|
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Pictures are he
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Monarch-vs-Polamco/ Right now, my "shop lathe" is a Monarch model AA 16x54 lathe. The amazing thing about it is that it is almost brand new (!!!) and has no wear whatsoever. I know that it is weird, but it is true. Somehow or other, it escaped the usual fate of these lathes, it was made in 1944. It has only two problems: 1) It is slow, top speed is 500 RPM 2) Someone told me that the lubrication system in the head may not be working right, based on what he saw in the sight glass. I recently purchased a AFM Toolmex or Polamco lathe. It has about the same size, and its top speed is a respectable 1,600 RPM. It does have wear, unlike the Monarch, but very little. It also has a removable gap, which we do not care for too much. There is two people in my shop who use a lathe, me and another guy. I told him that we can now pick the lathe out of these two. So, I wanted to solicit some opinions as to what lathe is better. I know that I can get good money for either of them, so money is not the issue. Another option is to keep the Monarch and add a small Hardinge HC for working on small stuff at high speed. I bought three small hardinges for $200 each two weeks ago. I will appreciate some intelligent comments. Thanks i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:06:38 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8699 wrote:
Pictures are he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Monarch-vs-Polamco/ Right now, my "shop lathe" is a Monarch model AA 16x54 lathe. The amazing thing about it is that it is almost brand new (!!!) and has no wear whatsoever. I know that it is weird, but it is true. Somehow or other, it escaped the usual fate of these lathes, it was made in 1944. It has only two problems: 1) It is slow, top speed is 500 RPM 2) Someone told me that the lubrication system in the head may not be working right, based on what he saw in the sight glass. I recently purchased a AFM Toolmex or Polamco lathe. It has about the same size, and its top speed is a respectable 1,600 RPM. It does have wear, unlike the Monarch, but very little. It also has a removable gap, which we do not care for too much. There is two people in my shop who use a lathe, me and another guy. I told him that we can now pick the lathe out of these two. So, I wanted to solicit some opinions as to what lathe is better. I know that I can get good money for either of them, so money is not the issue. Another option is to keep the Monarch and add a small Hardinge HC for working on small stuff at high speed. I bought three small hardinges for $200 each two weeks ago. I will appreciate some intelligent comments. Thanks i I have no worthwhile advice on which lathe to keep, Ig. But I would like to find a Hardinge lathe for $200. And you found 3? |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why
it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote:
Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Also the Monarch has a taper attachment, which we never used but it is
there. i On 2015-05-23, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend
wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. -- Ed Huntress |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:35:08 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i Carbide needs higher speed only to get the best par-part cost out of the machine. It's an economics thing. The idea that you need to run carbide at high speed is a myth. -- Ed Huntress |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:35:08 -0500, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i Carbide needs higher speed only to get the best par-part cost out of the machine. It's an economics thing. The idea that you need to run carbide at high speed is a myth. OK, so, if I have a 1500 RPM lathe, vs 500 RPM lathe, I can make anything on both, but with a faster lathe it may take me less time. Right? i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:40:21 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? i That's it, Iggy -- more time spent machining. These are commercial machine tools. The objective is to produce quality parts at the lowest cost. That means, first, the shortest part-to-part cycle time. Then you factor in the tooling cost; generally speaking, running tools faster wears them out at a faster rate. In other words, they last for fewer parts. Running those two curves in an equation -- cycle time and tool life -- is the traditional way of optimizing cost-per-part. Today's multi-coated tools confound the simple curves a bit, because some of them, particularly those with an aluminum-oxide top coat, or a lubricating top coat of molybdemum disulfide over aluminum oxide, need to run very hot to perform well. In general, though, with the tools we use in hobby work and in most general machine-shop work, the only thing you lose by running slower is time. There are some exceptions regarding surface finish, where faster can be better, but that's the general rule. -- Ed Huntress |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:44:18 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:35:08 -0500, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i Carbide needs higher speed only to get the best par-part cost out of the machine. It's an economics thing. The idea that you need to run carbide at high speed is a myth. OK, so, if I have a 1500 RPM lathe, vs 500 RPM lathe, I can make anything on both, but with a faster lathe it may take me less time. Right? i That's pretty much it. But some of the guys here with a lot of experience probably will chime in on the surface-finish issue. -- Ed Huntress |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:40:21 -0500, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? i That's it, Iggy -- more time spent machining. These are commercial machine tools. The objective is to produce quality parts at the lowest cost. That means, first, the shortest part-to-part cycle time. Then you factor in the tooling cost; generally speaking, running tools faster wears them out at a faster rate. In other words, they last for fewer parts. Running those two curves in an equation -- cycle time and tool life -- is the traditional way of optimizing cost-per-part. Today's multi-coated tools confound the simple curves a bit, because some of them, particularly those with an aluminum-oxide top coat, or a lubricating top coat of molybdemum disulfide over aluminum oxide, need to run very hot to perform well. In general, though, with the tools we use in hobby work and in most general machine-shop work, the only thing you lose by running slower is time. There are some exceptions regarding surface finish, where faster can be better, but that's the general rule. OK, then I am keeping the Monarch! i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:40:21 -0500, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? i That's it, Iggy -- more time spent machining. These are commercial machine tools. The objective is to produce quality parts at the lowest cost. That means, first, the shortest part-to-part cycle time. Then you factor in the tooling cost; generally speaking, running tools faster wears them out at a faster rate. In other words, they last for fewer parts. Running those two curves in an equation -- cycle time and tool life -- is the traditional way of optimizing cost-per-part. Today's multi-coated tools confound the simple curves a bit, because some of them, particularly those with an aluminum-oxide top coat, or a lubricating top coat of molybdemum disulfide over aluminum oxide, need to run very hot to perform well. In general, though, with the tools we use in hobby work and in most general machine-shop work, the only thing you lose by running slower is time. There are some exceptions regarding surface finish, where faster can be better, but that's the general rule. OK, then I am keeping the Monarch! i Since you already have a smaller lathe for small-diameter parts, the Monarch probably will be a good complement to it -- a luxury few of us have. You'll probably notice the machine's qualities when you have to turn a large-diameter part, or you have to take heavy cuts. Old Warner & Swaseys were the real monsters in that regard, but Monarchs also were excellent. -- Ed Huntress |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Ed Huntress fired this volley in
: Old Warner & Swaseys were the real monsters in that regard, but Monarchs also were excellent. Even older -- the old F.E. Reed taper machines. 'Built like tanks! They could turn a full-swing part to tolerance every time -- but slowly, natch. Lloyd |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:35:08 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. At least you ACK that flaw. ;) What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. Because it has a 16" swing, top speed is lower, da? If you do more work on smaller diameter items (who doesn't?), then select the lathe with the higher speeds. It all depends on exactly how the lathe is being used and what the lathe is being used for in -your- shop. You (probably) already have all the info you need to choose. -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:40:21 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? Isn't the final finish determined by tool type, style, and speed on each material? That can be a biggie. -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? Isn't the final finish determined by tool type, style, and speed on each material? That can be a biggie. First, if Iggy keeps that Hardinge for the small diameter work, I'd agree keep this Monarch lathe. I'll wager if he keeps two, the Monarch will sit unless he can't fit the part in the Hardinge. I find surface feet per minute critical for finish and part deflection, especially if you get under 0.500" diameter. My lathe does 4500, I'm up to top end often. I needed a number of long 0.125" diameter parts with threads and snap ring grooves a while back. Ended up running them on my neighbor's lathe that does 10K. I also find carbide will just chip if you try to run it slow. i loose more inserts to chipping than to wear. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:36:24 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: Also the Monarch has a taper attachment, which we never used but it is there. i I use my taper attachment a fair bit. Last use was to make an L00 spindle adapter for my threaded nose Hardinge dividing head. Both general devices were made obsolete by cnc, but I don't have cnc. It took a few tries to learn to compensate for the backlash in the taper attachment, but I get good results now. Pete Keillor On 2015-05-23, Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:55:52 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8699 wrote:
OK, then I am keeping the Monarch! i Good decision, especially since it has a taper attachment. I assume it has a three phase motor. So you could add a Variable Speed Drive and get higher speeds. I would not try for really high speeds as heavy things turning at high speed have a lot of stored energy. Dan |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:35:08 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. You 1944 Monarch was built in the days of high speed tools and from your description would turn a 16" piece of steel four and a half feet long. About 1.5 tons of material. Firstly if you are turning a hunk of steel that size with high speed tools 500 RPM is likely enough, probably more than enough, speed. Secondly turning a piece that heavy at 500 RPM might make some people want to stand back a ways, a long ways, from the machine :-) I would think that if you wanted to work within the limits that the machine was designed for then you have a keeper. If you are turning tiny little pieces at high speeds than a different machine would be a better selection. -- Cheers, John B. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:40:21 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: On 2015-05-23, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:26:10 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. Slow speed has been the Achilles' heel of Monarchs for decades. They are magnificent machine tools -- one of the best representations of American machine tool design. But they were made for HSS tooling. I don't know what the speed of Iggy's machine should be, but even if it's running at its top designed speed, if it's from 1944, it will be slow. It is 500 RPM. Ed, can you explain what is so bad, other than more time spent machining, about slow top speed? i It isn't even, perhaps, a lot slower then what some of the people here seem to be doing with their high speed, tiny cuts. One of my last jobs during my apprenticeship was to rough out some wood planer heads from some 12 inch "line shafting" that was removed from an old woolen mill when they converted from overhead shafts. This is from memory but the cutter head would have been about 2 feet wide, plain bearing on one side, say 6 inches and a bearing and two or three V pulley on the other. Say 3 and a half feet over all. The ends were, say 2 inch and the cutter head about 6 maybe 7 inches. So more or less, three inches of cut over the head and more over the end shafts. We were taking about a 3/8", maybe 7/16", deep cut and the rotational and cutting speed was set to get a very light brown chip. A single pass took ~about 3 hours to remove 581 cu. in. or material, or 194 cu. inches/hour. Of course, as the work got smaller the rotational speed was increased but the depth of cut was always the same. Until we got to the bottom, of course :-) As we had an automatic stop on the feed the old machine didn't take a full time manager, just a quick look every 15 minutes or so :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
"Ignoramus8699" wrote in message
... Pictures are he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Monarch-vs-Polamco/ Right now, my "shop lathe" is a Monarch model AA 16x54 lathe. The amazing thing about it is that it is almost brand new (!!!) and has no wear whatsoever. I know that it is weird, but it is true. Somehow or other, it escaped the usual fate of these lathes, it was made in 1944. It has only two problems: 1) It is slow, top speed is 500 RPM 2) Someone told me that the lubrication system in the head may not be working right, based on what he saw in the sight glass. I recently purchased a AFM Toolmex or Polamco lathe. It has about the same size, and its top speed is a respectable 1,600 RPM. It does have wear, unlike the Monarch, but very little. It also has a removable gap, which we do not care for too much. There is two people in my shop who use a lathe, me and another guy. I told him that we can now pick the lathe out of these two. So, I wanted to solicit some opinions as to what lathe is better. I know that I can get good money for either of them, so money is not the issue. Another option is to keep the Monarch and add a small Hardinge HC for working on small stuff at high speed. I bought three small hardinges for $200 each two weeks ago. I will appreciate some intelligent comments. Thanks i I read a comparison between the Hardinge HLV and the South Bend 10L that concluded the South Bend was a better choice for general non-critical work because of its geater versatility and back-gearing that allows heavy cuts on large diameters. The author had used both at the National Bureau of Standards shop. The Hardinge was better for precision threading but not decisively so. He (and I) valued 5C collets and low speed torque more than the name on the machine. I designed an optical instrument that required #0-80 (~1.5mm) Fillister head screws almost 1" long due to very limited space, they straddled a lens thread in stacked modules that had to align with a glued-together array of 10mm cube optics. http://www.lambda.cc/high-power-lase...litters-hpb-2/ I turned the prototype screws in one piece on my SB, but the shop that filled the order on a Hardinge attached separate heads to shanks.made of 1/16" rod. -jsw |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
"Ignoramus8699" wrote in message
... OK, so, if I have a 1500 RPM lathe, vs 500 RPM lathe, I can make anything on both, but with a faster lathe it may take me less time. Right? i I dislike drilling small deep axial oil passages in shafts at low speed. That's the only job I move to an AA/Sears lathe. -jsw |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Ignoramus8699 prodded the keyboard with:
Pictures are he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Monarch-vs-Polamco/ Right now, my "shop lathe" is a Monarch model AA 16x54 lathe. The amazing thing about it is that it is almost brand new (!!!) and has no wear whatsoever. I know that it is weird, but it is true. Somehow or other, it escaped the usual fate of these lathes, it was made in 1944. It has only two problems: 1) It is slow, top speed is 500 RPM 2) Someone told me that the lubrication system in the head may not be working right, based on what he saw in the sight glass. I recently purchased a AFM Toolmex or Polamco lathe. It has about the same size, and its top speed is a respectable 1,600 RPM. It does have wear, unlike the Monarch, but very little. It also has a removable gap, which we do not care for too much. There is two people in my shop who use a lathe, me and another guy. I told him that we can now pick the lathe out of these two. So, I wanted to solicit some opinions as to what lathe is better. I know that I can get good money for either of them, so money is not the issue. Another option is to keep the Monarch and add a small Hardinge HC for working on small stuff at high speed. I bought three small hardinges for $200 each two weeks ago. I will appreciate some intelligent comments. Thanks They are quite a nice lathe ! I would investigate putting an inverter/VFD in there to get higher speeds. I've seen similar machines running great at 140Hz, which should get you up into the 1200/1400 rpm range. Certainly the machine is quite capable of using the higher speeds. -- Best Regards: Baron. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Ignoramus8699 wrote: On 2015-05-23, Karl Townsend wrote: Its a shame, that low top speed on the Monarch is a killer. that's why it has no wear. I'd send it on down the road. All other monarchs that I have ever seen are always worn to death. I save tailstocks, cross slides and handles and scrap the rest. This one was so unusual. The thing is that I am still in love with it because it is so good looking. Have hard times letting go. What, exactly, is bad about slow top speed? That works takes longer to finish? I keep hearing how high RPM is needed for carbide, but I use carbide at low speed. I do not quite get it. I am sure that I am missing something. i For larger work I don't think that top speed is an issue. If you added a small high speed lathe for small work you'd have the best of both. Is there any reason the headstock couldn't be upgraded to higher speed? Upgrade some bearings, change drive pulleys? I'd love a lathe that big, but I don't have room for it quite yet. Hopefully in a few months if it ever stops raining here in N. TX I can get a shipping container in and be able to store such a machine until I get my new shop built hopefully later in the year. |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Fri, 22 May 2015 20:06:35 -0500, Ignoramus8699
wrote: Pictures are he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Monarch-vs-Polamco/ Right now, my "shop lathe" is a Monarch model AA 16x54 lathe. The amazing thing about it is that it is almost brand new (!!!) and has no wear whatsoever. I know that it is weird, but it is true. Somehow or other, it escaped the usual fate of these lathes, it was made in 1944. It has only two problems: 1) It is slow, top speed is 500 RPM 2) Someone told me that the lubrication system in the head may not be working right, based on what he saw in the sight glass. I recently purchased a AFM Toolmex or Polamco lathe. It has about the same size, and its top speed is a respectable 1,600 RPM. It does have wear, unlike the Monarch, but very little. It also has a removable gap, which we do not care for too much. There is two people in my shop who use a lathe, me and another guy. I told him that we can now pick the lathe out of these two. So, I wanted to solicit some opinions as to what lathe is better. I know that I can get good money for either of them, so money is not the issue. Another option is to keep the Monarch and add a small Hardinge HC for working on small stuff at high speed. I bought three small hardinges for $200 each two weeks ago. I will appreciate some intelligent comments. Thanks i The Hardinge HC is a superlative machine for work that does not..not need a tailstock. You need to be finding a Hardinge HLV-H for your shop. Gunner |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
On Sat, 23 May 2015 05:16:55 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:55:52 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8699 wrote: OK, then I am keeping the Monarch! i Good decision, especially since it has a taper attachment. I assume it has a three phase motor. So you could add a Variable Speed Drive and get higher speeds. I would not try for really high speeds as heavy things turning at high speed have a lot of stored energy. Dan Add a VFD...Variable Frequency Drive..not a VSD. The best that machine will do is 1000 rpm..maybe 1500..but thats all anyone will ever need for a lathe that size. Gunner |
Monarch AA vs Polamco/Toolmex TUG 40 lathe
Hello, im just got a AFM TUG 40, can you help me to know, what kind of oil takes on the box gears qhere the spindlle strat turning?, thank you su much..
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter