Simple horizontal Mill Engine

Find deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks for the plans. It would help if all of these plans (not just this one) were available as DWG of DXF so that they could be converted to inch or metric. Just re figuring dimensions can get you in trouble because rounding up on one piece and rounding down on a mating piece can make for interference fits.
 
Gordon said:
Thanks for the plans. It would help if all of these plans (not just this one) were available as DWG of DXF so that they could be converted to inch or metric. Just re figuring dimensions can get you in trouble because rounding up on one piece and rounding down on a mating piece can make for interference fits.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why your writting this. Why don't you build it
in metric after all all digital tools are both metric and imperial:confused:
 
Stew,
Thanks for posting the plans. I don't know if I'll ever build it but as usual, whenever I look at someone's plans I see some good ideas for other models I may tackle.

Phil
 
Last edited:
canadianhorsepower said:
I don't understand why your writting this. Why don't you build it
in metric after all all digital tools are both metric and imperial:confused:
Click to expand...

Because the majority of my tools are not digital. That and after working my whole life in inch sizes, my mind does not automatically think in metric sizes. If someone tells me something is 3/8" (.375) I immediately can visualize that. If someone tells be that something is 15 mm I have to convert it to something I can visualize.

As I said that is not a reflection on the designer or the plans. It is a reflection on the backward thinking USA.

Actually I frequently redraw plans in CAD even when the plans are in inch size because it makes me understand the plans better and I can make my mistakes on paper instead of in metal.
 
Another issue with us folks that work with the imperial dimensioning system is the fact of stock sizes. Our sheet stock and shafting is available in 1/8 =(.125), 3/16/= (.187), 1/4= (.250), 3/8= (.375) etc... When a drawing is provided in meteric dimensions it will specify 5mm=(.197), 6mm=(.236), 7mm=(.276), 8mm=(.315) and so on. As you can see there is a definite difference so when converting plans you need to take this into consideration as well and accomodate in other areas on the plan such as center distances, bolt hole positioning etc... One is basically redesigning and laying out the plan to make sure everything fits and works together in harmony. I am presently doing this with a set of plans sent to me for the BONZER hit-n-miss engine from Australia ( Thread on this engine found in the "Finished Projects" section of HMEM). Initially, it looked rather simple and for an individual part by itself it is, however, when you need to insure proper mating fits, stroke lengths, centers, etc... between these individual parts the job becomes more involved and time consuming. Now, please understand I must do this the old fashioned way with T-square, compass, pencil, eraser and long hand trig as I do not own a CAD program. I believe the same holds true when you need to convert an imperial edrawing to metric.

Greg
 
Hey, that is a nice looking engine. Fairly simple, as you say, but it has a lot of style. Thanks for the plans :)
 
Maybe its just my living in metric countries for a quarter or so of my life, but I'm comfortable using either system. I prefer inches, but metric makes the math a lot more tolerable. The only thing that grinds my gears is popping the hood of a new car or truck that has a combination of both systems! I'd rather make out with the belt sander....
 
An observation from abroad: since many of you seem to machine every component All Over so as to get a good surface for your "bling factor", does it really matter what size the material was originally? Just count yourselves lucky to be able to buy "stock" sizes of any sort.

How would you cope with Chinese dimensions? I have a perfectly valid 12-inch rule, bought in Taiwan, which has 12 Inches on one edge of one face and 10 "Chinese inches" (whatever they call 'em) covering (nearly) the same span on the other edge of the same face. Luckily, the other face has conventional Metric markings. But imagine, if you will, the difficulty for a Chinaman trying to buy a digital caliper that can swap between mm and "Chinese inch" and Imperial Inch.

Meantime, a big thank-you to Stew for his plans - I notice they don't dimension to silly decimal-fractions of a gnat's cock. He assumes, quite rightly, that the skill comes from the builder/maker/machinist, to both judge where open-tolerance is acceptable and where sensible limits would be a good-idea-if-only-I-can-do-it.

Geoff
 
Playing the Devil's advocate a bit - Stew's drawing is actually dimensionless! With the exception of threads, you could quite happily build it using the same numbers in millimetres, inches, or "Chinese inches" (though the later would be quite big at 488mm bore!)

Since some of you prefer fractional-inch "stuff", you could simply apply a scale-factor so the 16 (inch) bore became 2inch and all the 3-dimensions become 3/8 etc.

Many of you CAD fans would see that, quite wrongly, as .375, implying a tolerance of +/- .002 to a bit of stuff that originally had open-tolerance of +/- 1/64

Many (most?) of the world's great model-makers didn't have CAD to represent every dimension to N-decimal-places. They only applied tight tolerances to parts that mattered, leaving the rest as fractions. Funnily enough, most of the early engine-makers did likewise, reserving critical machining for those parts where a bastard-file just wouldn't do.

Geoff
 
Thanks for your interest guys

Playing the Devil's advocate a bit - Stew's drawing is actually dimensionless! With the exception of threads, you could quite happily build it using the same numbers in millimetres, inches, or "Chinese inches" (though the later would be quite big at 488mm bore!)

Its drawn up in mm but most sizes will convert to inch ie 6mm use 1/4" etc etc the idea is to use standard stock sizes to reduce the amount of maching I've also tried to use low cost material keeping away from brass and phos bronze as much as I can

You can scale it to any size you want, as the man said its you're engine you can make it how you want.

Just have fun playing arround with it and remember if any one makes one we want to see some pictures

Stew
 
I have got to put my three pence worth in here,I have allways maintained,rightly or wrongly that in model engineering that as long as the two parts fit the actual size within a few thou is neither here or there,for instance if an engine bore is drawn at 5/8" does it make any difference if its .630" or .620" ?;). There Ive had my say so i'm happy now
Don
 
In my work, I have a pdf to .dxf converter, it works on pdf's that were "printed" from a dxf. It will not convert it if it is a scan.
Glad it was of some help
 
When going from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric, the sizes generally don't matter as long as everything that is relevant is changed also. For example, 1/4" or 6mm shaft dia. So long as any holes that the shaft go in are made to suit. Model makers with a few engines under their belt should realise what is important or not regarding fits.

Paul.
 
That's what I was trying to say Paul
Don
 
I downloaded the plans.
Cant promise I will build it.
Tin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SBWHART
Miniature "Potty" Lads and Dads Open Frame Horizontal Mill Engine
Replies
1
Views
567
minh-thanh
minh-thanh
R
Horizontal Twin
2 3
Replies
40
Views
6K
Rdean33422
R
celsoari
horizontal milling attachment
Replies
1
Views
682
ShopShoe
ShopShoe
bmac2
Mini Mill Fine Feed
Replies
3
Views
733
a41capt
a41capt
F
Potty Mill horizontal steam engine
Replies
0
Views
835
fbonte
F

Latest posts

Back
Top