Another Knucklehead Build

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.
For me, the trickiest machining operation on the cylinders turned out to be cutting the radial notches which will eventually be used to access the nuts on the head studs. Before giving it much thought, I figured I'd machine them using a custom ground cutter on the end of a boring bar. When time came to do it, I realized the bar's diameter would have to be impractically small in order to have any clearance between it and the cylinder's o.d. during the operation. So, I looked into using a modified Woodruff cutter instead.

As the drawing below shows, the Woodruff cutter has pretty much the same problem. The notches have to be deep enough so the nuts, with a bit of clearance around them, can sit flat on their mounting surface which will be the underside of the second upper fin. Using small pattern 8-32 nuts, the 7/8" diameter circular notch called out in the cylinder drawing will work although with little to no margin. The diameter of the cutter's shank, which must be small enough to clear the adjacent fins, is still the issue.

I had a 7/8" diameter HSS Woodruff cutter that I modified by turning down a portion of its shank. I used a triangular diamond insert that I scored off eBay many years ago but until now had no use for. Because of some limitations created by the shape of the insert, its tool holder, and the small working envelope, I had to turn down more of the shank's length than I wanted. (A tool post grinder was really needed here.) In any event, even though I needed the shank to be 3/32" in diameter, I gave up when I reached 3/16" since the cutter already looked too fragile to be usable in steel. This 3/16" cutter is in fact the one modeled in the below drawing, and it clearly shows there's still interference with the cylinder's o.d..

Since Steve had successfully cut these notches during his build, I emailed him to ask how he had done it. He replied with a photo of his Woodruff cutter with its ground down shank. Even though he had managed to make his cutter work, I wasn't at all confident in my ability to do the same with mine.

I considered using a larger diameter cutter with a correspondingly larger diameter shank. Modeling showed, however, that in order to get inside my comfort zone the notches would wind up wide enough to compromise the appearance of the cylinders.

I eventually decided to vertically mill the notches including their circular shapes since this would totally eliminate the clearance issue. Vertical milling would also allow me to reduce their widths and perhaps even improve the cylinders' appearance a bit. The notches really need only be wide enough to provide wrench access for turning the nuts 30 degrees, or so, at a time. I was able to check this before they were machined by printing out their design in full-scale on paper so I could lay an actual wrench and nut on top of them.
The notches were roughed out with an 1/8" carbide ball mill, and then finished with a 3/32" carbide ball mill. The minimum diameter of the finishing tool was limited by the availability of a cutter with enough flute length to handle the notches' full depths. The finishing cutter would leave a .047" radius fillet on the nuts' mounting surface, and so the notches had to be deepened by this same amount. Fortunately, there was enough material between the rear of the notches and the cylinder's bore to allow this.

Roughing operations are typically performed with a cylindrical end mill, but in this case a cylindrical cutter would have left unsightly grooves in the filleted areas that the finishing pass wouldn't have been able to clean up.

The cylinders were returned to the 5C mandrel that was then chucked into a horizontal rotary under the Tormach's spindle. The plan was to automatically index the cylinders so all five notches could be machined in one extended operation. The indexing had to be done manually, though, due to some Sprutcam glitches with the job assignments that weren't worth solving nor going into. Because I wanted the notches to have an extra fine surface finish throughout, the total machining at 5000 rpm and 3 ipm wound up being a ridiculous 45 minutes per notch.

A feature that wasn't part of the cylinder's original design, but which I added, was a short taper on the i.d. of the cylinder's skirt. Its purpose is to gradually compress the piston rings as the pistons are being inserted into the cylinders during final assembly. This simple feature helps remove those nagging doubts about broken rings that can otherwise accompany the struggle often required to get them inside the cylinders.

Up until now, the cylinders have been identically machined. Their last operation makes them different and defines which cylinder will be the front cylinder and which will be the rear. This milling operation creates a clearance flat on the bottom of each cylinder's skirt so the two cylinders can be adjacently mounted to the crankcase with a 45 degree angle between them and allow the bottom edges of their mounting flanges to be nearly coincident. The skirt taper that I added earlier morphed the flats into small crescents. - Terry

132.JPG


133.JPG


134.JPG


135.JPG


136.JPG


137.JPG


138.JPG


139.JPG


140.JPG


141.JPG


142.JPG


143.JPG
 
Very nice. Those parts have quite a few complex features.

Re the skirt chamfer to assist piston ring compression, I think I put about .030" x 45-deg on my prototype liner. But I have extra material to work with that will never come close to the business end of the piston. Do you think a shallower angle & more gradual ramp is better yet, or basically just don't leave it square?

I probably asked you this before, but on your other engines 12L14 liners/cylinders, are you storing them with something like after-run oil? (ie. then drain before running). I keep 2 cylinder blanks in my spares box, one dry & the other in a baggy which is oiled. The non-oil one has some tiny rusty blemishes happening & Calgary is a pretty dry place. I suspect I'm going to end up going with CI liners for other reasons but you seem to be happy with 12L14. Maybe my case was differently sourced bar, they actually seemed to machine a bit different too.
 
Peter,
I use a more shallow taper, but anything is probably better than nothing. I just cut them by eye and on these they came out .160" long and about 10 degrees or so.

Unfortunately, I haven't been as concerned as I probabably should be about storage. I've really not been doing anything special. - Terry
 
Last edited:
Before having the cylinders hot blue'd, their bores were lapped to a common diameter with an extra fine surface finish for use with cast iron piston rings. Since I can machine the pistons and rings to any size I need, the bores' exact diameter isn't important at this point. Bringing them both to the same diameter, though, is important (especially with a large number of parts) and will simplify the machining of the rings later on.

I've been using commercially available laps with interchangeable brass barrels to finish the bores in my cylinders. I've tried to make brush hones and automotive brake cylinder hones work but always had disappointing results when trying to remove more than a few tenths of material. Barrel laps, on the other hand, are well-behaved even while removing a couple thousandths. I usually hold the part being lapped in one hand and a battery-powered drill spinning the lap at 200-300 rpm in the other.

I like to use a separate barrel for each of the three grits of Clover (Loctite) grinding compound that I typically use: 180g, 600g, and 1000g. The 180g paste is used to bring the cylinders to within several tenths of one another, and then they're finished to within a tenth using the 600g grease. That tenth, although not always repeatable, is about the resolution of my measurements. The final surface finish is usually laid down with the 1000g oil. Progress is continually monitored on each cylinder by measuring and recording the diameter of its bore at three different depths after each two-to-three minute lapping session. The critical portion of the bore is its upper half and is where I try to obtain a zero taper. The taper is slowly worked out by spending more time in the tighter portions of the bores. In order to improve my chances of efficiently creating an identical set of cylinders, I lap them as a group and remove only small amounts of material from each one at a time so they are all finished together.

When I carefully checked the cylinders' initial dimensions with a dial bore gage, I found their starting bores to already be within a half thousandth of one another. Although not a typical starting point for me, it was a nice place to begin. I was able to skip the 180g step and, using 600g grease, brought the bores to within a tenth of one another with no measurable taper. Since I would have had to turn a second barrel in my collection down to a unique diameter for the 1000g step, I decided instead to finish the bores with 800g and to just re-use the 600g lap. When completed, the bores had a nice uniform frosty gray appearance. The cylinders were then delivered to a local gunsmith for a quick turnaround passivation treatment that left them with an essentially zero thickness black oxide coating that will protect them from corrosion.

With the cylinders completed, I turned my attention to their gaskets. The head gaskets and cylinder flange gaskets were cut from .010" and .015" thick teflon sheet, respectively. Although the drawings specify the use of copper sheet, I wasn't sure the 8-32 studs in the soft shallow aluminum heads would be up to the task of setting a copper head gasket. Besides, I'd been looking for an excuse to experiment with Teflon gaskets after reading Steve Hucks' positive comments about his experiences with them.

I used a drag knife sold by Tomach to cut out the gaskets using my mill. With thin un-backed materials such as this sheeting, I've found it best to manually follow the blade around with a small hold-down tool to keep the material flat against the cutting table. The teflon parts tended to lift as they were cut, and since I was making two cutting passes, my little 'presser foot' helped produce a clean result especially on the narrow portions of the flange gaskets.

I thought I'd get this post in before the forum's software change this evening. Hopefully, my old XP computers will remain compatible with the site through that change. Unfortunately, I've never been able to post more than one photo from my Apple tablets even when using the available app.

I've been looking forward to working on the Knucklehead's crankcase since starting this project. Logically, it's probably the next step in this build. - Terry

144.JPG


145.JPG


146.JPG


147.JPG


148.JPG


149.JPG


150.JPG


151.JPG


152.JPG
 
Last edited:
Very nice machining. And the blue-ing came out very nice, looks awesome.

Re the gasket material hold-down, I use spray adhesive a lot for what might be similar conditions. Like paper CAD templates on wood, carbon, thin metal etc. It srobust enough to withstand scroll saw cutting, drilling, sanding etc. After I just spritz it with thinner or acetone & paper comes right off. I suspect the Teflon would be impervious to both. I also use spray glue it to make all kinds of abrasive sticks from wet-dry paper & whatever substrate works best, typically smooth MDF or small blocks of aluminum.

Just get the general purpose stuff typically for paper & cardboard, its typically fine mist & releases with solvent.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/3M-16-75-oz-Super-77-Multi-Purpose-Spray-Adhesive-77-24/100067550
You don't want the high strength or specialized stuff, it comes out like silly string
 
Peter,
Thanks for the tip. I never thought about the spray adhesive. I think I even have some that I use to repair a door panel in my wife's car. - Terry
 
Doc,
Thanks. I still haven't been able to view your pdfs. I get the error message:

Access to doc-08-b8-docs.googleusercontent.com was denied
You don't have authorization to view this page.

403

whenever I click on the link you supplied. Perhaps you need to make some preference changes?
Terry
 
Last edited:
The Knucklehead's case is made up of two separately enclosed sections. The first is a split crankcase whose left and right halves enclose the crankshaft and connecting rods. The second section, the cam box, bolts up against the crankcase and contains the oil pump, the camshafts, and all the gearing and belting associated with the distributor and (heaven forbid) electric starter. (Harley purists will likely consider an electric starter on a Knucklehead as blasphemy, but I've enjoyed the starter on my Merlin so much that I'm going to try my best to include one on any future engines that I build.)

I began work on the crankcase by entering its two piece design into SolidWorks but ran into difficulty while trying to get an exact match between the two halves. I had hoped to be machining the crankcase by now, but I ended up spending most of the week with SolidWorks. I've been finding an occasional dimension or two missing from some of the more complex drawings. When left/right-handed parts were involved, I've typically been able to appropriate the missing dimension from the drawing of its opposite handed part. This didn't seem to work with the crankcase drawings whose halves weren't identically dimensioned. When I thought I was done, I found the angle between the cylinder decks was 135 degrees on one of the crankcase halves and 134 degrees on the other. The printed drawings seemed correct because they matched up perfectly over a light table. I wasn't able to resolve which dimension(s) were creating the problem, and so I ended up overlaying my mismatched virtual halves in a SolidWorks assembly to fill in the differences.

The counterbores for the SHCS's that secure the two crankcase halves together will break through the fillets on the outer edges of the left-half crankcase. To eliminate this, after finally having a matching crankcase pair, I increased the entire outer perimeter of the crankcase by 1/8". The extra real-estate allowed me to add a groove for some 1/16" o-ring cord stock to seal the two halves together. Since I plan to add two more o-rings with rather complex contours to the case, I wanted to make sure they stay in place inside their grooves so they don't become a nuisance during assembly. I made some tests by cutting a couple trial grooves for this first o-ring in a piece of scrap. A .070" wide by .055" deep groove nicely retained the o-ring, provided .015" compression, but had a 99% fill that didn't provide any room for temperature expansion. A .075" wide by .055" deep groove didn't retain the o-ring quite as well but had only a 93% fill. After some more procrastination I'll probably select .073".

When I enlarged the periphery of the crankcase, I also raised the cylinder decks above the crankshaft by the same 1/8" in order to preserve the model's original appearance. I thought I'd better take a look at the engine's compression ratio since I didn't yet know what the original design intent was, and my increase in cylinder deck height was going to reduce it. A calculation that included an accounting for the volumes of the valve heads inside the combustion chambers showed the static c.r. was approximately 5.5 before my change and an anemic 4.1 afterward. A well constructed multi-cylinder model engine will happily run with a compression ratio of 5.5, but 4.1 begins to reduce its chances of starting. All my multi-cylinder model engine experience has been with c.r.'s closer to seven.

In the original design the outside top edges of the mildly domed pistons are already coincident with the bottom edges of the combustion chambers at TDC. The huge hemispherical combustion chambers will require higher domed pistons and maybe even 'eye-brows' cut into the valves if the c.r. is to approach seven with the engine remaining interference-free. A change of this magnitude will require some careful thought and modeling later on, but for now it's clear that I'll at least be adding that same 1/8" to the lengths of the connecting rods.

During the modeling I discovered a potential interference between the lower fins on the cylinders and the outer oil lines that return top-end oil from the valve boxes to the crankcase. In order to sidestep some heroic bends in the oil lines later on, I relocated the holes for the two associated fittings in the top of the crankcase to the extreme outside corners of the cylinder decks. This modification won't come for free as it will affect access to the nuts on the nearby cylinder mounting studs. Notching the cylinders would have been another option, but mine were already completed.

There's a circular array of five 8-32 drilled/tapped holes in the right half of the crankcase that will be used for attaching the cam box. I moved the hole located at the 12:00 o'clock position downward a bit because the head of the screw in this hole inside the cam box will block an oil return to the cam box. The oil sump is shared between the crankcase and the cam box through a pair of interconnecting holes at the bottoms of each section. I didn't notice an easy way to drain the oil, so I added a drilled/tapped hole in the bottom of the crankcase for a drain plug.

Another modification that I made was to increase the radius of the circular notch on the tail of the crankcase for clearance to the starter motor. The cut-out was originally designed around a 540 size motor, but I increased its diameter so I would have the option of adding a cosmetic cover around a 540 motor or using an even larger motor if necessary. Finally, I added holes for a pair of dowel pins to positively locate the two crankcase halves together as well as for use during machining. Finally, a second o-ring groove was added to the outside of the right half crankcase for a positive seal to the cam box.

Although some SolidWorks time is still needed on the cam box, I think it's safe to start making chips on the crankcase.

The modifications that I've made and will probably continue to make are in no way intended to be a criticism of DrawTech's excellent work. I find it extraordinary, without building a prototype to de-bug its design, that there aren't a number of major issues with such a complicated project. It's always much easier to make modifications to someone else's work that it is to create one's own original project. I certainly couldn't have come up with anything like this engine on my own. I suspect that many others would also like to build this engine but are hesitant because its design hasn't yet been popularized by a number of running examples on YouTube. Hopefully, those following this build will view it as a validation of DrawTech's design rather than any sort of criticism. - Terry

153.JPG
154.JPG
155.JPG
156.JPG
157.JPG
158.JPG
159.JPG
160.JPG
 
Last edited:
The Knucklehead's case will require machining three relatively large chunks of aluminum most of which, depending upon the work-holding margins, will be returned to the recycler. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to come up with a machining sequence that wouldn't require a lot of special fixtures but would guarantee the required alignments among the finished parts. I'm sure there are better ways to go about machining these parts without generating as much waste as I did, but my tired brain eventually had enough and began pleading with me to start making chips.

All three parts will end up with final shapes that will make their work-holding a bit sketchy especially during the heavy cuts involved with pocketing their voluminous interiors. The cam box, in addition, will require a number of precise boring operations to locate its various bearings, gears, and shafts. My plan included performing as much of their machining as possible while the workpieces still had straight sides and could be easily held in a vise.

For cosmetic reasons the complex peripheries of the final parts, especially the crankcase halves, should wind up closely matched to each other. Because of a very tall workpiece stack-up, it would make sense to machine the two halves in separate setups and then file and sand away their differences after assembly. My tentative plan, though, is to temporarily assemble the two halves and machine most of their exteriors in a single operation - mainly to see if I can. With a large enough diameter cutter this wouldn't be a big deal, but a spindly 3/8" diameter end mill with 2-1/2" long flutes will be needed to reach all the crankcase's outer features. My current work-holding strategy will handle either approach but, before finally deciding, some experiments will be done to check the effects of tool chatter and deflection.

Back in the shop, my first steps involved truing up the long sides and both faces of three 1-1/2" thick chunks of aluminum. These roughly 6" x 7" blocks came out of a couple weathered fixture plates acquired from a salvage yard many years ago. Taken two at a time, they were bolted together using a temporary 1/4" bolt through their approximate centers so the holes for a pair of dowel pins as well as the SHCS's that will eventually hold the finished parts together could be drilled through them. Deep drilling parabolic drills were used as pilots for the dowel holes before they were reamed. Prior to installation, an end of each dowel was center-drilled with a tiny divot so its center could be precisely indicated under a spindle microscope.

Remarkably, the y-axis differences in the dowel hole exits on the opposite sides of the workpieces measured less than a half thousandth, and the distances between them varied only a few tenths more. If the holes actually aren't straight, then they're off by the same amount. With the dowel hole pairs being so closely aligned with the fixed jaw of the mill vise, corrections for workpiece rotation won't be necessary after all. The workpieces were all marked so they can be consistently returned to the fixed jaw of the vise for additional machining.

The dowel pins in each workpiece lie on the x-axis centerline of the crankshaft. Its y-axis centerline is centered between the crankcase dowels but had to be offset from the center of the cam box dowels. Later on, the three blocks will be temporarily assembled, and a crankshaft center hole will be bored through the temporary center holes in the entire stack.

As mentioned earlier, it was important that the long sides of each pair of workpieces be parallel to the fixed jaw of the mill vise during the dowel hole drilling even though their widths were unequal. To achieve this, the bottom workpiece in the two-piece stack was clamped in the vise while the top workpiece, after being traversed with a dial indicator, was clamped to the bottom workpiece using the temporary center bolt. Unfortunately, I found that the 1/4" bolt, even with a large beveled washer under its head, couldn't supply enough clamping force to keep the two in perfect alignment even after a light tap from a plastic mallet. This issue arose because the workpiece's 'flat' surfaces actually ended up convex by a couple tenths, and there just wasn't enough contact area around the bolt. I was concerned that the top workpiece might rotate out of alignment during drilling, and so I augmented the bolt with a bead of JB Weld along the rear edges of the parts' excess stock. In retrospect, a sheet of paper between the two might have cured the problem so I wouldn't have had to put up with the overnight epoxy cures. This pairing and drilling procedure was performed on the workpieces for the left/right crankcase pair and then repeated for the right crankcase/cam box pair.

The next step was to pocket the interiors of the three workpieces after indicating their dowels or dowel holes. All three parts were pocketed, and the o-ring grooves were machined on the two workpieces with already finished surfaces. The o-ring groove on the outside of the right half crankcase will be machined later after its surface is finished. At this point its surface contains some excess stock since it might be used later as a machining fixture for the cam box periphery.

The pocketing of the crankcase halves was uneventful, but things got pretty exciting inside the cam box. For the pocketing operations I used a 3/8" three flute HSS steel corncob rougher followed by a 3/8" carbide four flute finishing tool. I ended up destroying two roughing end mills while machining the bottom of the pocket inside the cam box's workpiece. I could tell from the sound that abruptly started that the first cutter had suddenly and dramatically become dull, and so I quickly paused the Tormach before damaging the workpiece. A brand new replacement cutter lasted only a minute or so before it too began making the same noise. This time, however, before I could halt the machine the cutter jammed against an inside wall of the pocket and broke off. Inspection of the broken end showed it had dulled exactly like the first cutter. The depth of cut was only .150", plenty of coolant was being used, and there was no sign of aluminum welding - just a badly worn tip. I eventually had to conclude that the cutter's long stick-out combined with the unsupported 1/8" thick floor of the cam box probably triggered a resonance that, once started, quickly took out the cutter. Since the roughing pass had left plenty of excess stock for the finishing pass, the finishing tool nicely cleaned up the pocket except for a gouge on a top inside corner that occurred when the cutter broke. The gouge didn't extend into the o-ring groove and will be hidden by the cam box cover, and so I'm trying to ignore it.

All three workpieces were then temporarily assembled, and the reference hole for the crankshaft was bored through the entire stack. This hole, by itself, will be sufficient to indicate the locations of the counterbores for the bearings and seals inside the crankcase. The various shafts, bearings, timing pulleys, and gears inside the cam box, though, will also require the the dowel pins as references.
161.JPG
162.JPG
163.JPG
164.JPG
165.JPG
166.JPG
167.JPG
168.JPG
169.JPG
170.JPG

The next steps should include the machining of the cam box cover as well as the crankcase and cam box peripheries. - Terry
 
Last edited:
You have done some of the things I've done but I'm only in the modeling faze I don't plan on starting the build until late this year. Some of the modeling of things has been a challenge ( heads especially) but I'm about 3/4 done with the engine model .
Once I get the model done I plan on doing my own set of drawings. You have gotten things looking pretty nice!!
 
I cut my slots on EDM sinker. This is a scrap barrel just trying the process.
Bob
 

Attachments

  • slot 001.JPG
    slot 001.JPG
    93.8 KB · Views: 412
I cut my slots on EDM sinker. This is a scrap barrel just trying the process.
Bob
Bob,
That's pretty novel and would never have occurred to me. I'm curious about the surface finish, though. Could you take a head-on closeup photo of one of your better test slots?
Thanks,
Terry
 
Last edited:
Just wondering ,

I'm an acceptable machinist .
Not the worlds best , but I do have 30 years of experiance give or take .
What I don't have , nor have acces to is cnc equippement .

What I have is a lathe , a mill with rotary table and dividing head and a clarckson t&c grinder .
I have acces to a surface grinder . All machines are industrial grade .
I can also do castings in ali and tig weld in ali and stainless .

Can a build such as this beautifull knucklehead be done with conventional machining only ?

Pat
 
Just wondering ,

I'm an acceptable machinist .
Not the worlds best , but I do have 30 years of experiance give or take .
What I don't have , nor have acces to is cnc equippement .

What I have is a lathe , a mill with rotary table and dividing head and a clarckson t&c grinder .
I have acces to a surface grinder . All machines are industrial grade .
I can also do castings in ali and tig weld in ali and stainless .

Can a build such as this beautifull knucklehead be done with conventional machining only ?

Pat
Pat,
I think the answer is yes. Steve did it here:
https://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads/stephens-knuckle-head-build.24705/

Terry
 
Just a note of caution. I'm no expert. The sinker was left over when we sold the big shop years ago. I kept it as there really is no value to the machine. Unfortunately the guy that used to run it passed away a few months ago so I am pretty much on my own. There is a direct relation between surface finish and rate of metal removal. since I am not very patient I had the machine cranked to max so the surface finish is not good sort of like sand blast. I think the way around this is to make two electrodes a slightly smaller one for roughing and then one to size, run at much lower settings to improve finish. Also I used copper which wears very fast so I am making a graphite electrode see how that works.
Bob
 

Latest posts

Back
Top