[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Pete, the tension supplied by the split washer falls out of the equation once the torque is sufficient to flatten the washer, the torque determines how much the pre-stress is on the bolt, pretty much independent of the washers underneath (except for surface finish and lubrication of the surfaces). In other words, once flattened, the tension supplied by the split is not additive to the total bolt tension. Note that splits are never used on cylinder head bolts, they stay put by virtue of the tightness and stretching of the bolt, which the engineering sources cite as the prime method for joint tightness. Loctite has been shown to be much more effective. Aircraft often use permanent thread deformation which requires tossing the nuts/bolts when removed. Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Split lock washers are another debate, with perhaps a consensus in the engineering world that when torqued properly the lock ring is useless, being crushed flat without any ability for the angled edge to “bite” into the nut as intended until the nut has backed off so far that the preload is lost anyway. They are there basically for show on a restoration. The following link will download a NASA fastener manual which may be of interest on the subject: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900009424_1990009424.pdf

I don’t think certified aircraft ever use split washers.

Double “jam” nuts as used on the rear axle are also apparently problematic, not being very effective and being difficult to torque to properly preload the bolt. Whether it seems to make sense now or not, I have a theory for why the front would be single and the rear would be doubles. The springs are mounted above the front axle, meaning the weight of the car bears directly on the bottom spring leaf rather than via the U-bolt. This was done I think to accommodate the front brake torsion bar going through the middle of the axle and below the king pins. The rear springs go under the axle and this means the weight of the car is hanging on the u-bolts. The clamp-up pre-loads should render the difference meaningless, but might explain what was going through their heads. Packard used cables to the front brakes, the springs are under the front axle, and used double length nuts. This little exercise has led me to fuss over whether I might have over-torqued the front U-bolt nuts, I think I will re-do them.

Sorry, for the “Cliff Claven” impression, I am a designer by nature and I find this stuff interesting, and somewhat more grounded than the speculations of “ancient astronaut theorists”

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

well, I think Tony brought up the question of how to lubricate the springs in the middle of earlier dissertations on spring breakage. In the midst of my research of ancient engineering scrolls I came across a statement that the role of friction to provide damping in leaf springs was greatly exaggerated and not assumed in suspension design – unfortunately I can’t find it at the moment. I think the main reason for greasing the springs is to prevent squeaks and wear.

I also do drivers, not concours cars, you can tell from previous pictures I am committing the heresy of not doing a “frame-off” restoration. A car should be judged from the drivers seat doing 60. I am reusing the original metal covers which means I couldn’t tolerate the increased thickness of adding plastic interleaf pads. I cleaned and painted each leaf to prevent more corrosion, “slathered” the springs in grease when assembling, and after the above picture was taken wrapped them in canvas and replaced the metal covers as was done originally. My metal covers all have odd rectangular holes in them which I can only guess were some ones attempt to grease the springs by poking holes through the covers with a screwdriver. I decided it was a bit silly to do body work on spring covers , so the holes are still there on freshly painted spring covers, mute testimony to who knows what! It makes my restoration a willy-nilly combination of Smithsonian style preservation of original parts where functional and replacement where necessary for function (Smithsonian restored airplanes are never flown again).

At any rate Tony, I think the answer is that the leaves on your older exposed springs were probably greased between the leaves and wiped down to keep them looking sharp. It takes so little grease to coat the surfaces that you might be able to re-grease by putting the grease on the edges and ends and drive it around for a bit to work it in and then wipe the excess off- I imagine it is a ripe topic in AACA.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

For what its worth, and for other potential repairs, I looked up the numbers for high temp aircraft fuel tank sealants mentioned above.

The MIL-S-8802 spec Class B is available as a PPG aerospace product number PR-1440 Class B. “Class B” is a thixotopic paste (thick and doesn’t run) polysulfide that cures to a dark grey rubbery consistency with very high adhesion. It is used for aircraft applications exposed to hot fuel (oil as well) to 250F continuous 275 intermittent. That temp range should be adequate for an intake manifold, but there is an alternate formula PR-1750 Class B good for intermittent excursions to 360F. Peak temp on an intake manifold would most likely occur after shutting down on a hot day and heat soaking from the exhaust manifold. I would prefer the polysulfide over epoxy adhesives for repair because it is more flexible over time and better able to accommodate the flexing from the manifold’s expansion and contraction with heat. A thin steel “Band-Aid” patch would probably be better than aluminum in order to better match the thermal expansion rate of the cast iron.

Companies supplying aircraft repair supplies should have it, my distributor is Bergdahl Associates if you want to google it.

For using in fuel tanks, I don’t how resistant it is to alcohol – will try to find out as I will want to use it in my future fuel tank screen.

I used PR-1440 very successfully (still works 30 years on) on a number of items including sealing a cracked cast aluminum oil pan. A retired chemical engineer from the Mare Island Naval air repair station put me on to it.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

That’s a pretty big hole! Personally, being a “function over form” guy, I wouldn’t risk a rare manifold with welding that has a high risk of creating more problems than it solves. An intake manifold only has to resist about 12 psi vacuum max, on the same order as the pressure that an .032 thick aluminum skin resists keeping a 5ft diameter light business jet fuselage from exploding when pressurized. My first idea would be to use a thin strip of .016 aluminum or even thinner .012 stainless glued with high temp aircraft fuel tank sealant (used to be MIL-8802) to seal the leak. I think it would be pretty innocuous appearance wise after painting black to match the porcelain. Apologies for second guessing, as they say, free opinions are worth what you pay for them!

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Bob actually what you can’t see in the photo is the front engine stand, I put together a double ender engine stand from two “cheap and cheezy” engine stands. It is pretty awkward but works. Attached is a picture when I first pulled the engine out almost ten years ago before putting it back in because I moved to a different house. The wood supports are needed to support the engine before the transmission comes off allowing the aft engine stand to be attached. I have used the rear engine stand by itself for 383 and 440 Chryslers in the conventional way, but never left them just cantilevered off the mount when fully “dressed”. Thanks for the concern!

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

My ’35 845 will take a little longer than winter. The goal is to get the front axle re-installed so I can roll the PA off the lift and put the Christmas tree back into its spot in the attic above the Packard in January.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks for the responses – interesting. Some of the background of my question. Springs are very highly stressed when just at rest, and can be very highly stressed when overloaded, hitting bumps, and also under heavy braking. They are theoretically very sensitive to surface corrosion that can cause pre-mature breakage from fatigue, however the original designers would have set a fairly conservative stress level to avoid failures. They wouldn’t have anticipated us still driving these things 70 years later after they sat around corroding. The main leaf for our solid front axle cars serves both to be a spring and to keep the axle in position. The secondary leaves pretty much just contribute to the spring action , but keep the overall stress level down on the whole assembly. In the extreme alarmist scenario, bouncing over Tioga pass with no guard rails, a main leaf breaking between the axle and fixed fwd bearing (on P-A)could cause the axle to shift back to the limit of the rear shackle, and cause a sudden turn. As indicated above, the friction of the clamps or spring covers might keep it from being sudden and catastrophic, but a bit of an unknown and variable. If the secondary leaves fail, they should mainly just cause the car to sag and have a cascading failure over time as the spring stress levels go up and cause successive leaves to fail. If the main leaf is in good shape, it could end up on the rubber snubber between the spring and frame. Years ago my ’36 Packard had bad corrosion and broken leaves, replacing the complete springs wasn’t optional. The elegant thickness tapers of Packard and P-A leaves wasn’t practical so I ended up with new springs that were 10% stiffer and left the car riding too high. Eaton Spring in Detroit does indicate they can taper the thickness, I don’t know to what extent. I have elected to replace the main leaves for peace of mind, and keep the original secondaries.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Yes, getting that better upper pin out (I mislabeled as a lower)was a bear, took most of the day to cobble together a one-off puller to get it out, and when it finally started it did so with a bang! Now I get to try to put it back in without damaging. I considered replacing with needles or Timken rollers, but after reviewing the PASB methods to get the original Fafnir cups out by grinding and chiseling – that looked like more potential for damage than gain, and would have had less load capacity. The brass fittings use the original cup without trying to force them out. Also, having spent entirely too much time thinking about it, my theory for why the aft lowers failed way before the rest is that they are the ones subjected to the most water/salt/dirt kicked up by the wheel. I was surprised that there could be so much rust inside the bearing with no evidence of it below on the outside of the shackle. I think the rubberized washers on the sides managed to let water creep in while the car was bouncing around in the winter, then kept it trapped in the bearing. The PTFE lubed composite bushings can get wet and still work without damage. If I were to do it again, I might substitute stainless shafts for chrome plate to avoid corrosion on the pin ends, but of course all of this is gilding the lily given how little the car will be driven. However, I did end up driving my 36 Packard 300 miles through the rain to a meet this summer, but that car has an automatic Bijur constantly pushing a little oil through them. I think the main thing to get it to handle properly should be installing with near zero clearance axial and radial. The difference in resistance to shackle turning due to the somewhat higher friction of the composite bushing compared to a ball bearing I calculate is well less than 1%. The variability of the spring interleaf slippage is probably greater than that. That’s my theory anyway, and I am sticking to it!

At any rate, I will still have 5 out of 7 on the original balls.

Thanks,

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Correction, and sorry for spewing some mis-information. I just re-checked the fit-up of the same spring shackle bearings while measuring for my new shackle pins and now I can torque the bolt to 40 ft-lbs and the shackle rotates freely with barely detectible endplay. i.e. no apparent axial pre-load. It isn’t totally repeatable, but may have had the felt washers installed the first time throwing me off. My apologies to Fafnir.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Too impatient – found a good match for the spring in an online catalog and ordered. Minimum order of 10, so if anyone needs one of these, I ‘ll have them.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Dave indicates he no longer supplies the shackle rebuild kits. At any rate, the spring shackles must take significant side load when the car turns. A needle bearing is great for vertical loads but does not react side loads, therefore I assume the old rebuild kit had provision for simple thrust washers. I have considered refitting with Timken rollers (which could fit), but coming up with a suitable preload method might be complicated. I will be working on a rebuild design to take side loading into account. I’m looking at chrome or nitrided pins with some very high load capacity permanently lubricated bushings.

There is some wear and brinneling on the ends of the Fafnir pins on the good bearings, indicating possibly the Fafnirs were designed to bottom out before overloading the balls, however fitting up the rear shackle assembly with its lower pin but balls removed showed the pins do not bottom out before the balls on the upper bearing take a significant preload. On my original units as I found them, tightening the assembly finger tight is enough to take out all end play, a mere 5 ft lbs – 1/8 turn – starts to measurably create drag on rotation, 25 ft lbs stiffens rotation up considerably indicating significant preload on the balls. Bottom line, I have no doubt the original assembly can easily preload the bearings. 5-10 ft-lbs torque is probably the limit – at least on this one example, the cotter pin a vital part of the assembly. The article reproduced in PASB 92-6 indicates no shims, – but also ‘impossible” to over tighten. I don’t believe that part.

The lubricant recommendations say “because of the necessity of adjusting the shackle bearings after lubricating….” Would like to know what that procedure was.

Thanks for responding, Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks for the offer. I was able to remove the metal covers without ruining them and I think I can re-install them – after I deal with the toasted Fafnir ball bearing shackles.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I’ll get them apart and see where I’m at from there. Thanks for the responses. I think of the metal covers as “crab legs””. Jim”

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks Ed, I am not concerned about cosmetics here. Years ago I restored a ’36 Packard and found bad corrosion and broken leaves under the spring covers. A broken main leaf could be very dangerous. I ended up having all new springs made – hopefully not necessary in this case. Back then (1980’s) there was a guy who reproduced the metal covers. Sounds like I can get the originals off and back on again.

Thanks, Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks for every ones response, actually over-restoration and worrying about judging points wasn’t a concern – just curiosity about whether anyone has noticed cost-cutting shortcuts as production levels plummeted through the ’30’s.

This is going to be a tour car, not a museum piece. I’m afraid I have a less rigorous view of restoration. I have been looking for a rear view mirror for twenty years. If I still don’t have one when the car is ready to drive I will find a substitute rather than hide it because it has a non-authentic part. I think that still puts me somewhere above the 95 percentile in authenticity when the term “restoration” now seems to include attaching a 350 Chevy with automatic, independent front suspension, and power steering column to a bare frame and body shell that came from what once had been a Packard or Pierce.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks Greg, I’ll take some photos but will be a while, meanwhile I am cogitating on how I will build the filter. The tank is already out and the bellows is worrisome, it doesn’t appear to be cracked, however if it is I will use miraculous Pro-Seal high temp aircraft fuel tank sealer if I can still get it. The stuff is a latter day replacement for MIL-8802 high adhesion/high temp fuel tank sealer and has the advantage over the epoxy you buy at the auto parts store of curing flexible and rubbery. 30 years ago I used it to seal the cast aluminum oil pan and glue the trunk lid to its new wooden frame on my ’36 Packard! Also has the advantage of making the garage smell like an aircraft factory.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Ed, thank for the response. The tiny size of the percolator riser tubes of the King-Seeley sender unit suggest I will never be able to clean the tank sufficient to prevent plugging those tubes. Internal rust does not appear to be an issue, just a coating of varnish and some sand on the bottom. I think plan B is to build a cylindrical mesh screen attached to the sending unit/pick-up tube with a mesh size just smaller than the riser tubes ID, and flush the inside of the tank as best as practical. Drain the tank after it gets on the road and back-flush the mesh if it gets gunked up. I will be able to access the mesh from the trunk by pulling the sending unit assembly if necessary. Fortunately the tank has a drain plug, unfortunately the head is sheared off so I’ll have to drill it out. the POR 15 system for cleaning and sealing sounds impressive, but worry it would cause more problems than good if a tank doesn’t really need it.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks Ed, I’ll give that a try. Getting everything setup properly is important!

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

“Back in the day’ I have read engineering papers indicating that in the ’30’s engines were re-rung without re-boring and the head “de-carbonized” at 15000 miles. Valves were also ground. Wear from airborn dirt with simple cast iron rings was the biggest contributor, so a city car driving exclusively on pavement would last longer than a car driven on country dirt roads. Tnis doesn’t mean they couldn’t go much longer than that and run okay. Loose, worn rings loose compression and leak more blow-by, make it harder to start, but have less friction at speed, and can still have good power. Full flow oil fltration helped some, but my reading has indicated the biggest improvement to ring/cylinder life was the chrome face top rings after WWII and the paper pleated airfilter in the late ’50’s. Chrome top rings were developed to give WWII tank engines better life in the desert. The dry pleated air filter was possible by the ’50’s because most of the roads were paved and the dust was reduced enough to allow a paper filter to have realistic life before getting plugged.

I find modern airfilters to reversibly retrofit to ’30’s cars to keep the wear down. I’m not into authentic wear.

[Author]

Posts