Whitcomb 17x17 planer

[M.B. Naegle]

This started over here: Whitcomb Planer, and today with a LOT of help from the prior owner we were able to get it loaded up. I didn't get any pictures of that process (busy busy), but got some pics once it was back to my shop. It was a rough 4 hours to load Egyptian style, but I think it was the only way to do it. A few more strong backs and cooler weather would have made a difference, but I'm a stubborn guy by nature.

So this little guy is a 17x17 Whitcomb planer with a 4 foot table. Still learning about it but it looks to be in pretty good shape. Long term I plan to belt it up with my other overhead driven machines and put it to work, but short term it will tuck into a container while I keep sorting that project out.


Of course I had to do some group photos with the 30x30 Whitcomb. The size differences between the two are interesting. The tables are about the same height though, as the 17x17 is a little higher on blocks and the 30x30's table is off behind it.







Everything works. It just needs a really good cleaning and oiling, and to get power to the wheels. The table direction lever mechanism looks different than other Whitcombs, but I think this is a user repair or modification, as there's a boss in the casting for a different mechanism.

 

[M.B. Naegle]

I find it interesting that this 17x17 has a dial on the heads screw, while there's no dials at all on the 30x30.


The table moves freely when turning the pulley by hand, and the ways under it are clean and oily. All good signs.

Once this one has power again, I'm thinking it could solve my problem of replacing the missing gear rack under the 30x30's table. It looks like there's enough clearance between the tool post and the uprights to make a 6" stroke so I can cut the teeth with the ends hanging out past the uprights.

With both planers running, I think they'll complement each other well with the 30x30 running bigger or multiple parts, and the 17x17 running small jobs. With my ambitions to eventually refitting my lathes, the 30x30 has the table to do the beds (up to 8' at least) and larger saddles, while the 17x17 can do cross slides an compounds.

 

[dundeeshopnut]

Good of you sir to make the effort to save what appears to be a pretty decent example of this machine. There can't be too many left unmelted.

 

[hvnlymachining]

Thanks for taking the time to share and document the details for future owners who may have need of it. Being that such machines are so rare these days and only getting less common, those pictures can become invaluable to other machine restorers.

 

[M.B. Naegle]

Something I could use some help with is figuring out what speed this planer should run at, if it's in a catalog somewhere, or just general figures? If it's the same as the 30x30 Whitcomb, or a little slower due to age, or faster due to size, etc.?

I have the overhead jack shafts that were previously used with this planer, but they are not original so I want to confirm things. They're also a combination of V-belts and flat belts and I'd like to use only flat belts. The prior set-up had an electric motor on the ceiling with one jack shaft to slow the speed down and another to connect the two down belts to. I still need to do the math of what speeds that current setup produced.

I plan to belt this planer to my main shaft which will spin at 200rpm (powered by a 235 chevy inline 6 gas engine, running at 1000 rpm with a pulley reduction connecting to the main shaft), using an intermediate jack shaft above the planer, so if I can determine how fast the cutting and return strokes should run, I can look at my pulley collection and fill in the blanks. Not yet sure what I will do to disengage the planer as what pulleys I use will effect that.

Another option I'm considering is to configure this planers jack shaft similar to my 30x30 planer. While it had been changed before my time, I'm reproducing what it previously had in the form of having the jackshaft mounted to the backs of the planers uprights rather than the ceiling. I think this was done to ensure proper alignment if the ceiling and wall structure was less than ideal or if the machine could get moved around the shop periodically, while also allowing for lower or varying headroom. I might put together a similar arrangement for the 17x17 so there's some uniformity in their setup, but if so I want to make the bearing brackets to look and work properly. I have images of the 30x30's on board jack shaft, but the 17x17 has different uprights so I might need to change how the bearing brackets mount. Lots of these planers have steel frames bolted to the uprights to support the jack shaft and a modern motor, but in this case I'm only concerned with the jack shaft and want to mount it as low as is practical with minimal bracketing and fabricated in a way that complements the uprights rather than covers them up.

I know the 30x30 Whitcomb originally had its jack shaft turning at 225rpm and I have the original pulleys, or at least know the diameters of the ones I don't have, so using the pulleys on the 17x17 machine I may just scale the 30x30's diameters and rpms so both planers run at the same speeds?

 

[enginebill]

From what I have seen, most 19th century planers would run at about 25 feet per minute of cutting speed. After high speed steel came along some planers would have run up to 50 FPM. The problem that I see with running a planer that fast is the higher forces of reversing the table, there would be a lot of inertia to overcome.

 

[M.B. Naegle]

From what I have seen, most 19th century planers would run at about 25 feet per minute of cutting speed. After high speed steel came along some planers would have run up to 50 FPM. The problem that I see with running a planer that fast is the higher forces of reversing the table, there would be a lot of inertia to overcome.

That makes sense. With this planer being all gear drive, it should run slower than the 30x30 with its 2nd belt drive.

 

[Robert Lang]

Something I could use some help with is figuring out what speed this planer should run at, if it's in a catalog somewhere, or just general figures? If it's the same as the 30x30 Whitcomb, or a little slower due to age, or faster due to size, etc.?

I gave this before. Here it is again.
Everything you need to know. Just do the math.
Countershaft pulley, 10" in diameter running at 200rpm.

Rob

 

[M.B. Naegle]

I gave this before. Here it is again.
Everything you need to know. Just do the math.
Countershaft pulley, 10" in diameter running at 200rpm.

Rob

Thanks! Gotta get my eyes checked, lol.

 

[M.B. Naegle]

I checked the ratio of the driving wheel RPM to table movement and got 1 1/2" travel per rotation, so that comes out to 1 foot travel per 8 rotations, and to get 25 feet per minute, the driving wheel would turn 200RPM.

With Robert Langs catalog data, that means the RPM's wouldn't have changed between the jack shaft and the driving pulleys, which are 14" diameter. The jack shaft that was previously above this planer all looks to be modern pulleys of different diameters, but there was one extra 20" cast iron flat pulley included with the planer that had the same orange paint and looks to be the same style/design as the upper pulleys from my 30x30 planer (which I think are original Whitcomb), so I think it may have been the original higher speed reverse pulley. If it was then by my math the reversing speed would have been 285 RPM or 28.5 FPM table travel. Does that sound right to you guys and is that speed within the machine's limitations, 25 FPM cutting and 28.5 FPM Reverse?

If I use the 20" for the reverse travel, then I just need to dig up a 14" pulley for the forward cutting stroke travel, and a pair of 10" pulleys to give a 1 to 1 ratio between the main shaft and jack shaft (though really any pair of matching diameter pulleys would work). For the on/off function, I'm thinking about setting up the jack shaft so that the belt between it and the main shaft slides side to side between an idle and driven pulley, and mounting the lever somehow to the uprights so it's accessible to the operator from either side of the planer. The few friction clutch's I have I think are too small for this application.

 

[Robert Lang]

I checked the ratio of the driving wheel RPM to table movement and got 1 1/2" travel per rotation, so that comes out to 1 foot travel per 8 rotations, and to get 25 feet per minute, the driving wheel would turn 200RPM.

With Robert Langs catalog data, that means the RPM's wouldn't have changed between the jack shaft and the driving pulleys, which are 14" diameter. The jack shaft that was previously above this planer all looks to be modern pulleys of different diameters, but there was one extra 20" cast iron flat pulley included with the planer that had the same orange paint and looks to be the same style/design as the upper pulleys from my 30x30 planer (which I think are original Whitcomb), so I think it may have been the original higher speed reverse pulley. If it was then by my math the reversing speed would have been 285 RPM or 28.5 FPM table travel. Does that sound right to you guys and is that speed within the machine's limitations, 25 FPM cutting and 28.5 FPM Reverse?

If I use the 20" for the reverse travel, then I just need to dig up a 14" pulley for the forward cutting stroke travel, and a pair of 10" pulleys to give a 1 to 1 ratio between the main shaft and jack shaft (though really any pair of matching diameter pulleys would work). For the on/off function, I'm thinking about setting up the jack shaft so that the belt between it and the main shaft slides side to side between an idle and driven pulley, and mounting the lever somehow to the uprights so it's accessible to the operator from either side of the planer. The few friction clutch's I have I think are too small for this application.

In my opinion you are overthinking this. Don't worry about table surface feet per minute.
Go by the catalog info. Also, unless you plan to put this in production, don't worry about quick return.
According to the catalog, there was no quick return. It says the countershaft pulleys (plural) are 10" in diameter.
If you want quick return, then go for it.
With a countershaft pulley (driving pulley) of 10" in diameter and a shaft speed of 200rpm and
the driven pulley on the planer, of 14" in diameter, this gives the 14" pulley on the planer a shaft speed of 142.857rpm (call it 143rpm).

Rob

 

[M.B. Naegle]

In my opinion you are overthinking this. Don't worry about table surface feet per minute.
Go by the catalog info. Also, unless you plan to put this in production, don't worry about quick return.
According to the catalog, there was no quick return. It says the countershaft pulleys (plural) are 10" in diameter.
If you want quick return, then go for it.
With a countershaft pulley (driving pulley) of 10" in diameter and a shaft speed of 200rpm and
the driven pulley on the planer, of 14" in diameter, this gives the 14" pulley on the planer a shaft speed of 142.857rpm (call it 143rpm).

Rob

Maybe so. In cases like this I like to know how things were and are meant to be, but also have to consider what it practical and doable (what pulleys I have available and if they'll do the job without any risk of damage, for example).

 

[M.B. Naegle]

Here's the pulley I think was the original 20" fast reverse pulley. I also dug out a 14" steel pulley of the same width, so I think the pair of them will be my overhead driving pulleys, and the pulleys between the main shaft and the jack shaft will either be a 1:1 ratio so everything runs 200rpm, or I can slow it down if needed.

When I got this planer, it had a pair of Allen bolts to hold the clapper angle setting, but in the loose pieces I found the original hex bolts, which were replaced as one broke off in the past. I have a hex stock drop of the right size so I'm going to make a replacement when I can squeeze it in between jobs. While I'm at it, the nut for the clapper pivot was a generic off-the-shelf nut, so I'm going to make a "proper" tall nut out of some of the same hex stock, then one wrench will work on all the head adjustment bolts, as the same hex is used for the head pivot bolts.


I also located a couple indexable shaper/planer tool holders. The bigger one fits the lantern post well. The smaller one is ok too, but has had a bit of the sides ground off so I want to weld it up and cut it back to it's nominal size, particularly on the back side as it's not flat.

 

[M.B. Naegle]

I was looking at the belt shipper mechanism, considering how different it is from other Whitcomb planers, and I'm fairly certain it was grafted together from parts from one or more other planers. The directional lever specifically looks like one from an old Cincinnati planer, like this one from 1900.

Possibly the rest of the shipper mechanism too? It looks like whatever planer the pieces came off of was the same or similar size as the Whitcomb.

The Whitcomb looks to have all of the mounting points for a mechanism like those prior catalog pictures, where the shippers are mounted to a rod the moves in and out of the upright, and the directional lever pivots horizontally rather than tipping vertically. Not sure if it was replaced due to damage, or in some effort to improve the mechanism. Long term I would be interested in making the parts to put it back to the original design, but It looks like the franken-planer setup was well put together at any rate and it works, so It'll stay put for now. The prior owner had to keep a weight on the lever to keep it engaged, so there is some room to improve it.