B.Hick & Son oscillating engine

After several months and a few engines restored/built and now sat on the shelf, I'm finally going to make a start on this oscillating engine. It's the baby version of the Myers Murdoch single cylinder which is currently being built by 55fairlane.

The original delay to the build was due to a very poor flywheel and standard castings which have now been replaced. The flywheel is much better, but I think I'll modify the standard to get the nice fluted finish on them (which Jo did on her build a few years ago!).

Interestingly, Stan Bray the who wrote the build log in ME, did a similar mod way back in 1989 due to the poor casting quality ...... not much has changed there in the intervening years 

Always good to decide and then make a start on a new build even though there will be an inevitable pause when I hop back to complete the Vulcan .............this is what the box of bits looks like atm

Looks like it should be a fun build. I have a set of plans for making this engine from bar stock. Is a kit still available anywhere?

Eric

Hi Eric

Yes both the Myers and Hemingway kits are still available, although Hemingway's is now owned by Reeves :

https://myersengineworks.com/product/murdoch-vertical-oscillating/

https://www.hemingwaykits.com/category-100

It is a much better representation of the original engine than the Myers offering, Unusual as the smaller versions often lack detail but not in this case.

Hmmmm .............. well not impressed with the flywheel casting. Its gritty, powdery, makes an awful noise when machining and the finish isn't great.

If this is going to be the quality of the parts then I'm in for a ride with a lot of winging it as I go! I've made it to the nearest possible dimensions with a finish I which I can tolerate and by jove, that took some effort!

It is frustrating, we have those who build from stock, others who pour their own castings and then there are those like me who actually enjoy building from castings...............shock, horror!! Why is the quality of these items so poor, its not like they are cheap and poor quality, it's the worst of both worlds, expensive and poor quality! Seems like the they are doing themselves out of the small amount of business they have left?

Anyway, rant over .................for now 

Holding by the inside of the rim or mounted on a faceplate should help reduce those chatter marks you are getting. Of the 100 or so flywheel castings I have machined maybe only one was held by the hub due to rim profile and spoke placement.

Quote from: JasonbHolding by the inside of the rim or mounted on a faceplate should help reduce those chatter marks you are getting.

I bet that would stop the noise as well. I've had the same problem when machining solid flywheels even in the 2" range when mounted on a stub mandrel - I guess putting a large 'washer' packing piece slightly smaller than the OD between the chuck jaws and the work piece might help when a faceplate can't be used.

Sorry to hijack the thread Sanjay! I'm sure the f/w will be fine after some polishing, finders crossed the other parts are better.

No problem Paul.

I've not had issues with flywheels since my early days, this one is particularly gritty and probably making it the way I have has exacerbated the problem. It'll be fine, if you look this the 'new' replacement flywheel and its still fairly porous along the spokes! 

So inside jaws and machine outer rim, face edge, centre boss and drill/ream centre in one go, then flip over and face the other edges still held by the rim? If using a f/plate I guess you have to find the best position of the outer edge by dialing in. I'm always worried I wont find the same position when I flip it over?

Set the flywheel to run as best as possible to the inside edge of the rim as you won't be turning that. This applies to a chuck as well as a faceplate.

When you flip the flywheel over you don't really need it perfectly concentric as you are only making facing cuts. If you do need to clock it in then a dti on the machined face and a few gentle taps will do it if you just nip up the clamping screws.

As for polishing the rim, I would think this engine originally ran a separate belt pully so the flywheel would have been completely painted

Square holes? Are they really necessary? Seems like a lot of faff for what return? I've looked at Jo's build (see last pic) and it appears she thought the same .............

Maybe a hole which is 3/32" or 8BA clear will be suitable?

EDIT: actually looks bigger maybe 5BA?

I would just tap them for some studs, if you need a bit of wiggle room put oversize holes in the valve block & trunion bearing.

At 3/32" I would say 7BA, what does the bearing block show as a hole size in it's feet

I'm having my usual trouble interpreting drawings. The pedestal says a no.43 which is close to 8BA? And as for the valve body I can't tell??

Actually it looks like I have to make a plate to support the valve and then mount that to the base?

A No 43 would work with 7BA, I tend to use 3/32" stock for 7BA studs which is a few thou under the size of a No 43 hole.

Yes looks like a plate is needed.

I did dig out Stan Bray's article but not much in the way of drawings there to follow along with.

Thanks Jason, I'll go with the larger 7BA size for the pedestal and 5BA looks a reasonable size to fix the valve base plate to the base 

Yes, agreed, the article is sparse and the drawings limited which is not great; what would be great would be an exploded diagram which refers to component parts. Stuart's seem to be do this well.

I pleased to be reusing the face mill I bought for the Stuart oscillator, it's given me nice surfaces to work with on the base.

A bit of intermittent skiving off work meant I made a good start on the base