Originally Posted by
Eastflight
So would I be right in assuming that the manufacture would do this process of honing during production of the piston liner on something like a ringed OS engine?
Yes, they usually do.
Originally Posted by
Eastflight
If so, is it necessary to continue to do the honing if replacing the piston ring due to the smoothing of the liner from wear & tear?
or as and when you think it needs to be done by visual inspection rather than every time you do a 'strip down' (to be clear Brutus, ref to engines).
I only do the cross-hatching after visual inspection. If you can see the pattern, it is still there. In fact the effectiveness of the pattern goes slightly beyond the capabilities of the naked eye, which means, if you can see it, it still is OK, if you cannot see it, that does NOT mean it is NOT OK, you just can't be sure. Hence, hone/deglaze in case of doubt.
I have to warn against using Scottish Bright, it does leave a too fine pattern (basically no pattern at all). Scottish bright derives its name from being a fast polishing material, and is more intended for quickly creating a smooth shiny surface than anything else. And a shiny bore is not what we want to see. for hand use, Emery cloth works the best is my experience, better than a honing tool. A honing tool however is easier in use for people with less experience.
For the record: Honing and deglazing are the exact same procedure: rotating a fixture of springloaded abrasive stones in an internal bore. You can deglaze with a honing tool, but you can not "hone to size" with a flexhone, But the damn thing is STILL called a "hone", and the process still is honing. It is the purpose that is different, not the process.
Honing to size has no place in model engines unless you are fabricating parts: there are no oversized pistons availlable for these little things, so there is no need for honing to size: if the bore is worn out, it is worn out and that is the end of it.