1/4 scale Porsche 917 180 degree V12 Build

[crueby]

Nice! The planning on those parts looks well worth it.   

[JonC]

[/quote]

Thanks Jon,   The McMaster Carr part number is in the top left of the corner of the picture below. 
https://www.mcmaster.com/4390N142/

Dave
[/quote]

Thanks Dave, very helpful. Back to the drawing board now to fit it in.

Jon

[steamer]

With the Everything shortage  I've had a hard time finding any of these at a reasonable cost.  I hope it gets better with time.

Dave

[steamer]

OK  1 step forward, and 3 bask.....

If you look at the machined parts above closely, you will see that the gears CAN"T mesh....      

OK....drop back and fix it.    I redrew and simplified the pump, .....correctly this time.

I also decided that it nees a lot less volume.   so I gear reduced it...as is prototypical

My gear cutters are here, and I have another piece of bronze!    Off to the mill!!!

[steamer]

OK   that got it this time!!!   Next will be the pump gears, but if I'm cutting gears, I'm thinking of cutting all of them....as the set up is a bit of a pain in the ass

After second and final ops on these part of course....

Dave

[crueby]

OK  1 step forward, and 3 bask.....

If you look at the machined parts above closely, you will see that the gears CAN"T mesh....      

OK....drop back and fix it.    I redrew and simplified the pump, .....correctly this time.

I also decided that it nees a lot less volume.   so I gear reduced it...as is prototypical

My gear cutters are here, and I have another piece of bronze!    Off to the mill!!!

I'm confused about the picture in that post, the straight gear on the top shaft, next to the bevel gears, looks to be off to the side of the gear below it? Shouldn't it be meshing with the gear below, like it was in earlier pictures??

[steamer]

OK  1 step forward, and 3 bask.....

If you look at the machined parts above closely, you will see that the gears CAN"T mesh....      

OK....drop back and fix it.    I redrew and simplified the pump, .....correctly this time.

I also decided that it nees a lot less volume.   so I gear reduced it...as is prototypical

My gear cutters are here, and I have another piece of bronze!    Off to the mill!!!

I'm confused about the picture in that post, the straight gear on the top shaft, next to the bevel gears, looks to be off to the side of the gear below it? Shouldn't it be meshing with the gear below, like it was in earlier pictures??

broken mate.......Fusion is a pain in the ass....

Dave

[Jasonb]

Chris I think it's this pic that shows the pump gears won't mesh as either the ctrs are wrong or the pockets not a big enough diameter.

Would have thought that would show up on the simulation in F360 which basically shows what the machine is going to cut and you could have seen there was not enough gap between the pockets for the gears to mesh.

[steamer]

Chris I think it's this pic that shows the pump gears won't mesh as either the ctrs are wrong or the pockets not a big enough diameter.

Would have thought that would show up on the simulation in F360 which basically shows what the machine is going to cut and you could have seen there was not enough gap between the pockets for the gears to mesh.

Ah yes....but we all have our days....don't we?

[crueby]

Chris I think it's this pic that shows the pump gears won't mesh as either the ctrs are wrong or the pockets not a big enough diameter.

Would have thought that would show up on the simulation in F360 which basically shows what the machine is going to cut and you could have seen there was not enough gap between the pockets for the gears to mesh.

That's not the picture I was talking about, but the one before it showing the cad view with all the shafts and gears.

[Jasonb]

Yes the large gear next to the bevel is out of place om the main assembly CAD possibly missing a constraint.

But Dave said the pump gears would not mesh, so its inside the pump where the problem is, still not sure if it was gear ctr spacing or hole size but as it looks like all 4 pump parts have been made again probably the former.

I usually find the CAM gets it right and it's me that messes something up like entering the tool height as 200mm instead of 20mm 

[propforward]

I believe Chris means the picture attached here. The gear A (crudely arrowed) should be moved over - which is what Dave was saying - a broken mate. I get that in solidworks plenty, just the same as Fusion 360 I'm sure. The number of times I've put an assembly away, only for it to fly all over the place when I open it the next day.............. 

Two separate things - the cad mate and the actual meshing, I guess.


What an epic thread. I must have not looked in before because it's an I.C. engine - so again 

Really top work Dave, bravo sir. I shall be following along - I have enjoyed catching up with my lunchtime sammo.

[crueby]

Thats the one Stuart! Sounds like Dave has that one worked out with the broken constraint - fusion does do some odd things with joints sometimes...
And agreed, this design is amazing.

[Craig DeShong]

I believe Chris means the picture attached here. The gear A (crudely arrowed) should be moved over - which is what Dave was saying - a broken mate. I get that in solidworks plenty, just the same as Fusion 360 I'm sure. The number of times I've put an assembly away, only for it to fly all over the place when I open it the next day.............. 

Happens with Alibre too, if you don’t get everything constrained properly.

Dave: many ways to get it wrong, only one way to get it ‘right’.  You’re making progress, regardless of the setbacks.  Looks GREAT.

Back when I was a student in engineering, a student asked the professor once, “Professor, why don’t you give partial credit for test answers that are nearly correct?”.

I loved he’s answer, “When you get it ‘almost right’ the rocket still blows up”. 

Classic!

[steamer]

I believe Chris means the picture attached here. The gear A (crudely arrowed) should be moved over - which is what Dave was saying - a broken mate. I get that in solidworks plenty, just the same as Fusion 360 I'm sure. The number of times I've put an assembly away, only for it to fly all over the place when I open it the next day.............. 

Happens with Alibre too, if you don’t get everything constrained properly.

Dave: many ways to get it wrong, only one way to get it ‘right’.  You’re making progress, regardless of the setbacks.  Looks GREAT.

Back when I was a student in engineering, a student asked the professor once, “Professor, why don’t you give partial credit for test answers that are nearly correct?”.

I loved he’s answer, “When you get it ‘almost right’ the rocket still blows up”. 

Classic!

I hear ya.    7000 pound load test piece for diamond turning lathe.   The hydrostatic spindles were mine.   
Chucks are 24"

It held the load so my math was right