Whitcomb planer

That bevel gear looks like it was fitted last week.

Regards Tyrone.

Here's the loose work head back in one piece. The last thing it needs (other than a new acme nut eventually) is a couple more gib screws.

That evaporust stuff saves some time! If I could budget it, I'd buy a vat of it big enough for the big castings!

Even with a bit of polishing on the bright pieces like handles and stuff, it'll always have pitting and scars, but when I get around to a proper rebuild someday scraping ways and stuff, I'm happy with this general finish.

M.B. Naegle said:

View attachment 371331
Havn't made a lot of progress on this project lately, but here and there I've been squeezing little bites in (how you eat an elephant and all). Since the left work head was already apart, I've been putting it through the evaporust bucket a piece at a time before putting it back together. The back of it still shows original scraping. Found some fasteners missing and have been making replacements as I can, such as these 3/4" bolts made from 1 3/8 hex stock, which seems to be the common set-up bolt head size.
View attachment 371332
Once the head is back in one piece, it'll go in storage until the planer has a roof over it again. The adjusting screws iron acme nut is pretty well stripped, but not all the way, so I took dimensions from it and will make another before or when it fails.

I noticed that none of the adjusting screws or sliding ways on this machine have any kind of incremental dials or rules, with the exception of the work heads having degrees on the side to set tilt. Is this just how old planers were, or just planers in general? Would everything just have been set with surface gages, planer gages, and shim stock (considering this was before indicators became common)?

Click to expand...

If you were working on large castings they would have been marked out before they came to the planer. I did a bit of marking out for a couple of years, I liked the job. It was interesting and you weren’t busting a gut.
You’d paint the relevant areas with whitening and then mark out the cut lines for the machinist with a big height gauge and a big sheet metal square. it took a lot of thinking about. You had to weigh up how much metal had to come off each face. No point taking half an inch off one face and leaving the opposite face in the black. You might have several recesses working back from one face and oiling points on the outside faces at 90 degrees that had to line up with the recesses. It could take you several goes before you got the job right. Painting out your lines and starting again etc. When you were happy everything was ok to the drawing you centre punched your lines every two inches nice and deep.

After that the machinist took over on the planer. He’d set up on the table to your lines with a big scribing block or height gauge. When the job was done you expected to be able to see the half centre punch marks. No centre punch marks and he’d ballsed up by taking too much off. Most guys worked off a DTI stuck on the planing head. Later on we had “ Trav-a-Dials “ and DRO’s.

Regards Tyrone.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you were working on large castings they would have been marked out before they came to the planer. I did a bit of marking out for a couple of years, I liked the job. It was interesting and you weren’t busting a gut.
You’d paint the relevant areas with whitening and then mark out the cut lines for the machinist with a big height gauge and a big sheet metal square. it took a lot of thinking about. You had to weigh up how much metal had to come off each face. No point taking half an inch off one face and leaving the opposite face in the black. You might have several recesses working back from one face and oiling points on the outside faces at 90 degrees that had to line up with the recesses. It could take you several goes before you got the job right. Painting out your lines and starting again etc. When you were happy everything was ok to the drawing you centre punched your lines every two inches nice and deep.

After that the machinist took over on the planer. He’d set up on the table to your lines with a big scribing block or height gauge. When the job was done you expected to be able to see the half centre punch marks. No centre punch marks and he’d ballsed up by taking too much off. Most guys worked off a DTI stuck on the planing head. Later on we had “ Trav-a-Dials “ and DRO’s.

Regards Tyrone.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. So instead of relying on the machine's accuracy to move .005" for example, you relied on the guy setting it up to be able to measure it's movement via hand-tools and gauges.

Castings is a different beast for most machinists. We've had highly skilled machinists swear up and down that we had bad castings because they couldn't just push them against a stop and run a program cutting a parameter. Once you get out of that "single corner datum" mentality in how you build fixtures and load parts, they're not that hard to machine, and IMO it's one place that manual machines still work well in.

That’s why the guys that can set up big castings ( 5 tons and upwards ) and not turn them into scrap are worth their weight in gold at the moment over here. You just can’t get them, they’re all like me - retired - or dead. You can get all the CNC green button pushers you want. They’re ok just as long as the job will go in a vice.

Regards Tyrone.

This is the one tool that came with the planer, and is the only tool/tool-holder I have that is sized correctly for the machine. Made by C.R. Carver and I think the number is a serial as a faint matching number is on the indexing bolt as well. It takes 1/2" bits and will likely do 90% of what I plan to do, but I'll keep an eye out for other holders. The shank measures 1 3/8" x 1 5/8" x 10" long. I had some HSS and brazed carbide bits of the same caliber that I gave away a few years ago thinking I'd never have a machine to fit them (*sigh*), but I still have some smaller shaper/planer holders and basic lathe holders that would work with an adaptor (unless anyone would like to do some trading!). This one looks to be a big big forging. If I make any tools, I'd like to make them in pairs so that the double heads could be tooled together and be used in tandem.


The only traces of a C.R. Carver Co. that I can find online relate to printing and die press machines, so it could be that this was actually an in-house made tool from that company? It bears plenty of scars from having the bits sharpened in place, but it has plenty of life left, and it's size merits some welding and re cutting if needed.

You could put two tools on the same planing box. One set lower than the other. That’s what the old timers did.

I’d see if you can source some real planing tools if you can.

Regards Tyrone.

Two questions:

1. With the above tool holder, since it's prefered to keep your bit as close to the center line of the pivot as you can, can/should you run this style of holder with the hex nut facing outward, or is that putting too much load on the threads? When I took it out of the machine it was oriented with the nut towards the back, so the cutting force was on the bar, not the bolt.

2. How much horsepower does this planer actually use? Given it's size, the 7HP motor that came with it seemed appropriate, and the belt from the motor to the jack shaft was sized to match, but the sliding belts that drop to the machine are only 2 or 3" wide, so how much of that power really transfers?

I did some "demo" work tonight, taking the old motor off of it's mount and cutting some welds. I'm thinking at this point, rather than make new riser brackets to mount the existing jack-shaft hangers to the top of the Planner, I think it would make for a simpler set-up (with not much extra work) to just fabricate new hangers that are fitted to the curve and slope of the castings. I'll use the old hangers elseware, but It would be more like what I THINK was on this Planer originally (due to the extra bolts on top/back of the columns). Something like this image out of their catalog, only I'll take some fabrication liberties.

This arrangement would save some headroom too over the current one. The question about horse-power is related though as I want to be sure my design is rigid enough.

1.) I can't see how much reduced the bolt is, nor determine if it is, say grade 8 equivalent, or grade 3 equiv. Weasel wording aside i much prefer to run the tool behind the shank. OTOH i made my holders and put the strength in accordingly.
2.) If all you ever run is 1/2" x 1/2" bits, you have more HP than you need. Unless maybe both heads are running a the same time, both with at least1/2" bits.....

Perhaps to more directly answer your Q, my machine has 1-3/4" drive belt (which i increased from the received 1-1/2" or maybe a little wider) and a 3HP motor. It can slip the belt in deep or wide cuts, while the motor remains un-stalled. So i get what you are talking about. Supposedly, the belts on mine should be good for 5HP or more according to the book. Not sure i've figured out how to do that.

Holders for small tools can be economical in cost and easier to grind, because not all cuts or profiles need be large just because the machine is. OTOH you can run at least 3/4" square bits on that planer, and 1" might be convenient at times. My 3 HP will run fairly heavy roughing cuts in CI with a round-edge 3/4" bit with some shear stepping over quite a bit depending on depth. Steel is a different ball game because the tool geometry is more delicate for finish, but here again, wide is helpful. While roughing, thick is helpful. So it is easy to get where 3/4" or larger bits are more efficient and more fun.

Nice to see you making so much progress!

stephen thomas said:

1.) I can't see how much reduced the bolt is, nor determine if it is, say grade 8 equivalent, or grade 3 equiv. Weasel wording aside i much prefer to run the tool behind the shank. OTOH i made my holders and put the strength in accordingly.
2.) If all you ever run is 1/2" x 1/2" bits, you have more HP than you need. Unless maybe both heads are running a the same time, both with at least1/2" bits.....

Perhaps to more directly answer your Q, my machine has 1-3/4" drive belt (which i increased from the received 1-1/2" or maybe a little wider) and a 3HP motor. It can slip the belt in deep or wide cuts, while the motor remains un-stalled. So i get what you are talking about. Supposedly, the belts on mine should be good for 5HP or more according to the book. Not sure i've figured out how to do that.

Holders for small tools can be economical in cost and easier to grind, because not all cuts or profiles need be large just because the machine is. OTOH you can run at least 3/4" square bits on that planer, and 1" might be convenient at times. My 3 HP will run fairly heavy roughing cuts in CI with a round-edge 3/4" bit with some shear stepping over quite a bit depending on depth. Steel is a different ball game because the tool geometry is more delicate for finish, but here again, wide is helpful. While roughing, thick is helpful. So it is easy to get where 3/4" or larger bits are more efficient and more fun.

Nice to see you making so much progress!

Click to expand...

I'm thinking 1/2" square or 5/8" square will be the most common and those will fit standard lantern type tool holders, but I would like to make some holders for wider bits too, but more for finishing passes then hogging metal (using the width to take a skim over a wide area). When I make the holder(s) for the bigger bits they'll be oriented behind the tool shank.

The general school of thought I've always worked by was that you need an inch of belt for every horse power. Even with V-belts, adding the three sides together tends to follow that rule. Going by that rule, I don't think I'll ever fully utilize the 115HP out of the engine I'll be running, but while planning out the belt widths going from the main line to the jack shafts, and from there down to the machines, I want to be sure everything is sized accordingly. With the Planner here, I'm going to stick with the larger diameter jack shaft so there's no deflection from belt tension or load, but it sounds like it would be highly unlikely to bend or break a bracket from the strain of the belts. I'm sure that the guys that designed this plainer knew what they were doing, so if the belts running down to the shifter are slipping, I'm sure there's something else going on, but I'm going to plan on about 4HP service as the 2nd flat belt on the other side is only that wide, and so I'll make the belt from the main shaft to the jack shaft the same.

Not as much progress as I'd like, but it'll get there eventually. Still going to be stuck until I can get the gear rack made, but for now I want to get the shed made and hangers and belts hung to start moving the machine a section at a time. Nothing is frozen solid, but much of the shafts and bearings in the machine are stiff, so I've been soaking oil in and nudging them around. If I don't have the shed done before I get the top jack shaft in place, I can run the planer from my tractor and start using the machine's belting to work things loose.

The rule of thumb on belt HP transmission that I read about was a 1" wide belt running at 600 ft/mn would transmit 1 HP as long as it was tight.

stephen thomas said:

1.) I can't see how much reduced the bolt is, nor determine if it is, say grade 8 equivalent, or grade 3 equiv. Weasel wording aside i much prefer to run the tool behind the shank. OTOH i made my holders and put the strength in accordingly.
2.) If all you ever run is 1/2" x 1/2" bits, you have more HP than you need. Unless maybe both heads are running a the same time, both with at least1/2" bits.....

Perhaps to more directly answer your Q, my machine has 1-3/4" drive belt (which i increased from the received 1-1/2" or maybe a little wider) and a 3HP motor. It can slip the belt in deep or wide cuts, while the motor remains un-stalled. So i get what you are talking about. Supposedly, the belts on mine should be good for 5HP or more according to the book. Not sure i've figured out how to do that.

Holders for small tools can be economical in cost and easier to grind, because not all cuts or profiles need be large just because the machine is. OTOH you can run at least 3/4" square bits on that planer, and 1" might be convenient at times. My 3 HP will run fairly heavy roughing cuts in CI with a round-edge 3/4" bit with some shear stepping over quite a bit depending on depth. Steel is a different ball game because the tool geometry is more delicate for finish, but here again, wide is helpful. While roughing, thick is helpful. So it is easy to get where 3/4" or larger bits are more efficient and more fun.

Nice to see you making so much progress!

Click to expand...

Stephen, Does your Whitcomb have the boses pictured, or anything mounted to them? There's one inside each column and I think they're related to the on-board jack-shaft set-up pictured above, as there's a handle just below them that I think would be for engaging a clutch.

some interesting reading from 1908......

Mike

Oops, sorry i misssed this.
Headed out shortly, but will try to remember to look for those bolt pads/holes tonight.

smt

Stephen, Does your Whitcomb have the boses pictured, or anything mounted to them? There's one inside each column and I think they're related to the on-board jack-shaft set-up pictured above, as there's a handle just below them that I think would be for engaging a clutch.

Click to expand...

On mine the bolts in that area only hold brackets for the overhead drive. The threaded holes are also not quite like yours, in that they are radial along the circumference of the curve. (rather than square/parallel to the table)

The brackets on mine are probably shop made, although professional.
But the point is, nothing interesting is/was happening up there except as points to mount the OH drive.
So realistically, you can use them for whatever is convenient.

What sort of clutch would you need?

PS: looking/thinking a bit harder - did yours have power raise/lower on the rail? ("rapids") The only thing that overhead rod is for on mine is rail height adjustment - theres a miter gear on each end to synch the acme screws on each side of the column. With a hand crank on the end as in the B&W picture you posted a little further up. Yours seems to have a pulley, which is suggestive? But i doubt it is essential to the operation of the planer to add power back to it if major parts are missing.

stephen thomas said:

On mine the bolts in that area only hold brackets for the overhead drive. The threaded holes are also not quite like yours, in that they are radial along the circumference of the curve. (rather than square/parallel to the table)

The brackets on mine are probably shop made, although professional.
But the point is, nothing interesting is/was happening up there except as points to mount the OH drive.
So realistically, you can use them for whatever is convenient.

What sort of clutch would you need?

PS: looking/thinking a bit harder - did yours have power raise/lower on the rail? ("rapids") The only thing that overhead rod is for on mine is rail height adjustment - theres a miter gear on each end to synch the acme screws on each side of the column. With a hand crank on the end as in the B&W picture you posted a little further up. Yours seems to have a pulley, which is suggestive? But i doubt it is essential to the operation of the planer to add power back to it if major parts are missing.

Click to expand...

Yes mine has the power rise and fall. The shaft for that is on the very top, whereas these bosses seem to have interacted with a shaft that went through the upper openings in the columns (below the red circle in the above picture). The only data I've got for this set-up is the picture in post #88, which isn't very clear, but it looks like there's a handle on the right side that perhaps would be pushed/pulled or twisted? You can also see a ring going around the jack-shaft with an array of holes. My assumption is that it was a two pulley slip clutch with the belt being moved by the handle, and the bolt circle was the shipper and allowed you to move the fingers to different angles depending on where your belt was coming from. The whole set-up seems to be marketed to shops that might not have an over-head shaft arrangement, or the machine was expected to be moved around, and in either case the jack-shaft would stay attached to the machine.

Other than being curious and wanting to maintain the machine's history, I like the on-board jack shaft design as it seems to save some head-room and since the shed I want to build will be wood frame, having one less jack shaft to keep in alignment over the seasons would be handy. I don't know the machines full history, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been in railroad sheds it's whole life, and many of the back-woods depots here in Texas were a bit lacking in terms of brick and mortar structures, so I can see this arrangement being useful in that regard. Knowing how it "was" just gives me a base line to work off of, if not reproduce. Mine had no clutch remaining on it since they were using the electric motor for on/off control. I'm thinking a simple two pulley slip clutch, or one idle pulley with a pin clutch engagement would be the easiest to produce.