I started a set of pushrods last year in order to get some of the high volume work done before the Texas heat set in. At that time I was able to machine only one end of the rods since the head design wasn't yet complete, and I was unsure of the final length. There's a total of 14 stacked machined parts with tolerances that affect this length, and so there is also a lash adjustment on the end of each rocker arm. To determine the exact final length, I made up a variable length pushrod and trial-fitted it in six different positions around the engine. This empirically determined length came out to within .010" of my design value, and fortunately the length was correct for all six positions.
After determining the pushrod length, I made a fixture to cut my batch of semi-finished rods to their final length + .003" using a slitting saw and fixture on my mill. The second end was then turned to a hemisphere using my 9x20 lathe and the CAM program I developed last year for the other end.
Although the 3/32" diameter pushrods look at home on my H-9, they're a bit too skinny looking in front of the massive heads on this engine. In my scrap collection I found a bag of 3"-6" drops of hardened hypodermic stock with the proper i.d. to slip over my rods to increase their o.d.'s to nearly 1/8". Unfortunately, both ends of the tubes had been crushed flat and would not fit into my lathe's collet chuck so I first rough cut the ends using an abrasive disk in a fixture on my mill, and then I finished them in the lathe. I heat treated the sleeves, not for any metallurgical reason, but for the dark color that the heat imparted to them. One of the photos shows a side-by-side comparison of the sleeved and un-sleeved rods.
With the pushrods completed, I was anxious to install a pair of rocker arm assemblies and run a first compression test on one of the cylinders to sanity check my work up to this point. Unfortunately, my compression gage would not fit between the rocker assemblies on the front row of cylinders due to an interference with the gage's pressure release button. I was able, though, to make a test on one of the rear cylinders thanks to the head geometry differences between the front and rear row cylinders.
The next problem I ran into was created by my jury-rigged oil tank. Without proper flow control, the engine quickly flooded with oil when the crankshaft was spun fast enough to get a consistent compression test. I rigged up a temporary flow-controller using a cheap aquarium air flow regulator purchased from a local pet supply store. Then I reluctantly added an extension to my compression gage to get the release button above the rocker assemblies. This was a lot easier said than done, though, and I spent an entire day chasing leaks in my gage created by the modification. I also had to make a special box wrench to access the lock nuts on the lash adjusters. The few tiny commercial wrenches I had on hand were too awkward to use in the rocker arm slots in the rocker boxes.
During my H-9 build, I estimated the engine's expected compression test pressures based on the simple formula:
Ptest = (CR)(Pman),
where CR is the static compression ratio, and Pman is the engine's manifold pressure. Pman is 14.7psi for a normally aspirated engine.
For my H-9's compression ratio of 5, the expected pressure was (5)(14.7)=74 psi, and all its cylinders measured to within 10% of this value just after the engine was first assembled.
This simple formula, though, does not take into account the cylinder's volumetric efficiency or the adiabatic heating of the compressed air charge during the test. A more complete expression is:
Ptest = (Veff)(CR^1.33)(Pman),
where Veff is the volumetric efficiency and is typically 0.6 during a cranking test. The 1.33 is a specific heat term to account for the self-heating of the compressed air in the combustion chamber during the test.
When the H-9's compression ratio is plugged into this equation:
Ptest = (.6)(5^1.33)(14.7) = 75 psi.
The two correction terms in the more complete expression work to offset one another, and for low CR's they nearly cancel. This is not the case, though, for higher CR's found in full-size engines or in model competition engines where the full equation is more applicable. For example, with a compression ratio of 10 the simple equation gives 147 psi while the more complete expression gives 189 psi.
The H-9 compression ratio of 5 that I've been using is considerably lower than the advertised 6.7 for that engine. I believe the difference is due to the fact that the cylinder's thread relief clearance as well as the head gasket thickness were not accounted for in the original calculation. Due to the small combustion chamber volume, the compression ratio is very sensitive to these relatively small errors. I eventually verified my H-9 calculation with a burette test on one of my spare H-9 heads. Since I used the same combustion chamber geometry for my T-18 heads, I'm assuming the compression ratio of this engine is 5 as well.
Because the compression gage adds a portion of its own volume to the combustion chamber during the test, the raw readings need to be corrected for the additional volume below the gage's check valve. I had to modify my gage's correction factor when I added the extension needed to clear my rocker assemblies. Another issue that one has to be aware of when making compression tests on small model engines is excessive oil in the combustion chamber. An innocent looking puddle of oil on the top of a piston can raise the compression ratio of that cylinder significantly. My new engine stand allowed me to rotate the engine while I was installing the rocker arm assemblies and pushrods. When I started making the compression tests I wasn't being careful to return the engine to its full upright position before making each test. Since the oil return channels in the bottom of the crankcase were no longer at the lowest point in the engine, the crankcase partially filled with oil causing certain pistons, depending upon their locations, to pump oil into their cylinders. When I ran compression tests on those cylinders I found the pressures to be higher than expected. In fact, on one cylinder the excess oil had raised the compression high enough to damage the meter on my gage and it had to be replaced. I learned it was necessary to soak up the oil in those cylinders with Q-tips before running compression checks.
Obtaining absolute numbers in a compression test is a pretty dicey exercise. It might not even be all that meaningful, especially in a model engine where the combustion chamber is so tiny, and so many small effects can contribute errors. In any event, with a target value of 75psi, my compression test results were:
#1=65psi, #3=75psi , #5=67psi, #7=61psi,
#9=80psi, #11=80psi, #13=80psi, #15=68psi, #17=77psi,
#2=72psi, #4=68psi , #6=70psi, #8=71psi,
#10=81psi, #12=77psi, #14=64psi , #16=67psi, #18=65psi.
The high readings on the three very bottom cylinders (9, 10, 11) are likely a result of these cylinders, behind their pistons, being filled with crankcase oil during the test. These three or four tablespoons of oil in these inverted cylinders insured the rings were absolutely sealed. The fact that the readings were 80psi instead of 75psi probably indicates an error in my gage's calibration or correction factor. This oil drainage problem is one of the 'features' of a radial. Under power, the scavenger pump and windage keep these areas from filling with oil. But when the engine is shut down, crankcase oil drains back into these areas and contributes to the billowing smoke typically seen on start-up.
I don't plan to do any 'motoring' to 'break-in' the rings. The compression test results show the rings are sealing pretty well as installed. After doing a lot of thinking about this 'motoring-in stuff', I've come to my own conclusion that it's not a good idea.
At best, I feel it does nothing useful because there's no combustion pressure to push the rings hard against the cylinder walls which is required to properly seat them. Even with the pistons working against their cylinders' own compression only a fraction of the required pressure is produced compared to what's generated when the engine is running under power.
At worst, without this high pressure, motoring a new set of rings in a new cylinder might cause their surfaces to glaze over and then delay or even inhibit break-in. In my mind, it's a bit analogous to a cutting tool rubbing against a workpiece when the chip load is too low.
I reluctantly ran two quarts of oil through this engine only because I felt I had to thoroughly verify my new and unproven oiling system before the engine was allowed to run under its own power when an oil failure could be catastrophic. It took about 30 minutes of total run time spread over several days to flush the two quarts of oil through the engine. If I had thought out the assembly process a little more, the engine would have been flushed without the rings installed. The torque needed to spin the crankshaft changed from 17 in-lbs to 15 in-lbs as a result of the flush, and the decrease was likely due to ring wear. Hopefully, it will turn out to be beneficial to the break-in. With all the pushrods but none of the spark plugs installed, the torque required to spin the crankshaft remained at 15 in-lbs. This indicates the frictional losses related to the cams are insignificant when compared to those of the 54 piston rings.
The next and final steps in the engine assembly is to install and time the distributors and to come up with a spark plug harness. I'm still about a month away from attempting to start the engine, though. I still have to design and build the final mounting and control components including a firewall, fuel and oil tanks, fuel pump, tach, throttle control, and electrical wiring. - Terry