1925? Pratt & Whitney 12x30 Model B

hsracer201 · Dec 24, 2016

Found this old gal a few hours away recently. A younger gentleman was selling it but didn't know anything about it. It belonged to his deceased father-in-law whom he said ran it. The asking price wasn't far above scrap value and I have a growing appreciation for the older machines so I thought why not? It is beyond filthy and appears forgotten in the back corner of an old shop for years.

Thanks to some older threads here on PM I've been able to located a manual for a similar lathe, but not one specifically for the 12". If anyone has access to one I would be very grateful. I cannot get the chuck off. It has a series of rotation points on the "back-plate" part of the chuck so is some cam-lock design? The pictures do not directly address this so I will take another and add it later. I figured it was just direct thread but have had no luck busting it loose. I'm not familiar with anything but direct thread and the L-0 and 00 style chucks.

There's one headstock cover screw that someone before me has mostly stripped out trying to remove. There's a little hope so it is soaking in Kroil. I didn't want to run it long without seeing inside but it does run (briefly) in all spindle speeds. The ways show light wear but nothing like what I have seen on some antique lathes. All feeds and functions appear to work, although most of the handles are tight and slow to turn.

The tags say it was used in the Navy, specifically the Naval Ordinance Laboratory in Maryland. Just thought I would share. It'll be something fun to clean on during the dark winter months.

ETA: I have all the covers. I just removed them to lighten the load a little. It was all my little forklift wanted to unload.

johnoder · Dec 24, 2016

All the 12 X 30 versions were built '42 - '47. 1765 is somewhere in there.

Spindle nose is D1-5". The six cams with the square recesses are turned part of a turn CCW to release. There is an index mark of where to stop turning. When you have them all on the index, bump spindle tooling as needed with such as dead blow hammer and don't let it fall on the ways

Here is manual scan. One of the most important things to know is that oil sight on back down low is indeed for head stock - the OIL PUMP HAS TO LIFT THE OIL UP TO THE SPINDLE AREA - you HAVE TO KNOW this is happening

http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1412/4070.pdf

Its an improved 13 which came out in 1922. Here is a link to a marvelous catalog which came out before the reworking of the 13" into the 12". Thanks to Greg Menke for hosting.

http://pounceatron.dreamhosters.com...ttwhitney-circular402-model-b-lathes-1936.pdf

Here is my thread about where the 12 X 30 were built. My apologies for the several off topic posts.

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...disappearance-225278/?highlight=Disappearance

morsetaper2 · Dec 24, 2016

White Oak Naval Ordinance Lab, north side of Wash DC not too far off the beltway. There was a big explosion there in the 1992. The lab is surrounded by residential, when it was built during WWII it was all farmland. That explosion was the beginning of the end of that lab. I believe the entire site has been taken over by the FDA. But I believe a wind tunnel is still there and operational?

Naval Ordnance Laboratory - Wikipedia

Fabworks · Dec 24, 2016

johnoder said:
Here is my thread about where the 12 X 30 were built. My apologies for the several off topic posts.

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...disappearance-225278/?highlight=Disappearance

Just finished reading this most interesting thread. Thanks for posting the link.

rj1939 · Dec 24, 2016

I like it..................back years ago, I'd consider myself fortunate to have one like it.

Clive603 · Dec 24, 2016

Get scrubbing. You will not be disappointed. Mine, serial number 1132, wasn't as dirty but had been abused a bit, topside in particular was a mess, but it is still more than decently accurate. Pity your taper turning unit has gone awol.

Speed chart doesn't look original. You should have have two speed motor on there so I'm guessing that those are the high speed ranges. Mine is also two speed but has the single speed motor chart, correct for a UK 50 Hz motor too which is unexpected refinement for wartime production.

Take the top off to see oil flow from the pipes and drillings. Do make sure its all free flowing. Remember to loosen the tops of the oil level sight glass devices to let the air escape before checking level. I know a man who didn't and seriosuly overfilled the clutch housing / reservoir before the penny dropped! Great fun and games getting the excess out without setting to and pulling it out into the middle of the shop. Which I should have done.

Single tooth dog clutch device is great but read the manual before using and don't abuse it by engaging at too high a speed. Hopefully no one else has as its sufficiently unusual for folks not in the know to have used it as a normal three shaft and clutch control dog engaged machine ie engage drive when stationary then engage clutch. Mine is OK ish but somewhen I'll have to get in there.

Odds are the tailstock lock is past its best. If so you are in for treat when you come to disassemble and fix. Wonderfully logical engineering using a sliding ramp device but just maybe touch inappropriately overdone. Only system I've ever seen that pretty much compensates for wear droop on the barrel tho' so maybe not.

Enjoy.

Clive

Limy Sami · Dec 24, 2016

Nice bit of kit, rather fond of the old B Model P&W, ...........spent a good few hours on one as a lad.

FWIW, a lot of that muck looks like wood dust, if it is, compared to CI etc, the clean up's a veritable doddle, ..........soft plastic scrapers are very handy, as is a pan scrubbing brush - buy 6 at a cheapy store and bin thm when knackered oh and use a shop vac with them, ....I'd get as much off as I could dry - it's so much easier.

roachie · Dec 24, 2016

I was actually planning to go look at and buy this thing next week, at lest it went to good home. lol

Garwood · Dec 24, 2016

Looks like a clean machine that needs a bath.

Might want to not move the tailstock and carraige around until you get that crud cleaned up. All that crud looks to have preserved the machine a bit. Start moving things and you just grind it in there. Hard to look at pictures of ways covered in crusty sludge that you just forced the tailstock and carraige through.

morsetaper2 · Dec 25, 2016

johnoder said:
All the 12 X 30 versions were built '42 - '47. 1765 is somewhere in there.

To what John said I'll add that my SN reference book shows two entries for M1395 12" model B lathe:

1942: SN 1521
1947: SN 2200

Interpolating between those points might put the year about 1943-44 or so?

Edit: Added 1942 date found in another SN book.

johnoder · Dec 25, 2016

morsetaper2 said:
To what John said I'll add that my SN reference book shows only one entry, yr 1947, for 12" model B lathe. Last SN issued in 1947 was SN 2200.

And mine provides in addition 1521 for 1942. My serial book says Sixth Edition 1975. Interesting on OP's photo that though the I.D. tag states 12", the last patent date was back in the very early 13" days - in other words, none of the great improvements that made the 12 out of the 13 were considered necessary to patent - probably because they were largely based on standard Model C practice. Seems reasonable for something that was mostly a WAR TIME STOP GAP.

Clive603 · Dec 25, 2016

Patent and serial number plate on mine has "applied for" stamped on it with reference to numbers 1,798,841 and 1,980,336. Googling shows 1,798,841 has publication date of March 31 st 1931 and refers to Improved Adjustable plain Bearings for Lathe and other spindles so firmly in old Model B 13" territory. 1,980,336 has a publication date of November 13 th 1934 and refers to a Chuck Retaining Means. On a quick perusal of the abstract and diagram it looks just like the familiar cam-lock system. Bit of a surprise as I'd always thought the cam-lock system was developed by a consortium and not the patented product of a single firm.

I know the US patent system is somewhat on the lethargic side but it seems odd to find "applied for" rather than "granted" stamped on the plate given that my machine was, we think, made in 1943.

I'd always thought that the anti-friction bearing assembly used on the Model C spindle was patented and that the Model B arrangement is essentially similar, albeit of different size. It might be interesting to do a 13" B, 12" B and Model C comparison to see exactly how much migrated across from the C to the B when the 12" was produced.

Thing I want know is where the 12" came from. True swing on mine is 13 3/4" which surely makes it a 13" under that crazy American "add about an inch for true capacity" extended swing naming rules. Or did the anti-friction bearing headstock come out with the spindle a bit lower relative to the bed than the original 13" plain bearing one. Which seems difficult, given the vertical arrangement of the drive gears, without corresponding changes to the bed.

Clive

Mike C. · Dec 25, 2016

"I know the US patent system is somewhat on the lethargic side but it seems odd to find "applied for" rather than "granted" stamped on the plate given that my machine was, we think, made in 1943."

Could be the patent was legally retroactive to the applied for date, instead of taking effect only on the granted date. Would prevent uncouth split offs from a company from producing a similar device of whatever type and selling before the patent went through.

"Thing I want know is where the 12" came from. True swing on mine is 13 3/4" which surely makes it a 13" under that crazy American "add about an inch for true capacity" extended swing naming rules."

Swing ratings were whatever the maker said it was, but they were usually rated for the biggest faceplate that would clear the carriage wings. As those were usually an even diameter, they would be at least a couple inches smaller than spindle center to bed clearance. 13 3/4" on a big industrial machine from about 1910-1970 would definitely be a 12" lathe. The 12" Leblond at work will swing almost 14" over the bed. The 20" HD Pacemaker swings over 24". My SB10 won't swing 11". My 18" L&S swings over 20".

johnoder · Dec 25, 2016

Thing I want know is where the 12" came from. True swing on mine is 13 3/4" which surely makes it a 13" under that crazy American "add about an inch for true capacity" extended swing naming rules.

Except that since the teens, competitors like L&S had added 2 1/2", not an inch. As soon as the "C" appeared in 1935, the 12" C was 14 1/2" actual. In revamping the 13, P&W wanted to look like they were at least partially on board - without making a swing larger than the 13" had originally

Add thumbnail with 1916 L&S showing 14" lathe with 16 1/2" actual swing

old_dave · Dec 25, 2016

Clive603 said:
Patent and serial number plate on mine has "applied for" stamped on it with reference to numbers 1,798,841 and 1,980,336. Googling shows 1,798,841 has publication date of March 31 st 1931 and refers to Improved Adjustable plain Bearings for Lathe and other spindles so firmly in old Model B 13" territory. 1,980,336 has a publication date of November 13 th 1934 and refers to a Chuck Retaining Means. On a quick perusal of the abstract and diagram it looks just like the familiar cam-lock system. Bit of a surprise as I'd always thought the cam-lock system was developed by a consortium and not the patented product of a single firm.

Thank you very much for this information on the origins of the cam lock spindle nose. This should show Hoagland's (of Pratt & Whitney) patent:Patent Images
As can be seen the patent does not show dimensions. Also the drawing shows four cams. I have a copy of "USAS B5.9-1967" (reaffirmed 1992). No cam lock spindle nose shown has four cams (D1-3 and D1-4 have three, D1-5 has six.) I have a hunch that a consortium/committee drawn from the machine tool builders of the day came together then to establish the various sizes and dimensions and to indicate what spindle nose size was appropriate based on this original design.

Standard B5.9 doesn't mention any patent numbers.

Merry Christmas everyone!

David

johnoder · Dec 25, 2016

D1-5 has five

Actually, no. The D1-5" I had for over 20 years had six - as shown in B5.9

old_dave · Dec 25, 2016

johnoder said:
Actually, no. The D1-5" I had for over 20 years had six - as shown in B5.9

How I could look at a drawing showing six holes and see five is beyond me. I've edited to correct. Thank you very much!
David

Clive603 · Dec 25, 2016

old_dave said:
Also the drawing shows four cams.
David

The text of the patent refers to "a plurality of studs" so four isn't a given. Just a convenient number for the drawing. Reading the whole thing its pretty clearly the original master patent intended to cover almost all concievable mechanisms of this style that could be used for chuck mounting. Including using a parallel nose rather than taper which, at first sight, appears geometrically unsound under cutting loads. Given the specific mention of chuck mounting one imagines that similar devices were already in use or patented for other purposes.

You almost never find dimensions in a patent as being unduly restrictive. Equally normal national standards never reference patents. Probably illegal. Normal practice is for the patent owner to give up enforcement rights to components made to the agreed standards. But if the standards are not followed the original patentee retains rights.

Clive

hsracer201 · Dec 26, 2016

Garwood said:
Looks like a clean machine that needs a bath.

Might want to not move the tailstock and carraige around until you get that crud cleaned up. All that crud looks to have preserved the machine a bit. Start moving things and you just grind it in there. Hard to look at pictures of ways covered in crusty sludge that you just forced the tailstock and carraige through.

Had to do what I had to do in a pinch to attempt to balance it for loading and unloading.

I don't think they're too badly ruined.

Thank you all for the information and links you have provided. I'm enjoying reading up on this machine and the related history.

Clive603 · Dec 26, 2016

Ways look better than mine so should be fine. If the felts are still there be a good idea to take them out and work saddle back and forth a few times with plenty of oil to clean up underneath. Strip and proper scrub is best but oil and working works pretty well unless there are serious size particles embedded. But you will see witness marks in the oil film if such are present. I've done the strip thing fairly soon after the oil clean on a very dirty machine and, frankly, the results of the oil clean were pretty much OK. Not perfect but the little left behind wasn't going to ruin the machine. Especially as I'm generous with way oil. Always make a point of wiping the bed and re-oiling if I'm putting the machine to bed for a few days. Always wipe and oil first thing too.

Clive

1925? Pratt & Whitney 12x30 Model B

Hot Rolled

Diamond

Diamond

Hot Rolled

Stainless

Titanium

Diamond

Plastic

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Attachments

Stainless

Diamond

Stainless

Titanium

Hot Rolled

Titanium

Similar threads