Here is a list of all the postings Jimbob has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
Thread: Crated Spitfires to be returned to the UK |
24/10/2012 20:55:28 |
As already stated, there were more Hurricanes than Spitfires involved in the B of B. The Hurricane was designed to older ideas, having a relativly thick wing. The fuselage was constructed using some of the jigs used for an earlier bi-plane aircraft. While the policy was for the Spitfire to take on fighters and the Hurricane the bombers, it was very much a case of "target opportunity". The Hurricane was indeed slower than both the Spitfire and the ME109 but was able to out turn both due to it's thick wing. Some pilots who flew in both Hurricanes and Spitfires say they preferred the Hurricane due to it's larger cockpit. Former ground crew say that a damaged Hurricane could usually be repaired at it's home base, while a damaged Spitfire would often need to be sent to an RAF M.U. or even to the factory for repair due to the differing construction methods. Both great aircraft in time of need. Pity a squadron of Hurricanes can't be found! edit Just read a later posting. While the Spitfire did indeed serve throughout the war, and into the 1950's, it had become a very different aircraft: 37ltr. Griffon engine replacing the 27ltr. Merlin (almost twice the power of the earlier models) with extended nose and rear fuselage and R.J.Mitchells' elliptical wing was also altered. The Hurricane also served thoughout the war, albeit in lesser theatres. It also carried rockets while the Typhoon was still being "de-bugged" (tails breaking off, problems with it's Napier Sabre engine, exhaust fumes in the cockpit for eg.) A shame that the Hurricane's contibution is so often understated. Edited By Jimbob on 24/10/2012 21:12:58 |
Thread: Built up crankshaft |
08/06/2012 21:22:49 |
Hello JasonB Thanks for your response. In my wisdom(!!) I made the shafts as separate pieces. The holes in the crank webs were drilled undersized, then reamered while clamped together, using the mill. The shafts (or part engaging with the webs) were then turned to give a light interference fit with the intention of locktighting and pinning. Having just spent time studying the problem I had pretty well decided to do as you say. I will turn up a one piece shaft and also make up a suitably sized spacer to go between the webs. Thanks again, and I won't try to be so clever next time! |
07/06/2012 21:17:44 |
Gentlemen Having assembled the components of a built up crankshaft (single cylinder engine) I am having difficulty getting everything into correct alignment. Any advice on this would be very welcome. Thankyou
|
Thread: Piston ring |
29/03/2011 21:35:02 |
Posted by mgj on 25/03/2011 21:10:05:
Fine - so what was wrong with the ring? Something has to be wrong with it, because with a newly fitted ring the piston should slide with steady gentle pressure. No you won't blow it by mouth but you shouldn't need 100psi!
Thus far you have cured the sympton not the disease. ![]() The problem with the metal ring was exessive outward pressure on the cylinder.
Ring/groove clearance and groove depth was good, as was the ring gap when fitted in
the cylinder.
Hence my initial query re. reducing the tension. |
25/03/2011 20:37:41 |
Posted by Phil Ashman on 25/03/2011 15:24:58:
Jim, What conclusion did you come to in the end? I have exactly this problem with my loco cylinders. They're cast iron cylinders and pistons and commercially made rings. The chassis does run on air, but the rings are so tight I'm afraid to run it any more for fear of causing damage. I don't know whether to press on and try and run it in, or remove the rings and use soft packing instead.
Phil Hello
Everything else was free turning. Following advice from members of the forum, I replaced the metal ring with plumbers gland packing ptfe "string". While the result may not be quite the best for power or long life, I can now move the piston up and down the cylinder just by blowing by mouth into the inlet. As I don't envisage using the engine to power anything, I think this should be ok.
Thanks again to all who responded, your comments are much appreciated. |
Thread: "Unicorn" |
28/02/2011 20:39:16 |
Hello NJH
Thanks very much for your kind offer!
PM sent.
Jim |
27/02/2011 21:47:23 |
Hi all
Can anyone suggest a source for the construction notes for the Reeves "Unicorn" horizontal mill engine? It is stated to have been described in Vol. 109 of The Model Engineer mag. I have tried Googling and ebay without much success.
Thanks |
Thread: Piston ring |
22/01/2011 21:37:56 |
Hello, and thanks for the advice.
The ring is free in the groove, the groove suitably deep all round and the bore has no visible machining marks. Don't know what it would be like when hot, as I haven't got that far yet! However, when I got it, it was sufficiently assembled to try it with compressed air, needing approx. 100psi to make it run.
I think I will try the other methods of sealing, as suggested, first, and see what happens.
Thanks again
Jim |
21/01/2011 21:10:03 |
Hi all
I have recently acquired a part finished single cylinder double acting steam engine model. I find that the piston ring is very tight in the bore of the cylinder. The chamfered ends of the ring have a suitable gap when the ring is in the cylinder, and the piston head itself has a good working clearance. The ring seems to be of brass or bronze.
Any suggestions on how to relieve the tension would be much appreciated. |
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.