Author Topic: building the Frisco Standard Model  (Read 15265 times)

Offline Jasonb

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6780
  • Surrey, UK
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2019, 08:07:12 AM »
What does the drawing for the head show? That may confirm if it is the crank or cylinder drawing that is wrong. Also look at the con rods, I've made engines where the big end is wider one side than the other which affects the offset.

Does not look like you have the option to go oversize as the water passage is so close and you have already said you could not go to drawing size. Maybe a liner with an offset bore if that does not leave on side too thin.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 08:13:18 AM by Jasonb »

Offline gbritnell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2019, 12:23:45 PM »
Hi Craig,
Hopefully it was never brought to the designers attention. If it was and not corrected shame on him. I would think a replacement casting would be in order but that doesn't help all the work you've done so far.
Please keep us informed.
gbritnell
Talent unshared is talent wasted.

Offline b.lindsey

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13760
  • Dallas, NC, USA
    • Workbench-Miniatures
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2019, 02:05:30 PM »
Craig, that can sure take the wind out of your sails!!  Very interested in what you find out from the designer and hopefully they will rectify the issue to your satisfaction.

Bill

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2019, 05:55:15 PM »
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

I'm not concerned regarding the time I've invested in this cylinder casting, it is what it is and being retired, I have lots of time to re-do if need be.

The 2.100 dimension is correct I believe, were the crankshaft any longer it would not fit within the crankcase.

There are two separate heads so using them as a reference to get the 'right' measurement is not an option.

With the head bolts just skimming the cylinder liner, I would need to fabricate a liner thick enough to contain the head bolts, then cut the water jacket into the liner.  This is possible in theory, not sure how well the engine would hold together with the heads attached to the cylinder liner only?

A Possability might be to offset the arms of the connecting rods on the bearings (so the arm doesn't protrude from the center of the journal but rather the edge).  I believe the geometry would work.  This would offset the pistons so they would line up center bore as they should.  Since each cylinder has a separate head this shouldn't't be a problem.  With the heads located .078 in. Further out than designed,  This would also offset the vertical side shafts further into the head casting.  I'd need to look long and hard into yhis to see what problems that might cause.

I'd prefer to get another cylinder casting, even if I end up paying for it.

I sent an email to Bob Banke few days ago and am waiting a reply.  I might need to call and I will if I don't hear back soon.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 05:59:36 PM by Craig DeShong »
Craig

Online Dave Otto

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3645
  • Boise, Idaho USA
    • Photo Bucket
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2019, 07:36:50 PM »
Well hopefully Bob will give you a new casting. It is amazing with the number of these engines that have been built that this hasn't been corrected; my drawings are the same as yours.
I would be interested the here what Bob has to say about this if anything.

Dave

Offline Jasonb

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6780
  • Surrey, UK
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #110 on: February 02, 2019, 07:39:52 PM »
I did read another post on here where mention was made of two sets of drawings, the later being debugged. I can Understand Dave having an old set if they have been under the bench for a while but Craig's should be upto date.

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #111 on: February 02, 2019, 11:53:40 PM »
I'm not sure how many of them have been built.  Mine is number 41.  You have to figure that some of those that were bought are still sitting on the owner's shelf.

  I have a friend who bought a casting set when tbe engine was first available.  He had problems with the head castings but l believe that has been addressed by the time I purchased mine.  My drawings refer to "old" head castings and well ad " new" castings.

He told me he saw the drawing error I experienced and adjusted before he machined the cylinders. (Would have been nice if he mentioned it to me!).  He can't remember he passed that along to Bob or not.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 11:59:25 PM by Craig DeShong »
Craig

Offline steamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10428
  • Central Massachusetts, USA
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #112 on: February 03, 2019, 12:11:05 AM »
Hi Craig,

So was it the crank drawing or the cylinder drawing that was amiss?

Dave
"Mister M'Andrew, don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit!

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2019, 01:16:03 AM »
Must be the cylinder.  If I allowed 2.256 inches between the centers of the two crankshaft throws, the crankshaft would not fit in the base and the dimensions on the base would not allow it.

Also, if I allowed 2.1 inches between cylinder centers, the two bores would have centered on the casting much better.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 02:28:46 AM by Craig DeShong »
Craig

Offline steamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10428
  • Central Massachusetts, USA
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #114 on: February 03, 2019, 01:18:27 AM »
Must be the cylinder.  If I allowed 2.256 inches between the outside throws of the crankshaft it would not fit in the base and the dimensions on the base would not allow it.

OK then....been thinking about this.  I think I'd rather start the cylinder casting over, than everything below it.

Dave
"Mister M'Andrew, don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit!

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #115 on: February 14, 2019, 11:44:11 PM »
And then there were two!!   :whoohoo:



If you remember with the last update, I had uncovered an error in the drawings and was trying to determine what to do about it.  I finally decided that another casting was the only solution so I contacted Bob Banke.   We had an interesting conversation.

Bob informed me that he had sold around 60 casting sets for the Frisco Standard and I was the first person to mention that the drawings might have an error in regard to the cylinder dimension.  He wouldn’t really confirm that the drawings were in error, but stated that he wanted the people that bought his models to have a good experience and if I needed another casting, he would send me one; free of charge.

I thanked him profusely; then pressed him regarding the measurement that was in error.  His response was that he no longer had access to the drawings.  The template used for the drawings appear to be a “Solid Works” template (thanks Brian) so I assume he means he no longer has access to a copy of “Solid Works” to make a change. (The drawings were signed by a “W. Austin” and possibly Mr. Austin is no longer available?)     

The take away from all this is that I got a new casting (free of charge) and the dimension on the drawing probably isn’t going to get changed; so those in the future, who purchase this model, might fall into the same trap I did if they aren’t attentive (as I was not).

Before you take what I’m saying the wrong way, I have a lot of respect for Bob.  He sincerely wants his customers to be happy: even to the extent of supplying the occasional replacement casting for free. I would purchase another of his models without a second thought (and probably will since he has another I really like and as Jo would say: (paraphrase) “How can you live without a cache of castings to build?”.

So, while all this was going on, I have one of the cast iron sleeves in my big lathe and If I remove it, I’ll never get the rough stock centered again, so there it will stay until I get the outside diameter for the sleeve (after I bore the replacement cylinders).

I thought I’d start on the connecting rods.  The bottom crankshaft journals are brass castings with steel rods attached.  The drawings call for the casting to be drilled for the bolts and then cut through the center.
 
I attempted the cut through the center with a .018 slitting saw but the casting seized the saw and shattered it (actually two of them). :hammerbash:  I ended up buggering the job :facepalm:, but fortunately there was enough material in the casting to clean up the rough center so all is well. :insane:

If anyone can tell me how I should have split this casting in two, I’d appreciate it.  With some things, I’m still quite the novice. :help: 

Here are the castings, complete and ready to receive the steel shafts.



On with the steel part.  After cutting a piece of stock to size I’m forming the wrist pin journal with my rotary milling head. (I really love this thing. :Love:)




With my big lathe tied up, the connecting rods are small enough I can use my tired old 9 inch Southbend which I’m doing here.



And here is how I left things at the close of the day; working down the diameter of the shaft.
Craig

Offline steamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10428
  • Central Massachusetts, USA
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #116 on: February 15, 2019, 12:00:27 AM »
Oh a VOlstro!     Love that head....that and the head that BP made that lets you get around corners and stuff....those are cool!

that casting is a challenge...gripping in the vise with the part sitting in some soft aluminum or lead flashing so it doesn't move around, and saw cutting it would be my first choice.

Dave
"Mister M'Andrew, don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit!

Offline Craig DeShong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Raleigh,NC. USA
    • Lauson small engines
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #117 on: February 15, 2019, 12:13:10 AM »
Dave.  Holding the casting wasn't a problem.  The casting was solid (before boring it for the crankshaft journal).  My problem was that the casting kept closing down on the slitting saw, seizing it, and jamming it in the cut slot.  I was using a very slow speed, around 150 RPM.  I guess heat was the culprit but I thought I was going slow enough and was using Plenty of cutting oil.

It was a block of brass around one half inch by one inch cross section.
Craig

Offline Brian Rupnow

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5325
  • Barrie, Ontario Canada
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #118 on: February 15, 2019, 12:15:43 AM »
Very interesting. Solidworks is great, but it is horribly, outrageously expensive. If you aren't using it professionally, there is no way in Hell you could justify it for a hobby. If the creator of this engine had a Solidworks guy draw up the plans, and now for some reason he no longer has access to the Solidworks guy, then you're right---he couldn't change the drawings. I quit paying for yearly updates (at $1800 a pop) in 2015, since being semi retired I could no longer justify the expense. And there are compatibility issues. I can open and work with anything up to and including 2015, but can not open anything created after 2015---And people with the newer versions can not save any of their files to any year prior to their current license.

Offline steamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10428
  • Central Massachusetts, USA
Re: building the Frisco Standard Model
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2019, 01:11:18 AM »
Dave.  Holding the casting wasn't a problem.  The casting was solid (before boring it for the crankshaft journal).  My problem was that the casting kept closing down on the slitting saw, seizing it, and jamming it in the cut slot.  I was using a very slow speed, around 150 RPM.  I guess heat was the culprit but I thought I was going slow enough and was using Plenty of cutting oil.

It was a block of brass around one half inch by one inch cross section.

Ahh   got to wonder if its under stress.   Perhaps a cycle to red heat under the torch before you start might get the stress out.

"Mister M'Andrew, don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit!