Model Engine Maker
Help! => Specific Engine Help => Topic started by: petertha on January 02, 2021, 05:05:11 PM
-
I bought some plans from Modelltechnik, maybe my next project, not sure yet.
https://www.cad-modelltechnik-jung.de/construction-plans-model-engines.html
On a few of his designs he uses a built-up crankshaft method with Hirth couplings to join mid span crankshaft journal segments. These are concentrically retained within journal bearings and axially held together with a cap screw. It looked a bit intimidating, but basically looks like set the dividing head at the prescribed angle & cut across the cylinder face with a vee cutter to prescribed depth. His CAD plans shows the theoretical cut profile: 60-deg vee angle, cut inclination angle, tooth depth from point cylinder face edge & number of teeth. By theoretical I mean the peaks & valleys are defined by the sharp points. Through these links I think I'm able to replicate the cut profile. The teeth appear to mate properly in various section views & I get agreement with the axial inter-mesh distance.
General info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirth_joint
Solidworks + Excel. Shows underlying equations in spreadsheet. Some of the output parameters I can correlate to my 3D model, others I'm not too sure about.
https://grabcad.com/tutorials/designing-a-hirth-spline
Calculates cut path angle for standard Hirth Joint/Coupling based on given number of teeth and cutting tool profile angle. Generates downloadable OpenSCAD model but I wasnt able to open that file format.
http://thmq.mysteria.cz/hirth/
Its real life machining I'm wondering about. The cutter will have some small but defined flat or nose radius. I allowed for that distance/geometry in my CAD model. And the tooth crown should have some defined flat for trough clearance when parts inter-mesh, so factored that distance as well. BTW I'm still preserving the vee cut profile from the theoretical geometry but I guess I'm saying I'm kind of winging it here on the peak & trough details. I'm also not exactly sure how I would measure depth in-situ while machining - kind of like how you would measure a thread to know your pitch diameter is within tolerance.
- Has anyone machined this profile before? (maybe specifically on a model engine crankshaft).
- Does anyone have links to Hirth geometry/equations (ideally for simple minds LOL).
I've ordered a double angle cutter like attached pic just to experiment. Hopefully will do the job?
-
My cad tester pics
-
60-deg cutter I ordered.
-
One of our currently not active members posted a video on this some years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WacJOVzxmY
It looks complicated to me ::)
-
Thanks, yes I saw that video.
I noticed he cuts the teeth with what looks like a boring bar style of arbor with maybe HSS cutter profile. The multi-tooth cutter I show might bite me when it comes time if I cant get proper clearance for the tool holder etc. but cross that bridge later.
-
BTW in case anyone is scratching their heads, the cad pics I show in the first post are 2 different Jung engines. The 2D is an opposed 4-cyl and the 3D is my rendition of his Vee 6-cyl. But both engines & others on his site use Hirth couplings which was my point. Lots of videos of the engines running, so feel-good confidence there. Now, how they actually made the joints is another matter LOL
-
In the MuellerNick Youtube video he defines the nose flat of his cutter. First pic is my cad equivalent to that feature that I mentioned earlier.
And also including the tooth crown clearance facet cut. Here I'm kind of winging it. Another link described this cut as being made like in a lathe with the compound set. I think this would yield an arc rather than a line but now getting into details that wont matter because its such a tiny amount, at least at these shaft dimensions.
-
Hello Petertha
As you well know, I have a great interest in the pre-war 'Silver Arrows' Grand Prix race cars built by Auto Union and Mercedes Benz.
All the pre-war Mercedes Benz crankshafts were machine in one piece with split roller bearing for both the Main and Big End bearings
Auto Union went the opposite way. All their car cars had multi part, built up crankshafts with Hirth couplings which enabled them to use more robust, one piece roller bearings for the Mains and Big Ends.
Auto Union did not manufacture the Hirth coupled Crankshaft themselves. The crankshafts were subcontracted to Mahle.
My researches into these Hirth coupled Crankshafts suggest the individual crankshaft sections were machined with the serrated Hirth couplings but with the bearing journals left slightly oversize. The sections were then bolted up to form the crankshaft. The Main and Big End journals were then ground to size on a conventional crankshaft grinder as if it was a one piece crankshaft. The Hirth couplings gave such good alignment (and power transmission) that the crankshaft could be dismantled and reassemble with perfect alignment and accuracy. The secret of their success appears to be to do the final journal grinding of the bearing journals as if it were a one piece crankshaft.
Mercedes Benz finally went over to built up crankshafts with Hirth couplings in the 1950's and used them in the world beating W196 driven by Moss and Fangio.
Here are some photos of the W196 Hirth crankshaft, courtesy of the Mercedes F1 team at Brackly.
(https://listerengine.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10013/TM81E6~1small.JPG)
(https://listerengine.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10013/W196_crankshaft.jpg)
Perhaps the Auto Union/ Mahle way of finish grinding the journals would also help you and me achieve the required accuracy in our model crankshafts.
Stay safe
Mike
-
Hello again,
Hubert Schillings also uses built-up crankshafts in many of his multi cylinder engines. See his book "Boxer-, Reihen- und V-Motoren als Modell"
Schillings uses a much simpler way to couple the crankshaft pieces than the Hirth coupling. Shillings uses four round dowel pegs, in reamed holes, for alignment and power transmission. The round dowel pegs may be an easier prospect for model engineers rather than the complex Hirth coupling. Both would appear to give similar alignment accuracy, the Hirth however would transmit much greater torque. The post assembly final journal grinding process, I described earlier, could be applied, with the obvious advantages, to either coupling method.
I am still debating which method to use on my Mercedes Benz W165 engines.
Stay safe
Mike
-
Thanks Mike. Very nice detailed pics. When I did a 'Hirth' keyword search on the forum I didn't get many hits, but yes I saw your references (possibly a few others). I wasn't quite sure if that eventually resulted in making the couplings on a specific project, hence my fishing expedition post.
I'm going to make some testers from blanks of stock. That won't incur major expense, just some time & effort. If results turn out OK, I'll have confidence in making the CS itself which is kind of key to the overall project. The Hirth geometry is kind of interesting to me unto itself, so part of the fun. I guess on one hand its small & fiddly (at 12mm OD dimension in this case). But the potential payoff is making a rather complicated multi-throw crankshaft via more manageable smaller components versus a one-piece CS and all that that entails (large chunk of metal + hogging + interrupted cuts + finishing all the journals + potential stress relief distortion + clamshell bushings vs bearing race.... etc). Choose your poison I suppose.
There are other elements to the built-up crank that I need clarification on, but I'll reach out to Mr. Jung specifically & report back any useful information. Thanks for your interest. Lets keep comparing notes.
-
Hubert Schillings also uses built-up crankshafts in many of his multi cylinder engines. See his book "Boxer-, Reihen- und V-Motoren als Modell"
Schillings uses a much simpler way to couple the crankshaft pieces than the Hirth coupling. Shillings uses four round dowel pegs, in reamed holes, for alignment and power transmission.
I have been searching for a copy of that book & basically given up. But thanks for that description, I understand the layout. Hmm.. interesting option, something to include in the mock-up test.
-
Magnification of your pic kind of looks like what I was guessing at. The flat that runs down the tooth crown looks to be of constant width. Another reference I saw inferred it was cut like you would turn it in a lathe. But I think that would result in a tapered flat & more importantly, inconsistent with the meshing fit up because the tooth cut itself is extruded straight through the part. I didn't validate this though. My searching for Hirth geometry basics was hit & miss. Either kind of simple stuff or research papers above my pay grade, but not much in between. Strange we are trying to figure this out when the designer had pencil & paper many years ago LOL.
Hmm.. the dowel pinned joint is looking rather appealing LOL
-
Hi petertha,
It was by pure coincidence that today I was reviewing my Mercedes W165 crankshaft drawings when you started this post. I am torn between the Hirth and the Schilling coupling and still cannot decide which, if any, will give me a straight crankshaft at the end to the day. Accuracy of this order is totally dependent on the machinery available in your workshop. No option of subcontracting the work to Mahle. :wallbang: :wallbang:
The only reason to use a built up crankshaft is to allow the use of one piece roller bearings throughout and one piece conrods. The cost is high as you need to make so many intricate pieces to high accuracy. But that accuracy is not enough by itself. The assembled crankshaft still needs the bearing journals accurately finished off on a conventional one piece crank journal grinder.
I think the flat bottom to the Hirth V grove has a lot to do with preventing crack propagation. The serrations only need to contact over a small part of their flanks, likewise the radial contact area is also very small.
Mike
-
Dont get too concerned about finding formulii defining the flats at either side of the serrations. They only need to prevent contact with the bottom of the Vee, so just cut a little off.
I find it helps to think of the Hirth coupling as two identical bevel gears. Once you have defined the cut angle, you have almost everything you need.
Mike
-
Hubert Schillings also uses built-up crankshafts in many of his multi cylinder engines. See his book "Boxer-, Reihen- und V-Motoren als Modell"
Schillings uses a much simpler way to couple the crankshaft pieces than the Hirth coupling. Shillings uses four round dowel pegs, in reamed holes, for alignment and power transmission.
I have been searching for a copy of that book & basically given up. But thanks for that description, I understand the layout. Hmm.. interesting option, something to include in the mock-up test.
Hi petertha
JasonB sent me a link to download the Shillings book a while back. Have a look at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q8ijzp3h7kqr3fs/AAA_-bbREnB6pBcNP9EZXT1za?dl=0 it may still be there. The text is in German and does not give away much detail. The drawings are where the detail is hidden.
Mike
-
MUCH appreciated!
-
I have been considered a Hirth joint for a two-throw crankshaft project, albeit not scale model. So I gave quite a bit of thought and some experimentation to the idea, some of which might relate to your project. The goal was to come up with something I felt would be accurate enough without specialized precision grinding of the Hirth joint that I do not have, or resorting to grinding the journals true after assembly.
First, the CAD geometry. I took a more empirical approach and did not use formulas. You already have a CAD model. What you will find is that for a given number of teeth, increasing the number of serrations or increasing the depth will just cut away material at the ‘crest’. The crest ends up being a resulting edge. You do not actually want that as it is a sharp edge which will foul any root radius you will end up with. So I just set my root and crest trajectory to be the same angle, and just kept increasing that angle until cut away nearly all of the crest, leaving just a small flat (actually a conical surface.) Since the CAD model had a sharp root, but a flat at the crest, I did have to use a small offset for the vertex. Else both root and crest would end up sharp. In reality you can just rub the crest surface with some emery cloth to quickly knock a flat (or more flat) on it, though a somewhat arbitrary method.
Cutting tool. There are two approaches that I am aware of. Using a double angle cutter such as you purchased, or using an engraving bit. Both have their pros and cons. What I found was the overriding consideration was the logistics of setup and what machine tools you have available, rather than the cutting tool type.
With a dividing head, the axis of rotation is the center of the Hirth pattern. If that is on a mains journal, fairly simple to indicate the workpiece true to the dividing head. If it is something like a crank throw, maybe not so simple. You will need something to indicate. This could be the hole through for the bolt or differential stud used to clamp the Hirth joint together. Just remember to cut the threads after and not before. You will want to bore those holes so you have a nice cylindrical surface to indicate, and your ability to step off the hole centers, or distance from the main to the crankpin, will determine the precision of your assembly. If all your throws end up having slightly different strokes, the crank will run out of true quite a bit. The alternative is some sort of fixture you can mount the workpiece in that does have reference surfaces to indicate, and the ability to register the work in it repeatable and accurately. However correcting the location (changing the stroke) pretty much means loosening the clamps and bumping the workpiece (or fixture) around on the face of the dividing head and hoping nothing moves when you re-clamp. Once all that is achieved, a dividing head makes spacing off the serrations pretty simple. Accurate too, if the dividing head is accurate of course! Used with the double angle cutter it makes for a clean cut.
Once you have sorted out the workpiece, there are a few challenges with the cutter. You need to put the apex of the angle on center with the axis of the work. Normally this is done like you would for a gear cutter; touch the side off of a known surface and move the machine axis the request amount. So you will need to measure the distance from the tip of the cutter to the apex of the angle; do not assume it is precisely half the cutter width. Then touch off the work. Maybe you feel when it bumps up against the work, pinch a paper shim, or observe when it scrapes away a wipe of layout dye. Whatever your method, and the accuracy associated with it. Being off a thou’ here, is not as bad as being a thou’ off in positioning the workpiece.
The alternative is to use an engraving bit. If you have a CNC milling machine, you do not even need a dividing head with this method. On a manual machine it is a bit more complicated as you have to tip the workpiece out of plane to the spindle (serration trajectory). That makes indicating and stepping off the stoke more difficult (though not impossible with fixturing) since it lies on a different plane, so I am not sure if it is then worthwhile. At that point you might as well use the double angle cutter and that setup.
I went the CNC route! The biggest negative with the engraving bit is the cutter velocity at the tip is zero no matter how fast your milling spindle turns. Yet they work, so nothing to lose sleep over. The second is you cannot get a sharp corner to the root of the cut. But you can get pretty close (0.010 to 0.005 radius engraving bits are commercially available), and anyway a sharp corner is a stress riser! The double angle cutters are more manageable for the cutting velocity and that velocity is more uniform over the flank of the serration, but the tips blunt on those too, so do not expect dead sharp corners. It is easy enough to flatten the crest of the machined serrations, so providing some clearance for the root radius. If you are doing very small Hirth joints then yes the sweep of the double angle cutter could collide with teeth on the opposite side. They do make thread mills in very small diameters, if you accept a 60 degree included angle. I suppose someone make Whitworth and BA thread mills if you want to use those angles.
Anyway, I digress. In my mind, the biggest plus was the simplification of the setup when using an engraving bit combined with CNC, and that is what I chose it to experiment with. With the engraving bit, centering the cutter is easy; it is the axis of the milling spindle! Even if your collet or cutter holder runs out a little, the axis is still the spindle. The cutter just orbits a little and you are going to get a slightly larger root radius than intended. Hopefully your collets (and spindle!) run true, but remember there is no such thing as absolutely accuracy. As for centering the work - well you put the indicator in the spindle and clock the reference surface just like centering up of any other job. The positional error is as good as you dial indicator, the circularity of the feature indicated, surface roughness, etc. Conventional stuff.
The workpiece just sits there on the table (ha-ha), and you use the table axis to both generate the serrations, but also set the position of the pattern. Need more or less stroke, just move the table over and define that as the center of your Hirth pattern. No loosening clamps and bumping things about. But, the accuracy of positioning is now dependent on the accuracy of your machine tool. If you step off a desired distance and the machine tool moves something more or less than that and you have no way of checking that (DRO that you trust, gauge blocks, etc.) then it is a lost cause. Say you can get the position very accurate, but you are not sure the machine accuracy is good enough to generate the Hirth pattern? Perhaps your CNC machine has lead screws rather than ball screws or it otherwise has some backlash in the screws or ways. That, surprisingly, does not matter as much. Do not get me wrong, it will not work on worn out machinery, but the positional error of the Hirth pattern will be something smaller than the positioning error of the machine. How so? The Hirth pattern is made up of multiple serrations in a radial array, each one of which has a positional error (nothing is perfect). But the axis of the pattern is the summation of all those errors. Think of it as a shot gun blast at a paper target. Each pellet flies off at some trajectory of random error, but the center of pattern is where the barrel was pointed (hopefully at the center of the target!) When you clamp up the Hirth joint, it is going to register and settle on the average of all the serrations, not just any one serration that might be out of position this way or that. We are talking small deviations. I call this error averaging; I do not know if there is an official name for it. Of course, if you have one serration that is completely out of place, it is going to mess up your average. Just like a number well outside of range will skew a statistical average.
Do all the serration cuts the same way. By that I mean start from the outside and mill in to the center. Or do them all from the center out. Do not start from the outside, mill to the vertex, and then climb out the far side. If you have backlash, doing that could shift your pattern off center. But if the opposite serration was cut in an opposing direction (converging to the vertex, or vice-versa), the backlash error is more likely to cancel each other out. Also allow a little travel for the backlash to take up. Your cutter approach distance ought to be sufficient. If not, you definitely have a backlash problem!
The other thing I liked about his setup was I could do everything I needed with the work on the table and spindle vertical. Set of the stroke, cut the serrations. I could machine the fixture, leave it on the table, and install the workpiece, etc. without tearing down or moving the setup. Every time you move the work or setup, you introduce a chance of positional error. Actually you always introduce a positional error, you just hope it is so infinitesimal that you cannot measure (detect) it! All the critical moves were in the X & Y axis, with Z basically being just the depth of cut (serration trajectory) and not quite as critical insofar as positional accuracy. With a dividing head and double angle cutter you have three axis that need precision (2 linear, 1 rotary) and a forth that is not quite as paramount (centering the cutter) and usually locked. The more axis in motion or needing precision, the more chance for error.
Fixturing. A problem with doing the work on the table with a vertical spindle, and also with the dividing head, is if you need to reference something on the other side of the work. For example, crankpins on either side of the center web, or a main journal on one side and the crankpin on the other of a throw. Fixturing can help. While not a Hirth joint, two of the attached images show a center web of a two throw crank mounted in a fixture bolted to a lathe face plate; then the bare fixture. The fixture has two holes (A & B) bored for the center distance of the stroke. I did not have a CNC mill at that time (picture taken back in the days of 35mm film!) and never had a jig bore. So I bored the two holes on a knee mill using gauge blocks and a dial indicator to get the distance as accurate as possible. Then when setting up in the mill or lathe, it was a matter of using my best dial indicator to clock the hole true. “C” indicates tapped holes for four leveling screws (rather than skimming the face plate). “D” are cone point set screws that dogged in holes in the corners of the center web that would eventually be machined away when it took on a more lozenge shape. They were offset so that running them in tended to pull the center web down tight against the face of the fixture. A potential point of error was when doing the second side, the fit of turned crankpin needed to be a snug fit if the bore. If it could rattle around in the bore, then positional location was lost. The hole for the first crankpin (B) was oversized for clearance, the center distance was critical, not the fit. For the Hirth joint, it is in some way a little better situation. You mill a Hirth joint on a fixture similar to this, step over, and set your zero for the other Hirth pattern. Or if you do not trust your mill to step off a larger distance, have a hole pre-bored in the fixture (like this one) that you can clock off from. The throw with one Hirth joint milled is going to register on the fixture accurately; or just as accurately as it would in a crank assembly. No worrying about your cylindrical fit, or locking the workpiece against rotation. The Hirth joint takes care of that. If you are doing the throw with a main journal on one side and the Hirth joint on the other (facing up towards the spindle), then your fixture is going to revert to something with a hole bored in it that you clock first before installing the workpiece. Then you are back to how accurately it fits in the hole. It could be something like a collet chuck.
Gauging. I do not know of a ready method to reliably gauge the pitch plane of the Hirth joint. However the pitch plane is not as critical as the other positional challenges, as it just alters the overall length of the crank assembly rather than causing it to run out of true. But in one picture you will see a simple fixture, lower right, for mounting a single ‘crankpin’ where the first Hiirth joint has already been machined. (The ‘plain’ fixture on the left has a conical face to match the pre-turned blank.) One of these, or a pair, could be used for gauging by measuring over the outside. Sort of like thread triangles. You could use a pair to verify relative dimensions; get all your crankpins the same length, verify you have taken an additional few thou’ off, etc.
Anyway, a few brief thoughts… ::)
-Doug
-
Very good information there Elam Works. This is exactly the sort of experience/detail I was hoping to receive. Looks like you are making good progress. Like Vixen (Mike) was mentioning, there may be other options, but pros & cons & trade-offs to each based on the application at hand.
When I was drawing up the 6-cyl CS I overlooked a dimension detail where Hirth vee starts at a specific clock angle in intermediary component. I think that's related to getting the proper throw angles, so another setup complication.
I have lots of pondering to do. Thanks for the useful information this far!
-
The geometry is quite simple, all faces converge to a single point in the center. https://grabcad.com/library/hirth-serration-1 shows this and the formula. For CAD, the formula is not necessary and can be fully defined with sketch geometry and the number of grooves. The hard part for production would seem to be setting the beta angle and making sure the teeth pass through the center. Tolerances in profile and position will determine how much contact area there is. For a part like a turret coupling this would influence repeatability and wear. For a static joint, this means contact stress. If you look at the geometry, it should be apparent that the 60°(or 90°) profile is not perpendicular to the Z axis of the part, but the beta angle. As such, milling with a 60° tool and the part flat with Z feed to follow the beta angle will not generate surfaces which are coplanar when the joint is assembled. This can be corrected by finding the appropriate angle for the tool and the particular design, be certain it's small ~0.5° for the model I drew, but it is there.
-
Thanks Dieselpilot I actually saw that same link. I didn't download the PDF showing the equation but maybe I should sign up & do so. (I cant quite make out the terms just looking at the screen).
Re the 'converge at the center' - I initially assumed that was the case too, but I'm pretty sure when I joined 2 identical parts & sectioned them, something wasn't right. The facets weren't co-planar. I've deleted those models now. But I noticed the Jung drawing showed a hidden line with the same reference angle going right across the span of the cylinder face so I tried that. In this manner a vee never intersects any another. The online calculators compute the same angle he shows based on OD & number of teeth. I took some screen grabs of my steps. I'm not saying its right, its just what I did. (This is why I posted the question to begin with).
-
Then the tooth crown facet bit (my own method, again not 100% sure here)
-
I realize my center hole was masking the 'cut straight across the entire face' method. So in this drawing I omitted & it.
The result is that it the teeth do appear to converge at the center. Or maybe that is an equivalent way of drawing it vs how I did it?
-
The Hirth coupling by definition results in coplanar surfaces when assembled. If this isn't the case, the model is wrong. The easiest way to prove it is by mating the cylinders concentric and one pair of what should be mating flats coincident. If all flats are coplanar, the model is correct. This can easily be checked with interference detection using coincidence.
I did mine without calculating anything. The key is that ends of a line at the half height are on the cylinder. The rest falls into place. I just used an equal distance chamfer on the crest which gave a constant width flat. Geometry is my "thing" in SW, I use it vs. calculated or dimensioned anything whenever possible. The only dimension to define the grooves in my model is the angle at half height to set the number of grooves.
-
We had some PM about this. If the beta angle is calculated with reasonable precision(no rounding in CAD), it will result in accurate geometry. I was set on solving this problem with geometry as the half height and beta angle are directly related.
-
Hello Petertha
Mercedes Benz finally went over to built up crankshafts with Hirth couplings in the 1950's and used them in the world beating W196 driven by Moss and Fangio.
Mike
That's interesting Mike, recently I've been researching the 1950's Guzzi V8 500cc race bike. An idea that went from concept to reality on just 5 months. That bike was faster than anything at the time (circa 180mph) but suffered from poor reliability, very often crankshaft related. Guzzi tried all sorts of crank configurations and construction methods for a couple of seasons and eventually went to Hirth in Germany who solved that problem for them. Shortly after this the demand in Italy for small motor cycles dried up - this regular production had provided Guzzi with their race budget, and so they withdrew from racing. In that year the V8 had very nearly won a Grand Prix, it was leading by a huge margin, but near the end of the race the battery lead came off.
-
Hello Nick
Maybe they should have used a Hirth coupling on the battery terminals as well. :lolb: :lolb:
I have seen the Guzzi V8 at Sammy Millers Museum and also at Goodwood. An incredibly complex engine for 500cc but maybe too complex for it's own good.
Mike
-
Hello Petertha
As you well know, I have a great interest in the pre-war 'Silver Arrows' Grand Prix race cars built by Auto Union and Mercedes Benz.
All the pre-war Mercedes Benz crankshafts were machine in one piece with split roller bearing for both the Main and Big End bearings
Mercedes Benz finally went over to built up crankshafts with Hirth couplings in the 1950's and used them in the world beating W196 driven by Moss and Fangio.
Perhaps the Auto Union/ Mahle way of finish grinding the journals would also help you and me achieve the required accuracy in our model crankshafts.
Stay safe
Mike
Many of earlier Messerschmidt 109 aircrafts had DB 601 engines with solid crankshafts and divided roller connecting rods as well.
Later they got DB605 motors with slidebearings
Hirth made a lot of trainer aircraft engines HM 504 fourcylinder engines .
Crankshaft was assembled from 36 Hirth splines without roller conrods .
Ground as a single crankshaft.
Dismantled again and put inside a single undivided crankcase with connecting rods.
Some are still flying today untouched.
Nobody dares for fear of not working again
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/media/wp_20190822_001-1.79558/full?d=1566463915 (https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/media/wp_20190822_001-1.79558/full?d=1566463915)
Mr Schilling mentions that he worked for a short while at a firm that made Hirth crankshafts for racing motors.
-
Hirth made a lot of trainer aircraft engines HM 504 fourcylinder engines .
Crankshaft was assembled from 36 Hirth splines without roller conrods .
Ground as a single crankshaft.
Dismantled again and put inside a single undivided crankcase with connecting rods.
Some are still flying today untouched.
Nobody dares for fear of not working again
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/media/wp_20190822_001-1.79558/full?d=1566463915 (https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/media/wp_20190822_001-1.79558/full?d=1566463915)
Niels,
Your photo of the Hirth crankshaft components is very interesting. You can clearly see the large diameter sleeve that pulls the component parts together. The threaded sleeve (bolt?) has differential threads. One side has a course thread while the other has a fine pitch thread. The result is the ability to apply very large compression forces on the splined coupling joint to produce a built-up crankshaft, equally as strong as a solid one piece crankshaft.
Mike
-
Hi everyone, watching along with interest.
I just wondered if anyone has seen the location used on smaller cutting tools nowadays. The attached photo shows a 10mm diameter shank groove milling tool and insert. Because of the light tooth loads used on these, they have to run very true and cope with some significant loads.
I just wondered if the type of Hirth couple being considered is over complicated for the application?
Jon
-
Jon,
The PH Horn mini grooving tools and tool holder look remarkable like a three groove version of the Hirth coupling. They seem to work the same way to achieve both accurate alignment and good torque transfer.
I have had no luck trying to find drawings of the geometry for this coupling, but suspect it would need another specialist cutter or EDM to form the grooves. At least the Hirth coupling can be cut using a more or less standard 'V' cutter.
Mike
-
One side has a course pitch right hand thread while the other has a fine pitch left and thread
Actually, don't they need to be the same hand? The one pitch just needs to be coarser than the other so that it gains a slight amount over the trailing fine pitch. The differential being the difference in lead. I used M16x1.5 and M16x1.25 because taps were readily available for an effective lead of 0.25mm*rev. Some experimentation was required to figure out how many thread 'head start" the fine pitch was given before engaging the coarse so that when it nipped up tight the ends of the differential bolt (or stud, actually) ended up flush with the adjacent surface as desired.
If the threads were opposite hands, wouldn't the pitches be additive (in the previous example, 2.75mm*rev)?
Re- The PH Horn carbide insert interface. Another disadvantage is the lack of surface area carrying load. just six flank surfaces. The rest of the face does not contribute and indeed cannot touch the opposing surface least it prevent the joint from clamping up tight. Not unless you were able to maintain very precise tolerances like the combined short taper/face joint of a D1/A1/A2 lathe spindle nose. As said, vee-serrations are probably easier.
-Doug
-
One side has a course pitch thread while the other has a fine pitch thread
Actually, don't they need to be the same hand? The one pitch just needs to be coarser than the other so that it gains a slight amount over the trailing fine pitch. The differential being the difference in lead. I used M16x1.5 and M16x1.25 because taps were readily available for an effective lead of 0.25mm*rev. Some experimentation was required to figure out how many thread 'head start" the fine pitch was given before engaging the coarse so that when it nipped up tight the ends of the differential bolt (or stud, actually) ended up flush with the adjacent surface as desired.
If the threads were opposite hands, wouldn't the pitches be additive (in the previous example, 2.75mm*rev)?
-Doug
Hello Doug,
You are correct about both threads being the same hand. I have corrected the original post.
Mike
-
Otto Pulch was known in Germany for some very advanced aero engine concepts.He showed me once how he made a poor mans Hirth coupling.
The divided shaft to be was made as one piece on final dimensions.
From memory around 60mm diameter with 40 mm hole.
He then drilled and reamed 5mm holes in a ringzone and had some colleaque at work in Jullich divide the shaft with wire EDM .
9mm long 5mm rollers from INA was then used as locking keys.
After assembly there was no dimensional changes.
It was part of crankshaft for a 6 cylinder 2 row radial motor based on BMW motorcycle cylinders.
I will try to make a drawing of the shaft
-
In Schilling's book (page 25) there appears to be a crankshaft design using 3 square keys like the PH Horn grooving tools. It also seems to suggest using a high strength aluminium alloy for the crankshaft with INA bearing inner races as the journal surfaces.