Stuart 10v

[Richard Hed]

Between centres if you like, but a stub mandrel held in a chuck and turned in situ may be easier.

Thanx for that, yes easier, and with this new Grizz (have only had it since January), it should be a snap either way. Thing is, I totally have put the 10v and 10H cylinders on hold since I am doing most of my work on other projects including making much needed tools for the Grizz including ER40 (badly made, will have to redo it sometime) ER50 (still expensive chucks, waiting for price drop), ER 32, radius turner (current NEED). Can you suggest anything else that I would not need a mill for? I do not have a mill and am working the pea, bean and corn harvest this summer, currently working, the ideal mill would be like
Grizzly G0757 - 9" x 39" 2 HP Horizontal/Vertical Mill with Power Feed.

That is a very nice mill but quite costly too. My son, who wants to make guns, is going to help on the cost, so that will help a lot. Also, I have my eye on a much cheaper one in Walla Walla which is a two headed "copy lathe". It has two heads and a follower. Well, I won't be doing much copying so the follower is the wrong thing. I would have to remove it and put a traversing handle (hopefully with powerfeed). This could be expensive. Generally, I believe, the two heads would not be needed togetehr. However, there are some odd things about this two-headed monster (a Bridgeport) that are strangely nice: the heads can be moved individually left and right on a sliding mechanism. If one is making more than one identical object, one could do them in tandem. Strange for a hobby mill.

There was a nice Bridgeport in New Joisey for 2700$ but that would cost me at least another 1000$ for transportation. Not going to happen. There are quite a few actually but most are too far away to consider seriously. The Grizzly G0757 is so attractive, even at that high price that when I drop this or that lower priced machine, that I always go back to it. A horizontal section is always useful, I had one, a cincinatti (1964) that had a horizontal "attachment" (don't know what it's called, capability?) But that was STOLEN! (Please don't ask, it's too long a story and too disheartening to tell.) Since you are in UK, you most likely could not advise what to buy from your country.

 

[Richard Hed]

It's just an engine number, same as the likes of PM Research use. The Stuarts tend to get smaller as the number goes up.

Engines with an A suffix are the more recent ones with A frame trunk guides, earlier ones had a single guide in the cast standard and a diagonal brace much like the current No1

This site gives a good description of all the engines that Stuarts have produced over the years.
http://stuartturnersteam.com/
As I said for a cylinder this size I would do it in the chuck so not really worth making a boring table, that's assuming you have a mill for doing other parts.

No mill--that's a lot of the problem. But see my other post on working this summeer.

 

[Jasonb]

Should not really stop you, many models have been made on just a lathe back in the day. Did my Minnie traction engine on just a lathe.

 

[Richard Hed]

Should not really stop you, many models have been made on just a lathe back in the day. Did my Minnie traction engine on just a lathe.

It doesn't stop me, but it certainly slows me down. And since I am determined to get a mill this summer, I am just doing (in spare time, as I now have a job) the easy stuff on a lathe. Will save the other stuff for a mill which will be easy on the mill.

 

[Steamchick]

Hi Richard,
I would be tempted to tap a few holes and bolt-on a factory mad t-slotted plate. When I find one I'll probably do that to my lathe, as at the moment I just have one hole I made to bolt-down a back-tool-post for a parting tool.
K2

 

[Richard Hed]

Hi Richard,
I would be tempted to tap a few holes and bolt-on a factory mad t-slotted plate. When I find one I'll probably do that to my lathe, as at the moment I just have one hole I made to bolt-down a back-tool-post for a parting tool.
K2

I have lots of room behind the cross slide that I could do that and leave the slide alone. I will most likely wait on that till the warrantee is over so there is no misunderstandings lest something fail. Where might one find a factory made t-slotted plate?

 

[Jasonb]

Try putting "tee slotted table" into google. several of the UK suppliers to the hobby do them so expect you should have some over there too

 

[Steamchick]

Just checked (Googled!) and found this. Great deals from RDGTOOLS ONLINE LTD | eBay Shops
But years ago I saw a flat plate at a show, and didn't buy it. I thought it was too big, and wasn't sure I would ever need it... These various tee-slotted fixture are more suited to mounting for milling, but depending on the size of your lathe may be a useful addition?
Actually, I have a small vertical slide - that mounts with a single bolt - so I can use that mounted either instead of the tool post( a bit high ) or tap a hole on the cross slide where I need it, if the "back-tool-post" tapped hole is in the wrong place. And I have various angle plates that have been used similarly on various previous lathes...
Lots of ideas?

 

[Steamchick]

Maybe?
New Tee Slotted Milling Table - 4" x 5" | Chronos Engineering Supplies
New Tee Slotted Milling Table - 4" x 5" from Chronos Engineering Supplies. Free UK delivery and great worldwide rates.

www.chronos.ltd.uk
A bit limited here in Blighty!
K

 

[Richard Hed]

Maybe?
New Tee Slotted Milling Table - 4" x 5" | Chronos Engineering Supplies
New Tee Slotted Milling Table - 4" x 5" from Chronos Engineering Supplies. Free UK delivery and great worldwide rates.

www.chronos.ltd.uk
A bit limited here in Blighty!
K

I went to their website--it really sux. Not only tht, I thimpfk it is for UK. The cost of shipping to US is probably high.

 

[swarf]

Let's give this another shot. Bore turned out good. Cylinder ends machine true and equally. Getting ready to lay out lines to machine port face.

 

[Steamchick]

Port spacing and land between is critical. "Measure twice and machine once".
K2

 

[swarf]

Progressing...

 

[swarf]

Finally been able to get out to the garage and destroy some metal.
Working on the rear cylinder cover.
1st mistake, cut off the cover before I had drilled and tapped for the gland nut. Realized I could get away with it luckily.
2nd mistake drilled to a depth of 5/16 when it should have been 9/32, then walked away.
Stupid mistakes but good experience and am having fun.

 

[ShopShoe]

Richard,

You could probably get started with a smaller mill to make some of your smaller pieces. That approach would also give you a chance to develop your milling skills and investigate different tooling options and techniques.

I agree that that may not be the best way to do it, but I think you would enjoy making faster progress on your projects if you had a mill.

In my own case, I waited way too long to buy even a lathe because I wanted to start with a large machine. Finally, I realized most of the things I wanted to make to support my other hobbies were within the work envelope of a small lathe so went ahead that way. Same with a mill: I would like a Bridgeport, but most of what I make is smaller.

Don't forget the money you'll spend on tooling and accessories: smaller machines make it easier to spend money on experimentation.

And of course, even if you got a large mill, you might want a smaller one alongside it eventually anyway.

--ShopShoe

 

[Richard Hed]

Richard,

You could probably get started with a smaller mill to make some of your smaller pieces. That approach would also give you a chance to develop your milling skills and investigate different tooling options and techniques.

I agree that that may not be the best way to do it, but I think you would enjoy making faster progress on your projects if you had a mill.

In my own case, I waited way too long to buy even a lathe because I wanted to start with a large machine. Finally, I realized most of the things I wanted to make to support my other hobbies were within the work envelope of a small lathe so went ahead that way. Same with a mill: I would like a Bridgeport, but most of what I make is smaller.

Don't forget the money you'll spend on tooling and accessories: smaller machines make it easier to spend money on experimentation.

And of course, even if you got a large mill, you might want a smaller one alongside it eventually anyway.

--ShopShoe

Thanx for the advice. I have tghe mill but I still need to set it up. Unfortunaely, I am in the Philippines at the moment and cannot do anything with it.

 

[swarf]

Have been on this project on and off and am currently breaking in the main bearings.
Turns absolutely until you snug up the nuts and then the crank was pretty hard to turn.
I started to break it in on the lathe and even with a good supply of oil the mains got real warm.
Ran a reamer through the mains it helped but still somewhat stiff.
Thinking I should have drilled and reamed with the bearings in place, in any case it looks like it should wear in with time.

 

[Steamchick]

Hi "swarf". Just a reminder... so you do not drift into bad practices..
This thread is all about Model Engine Machining. So really you should machine precisely to the right size, then instead of the approach of "a tight fit and wear it in" you start at "the right fit - first time" - which curiously lasts much longer than the "worn-in" method. - Which is why "Industry" has spent a small fortune working to finer and finer tolerances so your car (and other modern "necessities") has become relatively cheap, Incredibly durable, and maintenance free for a long-enough life.
When I started (around 1966) in a machine shop doing re-bores and crank regrinds, the NORM was for every petrol engine to need new rings or small re-bore after 10,000miles, but a larger re-bore if it had been run for 20,000 miles... Cranks lasted 20.000 miles before a re0-grind to first oversize. - NOW it is 150~250.000 miles before any sign of significant wear on the bore, and more of wear on the crank.
All this achieved by making parts true, and closely fitted "as new".
SO I suggest that having reamed the bearings all in one in-line, there is actually a difference between the size of reamer and crankshaft main bearing journals. - Or possibly some misalignment of the crank main journals. (because the set-up can distort the crank.. leading to journals machined on that set-up to become out-of-alignment when the set-up stresses are released).
If you reset the crank in the lathe, between centres, then put a DTI along the journals, you may spot the "bend" of the crank between journals. BUT you will need to pack between the flanks of the crank in order to NOT distort the crank when you fit the tailstock centre. use Engineer's blue (of felt-pen marker) on the journals and recheck the "touch" point of the lathe tool on all journals. It should be at EXACTLY the same setting on the lathe dials. Then when you are absolutely sure that the crank is NOT distorted in any way by the set-up, just "touch" any high-spots of the crank main journals with the tool while the part is rotating, to "true" the journals to a sizes that is less than 0.001" than the micrometer measures the reamer you have used. - Remember if it is a tapered reamer, the first 1/3rd will be under sized as it has a taper for starting the reaming process. Making a true and straight shaft the fits the true and straight bearings (reamed in line) is the key to a smooth running - from NEW. The adage "Wearing -in" is truly "ACCELERATED WEARING-OUT" the engine, I.E. giving the finished engine a short life from a worn-out condition. It is really a bodge to overcome deficiencies in the manufacturing process.
However, there is a process of "LAPPING" - This uses VERY fine abrasives, to "grind-off" the peaks of machines surfaces, - but not remove more than the amount necessary to make a finer finish than the machining tool can do. This is best described by the HONING process on bores, where a precision set grind-stone, of grit much finer than the cutting pitch of the tool that was used for boring, is used to take off the "Peaks" from the machined surface to leave 50 or so as a rubbing" surface, and 50% or so for "storage of oil". (Not exactly true but the simplest explanations are often not quite true).

I hope this sketch helps?
As long as the crank measures "true" (straight and parallel at the journals with the DTI) and "SIZE" (same as the reamer/bearings) then you can remove tightness by linishing "high-spots" where the bearings can wipe-off the marking blue, when assembled and rotated.. But check it is crank or bearings that need the linishing! Use the shank of a drill, reamer, length of silver-steel or equivalent test bar, at the size of the crank journal, fit it into the bearings, - duly tightened - and rotate to the bearings, and rotate to see if the bearings are "wiped" all the way around and all the way along. If you get a line "top and bottom" of the split bearings, this indicates a bearing that is not round when clamped. If you get a wiped circle at one end or the other of the bearing, then it suggests the bearings are tapered. If you get odd, diagonally opposite wiped zones, the bearings are not aligned. Only when the bearings are good with a test piece should you look to the crank. By "Wiped" I mean the Engineers' Blue has either transferred form one surface to another, or been wiped off a surface, indicating the contact points between shaft and bearing surfaces, within the bearing.
Equally, on the test shaft - and again with the crank, - the contact point should tell the same story.
Depending of "shaft journal size" and "bearing size" you can decide if the shaft needs reducing (linishing) a tiny amount to fit the reamed bearings, or if the alignment of the bearings needs addressing. (Re-set to a true test-bar, not the reamer's cutting edges, or crank).
I hope some of this helps?
Ask where you want more explanation, as there are many more capable than I who can advise or correct any errors I have made. (I learn as much as I teach!).
Cheers!
K2
On the crank, the

 

[AndrewW]

Have been on this project on and off and am currently breaking in the main bearings.
Turns absolutely until you snug up the nuts and then the crank was pretty hard to turn.
I started to break it in on the lathe and even with a good supply of oil the mains got real warm.
Ran a reamer through the mains it helped but still somewhat stiff.
Thinking I should have drilled and reamed with the bearings in place, in any case it looks like it should wear in with time.

Hi swarf. As I recall I experienced a similar issue. The base of the bearings only need to be a fraction of a thou out to cause the crank to run tight when the nuts are tightened. I think I placed a shim (kitchen foil) under one of the bearings to get the crank to run freely.
Experiment and give it a try.
Cheers
Andrew

 

[swarf]

Steamchick and Andrew
Lol the damage is done. Talk about eating a slice of humble pie.
Need new bearing material and pretty sure my crank is bent somewhat and the bearings are worn.
To save some time and money what 9/32" round stock could I use?