" long with the part centered. That leaves an extra 2.5" on each end so I can get a lathe dog on with clearance for the carriage and minimizes tailstock extension. I might be able to reduce this some.

Jowen, I'm doing all the turning between centers. I have debated about using my collet chuck for the mains and ends but was concerned about maintaining concentricity. Using a collet would be much easier and would eliminate most of the twisting issues. Would someone comment on using a collet for the mains and ends versus turning between centers? Flipping the part and using a steady sound like they are doable without concetricity issues. 

minh-than, ahh - stress relief. When things like this happen I just have to shut everything down, clean up, walk away, and reflect on what happened. The problem here is I don't have enough experience with long, single-piece crankshafts to figure out what I am doing wrong. This was a test run for learning purposes and failure was an option.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

mrehmus said:


> The raw crankshaft is supported everywhere but at the journal or throw this is being machined.



I previously tried a sleeve like that when I was using aluminum bar for tests. I used spiral thread hose clamps and it was not strong enough. I don't have a welder but I might be able to braze the cylinders on the end.



mrehmus said:


> The tool bit looks like this and is just slightly narrower than the width of the bearing surfaces so it can cut from cheek-to-cheek.



My tool bit is essentially that design without the center relief and wider. I will reduce the width and relieve the center. I can't believe how clean the grinde is on your tool. Was it done on a tool and cutter grinder or by hand?


----------



## mrehmus

SailplaneDriver said:


> I previously tried a sleeve like that when I was using an aluminum bar for tests. I used spiral thread hose clamps and it was not strong enough. I don't have a welder but I might be able to braze the cylinders on the end.
> 
> My tool bit is essentially that design without the center relief and wider. I will reduce the width and relieve the center. I can't believe how clean the grinder is on your tool. Was it done on a tool and cutter grinder or by hand?


The grind on the real tool bit can be seen in the first picture. Where it counts, the finish of the cutting edge is very good as it was finalized on one of those motorized diamond tool sharpeners. The picture of the bit by itself is actually a 3D drawing I made for illustration. So, yea, the finish is perfect. The horns are the only parts of the tool that need to be nicely finished.
Hose clamps are not strong enough. The clamp bits are brazed on the tubing. Brazing, according to one of the manufacturers I talked to is 3X as strong as the parent metal because the braze gets right down into grains of the metal.

Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?
Please, everyone, do not republish this article anywhere, it is copyrighted by me and is sort of a trial balloon. It is for the readers of this forum only.


----------



## Carbuilder

Have you seen Joe Pieczynski’s method? I haven't studied it enough to see if it would be applicable here, but the cool thing is that you are never turning anything too far out from the chuck/collet.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

mrehmus said:


> Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?



Wow! Thanks. This explains everything I needed to know. I've read through it once quickly and will read it again with the intent of adjusting fixtures to the design I have. Thanks again.


----------



## SailplaneDriver

Carbuilder said:


> Have you seen Joe Pieczynski’s method?



Yes. I really like Joe Pie's videos. Unfortunately with the 1" diameter of the crank it won't work for this application.


----------



## ozzie46

mrehmus said:


> The grind on the real tool bit can be seen in the first picture. Where it counts, the finish of the cutting edge is very good as it was finalized on one of those motorized diamond tool sharpeners. The picture of the bit by itself is actually a 3D drawing I made for illustration. So, yea, the finish is perfect. The horns are the only parts of the tool that need to be nicely finished.
> Hose clamps are not strong enough. The clamp bits are brazed on the tubing. Brazing, according to one of the manufacturers I talked to is 3X as strong as the parent metal because the braze gets right down into grains of the metal.
> 
> Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?
> Please, everyone, do not republish this article anywhere, it is copyrighted by me and is sort of a trial balloon. It is for the readers of this forum only.


Sent you a message.
Ron


----------



## bluejets

rrocky said:


> Can any member tell me what I can use for the crankshaft instead of 1144, have tried to buy from USA but sellers say because of America export laws we decline the sale to you. I am in Australia



Also from Aus....... 4140 .
Seems available most steel suppliers.


----------



## peterl95124

judging from the photo with the bent crankshaft, I'd say that your
crank pins are way too small in diameter. I have an engine with 1" 
bore whose main journals are 5/8" and crank pins are 1/2". Larger
pins are both stronger and are better for wear.
HTH, YMMV,
Peter Lawrence.


----------



## stevehuckss396

The od of the bronze bearing is 5/16 so you could increase the size of the crank throw to .3115 and make the rod all bronze. That would eliminate the bushing and maybe make the crankshaft a little easier.


----------



## rrocky

mrehmus said:


> The grind on the real tool bit can be seen in the first picture. Where it counts, the finish of the cutting edge is very good as it was finalized on one of those motorized diamond tool sharpeners. The picture of the bit by itself is actually a 3D drawing I made for illustration. So, yea, the finish is perfect. The horns are the only parts of the tool that need to be nicely finished.
> Hose clamps are not strong enough. The clamp bits are brazed on the tubing. Brazing, according to one of the manufacturers I talked to is 3X as strong as the parent metal because the braze gets right down into grains of the metal.
> 
> Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?
> Please, everyone, do not republish this article anywhere, it is copyrighted by me and is sort of a trial balloon. It is for the readers of this forum only.





mrehmus said:


> The grind on the real tool bit can be seen in the first picture. Where it counts, the finish of the cutting edge is very good as it was finalized on one of those motorized diamond tool sharpeners. The picture of the bit by itself is actually a 3D drawing I made for illustration. So, yea, the finish is perfect. The horns are the only parts of the tool that need to be nicely finished.
> Hose clamps are not strong enough. The clamp bits are brazed on the tubing. Brazing, according to one of the manufacturers I talked to is 3X as strong as the parent metal because the braze gets right down into grains of the metal.
> 
> Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?
> Please, everyone, do not republish this article anywhere, it is copyrighted by me and is sort of a trial balloon. It is for the readers of this forum only.





mrehmus said:


> The grind on the real tool bit can be seen in the first picture. Where it counts, the finish of the cutting edge is very good as it was finalized on one of those motorized diamond tool sharpeners. The picture of the bit by itself is actually a 3D drawing I made for illustration. So, yea, the finish is perfect. The horns are the only parts of the tool that need to be nicely finished.
> Hose clamps are not strong enough. The clamp bits are brazed on the tubing. Brazing, according to one of the manufacturers I talked to is 3X as strong as the parent metal because the braze gets right down into grains of the metal.
> 
> Why don't I just publish the entire article here as a PDF?
> Please, everyone, do not republish this article anywhere, it is copyrighted by me and is sort of a trial balloon. It is for the readers of this forum only.


 Thank you for posting this it has helped me so much RRocky


----------



## retailer

rrocky said:


> Can any member tell me what I can use for the crankshaft instead of 1144, have tried to buy from USA but sellers say because of America export laws we decline the sale to you. I am in Australia


I made my crank from bar stock I picked up on Gumtree, the seller said he was quite sure it was 4140, I experienced all of the usual issues crank flexing , chatter etc but I took it real easy I can't recall how much I fed the tool in for each cut but think it was only about 0.005" (about .12mm), as you proceed the crank becomes more flexy, so I would take a cut and make 3 or 4 passes at the same setting, I reasoned that as the crank was flexing, a 0.005" thou cut would probably amount to only 0.003" or so being removed and if I had fed the tool in another 0.005" then the actual depth of cut would be 0.005" + the 0.002" left from the previous cut or 0.007" in total, as you proceed this may compound and eventually the depth of cut is too great and bang!


----------



## rrocky

Thank you for the info I will go with that cheers Peter


----------



## SailplaneDriver

stevehuckss396 said:


> The od of the bronze bearing is 5/16 so you could increase the size of the crank throw to .3115 and make the rod all bronze. That would eliminate the bushing and maybe make the crankshaft a little easier.



Thanks for the suggestion but I'm going to stick with the original design. The issue is my skills and abilities. Lots of other people have had success with these dimensions so I should be able to as well. Changing the sequence of operations and adding the clamp fixture will hopefully correct the issue.


----------



## mertkan37

[QUOTE = "stevehuckss396, gönderi: 241505, üye: 645"]
V8 için planlarım var. Eğer ilgileniyorsanız bana bir e-posta gönderin ve bazı bilgiler göndereceğim. [email protected]





[/ALINTI]
Merhaba planlar konusunda yardimcı olurmusun...


----------

