jandjracing_58

Thanks for your input. I did 70 with assembly lube.

jandjracing_58

Listen guy, you've been up my *** since I've started this forum. I've done nothing but ask questions and all I get is **** from you and a select few others.

I don't care how many times a question has been asked and discussed or how many thread repeats I create. There is always someone new to input their thoughts. Novelty to a stale topic and that's what I look for when searching for answers on a forum.

It apparent so far that every newbie or junior member has positive input to my questions and most of the senior\elite I've encountered have bitterness and insults.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

What the hell is a Hear Stud?

soviet

iTrader: (10)

This thread is now about SCUD

TL;DR
Take a German V2, make it simpler, put it on a truck, make a million of them



Scud is a series of tactical ballistic missiles developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was exported widely to other countries, in particular third world countries. The term comes from the NATO reporting name Scud which was attached to the missile by Western intelligence agencies. The Russian names for the missile are the R-11 (the first version), R-17 and R-300 Elbrus (later developments). The name Scud has been widely used to refer to these missiles and the wide variety of derivative variants developed in other countries based on the Soviet design.


(I've been to this museum when I was 6)

The first use of the term Scud was in the NATO name SS-1b Scud-A, applied to the R-11 ballistic missile. The earlier R-1 missile had carried the NATO name SS-1 Scunner, but was of a very different design, almost directly a copy of the German V-2. The R-11 used technology gained from the V-2 as well, but was a new design, smaller and differently shaped than the V-2 and R-1 weapons. The R-11 was developed by the Korolyev OKB[1] and entered service in 1957. The most revolutionary innovation in the R-11 was the engine, designed by A.M. Isaev. Far simpler than the V-2's multi-chamber design, and employing an anti-oscillation baffle to prevent chugging, it was a forerunner to the larger engines used in Soviet launch vehicles.


DAT ***

Further developed variants were the R-300 Elbrus / SS-1c Scud-B in 1961 and the SS-1d Scud-C in 1965, both of which could carry either a conventional high-explosive, a 5- to 80-kiloton nuclear, or a chemical (thickened VX) warhead. The SS-1e Scud-D variant developed in the 1980s can deliver a terminally guided warhead capable of greater precision.

All models are 11.35 m (37.2 ft) long (except Scud-A, which is 1 m (3 ft 3 in) shorter) and 0.88 m (2 ft 11 in) in diameter (DAT GIRTH). They are propelled by a single liquid-fuel rocket engine burning kerosene and corrosion inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) with UDMH, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (Russian TG-02 like German Tonka 250) as liquid igniter (self ignition with IRFNA) in all models.

The missile reaches a maximum speed of mach 5.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

You're not special, cupcake.
Learn to search like the rest of the peasants

bmxfuel007

iTrader: (21)

I just torque it until I hear a loud crack sound, then I move on to the next one and repeat until I'm done with all. Has worked great on the 50+ heads I've gone through! That means I have lots of experience with this

jandjracing_58

Auto correct dicked that up on me

jandjracing_58

Don't want to be special. I just don't have time to sit around and search through the 24 pages inside of the 2600 thread inside 9 topics, just to question who is full of **** and who knows what they're talking about.

A newbie member with 2 total posts maybe the best engine builder this site has ever seen and a member with .. Say, 18000 posts may be an incompetent tit with regurgitated information.

So numbers and member title mean nothing on any forum.

So far I've met 2 members I can trust and it's because I know their background and what they do.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

It also takes 10 seconds to call ARP and get their recommendation. It also takes 10 seconds to read the data card that came in the box with the studs. Why did you start this thread again? We get angry about repeat threads because it makes it harder to search of the information we are looking for. The signal:noise ratio on this site is still pretty decent and we aim to keep it that way.

What makes you think we have the time or desire to explain again what has already been hashed out over "24 pages inside of the 2600 thread inside 9 topics?" Most of us don't know this **** off the top of our heads so to get the answers we need, we are forced to do the same thing we are telling you to do: we search for it. Why would we take the time to do something for you when we know you have the same tools available at your fingertips?

As to who is full of ****, everyone is full of ****. This is the goddamn internet, are you new here? We already know who is full of **** and who knows what they are talking about because we don't just come here to mooch knowledge, we participate and engage in lively discussion on a daily basis. This is where the guys with the 1k+ post counts come from. Read and follow along and participate. Don't just barge in here, demand help and then get butthurt when we decide we don't want to spoon feed you. We have invested the time to be participating members here on the forum, why is it unacceptable for us to desire the same of you?

Also, dude... I'm not sure I would trust the word of a bunch of random dudes on the internet about torque specs for an engine build project without spending some significant time verifying that data.

Great! I'm sure they warned you about this place too. Join the "community" here at MT and get to know some more people. I briefly searched back through your post history and discovered you are in the middle of naturally aspirated PTE type build that I'm sure a lot of people would love to read about. Go start a build thread and link it in your sig. Fill it with pics and tell us all about your plans. We will be much more likely to help you after we get to know you. It's not that hard, this isn't rocket SCUD surgery.

99Racer

Above thread should be a must read for anyone using ARP fasteners - All 4 pages.

Its interesting that ARP has a "one size fits all instruction sheet" that just does not work for the BP cylinder head. Torque to yield should be the stud or bolt not the head casting...

jandjracing_58

You know, I think your right. I will compile a write up and post it.

Your also right about expecting answers, my apologies.. Sometimes I get too busy to take the time. I figured inside this forum there is some one with the knowledge on hand or knows it well.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for that. I had not come across that before. I won't be exceeding 65 fl lbs in the future.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

For what its worth I've done the 3-step method (30lb, 45lb, 60lb) on at least 2 BP's with ARP head studs with great results.

jandjracing_58

Thank you. My process wasn't too far off 30, 50, 70. I just got it running about an hour ago. So far it appears to be good, but I won't know for sure until either dyno day or my next race.

joyrider

iTrader: (8)

We did the same maybe 56lbs if I recall Sav's post...

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Not as curious as you might think. IIRC it was FM who worked with ARP to get those studs made. Their original torque spec was 49ft.lbs, which matched the factory clamp load. When I bought my first set in 2009, the instructions said 65ft.lbs, so that's what I did. I installed several sets at that setting before looking at a fresh set of instructions somewhere around 2011-2012, and to my surprise they said 80ft.lbs. A little forum reading turned up Bob's experiences with cracked heads at 80ft.lbs. Clearly, the engineer at ARP who said 49 is no longer there, and ARP doesn't care enough to put thought into their specs beyond "X diameter + Y thread pitch = Z torque".

I torque ARP studs to 65ft.lbs.

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

Good to know, thanks sav.

ILoveOffRamps

iTrader: (2)

I just did a fresh rebuild with ARPs. Haven't even fired it up. I torque to the sheet indicated 80. Any reason to undo it and go back to the 65 since nothing bad happened?

jandjracing_58

If it did any damage, it's already been done. Go with it and hope for the best. 80 sounded way to high, I torqued mine at 70 which is 5 pounds over factory recommended and I'm nervous to see what happens. I will report back with the result of the tune.

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

I sure as hell wouldn't "untorque" it now. Run it! I'm sure it's fine, although after what Sav said I think I'm going to be torquing mine to ~65/70 when i finally toss this motor together.