FP4NC; Relocatingi gear centers ( Lots of photos)

[ballen]

Ah, OK, one of those words that does not make sense in English. Like "flammable" (which means it burns) and "inflammable" (which ALSO means it burns).

 

[AlfaGTA]

Never!!! i repeat never!!!! Assemble aluminum to aluminum without lots of lubrication ...If threaded, parts will immediately seize without warning...One instant all is fine,then you feel a slight drag...and
once you feel that, its over....Parts are cold welded together ...might as well turn on the machine , load a up cutter and machine out the just installed part.....
Will always happen when time is tight and material is short....Just another reason to use the threaded sleeve repair...If the fit up goes bad (and it does) you are still set up and can just machine out the
repair part and do it over....
Cheers Ross

 

[TNB]

You should have told me !

No need to repeat...

 

[Botje]

Ross, Thanks for taking the time to show us this most excellent repair/fix.

Not only I learn a lot from it and it gives me ideas for things I might encounter in the future, it also shows how creative one has to be to do these things. Something I miss in modern shops. Having an expensive machine but don't use a dial indicator to make a difficult setup work properly.. I can't really put it in words correctly but I assume you know what I mean.

Beautiful shop.

 

[Colt45]

TNB: cool idea on the block threading-nice Schaublin! What made you decide not to do that on your FP1?

Brilliant work, MrGTA. Great to read about the extra details like the sleeves having a collar.
The sleeve driver reminds me of your Deckel drawbar adjustment tool on steroids.

 

[TNB]

I wanted to be able to thread really up to the combustion chamber, but not further.
As one can see, the previous repair had already enlarged the spark plug hole and it was already flush to the chamber top.
I didn't want to add yet more threading marks in the chamber.

The tapered end of a tap wouldn't have allowed to cut a full thread on the entire depth of the hole.
I hadn't a suitable tap on hand to begin with, and making one would have been much more work than simply mounting the Deckel table riser in place of the Schaublin compound slide.

Using the lathe gave me the ability to enlarge the spark plug hole and thread it with a precise stop.

 

[traditional-tools]

Rich:
Long reaches with and swarf cutting on long reaches rarely gives nice parallel bores, and high surface finish...Plus getting a true round hole becomes a problem...

Is this also true of plunging with end mills? I have to believe so or you would probably use that technique.

How much out of round will a boring bar vs. a boring head be on typical ?

On some of the work I do I'm not sure that would make a difference since my work is not nearly as accurate as yours, but I'm just curious. I just recently got a boring head for my FP1, it's a bit on the big side, IMO. I may downsize and sell the head I got. I bought a Gamet which uses 3/4" boring bars. It advances at .0025" per revolution, translating to .005" diameter per revolution.

I was thinking a Wohlhaupter UPA2 would be a good size for the FP1, although I know Deckel sold the UPA3 with the machines, that seems similar to the Gamet I have which is slightly big. Another factor on the Gamet is that it's slightly difficult to count the clicks, as they suggest running it at 100 rpm, and the FP1 only goes down to 190 rpm in it's slowest gear.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[traditional-tools]

TNB: cool idea on the block threading-nice Schaublin! What made you decide not to do that on your FP1?

I don't think Ross has an FP1 anymore...I think he only has FP2 and larger. Go big or go home! LOL

 

[Milacron]

I don't think Ross has an FP1 anymore...I think he only has FP2 and larger. Go big or go home! LOL

TNB is not Ross.

 

[traditional-tools]

TNB is not Ross.

That completely explains why TNB didn't do it the way Ross does, because TNB is NOT Ross.

(I missed that part that he was talking to TNB...obviously )

 

[TNB]

I wish I was Ross, but alas...
I'm only me

I still have the FP1 but again, that's the threading part of the job that had me do it on the lathe.
I don't know how I would have done with a larger head...

I don't think I'll ever have an NC machine. My NC car gives me trouble enough...
So may be someday I'll have to figure out a way to add some threading capability to the Deckel. Shouldn't be that much of a problem with the quill, but it's only YET another thing to do !

I was thinking a Wohlhaupter UPA2 would be a good size for the FP1, although I know Deckel sold the UPA3 with the machines, that seems similar to the Gamet I have which is slightly big. Another factor on the Gamet is that it's slightly difficult to count the clicks, as they suggest running it at 100 rpm, and the FP1 only goes down to 190 rpm in it's slowest gear.

The UPA3 is really a perfect mate for the FP1 in my opinion. Probably depends on the typical job you do but for all around work, the UPA3 is the right size.
If you intend to do a lot of small work and can afford it, may be the ideal would be to have an UPA3 and something really smaller like the UPA1.
It's a bit weird that you mention the slowest spindle speed beeing 190 rpm, since my machine starts at 40rpm.

Ross

Looking at your gorgeous photos again, I noticed sharpie marks on the upper gear on this one :

What are those marks for ?

 

[Milacron]

I wish I was Ross, but alas...
I'm only me

LOL... well, your French is way better anyway

 

[traditional-tools]

I wish I was Ross, but alas...
I'm only me

I have that same dilemma.

One day I'd like to visit Ross's shop, it's on the bucket list, just haven't gotten up on the North peninsula in over a year.

I still have the FP1 but again, that's the threading part of the job that had me do it on the lathe. I don't know how I would have done with a larger head...

Wasn't clear to me how Ross threaded that bore, but I suspect he used the NC to do the threading for him, using a typical threading tool in the head.

The UPA3 is really a perfect mate for the FP1 in my opinion. Probably depends on the typical job you do but for all around work, the UPA3 is the right size.
If you intend to do a lot of small work and can afford it, may be the ideal would be to have an UPA3 and something really smaller like the UPA1. It's a bit weird that you mention the slowest spindle speed beeing 190 rpm, since my machine starts at 40rpm.

I hope you're right on this. The Gamet I had was just a tad too big. After spinning it on the FP1 for a bit, was a tad hard to get off...I'm selling the Gamet to another gent on this forum that was interested in it, and was trying to get a UPA2 which my offer was turned down. Instead, I just purchased a UPA3 w/4MT shank. I have some S20x2 plugs I got from Singer a while back, and will cut down the 4MT shank and add the S20x2 plug to turn it into an MK4. I have a lever FP1, maybe you have the dials and why you get down to 40rpm ?

Cheers,
Alan

 

[TNB]

Providing your machine still has its original dual speed motor, the lowest spindle speed should be 95rpm for the vertical head and 60rpm for the horizontal spindle.

 

[traditional-tools]

Providing your machine still has its original dual speed motor, the lowest spindle speed should be 95rpm for the vertical head and 60rpm for the horizontal spindle.

Ah, I do have the original motor, but only using one speed hooked up to a VFD. That's a good reminder, another project that I didn't finish was to put a switch in to go between the speeds of the motor. I don't use the electrical box. I think I could also slow the motor down by changing the Hz on the VFD, but you can only go down a specific amount.

I don't want to threadjack Ross's XLNT thread, but thanks for reminding me about that 2nd speed on the motor.

 

[AlfaGTA]

I wish I was Ross, but alas...
I'm only me

I still have the FP1 but again, that's the threading part of the job that had me do it on the lathe.
I don't know how I would have done with a larger head...

I don't think I'll ever have an NC machine. My NC car gives me trouble enough...
So may be someday I'll have to figure out a way to add some threading capability to the Deckel. Shouldn't be that much of a problem with the quill, but it's only YET another thing to do !



The UPA3 is really a perfect mate for the FP1 in my opinion. Probably depends on the typical job you do but for all around work, the UPA3 is the right size.
If you intend to do a lot of small work and can afford it, may be the ideal would be to have an UPA3 and something really smaller like the UPA1.
It's a bit weird that you mention the slowest spindle speed beeing 190 rpm, since my machine starts at 40rpm.

Ross

Looking at your gorgeous photos again, I noticed sharpie marks on the upper gear on this one :

What are those marks for ?

T:
Marks are where i counted the teeth...Put a tick mark on the tooth as i count...keeps me form missing a tooth....
Wanted the tooth count to keep track of each gear in my drawing.....Also mark the gears as to the way they were facing in service and which ones they were in the stack...
Note the #2 on the upper gear. I work on lots of different stuff...bench often pretty full , so got to use "helpers" to keep things from
spinning out of control....Make lots of paper sketches as well as the computer drawings. Got to try and remove "Maybe" from the picture...

Cheers Ross

 

[AlfaGTA]

Wasn't clear to me how Ross threaded that bore, but I suspect he used the NC to do the threading for him, using a typical threading tool in the head.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan:
Process goes like this:
Late version Dialog 4 controls have the ability to move in full 3 axis contour moves...And you can combine a circular move with a depth move......
So i program to cut a circle, and using cutter comp i can change the size of the cut or circle produced. Often one would use an end mill to produce a
cylindrical bore...In this case i am using a thread tool like you would use to thread an internal bore on the lathe (single point)
And use that tool to cut in a series of circular grooves coupled with depth moves (Helix) the result is a thread.....
The nice thing about this is that i can make any pitch i wish coupled with any diameter....
Because nothing is fixed its just a matter of running the math and writing a bit of code.

For this job i program the tool move using "A Polar" move....That is a defined circular move of "X" degrees of rotation coupled with a depth move.
The Polar move allows rotations of greater than 360* so you can define greater than one rotation....
In the part for this job i selected 20 TPI as my base pitch and the depth was .7" so If you run the numbers , you convert the depth X the TPI to
give the number of rotations needed for the full length thread... (.7X20= 14) then you take the number of turns (does not have to be even turns) times
360 to give the number of degrees of rotation....(14 X 360 =5040) That is the number of degrees of rotation to run this thread...
Ok os got a bit off track here, but the point is i ude a standard lathe style boring thread tool and some circular interpolation to rotate the tool in a circle while the spindle is
running. Tool winds its way to the bottom of the hole..

Technique and do either ID or OD threads...Left or right hand and i can start at the bottom and work out if i like....

Believe Dialog 3 controls have a thread milling cycle but its not the same....To use the factory "canned cycle" you must have a thread mill with multi teeth...Here the machine
does a single contour rotation coupled with a depth move of one pitch of the thread...the length of the thread is generated by the length of the thread mill's multi teeth.
Max depth of the threaded hole is set by the thread mill's max length. Also the pitch is set by the tool...can't make specials with a multi tooth thread mill....
Sort of like the difference between a tap and single pointing a thread on the lathe....

 

[Danny VanVoorn]

Ross,
As usual; excellent work. I'm so used to reading write ups in magazines that are supposed to show how to add a modification to a car or motorcycle by people that don't have a clue and miss all the important details it's refreshing to see your work. The work and the time and thought you put into showing it to us is great and I for one fully understand it, thank you
Dan

 

[rklopp]

Thread milling the way Ross describes has some really great advantages over tapping and single-pointing in a manual lathe. Surface finish is typically fantastic when climb milling. The lead-ins/outs are smooth and highly repeatable. Threads can be run right to the bottom of a blind hole. Male threads can be cut on parts that won't swing in a lathe. The thread mill can easily cut the chamfer at the thread start in the same setup. The only minor drawback is any out-of-round or bumps at the axis reversal points. Once the pitch diameter is dialed in, the threads come out to size repeatedly all day long with one hand tied behind the back.

I usually use single-profile thread mills, like from Scientific Cutting Tools or Maritool instead of a lathe bar like Ross shows, but that's because I mostly work small.

 

[traditional-tools]

Often one would use an end mill to produce a
cylindrical bore...In this case i am using a thread tool like you would use to thread an internal bore on the lathe (single point) And use that tool to cut in a series of circular grooves coupled with depth moves (Helix) the result is a thread.....The nice thing about this is that i can make any pitch i wish coupled with any diameter....Because nothing is fixed its just a matter of running the math and writing a bit of code.

Yes, that is how I was figuring you did it.

In this regard you're not limited to standard pitches since you're making the part also, and if it was to fail they would most likely bring it back to you, but my guess is that you engineered this so that it WON'T fail!

In the part for this job i selected 20 TPI as my base pitch and the depth was .7" so If you run the numbers...

Very slick!

Technique and do either ID or OD threads...Left or right hand and i can start at the bottom and work out if i like....

That is slick as it would be near impossible to turn that on a lathe, so if this wasn't possible you'd most likely have to use a tap.

Thread milling the way Ross describes has some really great advantages over tapping and single-pointing in a manual lathe. Surface finish is typically fantastic when climb milling. The lead-ins/outs are smooth and highly repeatable. Threads can be run right to the bottom of a blind hole. Male threads can be cut on parts that won't swing in a lathe. The thread mill can easily cut the chamfer at the thread start in the same setup. The only minor drawback is any out-of-round or bumps at the axis reversal points. Once the pitch diameter is dialed in, the threads come out to size repeatedly all day long with one hand tied behind the back.

I feel so antiquated not having NC...

Very slick indeed...

Cheers,
Alan