Logan lathe

What is the quality of the Logan machine lathe brand? Made well enough to suffice for a novice metal worker?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A Logan is right up there with South Bend, Sheldon, and others who made very high quality metal lathes far better than anything you could buy today. It will be one of the best investments you will buy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The machines mentioned border on industrial rating. They are of decent quality, but hardly high quality. There are superior machines to be had---but they tend to be larger machines, and certainly were far more expensive. Machines mentioned would be excellent quality for home shop use, far better than lesser brands, assuming they are in good condition. Name alone isn't enough-------condition dictates.
Yes----Logan would be considered very good for the novice metal worker----but not really competitive with industrial machines.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What are you trying to do, Harold, start a food fight? <g>
I'll disagree slightly. First off, Logan, South Bend, and Sheldon WERE industrial machines. And they were made a hell of a lot better than most of the machines of comparable size and weight available from Asia today. However, they were light by today's standards and the South Bend, at least, was a little springy for use with carbide tooling in steel.
I used a Logan and two South Bends in a commercial machine shop in the '70s. They were very able machines although they were already out of date and not very productive by the standards of the day, and certainly not now. But they were capable of very good work and they were built to last under normal use. I have a SB 10L that's been in my family since 1945, and it's a very well made machine -- ideal for a typical hobby shop. I expect it to last at least another generation or two with normal use.
What you say about condition is, of course, the big factor. There aren't a lot of those machines still in use that haven't been through hell and back.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Somehow I sensed that could come about when I posted my comments. :-)

Need I say more?
When I discuss industrial machines, I mean it in the true sense of the word (discounting today's high speed CNC's, of course).
I fully realize that all of those machines have been used in industry---and all with mixed results. I was assigned to a Sheldon at a shop where I was employed briefly. Very nice machine, but woefully lacking in the ways of serious machining. For one, it was virtually impossible to take serious roughing cuts with the machine, but it had no issues with precision. I've also been assigned to a geared head South Bend, which left more than a lot to be desired as an industrial machine. I'd shudder to think how poorly a flat belt South Bend might perform when put to serious work. I spent more than one year running a small Clausing in a job shop. All suffered from a common problem------not enough horse power and rigidity to perform to production standards. That doesn't mean they were not good machines, but they had to be used within their design parameters in order to satisfy. I see nothing wrong with that. The Clausing, for sure, cost but a miniscule fraction of the price of an EE Monarch.
I have no quarrel with the quality of any of these machines. The problem they all have is that they simply can't compete with a machine that's built to move metal, which is why I am not keen on them. In spite of my prejudice, I endorse them highly for the novice, who isn't likely to ever need such a capability. A dear friend has a small lathe that is belt driven with a fractional horse power motor. He has regaled me with one experience whereby things went wrong and he stalled the spindle with his hands. In that case, having a less than adequate machine paid huge dividends, but as I type this, I harken back to one of the defense parts I ran on my Sag 12 Graziano. A steering pin for the main landing gear of the B-52 bomber. I had hundreds to run, and were made from annealed 4140, turned off center to allow for a boss that was milled after the lathe work. I wonder how long I'd have taken to rough that order had my machine not been capable of serious cuts. There is a distinct difference between industrially rated machines, and machines used in industrial circumstances. You might liken it to considering yourself a car because you're standing in the garage. Takes more than that to have the title.
Again, it isn't in anyone's best interest to compare an industrially rated machine with those of reasonably high quality, but intended for light duty work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with such machines as long as you don't have the same expectations that you might have from a 17" Axelson.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

Logan, I believe, made a fairly narrow class of lathes. Definitely better than Atlas, but nothing like a LeBlond.
Sheldon, over the years, spanned a much wider class of machines. They made some lower-end machines that were pretty similar to the Logan, for instance. Near the end of their business, they upgraded their top end to somewhere between Cadillac and Rolls-Royce, to use an automotive metaphor. I have a 1968+ Sheldon R15-6, a 3500 Lb machine with D1-6 camlock spindle and a 2.25" spindle through hole. Believe me, it can take a cut that leaves me slack-jawed! The toughest thing I tried was making a ball joint socket in 1018 steel with a quarter-round form tool. I bored the hole to 7/8", and then lined up the form tool and just plowed it in to see what would happen. Once it got to where the drill stopped, it was cutting along the entire face of the tool, making a 1" diameter concave hemisphere. There was not even the slightest HINT of a vibration developing, Just the soft crinkling of the chips. I did hear the gear noise from the gearbox get just a little louder. If I had tried this on the Atlas/Craftsman lathe I had before, it would have been a race to see if the spindle stalled or the vibration grew until the bed cracked! I also threaded the ball end with a 1"-20 TPI thread. Just to save my threading tool, I cut those in 3 passes, but the lathe could have done it in one, easy.
Just pointing out that at least with the Sheldon brand, there was a wide range of machine class under that label.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip-----

And yours would certainly qualify for industrial use, at least judging by the description you provided. I've never encountered one of them, but that's damned impressive! I'm particularly impressed with the D spindle. Every decent machine I've ever operated, aside from a LeBlond, has had such a spindle, although of various sizes.
One of my complaints with South Bend was that they stayed with old technology far too long. I have no doubts about their quality--but they'd have done themselves a world of good to have moved up, away from threaded spindles and flat belt drives much sooner than they did. I was always underwhelmed with those damned knob clutch feed mechanisms on the carriage, too.
Harold
I really enjoyed running the small Sheldon I spoke of, but always wished it had more power. I get the distinct impression that wouldn't be an issue with yours.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

The late Sheldon R15-6 is the most advanced lathe I've ever poked around the insides of. It has all sorts of ingenious mechanisms to deal with all sorts of things. Like, the main speed reducer gearbox is on the motor, not in the headstock, so as to keep vibrations away from the spindle. The spindle is driven by a matched set of 3 huge power-Vee belts. The input pulley for that belt runs on a set of bearings in the headstock, whereas similar input shafts often run on bearings that ride directly on the spindle. Again, to reduce vibrations to the spindle. The direct drive clutch has two dogs that are matched to provide torque without any radial thrust to the spindle.
There are all sorts of little details in the threading and feed drive, too. The power feeds are done with adjustable metal plate clutches, not gears, so you don't break things if you crash. The threading leadscrew has a U-joint at the QC gearbox end so it can't cause the leadscrew to exert any radial force against the carriage. The QC is a total marvel, 80 threads and 80 different feeds. It must have over 200 ball and needle roller bearings in it, probably even more.
I'm probably missing even more great innovations they put in there. Also, the thing is just MASSIVE, I have to take the tailstock off in two pieces, otherwise it is too heavy for me. The bare carriage is over 120 Lbs and 25" wide across the bed. The apron needs a hoist. The headstock is the size of a big-block V8 shortblock.

I don't know about the South Bend clutches, but the ones on the Sheldon are designed to be easily adjusted by the machinist, there are nuts in the middle of the handwheels. So, you can tighten them up for a heavy cut, or loosen them for light cuts when you might be expecting a crash.

It is only 7.5 Hp, and I'm sure I've never loaded it past about 2 Hp. I'm just chicken. No problem making blue chips, though, and filling the chip tray in an hour.
See http://jelinux.pico-systems.com/sheldon.html for some pics and a story about getting the thing moved in to my shop.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip------

Interesting story on the lathe. Sounds like you went to a great deal of trouble to get the machine back to good condition.
I'm duly impressed with the machine, and your system of regrinding the ways.
My Graziano is only 3 horse, and will take monster cuts compared to those you've mentioned. I have no doubt you could pull a .400" depth of cut @ .015" feed with negative rake carbide on yours. It's poetry in motion when you see chips coming off like that.
Nice lathe!
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

Well, I don't usually do heavy stock removal on big projects. Maybe I'm ruined for life by starting out on an Atlas 10" with blitzed babbit bearings. After taking a cut with a radiused cutter making a 1/8" wide chip and having the lathe dance acros the floor with a noise that could have been heard literally a block away, you get timid!
And, maybe, with time, I'll learn to take more advantage of the capabilities of this lathe. Much of the stuff I do is cutting down small spacers, threading little adaptors and such. I looked for a long time for a larger lathe that had higher speeds and a good spindle bore, so it could do everything on one machine.
And, I AIN'T complaining. But, if I had known at the beginning it was going to take 22 months on an off, I would have found a different way to do it. But, once I started, I pretty much had to finish.
I have a lot of positive-rake tooling that I got comfortable with on the Atlas. I will have to try out some neg rake tooling some time.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip----

Negative rake is the key to moving material. Unless you get involved with some very strange, large chip breakers in carbide, positive rake usually won't come close to taking a cut like I described, and even then you'll suffer a short tool life. Roughing with positive rake is generally an invitation to failure---in general due to chips damaging the cutting edge. That's almost non-existent in negative rake.
If you haven't experienced negative rake tooling, the next time you have some material to remove, give it some thought. Be certain that you match the grade of carbide to the job at hand. That can be a serious issue when you put the tool to work.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip----
One more comment----
The dial size on the cross slide is to die for. Anyone that's ever done tight tolerance work in a lathe appreciates a large dial. That's one of the complaints I have with my Graziano. The dial is quite small, and it's hard to sort the lines now that I've gotten older. Does yours feed .200" per revolution? (That would be .400" off the diameter).
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

.250" on the diameter, it is an 8 TPI screw, so .125" actual feed! But, I rarely look at the dial, as the machine came with a Mitutoyo DRO. I took the scales apart, and was glad I did, they had a LOT of crud in them, but it hadn't done any damage yet. Anyway, I haven't had too much chance to do precision bearing fits with the toolpost grinder since I got the Sheldon running, but I'm sure it will be a lot less tense to make precise interference fits than on the Atlas. I did some shaft couplings in the last couple weeks and some of them came out with air-bearing class of fits over the full length, so it is really working great.
Everything on this machine is "to die for", except maybe moving it. The carriage feed handle has a bit of a heavy feel to it, maybe the Moglice on the carriage slide has too much area or something, or maybe I'm using too heavy an oil since it now has the Moglice. Sometimes that is a slight annoyance, but the handle is huge, and despite a fair bit of drag, you can still move it quite precisely. I was really worried I wouldn't get the carriage properly aligned when it all went back together, but it really came out as dead on as I could possibly measure.
About the only drawback to owning a tool like this is I'm afraid to let my kids touch it! They couldn't get into too much trouble with an Atlas, but this thing could KILL! Also, I wouldn't want to risk them having a major crash and seriously wrecking it.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip---

That's really the best of all worlds! I would be inclined to ditch the DRO-----but that's me. I see no need, and can do .0002" work on a lathe, as long as the lathe is willing. Sounds like yours is.

As long as you can position the carriage as required, that can be a good feature. I've run a lathe that was too loose, and caused a drunken thread by the carriage handle traversing across center at the apex of the curve. I should have known better, but I'd never experienced anything like it. It was a great way to learn a lesson, however. The returned part, a coarse Acme threaded shaft for the aero-space industry, was embarrassment enough for me to last a lifetime.

That's the price you pay for owning an industrially rated machine. They are, indeed, easy to damage, and can be killers-----that's why machinists aren't found on every corner------and why a guy that has played on a machine in his garage, making a few pounds of chips, shouldn't see himself as a machinist. Those of us that have worked in the trade have spent a lot of time learning to operate the machines in a safe and sane manner, with the hopes of turning out good work in the process. None of that comes easily, nor does quality *and speed* come without considerable experience.
Judging from what I've seen and read, you made some good choices, landing on your feet. Said another way, you did good.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Got pictures?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wes wrote:

Crummy ones, but yes :
http://jelinux.pico-systems.com/sheldon.html
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I remember those - what a trip at the time. I own a Sheldon 11x44. Nice lathe - Dad and I bought it together in a Hardware store and had it delivered. The tools..... we put into the car. Thank goodness for the new fangled RED Station Wagon !!! wow color. And what is this storage area for - fold down bench seat... Storage for tools!
Maritn Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com /
Jon Elson wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hello, I'm new to this site and new to running a lathe, I just picked up a Logan 820 thats in excellent shape and I'm wondering after reading all comments reguarding small lathes if this will be the right machine to make Ferrules used in archery. I will make a broadhead with these ferrules for traditional hunter that use's wood arrows and glue-on heads. The ferrules I want to make will be from 1.25" to 1.60" in lenght and have a taper of 5 degrees. 11/32" outside dia. with a 5 degree hole 1" into the end for the wood shaft. I will make custom weights on these broadheads from 118 gr. to 225 gr.in steel. I already have some Aluminum Ferrules made that I slot for the blades to lock into that had came with the stamping press and dies to stamp out the blades. I was going to look for a taper attachment for the Logan but a guy told me I can use the compond to cut the taper thats only that long...sound right? Well thanks for taking time to read this. regards, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    [ ... ]

    You mean "this newsgroup"? "Site" refers to a web site, where there is a single system which hosts it -- or perhaps one or two backup system as well.
    A usenet newsgroup, however, (you may *think* that you posted to a "Googlegroup", but you posted *through* Google's web-based interface t a usenet newsgroup) is hosted on thousands of news servers around the world -- and while Google gives you access to it, it is far from the best way to access it. :-)

    Will *all* be aluminum, or will you be making these in other materials as well?

    It can usually -- check the travel of your compound to make sure, since I don't have access to a Logan of that size to check (and 1.6" sounds a bit long for that) -- but that is a reasonable way to go only for a few at a time. It is a lot of cranking and your hand will get tired quickly.
    So -- if you can find a taper attachment, it will significantly improve your productivity.
    Also -- look for a collet closer system for your machine. Lever style would be nicer, but you probably will only find a handwheel one. The collets to fit this machine will probably be 3C collets, not the larger 5C ones which my Clausing uses. But -- they should be adequate for stock up to 1/2" diameter at least. With this, you could feed long stock through the headstock to make a part, part it off (cut it off), advance the stock after loosening the collet, and make another just as the previous was made. You'll want some kind of guide to keep long stock sticking out the headstock from starting to whip. PVC pipe in a support will do quite well for this. If it *does* start to whip, it can be quite dangerous.
    I gather that both the OD and the ID will have the same 5 degree taper. The ID could be done with a custom reamer (or maybe a standard reamer, such as for taper pins might be the right taper -- you will need to check on this). You could drill the hole, and turn the taper with a boring bar in the toolpost and using the taper attachment, and then switch to an external cutting tool to cut the taper towards the headstock prior to parting off. This has the advantage that both operations could be performed with the same setting on the taper attachment.
    Do you need to then make a blunt cone on the small end of the ferrule, or will it be cut square across?
    If you make the OD taper first, and then part off before making the ID taper, you will have to come up with some other way to hold the now tapered workpiece prior to cutting the internal taper. (I would use a chuck with two-piece jaws and mount soft jaws on the master ones and turn the taper in the jaws to hold the tapered workpiece.)

    Welcome, and good luck,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DoN. Nichols wrote:

...
Also, it can be difficult to keep a consistent feed (you need to crank the handle at a consistent speed). When I used the compound to turn a taper, I took off the compound crank handle and chucked the shaft with my cordless drill. Much faster, less tiring, and more consistent than hand cranking.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.