Machining a cast handwheel (alignment method?)

[Steve WanParticipant @stevewan33894]

Hi all machinist buddies,

 

Recently I bought a cheap Chinese cast 3″ dia handwheel which had an off center pre-drill hole. While running over the lathe, the outer rim and shank were out of alignment. Cracked my brains, I clamped the shank and faced the side of the rim slightly  to get it square and increased the surface area that would be bolted to a face plate.

 

I used two M6 bolt and clamped it 180deg. apart. The alignment was tough. I need to use my eyes and a fixed turning tool bit as reference, using a wooden mallet to knock at all the high points. After some struggle, I managed to get roughly aligned, tighten it and started to bore to the required size.

 

When the finished cast was done and used at my lathe spindle, I noticed that there’s still slight wobble. I did not face off the circumference of the outer rim as it was chromed and rounded off in the factory. The handwheel looks similar to a sewing machine handwheel.

 

Does anyone has a better solution to share? The only raw size is the shank and the small pre-drill hole to work on…the rest is to size!

 

Steve Wan

 

 

[Steve WanParticipant @stevewan33894]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I would hold it by the rim and bore out the hole and face the end of the central hub. This will obviously make the hole to big so you will need to turn up a suitable bush.

 

Hason

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

Hold the outside in a four jaw chuck then face, and bore using a boring tool?

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I think bolting to a faceplate is more likely to get the bore at right angles to the outer rim than using a chuck. So i think you had the right approach, but i would have used a DTI to check the rim’s concentricity.

 

Neil

[adyParticipant @ady]

How do you even know the OUTER wheel is ok?

 

If the centre hole sucks the entire wheel is probably pants and probably machined by some poor git on a dollar a day with 20 wheels to process or his sister gets sold into slavery.

 

SO

 

Whatcha gointa do?

 

Get some skills, that’s what, and figure it out.

 

The reason so much cheap stuff is crap is because good stuff needs people with serious skills.

 

Capitalists can’t afford artisans.

 

If someone gave you a million dollars to figure it out could you do it?

Alternatively: If you were utterly obsessed with producing beautiful metalwork products would that be a faster way of getting things done?

 

So, on the face of it…dial indicator the outer rim to zero, skim the inner metal bit so it’s now concentric with the outer rim, then drill/bore the screw fitment to size.

 

If the outer rim isn’t concentric…then cut it so it is.

Edited By ady on 18/12/2010 20:56:21

[adyParticipant @ady]

And why did you you buy this wheel in the first place?

 

Do you like your fellow human beings living in misery?

 

(uh-oh…adys on the sauce)

 

Why complain about something that has a value of almost zero because it’s so utterly crap…when you…as an amazing individual(EGO EGO !) can turn it into a beautiful thing.

[adyParticipant @ady]

If you want a good chat tell us that spitfires were actually crap, and the

Nakajima Ki-84

 

was a triumph of far eastern engineering excellence which would have kicked our asses…but we got lucky.

 

I know you guys have local issues, which serves the purposes of politics, but engineering transcends all tribes. It’s like science, or mathematics. Tribal stuff is irrelevant.

 

Leave the monkeys to screech, we have more important things with which to enrich and fascinate our lives.

Edited By ady on 18/12/2010 21:09:43

[adyParticipant @ady]

Speaking of which.

 

The KI84 and the FW190  were radial engines.

 

Did we British ever make an exceptional radial engine?

Edited By ady on 18/12/2010 21:22:35

[adyParticipant @ady]

Rolls died in 1910 Royce died in 1933, after looking at the early design of the merlin.

 

So……Where did it all come from?

 

And now we have the
RB211

Originally developed for the Lockheed L-1011 (TriStar), it entered service in 1972 and was the only engine to power this aircraft type. Although the costs of development forced Rolls-Royce Limited into bankruptcy and nationalisation by the British government, the company survived and the RB211 became the first true three-spool engine, which also turned Rolls-Royce from a small player in the airline industry into a global competitor.^[1]

The RB211 was officially superseded in the 1990s by the Rolls-Royce Trent family of engines, the conceptual offspring of the RB211.^[1]

 

[adyParticipant @ady]

And don’t be ashamed by fighting your corner sir. Do not ever defer. ever.

 

We only ever learn from those people who are willing to try to better themselves.

 

god bless.

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

Er… it’s a handwheel. Does it need to be DTI’ed (a new verb) on the rim or would a three jaw with the reverse jaws do? I suppose it depends how big your chuck is and how rounded the perimeter of the wheel is? Is it a graduated wheel? Faceplate is the other way.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Steve, I would choose Chris’s idea, but like he says it depends on the size of the wheel and your chuck capacity.

 

Regards Nick.

[adyParticipant @ady]

Did the Brits ever make a decent radial engine???

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Hi ady, recon the Bristol Hercules became a good engine by the 1960/70s as used in the RNZAF Bristol  Freighters and Handly Page Hastings ac, And Safe Air Freighters here in NZ, I think theTBO was over 2000hrs. Originally the Hastings was known as the best 3 engined aircraft  until they got the engines sorted out.

   The hand wheel, put it in the three jaw chuck, if the chucks too small to grip the outside of the rim , open the jaws against the inside of the rim, but you would  have a very small chuck if you had to do that on a 3″ hand wheel.  Ian S C

 

  With Roll Royce and Qantas, perhaps RR may end up a small player

[adyParticipant @ady]

HIya.

 

As far as I am aware we never made diddly.

 

 Ater Rolls Royce we were a waste of space.

[adyParticipant @ady]

And please gentlemen.

 

Prove me wrong. Beat me to death on this one.    please.

[Martin WParticipant @martinw]

TO THE MODERATORS

 

Please Please delete nothing that has been posted on this thread as its brilliant .

 

Happy Christmas and a Great New Year to all the contributors to this site.

 

Cheers

 

Martin

[adyParticipant @ady]

Some drunk dude hacked into my account.

…oh well, at least he stays away from the lathe when he’s sloshed.

 

Merry Xmas  guys

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Your right really, britain did’nt have the numbers of comercial, as well as military buyers for big round/ radial  engines like the P&W R1830 Twin Wasp that powered the DC-3. Merry Chrismas and don’t get too upset ady.  Our Bristol Freighters often were called 10,000 pop rivits flying in lose formation.   Ian S C

 

  ps the Aussies say that when one of our Hastings crashed at Darwin (4 engines failed on takeoff) , it did more damage than the Jap bombing during the war. It cut the highway, railway,  Darwins water and sewerage, and the power and telephone lines.  Passengers and crew gathered up their baggage, and walked out uninjured-rear facing seats.We lost two through engine failure.

Edited By Ian S C on 19/12/2010 11:28:20

[Steve WanParticipant @stevewan33894]

Hi all especially Ady!

A handful of RAF Brewster Buffalo fighters did make to our shores (Singapore) and were out-numbered and gun down by Japanese Zeros in the Battle for Malaya. RAF Spitfires was not seen here in British Malaya then, they were reserved for England for Battle of Britain. Perhaps, they were better designed and used for homeland defense instead….whose engines were made by Rolls Royce.

As regards to my handwheel. although it was poorly made…it’s not the
main issue. With a skilled knowledge and correct approach, one can rework a poor
quality stuff into a high end product and improves one’s skill level too. As my machining skill level grows, I intend to get low grade stuff and upgrades it…much cheaper and challenging.

Is ok to voice out grievances, we’re here to learn from one another…Merry Christmas everybody! Have a great time in your cosy workshop!

Steve Wan

[adyParticipant @ady]

Having a dig about concerning radial engines I stumbled across the A6M Zero on wiki and realised it had a combat range of 1600 miles at the start of the war, when european contemporaries like the Spitfire had a combat range of 800 miles.

The 1940 Zero could stay in the air three times longer than a Spitfire.

The Zeros engine was a french 14 cylinder design built under licence and adapted for carrier based operations.

 

It was only by the end of the war that aircraft like the p51 mustang could match the combat radius of the Zero.

Edited By ady on 20/12/2010 03:27:02

[Steve WanParticipant @stevewan33894]

Hi Ady

 

Thanks for the added info about A6M Zero, it was indeed a great fighter in the early stages of the Pacific War. But soon it was replaced by Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien in 1943, a cross between the German Bf-109,  the Italian Macchi MC-202 or even  even the American P-51 Mustang. The aircraft body was more sleek and streamlined.

 

I guess even in times of war, technology can still be shared.

 

Steve Wan

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Comparisons are of course invidious, the Spitfires range was not great because it did not need a great range, being intended mainly for local air defence operations. Conversely, being intended for operations in the Pacific, where 1600 miles is not very far, the Zero really needed a good range, but apparently paid for it in lack of armour. While the Spitfire had a lovely wing, one wonder if the marginal performance gain was really worth the extra trouble in construction. (The ellptical wing is supposed to have lower induced drag, but other fighters with simpler shapes seem to have performed very well…)

 

On the technology transfer thing, unintentional or otherwise, I’ve seen a story that I can’t confirm, that during the thirties the various powers did their best to exagerate the capabilities of their aerial torpedoes. They suceeeded at this so well that the Japanese decided that they had better catch up, so they developed a torpedo that could be dropped from 600 feet at 300 miles an hour. It turned out that in fact the British torpedo had to be dropped from about thirty feet at 60 mph. The Japanese torpedoes were of course used with deadly effect against the Prince of Wales and the Renown off Malaysia at the begining of the campaign there. It will be apparent that the extra speed and height makes it harder for the defenders AA guns, compared to dropping the torpedo from a biplane just above wave height. (Except that some of the larger armament could not deflect that low, a great comfort to the pilots I am sure.)

 

regards

John

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

  Steve, 588 sqd RNZAF took over about half the buffalos, they were left behind when the RAF went on to Burma.  A few Hurricanes arrived during the invasion.  the Buffalos were in very poor condition.  The pilots thought they were a nice plane to fly, but usless as a fighter.

 

   The Brewster Buffalo was powered by a Wright Cyclone R-1820, 9cyl single row radial engine.  It was the Hurricanes that had the RR Merlin engine,  the RAF  flew them , but they did’nt fare much better than the Buffaloes.  Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 20/12/2010 12:52:08

Edited By Kelvin Barber on 20/12/2010 14:28:24

[Author]

Posts