Jerry Howell's V-four in 3d printed form

[3dcase]

So I have started this monster project whereby I purchased the PDF drawings for Jerry Howell's V-twin and his V-four, with the plan to convert those drawings into 3d models good for printing on a normal FDM printer we all have at home, right?

Well as it turns out the drawings are not ready part drawings with measurements, but rather manufacturing notes with drawings of intermediate stages of the process. This is much harder then I anticipated, since in 3d modeling you refer to faces, lines, features of the part, and when they get taken away later on in the process, your whole model fails.
But slowly I am getting there and it is in this post I would like to show progress as and when there is any. Sometimes it will be a jump while other times it might be 3 different failed modifications of a piston rod, nobody knows yet where this will lead.
So I have started with printing the most unlikely first item anybody would consider the best part to begin with, The radiator! Don't ask me why, I just felt that way. Oh, I remember now, it has absolutely no links with the rest of the engine except for the mounting rails it sits on. So, it will not change later on when I convert imperial fasteners to miniature metric ones or when I change bushings for bearings and the like.
For now it sits mounted with the wrong screws. I have not yet purchased the correct fasteners, so I used some second hand miniature self tappers after cleaning off the dust of them, and together with glue it has been told to stay put. I hope it does.
here is the link to Jerry Howell's own web site for this engine. Sadly Jerry died so his son is maintaining the website.

JEH - "Howell V-Four" - 4-Cycle Gas Engine Page

Enjoy the ride so to speak, updates may come slow at times.
Just to note: the vernier calipers you see in the shots is a 70mm one, so this engine is not as big as it may look at first. The calipers are holding the mount rails open to size while the glue sets.

 

[geo]

This is total bullshit Howell plans are very good drawings dimensioned it’s American orthographic Took me a while to work this out .I have made the vtwin I can get it to fire won’t run cam gears not so good can I be bothered trying again not likely. I have made the Vicky Stirling engine it almost works and almost finished the farm boy again trouble with ignition im pretty happy with the process .Seriously doubt you have original Howell plans Alan Howell has accomodated my questions with good grace

 

[Spinnett]

Hmm.. Met Jerry a couple times.. Damn fine work. I don't have his plans but would be surprised you can't build off them. Seems odd to 3d print rather than machine it.

 

[stanstocker]

I think third angle projection is the norm in the US and Asia while first angle is the norm in the EU. Or at least was back when Howell was drawing things up in Autocad. The US convention was or is (I'm long out of any business that uses technical drawings) to only include drawings with dimensions or information not already contained in other drawings, so no empty rectangles for the bottom of the box when the front and side view already had those dimensions. I've never noticed insufficient information in the Howell plans or heard of people finding the drawings lacking. There have been a few occasions when people have mentioned changing some dimension to get a little more meat around a hole or threaded hole, but that's all I've ever heard, not claims the drawings are unusable.

 

[GreenTwin]

I think third angle projection is the norm in the US and Asia while first angle is the norm in the EU. Or at least was back when Howell was drawing things up in Autocad. The US convention was or is (I'm long out of any business that uses technical drawings) to only include drawings with dimensions or information not already contained in other drawings, so no empty rectangles for the bottom of the box when the front and side view already had those dimensions. I've never noticed insufficient information in the Howell plans or heard of people finding the drawings lacking. There have been a few occasions when people have mentioned changing some dimension to get a little more meat around a hole or threaded hole, but that's all I've ever heard, not claims the drawings are unusable.

I have been drawing things for many years, but I must confess I am pretty ignorant of most of the terms, such as "third angle projection", "first angle projection", etc.

I guess I have just been ignoring all that and drawing things like I like them.

But now I am wondering how I do my own drawings.
I never really thought much about it; I just draw engines.

I will go back and review some of my drawings.

I do recall making isometric drawings by hand, and later in 2D CAD, and I remember that being rather tedious, and not very accurate.

I was very pleased to find out that Solidworks allows a view to be dragged out at a 45 degree angle, into what I call an isometric view.
I have no idea if "isometric view" is even the correct term.

I guess I am one of those folks who doesn't really know the names for all the drawing features, but I know what I like when I see it.

I do like to line up parts on a 2D sheet, as if they were an exploded view.
Randomly placing parts of an engine all over multilple sheets drives me nuts.
I have to put connecting pieces adjacent to each other; I guess its an obsessive compulsive thing.

I don't like to crowd a sheet either, and this also drives me nuts when I see others pack a sheet completely full of parts and dimensions.

To each their own I guess, and as long as the drawings are useful, and relatively intuitive, then pick your own style and go with it.

.

 

[Jasonb]

Just looked at my Howell drawings and can't see much wrong with them, yes there are a few notes included on teh larger parts in particular but they are better than a lot of Model Engineering drawings you will come across. Why not produce some 2D working drawings from your 3D model and I doubt they will look a lot different.

 

[--colin--]

I've built several of Jerry Howell's engines and usually model them in Solidworks before machining. I've always admired Jerry's designs and never had any issues with getting them running as they are well thought-out and complete along with helpful construction notes. As a retired designer and engineer, I must ad that Jerry's drawings, although complete, always bug me. I've never liked his dimensioning style and frequently he gets first and third angle projection confused. That's the primary reason why I model the parts and assemble them virtually before cutting metal. None the less, his drawings are always complete and the finished products always good running. Wish he was still around.

 

[Spinnett]

I model everything these days. I don't even do drawings at all anymore except for machinist notes sometimes. usually when I do it all in 3D cad, I end up changing things enough that they are my own designs in the end. Unfortunately shop free at the moment, so I can only do things with basic tools and 3d printing these days or 3d printed molds and casting the parts. I did have some stuff metal 3D printed, and that's the future unless you just like the machining part. Design in 3d, 3d metal print the parts or mold/cast, hand finish and assemble... boom.

 

[peterl95124]

I think hobbyists that enjoy 3D modeling do 3D modeling, and hobbyists that don't enjoy 3D modeling don't do 3D modeling (I'm in the later camp). "smoke 'em if you got 'em", "to each his own", "YMMV", etc.....

I have Jerry's V4 plans, they're fine, criticism seems unjustified to me.

 

[Bentwings]

I have been drawing things for many years, but I must confess I am pretty ignorant of most of the terms, such as "third angle projection", "first angle projection", etc.

I guess I have just been ignoring all that and drawing things like I like them.

But now I am wondering how I do my own drawings.
I never really thought much about it; I just draw engines.

I will go back and review some of my drawings.

I do recall making isometric drawings by hand, and later in 2D CAD, and I remember that being rather tedious, and not very accurate.

I was very pleased to find out that Solidworks allows a view to be dragged out at a 45 degree angle, into what I call an isometric view.
I have no idea if "isometric view" is even the correct term.

I guess I am one of those folks who doesn't really know the names for all the drawing features, but I know what I like when I see it.

I do like to line up parts on a 2D sheet, as if they were an exploded view.
Randomly placing parts of an engine all over multilple sheets drives me nuts.
I have to put connecting pieces adjacent to each other; I guess its an obsessive compulsive thing.

I don't like to crowd a sheet either, and this also drives me nuts when I see others pack a sheet completely full of parts and dimensions.

To each their own I guess, and as long as the drawings are useful, and relatively intuitive, then pick your own style and go with it.

.

Having done a number of cad systems over the years it was neat when SW. came out with auto dim . This only required you to remove double dim and may be shift things around so looked more organized. Acad followed shortly after . All was good as I intently disliked formal drawings. The shop didn’t mid if there was a double dim or two . To call attention to them the older shop shop guys teased engineering about it . We had a few old school engineers that complained if spacing and leader lines were not exact. I used to say just make the part like the the drawing the extra dim will be there if you need it.