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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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

"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

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.

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.

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

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

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..