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

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.

3dcase

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2023
Messages
21
Reaction score
28
Location
Bulgaria
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.
http://www.jerry-howell.com/V-Four.htmlEnjoy 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.
 

Attachments

  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_002.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_002.jpeg
    163.9 KB · Views: 9
  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_003.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_003.jpeg
    104.7 KB · Views: 4
  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_004.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_004.jpeg
    122.7 KB · Views: 5
  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_005.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_005.jpeg
    127.8 KB · Views: 4
  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_006.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_006.jpeg
    161.7 KB · Views: 5
  • signal-2023-03-06-192913_007.jpeg
    signal-2023-03-06-192913_007.jpeg
    128.1 KB · Views: 5
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
 
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.
 
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 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.

.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
To put every bodies mind at rest, once and for all I hope, I never criticized Jerrie's plans at all. I simply stated that I was using them for producing 3d models from them, which was very difficult since the plans Jerry made were instructional drawings for machining, not final part drawings with final sizes. As I do not machine anything, I needed to go through each step on the computer to derive at the final 3d shape for 3d printing.
Anyway, I am talking with Jerrie's son, Allan, and have also purchased Jerrie's V twin plans. If I thought they were no good I would not have done that I think.
For those who are interested in models that are 3d printed, go to Printables
There are full 3d printing instructions and photos of the result. This engine is about as small as I would want to print with FDM. Any smaller and I would have to use a smaller nozzle which would put the print time into orbit. Not impossible, and the result will be stunning, but takes a long time and I have only one machine at the moment.
Now please lets get back to enjoying the models and stop talking about differences in drawing techniques. Jerry was a fine engineer of a very high standard that will be difficult to even come close to by newer generations of engineers. I am (only) 58 and I can remember manual machining that my colleagues haven't even been taught about since it is all computer aided these days.
Currently I am modeling a knucklehead for 3d printing at about 60% of its real size. I love Harleys so when I saw Jack's knucklehead I thought that would be a fun project. Since with 3d printing you have much more freedom of shape, I decided to make mine look more like the original and I started modeling from scratch (No, I am not criticizing draw-tech's work. His drawings are near perfect, like Jerrie's!) . Also because a 3d printed model does not have to hold fluids or pressure, I decided to make internal things visible. Once finished I will also post this on printables.com.
With this model I am working mostly from photos. The movie clip is as my model stands now. Work in progress.

Enjoy making models and stay sane,
Kees
 

Attachments

  • knuckle engine open.jpeg
    knuckle engine open.jpeg
    216.1 KB · Views: 0
  • cam chest contour.png
    cam chest contour.png
    638.3 KB · Views: 0
  • knuck_drawing.jpg
    knuck_drawing.jpg
    117.7 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_0037.MOV
    20.2 MB
That is some fine 3D modeling work.

I know some folks who have transitioned into 3D modeling-only engine building, and they created some of the most fantastic and virtually functional things imaginable, such as complete and very complex steam locomotives, accurate down to the smallest part.

Some would accuse me of going 3D-only, but I am just too busy at work to get the foundry going right now; but it will happen.

3D modeling techniques help me visualize the necesary machining procedures too.

Everyone has their drawing preferences; I certainly have mine.
And I find it ironic that I have been drawing/drafting manually and with a computer for 29 years, and have never used a first or third projection symbol. I would not know what one was if I saw it. I will start a new thread on this so we don't trash this fine thread.

I split off the discussion here:

https://www.homemodelenginemachinis...d-third-projection-symbols.35826/#post-406472
.
 
Last edited:
I would just like to add my two pennies :)
Almost all of the plans I have built from I have converted to 3D models in SolidWorks and published on GrabCad .
I can say that most plans have inevitably had some missing dimensions and I have had to guess or should I say use my Engineering judgment .
I can also say that many drawings have mixed 1st and 3rd angle projections which often causes confusion.
It is important to be consistent with projection from an Engineering point of view!
Anyway, my drawings often have missing dimensions even after 50yrs of Engineering, that's why we always had checkers before releasing drawings in industry but as an individual now retired there is no such luxury.
Rich
 
I would just like to add my two pennies :)
Almost all of the plans I have built from I have converted to 3D models in SolidWorks and published on GrabCad .
I can say that most plans have inevitably had some missing dimensions and I have had to guess or should I say use my Engineering judgment .
I can also say that many drawings have mixed 1st and 3rd angle projections which often causes confusion.
It is important to be consistent with projection from an Engineering point of view!
Anyway, my drawings often have missing dimensions even after 50yrs of Engineering, that's why we always had checkers before releasing drawings in industry but as an individual now retired there is no such luxury.
Rich
Absolutely correct, and add to that the possibility of drawings being "instructional step by step sketches" which have the measurements for that step on the drawing instead of final part size, the mayhem is near complete for those who deal with reverse engineering in order to produce 3d models.
I love the process though and have to say that even when engineering is still my day job, I happily convert incomplete sketches into 3d models at night just to relax.
But to work backwards from inches to metric sounds easy, in reality you get into a whole different knee deep of muck. Best way is to convert all measures into mm first and then apply appropriate tolerances rather then trying to do it while running. First hand experience from somebody who worked with mixed units all his life so he thought foolishly it was going to be a stroll in the park.
 
3dcase, just going through your bom list etc, I notice you have two radiator supports? parts 76 and 77 that do not appear in the download file. Also, what is your preference for printing the radiator itself, upright or flat and the engine casing, normal upright or sitting on one end?
This will keep me occupied for a while.
Ian.
p.s. The exhaust elbow appears twice, as 82 and 84.
 
Last edited:
Further to the above,
Item 49 Rocker arm bracket is missing.
There are three spur gears listed, items 31, 79 and 83. Are they all the same as there is only one model (spur-drive-gear-v3)?
Ian.
 
Further to the above,
Item 49 Rocker arm bracket is missing.
There are three spur gears listed, items 31, 79 and 83. Are they all the same as there is only one model (spur-drive-gear-v3)?
Ian.
Hi Gunna, I will have a look of course but could you do me a favour please and repost your questions on the printables website so my answers there may help other builders also?
I posted it here to make people aware and for me to answer peoples questions on different sites will not help all of those who try to build this model. Also I am not getting notifications from posts here as I just check in now and then to see what is new. That is how I found this question from you so my apologies if it took a while.
 
Further to the above,
Item 49 Rocker arm bracket is missing.
There are three spur gears listed, items 31, 79 and 83. Are they all the same as there is only one model (spur-drive-gear-v3)?
Ian.
Hiya again.
The missing files have been added, many thanks to point this out to me.
Also the duplicate exhaust manifolds have been rectified, one version was in fact old and needed to have been removed.
With regards to the spur gears, yes the teeth pattern and count is the same but the shaft they sit on is different. The missing one was the crankshaft and I have added that.
All the other gears are named differently and are correct, I checked them.
With regards to the radiator I printed mine flat on the bed without supports. When done you should be able to look through it as with a real radiator.
I hope this helps, if anything else please post on printables for all to benefit.
Thank you very much for trying my model and giving feedback, Much appreciated.
 
3dcase, just going through your bom list etc, I notice you have two radiator supports? parts 76 and 77 that do not appear in the download file. Also, what is your preference for printing the radiator itself, upright or flat and the engine casing, normal upright or sitting on one end?
This will keep me occupied for a while.
Ian.
p.s. The exhaust elbow appears twice, as 82 and 84.
1707498462625.png

This is on tab nr 4 in the instructions. Upright on the fan side of the engine.
If you use supports as I instructed they are much easier to remove then you expect. Needle nose pliers and a sharp knife is what I use. Whole sections of this support comes of in one piece due to the heavy transition layer and the small size patterns. Yes it uses a little more material but if you want a good looking surface that resembles the real thing this is what you need.

Good luck and looking forward to your comments on printables.
3dcase.
 
Further to the above,
Item 49 Rocker arm bracket is missing.
Oops, even when reading your messages and trying to find the missing files, I forgot this one again yesterday. Anyway its uploaded now as V2.
I also read the instructions again to see if your questions are in the list and they are. Except for the radiator flat on its face, which I took as logical, is not in there.
Thanks again for the shout out, without feedback these jobs are near impossible to do completely without mistakes.
 
Back
Top