|
|
|
|
#1
10-03-2015, 04:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Great Dane excavating co.
I'm using 1/16" size orings, if I use smaller cross section orings I would be able to get cylinder wall thickness thinner. Only 1/32" oring thickness McMaster doesn't have in those sizes. Small thickness metric orings available but I don't think the cylinders this size will look too out of place on a machine such at a 777 or 773 haul truck. And they are only visible when dumping. I'm more into function than exact scale anyway. And I'm not sure how easily I can machine the inner oring grooves on stainless. You machinist guys,, would some soft steel be just as good for cylinders? Easier for me to machine and I imagine a good polishing would last on a oil filled cylinder. I just have always used stainless on hydraulic rods.
__________________
Always wasting money, as the wife says. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 
|
|
#2
10-03-2015, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Great Dane excavating co.
Try some 12L14 "Leadloy" free machining steel if you want machinability.
|
|
#3
10-03-2015, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Great Dane excavating co.
I have no problem on 316 . But then again you need your S&F's right . Oh your doin this manually
 Looks good so far .
__________________
RIP FreddyGearDrive 2-12-59/12-19-11 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 56 (0 members and 56 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
