What's new
What's new

WTB: Deckel FP2 Horizontal overarm support

matthewlee

Hot Rolled
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Location
st louis
Hi PM

I'm looking for the horizontal overarm support for a FP2 so I can utilize the horizontal spindle with an arbor. I have the end support. Just missing this. See below
Ideally in the USA. Also am interested in a slotting head.
Thanks
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230303_085007.jpg
    IMG_20230303_085007.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 7
If your FP3 has the sliding vertical head (Where you move the vertical head back to run horizontal) , which i believe all FP3's are, there is no overarm for that machine....
What you need is an outboard bearing and you extend the vertical head base to become the overarm.
Not positive this is the exact part, but this is the type of support you need.

Or if you need the larger bearing style then:

Dependent on the style of arbor that you have (style A or style B)
Note the offset extends the position of the bearing to accommodate the length off an arbor.
Cheers Ross
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bsg
Thanks Ross. You’re correct. That’s whats shown in the parts manual. Looking like an additional line on my order to Herr Singer
 
Think the bushing is supplied unfinished,(or should be) and you bore the bushing in place to make it true to your machine, and fit your arbor bearing....another advantage for a machine with a moveable (sensitive) quill on the horizontal.....
Cheers Ross
 
For the sake of conversation and only for that, if I would intend to run an FP3 horizontally with long arbors for a very long time, I would, possibly, feel better using the FP2 overarm support instead of the FP3 head.

It would be quieter, less front heavy and wouldn't have all the gears and vertical spindle spinning in vain (though horizontal cutters are mostly run at low RPM so no big deal on the latter).

Then of course one would need two bushing brackets, one matched to the regular FP3 head for most of the work and the other to the FP2 overarm support for the case described above.

Of course, in real life, no-one would do this I bet. Myself, I gave the FP2 overarm support with the FP2 (even though it had the long reach head, so it wasn't, strictly, necessary), so I won't be doing that either.

Just for the sake of conversation, I repeat.... :)

Best regards,
Thanos
 
For the sake of conversation and only for that, if I would intend to run an FP3 horizontally with long arbors for a very long time, I would, possibly, feel better using the FP2 overarm support instead of the FP3 head.

It would be quieter, less front heavy and wouldn't have all the gears and vertical spindle spinning in vain (though horizontal cutters are mostly run at low RPM so no big deal on the latter).

Then of course one would need two bushing brackets, one matched to the regular FP3 head for most of the work and the other to the FP2 overarm support for the case described above.

Of course, in real life, no-one would do this I bet. Myself, I gave the FP2 overarm support with the FP2 (even though it had the long reach head, so it wasn't, strictly, necessary), so I won't be doing that either.

Just for the sake of conversation, I repeat.... :)

Best regards,
Thanos
IIRC, the vertical head is moved to a position the gears are no longer engaged.........

Kevin
 
Kevin is correct.
When using an FP3 or last generation FP2 the upper “y” slide (support for the vertical head) is moved forward to the point that the drive gearing is no longer in mesh, so the vertical head is not running.
You are correct in that there would be some additional weight at the forward end of the assembly due to the mass of the vertical head, but I submit that the section of the vertical head base is more rigid than a stand alone overarm.

Cheers Ross
 
Kevin is correct.
When using an FP3 or last generation FP2 the upper “y” slide (support for the vertical head) is moved forward to the point that the drive gearing is no longer in mesh, so the vertical head is not running.
You are correct in that there would be some additional weight at the forward end of the assembly due to the mass of the vertical head, but I submit that the section of the vertical head base is more rigid than a stand alone overarm.

Cheers Ross
Thanks Ross, for confirming......the last gen FP1 doesn't require the overarm either.

Kevin
 
For my money, I own all the required tooling to run my FP2 with a supported outboard bearing, overarm and arbor
, and I never use that kit.
My go-to is almost always to go with a stub arbor for “ moderate” horizontal work. It’s just easier.
Cheers Ross
 
Right guys, I haven't tried it on the FP3 yet, so didn't have in mind that gears disengaged (I think they also do that when you send the head all the way to the back, nice in both cases).

Ross: Regarding horizontal milling with the overarm support, could it be that you have the regular head that requires removal on the FP2? It's easier when you have an FP2 with the long reach head or an FP3, you don't really think about it, just stick the arbor in and cut. I have used it several times when I needed to cut deep grooves, say for aloris-type toolholders. Easier than stuby arbors since you can have the part in the vise without worrying about reach etc and 'cheaper' than using a roughing end mill in the vertical head (horizontal cutters are less sexy, hence cheaper). Just let it cutting nice and slowly while doing something else, I know it's a cliché, but it really is kind of relaxing :D.

BR,
Thanos
 








 
Back
Top