The plate the chuck mounts to is not perpendicular to the shaft axis.
What is the best way to fix this? Hammering it back doesn't sound
like a good idea. I thought about taking the shaft over to a machine
chop, bolting a plate to the existing plate, then getting that adapter
plate machined flat, then tapped for the chuck.

Any other easier/cheaper ideas?

I am a beginner with the hands on operation so please use simple
words without too many syllables....

One other idea was to fabricate a different chuck mounting in
order to use other brand of chucks. Is this a waste of time too?

A brief history:

I've been saving up for a "real" lathe but do not plan on purchasing
for another year. I've been on the lookout for a small bench lathe
in order to practice with in the meantime. At a local swap meet last
month someone brought this lathe. At least it looked like a lathe
under all of the dirt and grime....

But all of the screws felt tight and I couldn't feel any play in the
bearings. What the heck. It was only US$25 and the motor alone
(1hp GE) was probably worth that much. Plus if nothing else I'll get
the education from tearing the thing apart and seeing how everything
works.

A month of scrubbing, a gallon of acetone, plus paint grease and oil
and the lathe looked pretty nice. I took it to the local club meeting
and whereas before when I purchased the comments were composed of
advice about getting some chain to go along with that boat anchor now
many were asking where I got such a nice little lathe g.

So I was happy until I started trying to actually machine something
today and found the above mentioned flaw. The chuck must have taken a
pretty severe whack at some time in its past. The shaft looks
straight, it is the mounting plate at the end that is not square as
best that I can tell.

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

In article ,
says...

So I was happy until I started trying to actually machine something
today and found the above mentioned flaw. The chuck must have taken a
pretty severe whack at some time in its past. The shaft looks
straight, it is the mounting plate at the end that is not square as
best that I can tell.

If this is one of the craftsman, AA products machines (a model
number that starts with 109... is the tipoff) then those do
tend to have somewhat undersized spindles. They can be
bent fairly easily.

Measure the runout in the chuck backplate, if it's more than
ten thousanths or so, you might consider having a new spindle
made up. They are straightforward items and if you have access
to a slightly larger lathe it is easy to do.

You can of course just take a skim cut on the backing plate
in situ to clean it up, if it's only out a few thousanths.

Key is to find out if the spindle is really tweaked, you
can remove it and mount it between centers, and check
near the threaded end for true.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

The plate the chuck mounts to is not perpendicular to the shaft axis.
What is the best way to fix this?

Make sure the chuck's backplate threads are clean. Run a bent nail or similar
in them to clean them out.

The chuck's backplate must thread all the way onto the spindle so that it's
face "registers" completely against the corresponding face on the front of the
shaft (spindle). You must have this full contact for the chuck to run true.

For one thing.
Frank Morrison

Ah, but this is the cheapo Dunlop model. The chuck does not thread
on. It merely bolts to a faceplate that is welded(?) to the main
shaft. That plate itself is not square.

Thanks anyway,

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

On 16 Aug 2004 03:08:48 GMT, (Fdmorrison) wrote:



The plate the chuck mounts to is not perpendicular to the shaft axis.
What is the best way to fix this?

Make sure the chuck's backplate threads are clean. Run a bent nail or similar
in them to clean them out.

The chuck's backplate must thread all the way onto the spindle so that it's
face "registers" completely against the corresponding face on the front of the
shaft (spindle). You must have this full contact for the chuck to run true.

For one thing.
Frank Morrison

Remove the chuck. Take a light facing cut on the faceplate with a sharp
tool. Replace the chuck. - GWE

wrote:

Ah, but this is the cheapo Dunlop model. The chuck does not thread
on. It merely bolts to a faceplate that is welded(?) to the main
shaft. That plate itself is not square.

Thanks anyway,

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

On 16 Aug 2004 03:08:48 GMT, (Fdmorrison) wrote:





The plate the chuck mounts to is not perpendicular to the shaft axis.
What is the best way to fix this?

Make sure the chuck's backplate threads are clean. Run a bent nail or similar
in them to clean them out.

The chuck's backplate must thread all the way onto the spindle so that it's
face "registers" completely against the corresponding face on the front of the
shaft (spindle). You must have this full contact for the chuck to run true.

For one thing.
Frank Morrison

Ah, but this is the cheapo Dunlop model. The chuck does not thread
on. It merely bolts to a faceplate that is welded(?) to the main
shaft. That plate itself is not square.

Thanks anyway,

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

You mean Dunlap? What model is it? All the ones I've seen had narrow threaded
spindles.

GTO(John)

On 15 Aug 2004 20:06:37 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

Measure the runout in the chuck backplate, if it's more than
ten thousanths or so, you might consider having a new spindle
made up. They are straightforward items and if you have access
to a slightly larger lathe it is easy to do.

That makes too much sense g! Kind of obvious in hindsight, as all
great ideas are...

I would say it is more than a few thousandths of an inch.

GTO(John) wrote:

You mean Dunlap? What model is it? All the ones I've seen had narrow threaded
spindles.

Sorry, Dunlap. I'd have to go get the model number tomorrow but from
searching various web sites I got from more than one source that it
was the '49 model. From what I read this model was only made for that
one year. Both the '48 and the '50 were slightly different designs.
Perhaps they went back to the threaded design becuase it was
better?....

Thanks, all for the information. I'm leaning towards just making a
new shaft (called the spindle?). I was going to buy a three tooth
chuck anyway. This would kill two birds with one stone.

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

Sorry, Dunlap. I'd have to go get the model number tomorrow but from
searching various web sites I got from more than one source that it
was the '49 model. From what I read this model was only made for that
one year. Both the '48 and the '50 were slightly different designs.
Perhaps they went back to the threaded design becuase it was
better?....

Thanks, all for the information. I'm leaning towards just making a
new shaft (called the spindle?). I was going to buy a three tooth
chuck anyway. This would kill two birds with one stone.

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

I'm not really familiar with all the different AA lathe models, but I have to
think yours was modified or something really weird. They came stock with a 1/2"
threaded spindle with a tiny through-hole. Very prone to bending or cracking.
First project for folks with these is usually making a new solid spindle.

GTO(John)

That version of the 6" lathe has a small spindle that is often bent by
overpowering the lathe and doing bad cuts.
First off, get rid of the 1hp motor and use a 1/4hp motor on the lathe.
Then learn to work within the limits of that motor.
Second, make up a new spindle using the faceplate and centers so that the
upset of the present spindle doesn't hurt the turning.
Third, you may want to try whacking the present spindle back towards proper
straightness although this will make the spindle a lot weaker than before
(bent metal is never as strong as unbent metal).
These are really light duty lathes compared to a 10" or larger lathe but
some people don't reallly appreciate the need for the smaller cuts and so
forth, especially with doing cast iron castings where you really have to dig
deep on the first cut to get through the surface of the part.

--
Bob May
Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
Works every time it is tried!

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:11:36 GMT, wrote:

||Ah, but this is the cheapo Dunlop model. The chuck does not thread
||on. It merely bolts to a faceplate that is welded(?) to the main
||shaft. That plate itself is not square.

Gene
Why don't you post a picture to the dropbox?

Is it anything like this one?

http://metalworking.com/DropBox/Rex_B_small_lathe.jpg
Texas Parts Guy

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:44:39 -0700, "Bob May"
wrote:

First off, get rid of the 1hp motor and use a 1/4hp motor on the lathe.
Then learn to work within the limits of that motor.

g Well, for that part I'm already ahead of you. There isn't a whole
lot of tension on the belt. If anything grabs the belt slips right
away. I agree the motor is overkill. My thoughts is that it uses
a belt for a reason. I had some club member start recommending
a tensioning system as the belt is very loose. My thought is
that it would sort of defeat the purpose on such a light duty
machine....

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:23:06 GMT, (Rex B) wrote:

Gene
Why don't you post a picture to the dropbox?

Is it anything like this one?

http://metalworking.com/DropBox/Rex_B_small_lathe.jpg
Texas Parts Guy

I'll throw some pictures on the web page tonight. I have
some before and during and just need to take some "after"
tonight.

The lathe looks nothing like your link g. Here's what it looks
like: http://www.lathes.co.uk/craftsman/img12.gif

Looking at the source page it is claiming it as a '48 model, not a
'49.

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

||The lathe looks nothing like your link g. Here's what it looks
||like: http://www.lathes.co.uk/craftsman/img12.gif
||
||Looking at the source page it is claiming it as a '48 model, not a
||'49.

There is a very active Yahoo group on this lathe.
AA and 109 or something similar. Go to Yahoo groups and search on Lathe.
Texas Parts Guy

||Is it anything like this one?
||
|| http://metalworking.com/DropBox/Rex_B_small_lathe.jpg
||Texas Parts Guy
||
||I'll throw some pictures on the web page tonight. I have
||some before and during and just need to take some "after"
||tonight.
||
||The lathe looks nothing like your link g. Here's what it looks
||like: http://www.lathes.co.uk/craftsman/img12.gif

Actually, the compound is the same as on mine. Everything else is different.
Probably the same manufacturer - AA - but newer. Mine is ca. 1937.
Texas Parts Guy

In article ,
says...

The lathe looks nothing like your link g. Here's what it looks
like: http://www.lathes.co.uk/craftsman/img12.gif

Yep, that's a AA products machine all right.

Those are supposed to have a small (1/2-16 IIRC) threaded
spindle nose. If yours has a welded-on plate, somebody's
been into it.

Don't try to tweak the spindle in place. The front, split,
adjustable bronze bearing won't like that. Remove the spindle
and set it up to test it, and straighten it with a press if
you want.

My choice would be - wait a minute, *was* - to make a larger
spindle and replace the bearings in the headstock.

I think I opened up the front journal to about 3/4 inch
diameter, and made a new spindle to fit it. I put oilite
bushings in the headstock.

But lots of of folks tweak the small spindles on those
machines, and replace them with exact duplicates.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:54:34 GMT, (Rex B) wrote:

Actually, the compound is the same as on mine. Everything else is different.
Probably the same manufacturer - AA - but newer. Mine is ca. 1937.
Texas Parts Guy

My post came across a little harsher than I meant it. I recalled
reading probably from that same UK site that the pre-war units had a
longer bed, so it probably is the same manufacturer.

Gene Horr

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:51:36 GMT, (Rex B) wrote:

There is a very active Yahoo group on this lathe.
AA and 109 or something similar. Go to Yahoo groups and search on Lathe.

Found it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA_109_Lathe_Users_Group/
The picture on that page is almost identical to my model.

Thanks!

Gene Horr
my name as one word at texas dot net

But lots of of folks tweak the small spindles on those
machines, and replace them with exact duplicates.

Jim

The trick I've seen most done is just making solid spindle for it. Stronger
than the original with the oversized through-hole.

GTO(John)

On 16 Aug 2004 14:14:54 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

||In article ,
||says...
||
||The lathe looks nothing like your link g. Here's what it looks
||like: http://www.lathes.co.uk/craftsman/img12.gif
||
||Yep, that's a AA products machine all right.
||
||Those are supposed to have a small (1/2-16 IIRC) threaded
||spindle nose.

1/2-24
Texas Parts Guy

In article , GTO69RA4 says...

But lots of of folks tweak the small spindles on those
machines, and replace them with exact duplicates.

Jim

The trick I've seen most done is just making solid spindle for it. Stronger
than the original with the oversized through-hole.

The original AA products machines did not have the hole. That
was added later, along with the back gears and whatnot.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 16 Aug 2004 17:20:47 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

||In article , GTO69RA4 says...
||
||But lots of of folks tweak the small spindles on those
||machines, and replace them with exact duplicates.
||
||Jim
||
||The trick I've seen most done is just making solid spindle for it. Stronger
||than the original with the oversized through-hole.
||
||The original AA products machines did not have the hole. That
||was added later, along with the back gears and whatnot.

Yep. Mine has a solid spindle with only 1/2-24 threads for the chuck.
It appears to also have a recess for a center, but it's pretty well munged.
Interestingly, it has a series of belts & pulleys to drive the leadscrew. Might
make threadcutting interesting

BTW, I attempted to build a new spindle from a 5/8 shock absorber shaft. It cut
easily, but I could not get it to cut smoothly. Any dea what kind of steel that
would be? Any reason it would not be suitable for a lathe spindle?
=================================================

Texas Parts Guy

In article , Rex B says...

||Those are supposed to have a small (1/2-16 IIRC) threaded
||spindle nose.

1/2-24

Thank you, that is indeed correct for the stock
version of the machine. My memory error.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================