I bought a Hendey 16 x 8 lathe and it's taunting me over my ignorance. I'm not a machinist, practical or otherwise, and found this forum while searching for information in the days leading up to buying the lathe. (Much thanks to johnoder and hendeyman for the wealth of information they've posted!)

Stamped into the tailstock end of the lathe there are 2 lines of numbers: 301 on the top line and 25044 on the bottom line. Guessing from what I've read on here, 25044 might be the serial number. I hope there is some information available about the origins of this lathe. It came with a 14" 4-jaw chuck, an 8" 3-jaw chuck, a 9" face plate (numbers 16-569 and 16-1883 cast in the back), 3 tool holders and some tools, and a steady rest.

Other than have fun, I don't know what I'm going to do with this monster. My garage seemed to shrink as the Hendey descended from the trailer. I'm in the process of tear-down and clean up, now, after running it for just a few seconds to make some chips. There was an intermittent grating sound coming from the cone head pulley. I figured out how to disassemble the spindle (?) and what used to be a screw dropped out from the area of the cone head and big gear.

A few of the oiler holes have nothing to keep stuff out. I used a couple of corks for the large ones on the countershaft (jackshaft?). The small ones that are missing plugs seem to be threaded, like those with plugs on the apron and headstock.

I'll try to attach some photos in a follow-up because I keep getting "Invalid thread" when I try to attach them to this message. Meanwhile, I have a pile of photos of (mostly) loading and unloading).

Thanks in advance for _any_ information!

Trying again to attach photos...

Attached Thumbnails

         

More photos.

Note where the headstock casting has been ground away to provide clearance for the flat belt. That irritates me each time I see it. I'm changing the way the countershaft and motor mount to eliminate this problem. It looks like this lathe was limited by the cobbled-up mount to just 2 steps of the pulley.

Attached Thumbnails

         

And still more photos (hey, nobody's stopped me yet!).

The "82" stamped into the side of the spindle is also stamped into the side of the little gear that is part of the conehead and into the side of the big gear. Matched assembly? It looks like the spindle was first stamped "71" and then the "82" stamped over it. Maybe a new guy messed up.

Ok, I'm going back to the kerosene and scrub brushes now.

Attached Thumbnails

         

Welcome to forum.

Thanks for taking the 16" under your wing.

Serial indicates early twenties.

Has the real important stuff like the turn to open oilers for the chambers for the ring oiled bearings, and the lift off plugs over the bearings to see if the rings are doing what they are supposed to - bring oil up from the chambers and dump it on top the tapered spindle journals.

Good chance these chambers are full of black goo after 85 years and need to be cleaned out and refreshed with nice spindle oil such as Exxon Mobil Velocite #10.

If you have not linked up yet with the manual scan, here it is. Thanks much to Greg M. for hosting.

http://pounceatron.dreamhosters.com/...dey-manual.pdf

This comes nowhere near to telling you everything, so plan on asking questions here freely.

John Oder

Thanks John Oder. I had viewed the scans of that manual from a much earlier post by you and downloaded the PDF from another. It's really good to have that on hand.

I found the oil "ring" in the big bearing but couldn't see the one in the smaller bearing. Turned out there was another, short part of the spindle still to be removed. It's stamped "2" and "82" on the end. There is plenty of that black goo you mentioned in the horizontal slots in each bore. Looks like I have more cleaning to do in there. The big oiler moves very easily but the small one has just a little stickiness to it.

I'm debating with myself over whether to paint this old machine or not -- whether to make it slick or leave the old fellow's battle scars alone. It's not destined for a museum and its heavy production days are over; kinda like me, it's down to just workin' when it's fun.

Since you have the spindle out, think about all the posts here on shimming behind the thrust ring. This is done because the thrust face of the front bearing wears down faster that the tapered ID of the bearing. By and by, the tapered part runs out of clearance and STOPS.

Thrust ring is immediately behind the flange on the front of the spindle. It is usually a tight fit on the spindle since it is not supposed to be loose.

With it (thrust ring) off and the spindle and bearings all clean, trial assemble with front taper seated firmly in box, not to turn mind you, but to check and record the gap behind the flange between flange and thrust face of box.

If your thrust ring isn't .004 to .006" thicker than this gap, it needs to be, by shimming between ring and flange.

Then you won't be bothered with the dreaded Hendey Stalling Out syndrome.

John Oder

grouch:

About 1500 serial numbers from the mid 20s were miss filed some years ago, so I am un-
able to give you the history of your lathe. When these records are located, I will post this information. I can tell you that your lathe was built during the first week of January
1924. The numbers on the drive plate refer to both the drawing number and the pattern
number. Your lathe is considered a 1922 model. Number 16-569 (actually C16-569) is the
original drawing number for November 17, 1909 and represents the style of drive plate
used on the 16" lathe through 1922. These had the standard 2-1/2" x 6 thread. Number
16-1883 (actually D16-1883) represents a change in design to the drive plate. I will
check the drawing tomorrow for these changes. One note I found states that this drive
plate was used on the three cone drive headstocks. Since either the three or four cone
pulley was available on the 16 inch lathes, please post the number used on your lathe.
All of the original drawings for your lathe have survived.

Hendeyman

I was wondering how to do that. When I was trying to find out about this lathe before buying it, I remember seeing a post on here about shimming but didn't note the details (wasn't sure I was going to buy at that time). I'll check that clearance today. Excellent info, thanks!

Wonderful, thank you!

I will be watching for casting numbers in other parts as I disassemble and clean. I didn't notice any numbers on the 4 step cone except the stamped "2" and "82" mentioned previously, but will check again. [Edit: The little gear on the cone only has "82" stamped in it; it's the short tailstock spindle that has both "2" and "82"].

Neither the "16-569" nor "16-1883" cast-in numbers have a letter or even space for a letter. There is an outline around each that appears to be a plate that was attached to the mold before the part was cast. I'll attach a closer view of those numbers. Of course, there's no guarantee that this is the original faceplate. There are some obvious modifications to the lathe (like that aggravating alteration to the headstock casting). The seller (Thiel Loudspeakers of Lexington, KY) told me it had sat unused for 15 years in their storage.

Attached Thumbnails

 

grough:

Thank you for reposting the drive plate picture. Normally you will not find the letter pre-
fix, that was only used in the drawing office. The "C" size drawings are 12"x18" and the
"D" size drawings are 18"x24". The pattern maker was only concerned with the size of
machine that the part was going to be used on (in this case a "16" lathe) and the part
number (in this case #569 or #1883). The higher the number, the newer the machine.
This drive plate is an original Hendey. Later today, I will compare the two drawings and
post any changes I find. As a point of interest, when Barber-Colman took over Hendey
in 1955, they changed all of the pattern codes to include both a prefix and a suffix. This
system, once you become familiar with it, allows you to not only know the size and type
of machine the part fits, but also where it fits. A very handy system, but totally dif-
ferent from the old Hendey system, that worked very well if you had worked for the com-
pany for a number of years and understood every phase of machine construction.

Hendeyman

I oiled and put the spindle back in, then bumped it with the palm of my hand just until it wouldn't turn by hand. The difference between the space and the thickness of the thrust washer is .0035". Looks like I need a .0025" shim. (That's assuming I'm using the dial caliper correctly. I bought the first one I've ever had about a week before buying the lathe).

Hendyman:
When I first saw the "16-1883", I thought 1883 might be the date of the design for that part. Any chance of getting something like a 600 dpi scan of those drawings? Tiff, png, ps, or even jpg? Not really useful for working the lathe, but it would be nice to have some of its history to go with it.

I've been fighting the cone on the countershaft all day, trying to get that assembly disassembled. The end of the shaft has a "3" stamped in it. Maybe I'll find an "82" stamped in that cone when I finally get it apart and cleaned.

There's an ugly notch ground out of the countershaft's cast support for belt clearance. If only somebody had altered the mount for the base so that (a) the support was vertical, and (b) the countershaft was at or slightly above the level of the spindle, neither the countershaft support nor the headstock would have had to be butchered for belt clearance. I've ground off the welds and separated the plates and parts of the mount for the countershaft and electric motor. It won't be put back together the way it was.

On shimming the spindle you will get a lot closer to the correct thickness shim if you remove the thrust washer from the spindle it's self. It may be wrung on fairly well but a light tap on the edge of it and it should come off, also note that is key'd to the spindle. Then reinstall the spindle and measure the gap. You want the total thickness of the washer to be .004-.006 thicker than the gap. It sounds like a lot of space, but if you do the math the .004-.006 extra on the thickness will give a space of roughly .0002-.00035 between the journal and the spindle. Perfect for a nice film of oil!
Terry

That's what I did. Sorry that I wasn't clear in describing how I measured; I followed johnoder's instructions above:
Attached are some photos showing how and what I measured. Multiple measurements of the thrust washer were all the same, but I got a range of measurements for the gap. I picked one slightly greater than that in the photo in determining that I'll need to shim.

Attached Thumbnails

       

grough:

I have had a chance to compare the two drawings and there is only one notable change
that required the pattern to be rebuilt. The original spindle nose thread was 2-1/2" x 6
threads per inch. As part of the 1922 design program, the spindle nose thread was increased in size. The 1883 drawing, dated August 22, 1923, shows a thread size of 2-3/4" x 5 threads per inch. The hub diameter was increased slightly to accomodate the
larger thread diameter. The hub length was increased by 1/8". The 1923 drawing was a
"C" size, but when it was redrawn in 1939, it was increased to a "D" size. It would seem
that the 1883 part number design was used from 1923 until the end of production of the cone heads during WW2. On the 1923 drawing, the diameter of the driving plate was to
be increased from 9-1/4 inches to 10 inches, but remained at 9-1/4 inches until the end
of production.

Hendeyman

Thanks hendeyman.

So far, I've found "82" stamped in the bull gear, the main spindle, the small gear that's part of the cone, and the sleeve that goes in the small headstock bearing and through which the main spindle passes. Matched assembly or was it the 82nd headstock in some production run or what?

The "Outer Compounding Gear Box", item 15 in the 1920 Hendey manual linked by johnoder, has "55" stamped in it.

Finally got the countershaft disassembled. I had to rig a pulley puller using threaded rod, pull a little then do a shoeshine to sand rust from the shaft so I could pull a little more. Photos attached.

Attached Thumbnails

         

More pics.

1. The part with the "55" stamped in it.

2. The bronze (brass?) collar from the right side of the large spindle bearing. Has "82" stamped in it. Raggedy damage to the holes and threads.

3. Close-up of some damage.

4. The other collar. There's that "82" again.

5. Some of the damage on the left collar; not as bad as the right one.

Attached Thumbnails

         

More pics.

1. Another part stamped with "82" -- the gear from the end of the spindle. Has a few hammer marks but not bad.

2. The two collars were jammed on tight and the threads were damaged in several places, causing me to have to use the same method that (apparently) someone used in the past to get them off: punch and hammer. I don't want to put them back on that way, but don't have a wrench for those slots, so some scrap rod, ball peen hammer, and a railroad rail to the rescue. It ain't pretty, but it works fine now that the threads are cleaned.

3. I don't know how to do a proper repair of those collars, so I'm just tapping on them with a body hammer, trying to chase the mushroomed metal back down in its hole.

Suggestions would be very welcome.

4. Same spot as in the previous photo after a lot of tapping.

Attached Thumbnails

       

The brass collars could be remade without complication. Obviously they would be new parts in an old lathe, and would conflict with keeping as much of the original metal as possible if that's important to you.

Regards.

Finegrain

grouch:


I had the same problem with my brass collars being damaged. I just filled the damaged holes in with solder and drilled new 1/4" holes for the spanner wrench. The solder does not match the brass but still looks a lot better than the damaged holes.

Photo prior to filling with solder. Note holes are filled with putty to keep chips out of the open holes in the collars.



Photos after filling.




Jerry

I'm going to have to get used to the idea that there are more parts I can make now that I have a lathe. I do want to keep as much original as is practical. (If hendeyman finds those records and reports that this thing didn't ship with an electric motor, I'm not going to build a steam engine to power it). These collars are not trashed yet, so I'm going to try to make them look better.

Thanks for the excellent photos and the idea. The right-hand collar has all 4 holes open all the way through. Those threads were in the worst shape. Solder would keep stuff out of there. I may get up the nerve to try dressing the holes up with some bronze brazing rod.

Meanwhile, I spent the evening getting the old paint off the headstock. Since I can't tell which (if any) of the mulitple layers is original, I'm going to primer and paint it. Probably John Deere green because I have some on hand (Valspar enamel).