If I can confirm that the intended dimensions did not change, I am going to build two jigs per the attached Sketch. I will be doing my upgrade in the upright position as others have done. I won't have the required horse power available to flip it over.
Double Tilt Proposed Tube Jig.png
If I have done this correctly, with it in place, I should be able to pull an old end casting and slide the new ones right on with no alignment issue. Since both ends are now made up of two pieces, I may get some surprises.
Hmmmm! That would simplify getting all four tubes into the Mark VII end casting if I change the 'bench' tube spacing(= way tube spacing on the M VII = 7") and the bench/waytube separation(10" on the M VII). All c-c.
Thanks!
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
I very carefully laid out one of those jigs, made a pattern and then produced one. Now I am at a loss. No really what I have to do is wait for the kit to arrive and install it into my machine.
I am at a loss because my carefully crafted jig indicates to me that the Bench Tubes are not parallel to one another and maybe not coplanar. If I find that the tubes are not straight, then I'll know why. That won't happen until sometime after the kit (currently on backorder) arrives. This bugs me and like I said "I am at a lose".
If Shopsmith had given me the numbers (design detail) I would know where the issue is but that did not happen. I created the numbers by measuring the machines and the various parts that I have. It may be my own assembly errors that now have me chasing my tail.
POST SCRIPT: The Way Tubes checkout perfectly but that may be due to the tie bar, carriage and headrest keeping them in check. I used the dimensions for a tie bar to create that portion of my jig. With the oversized holes in the castings, the correct bench tube spacing is a bit more difficult to ascertain.
The dimension for my jig are detailed elsewhere in this thread.
"Making Sawdust Safely" Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
OKAY, I am ready. Bring it on. The Double Tilt Kit that is!
I believe that I am probably going to break mine down into its many pieces and build it back up as a Double Tilt. It is my theory that this will be the way that I will get the alignment that I want. There is no way, in my mind, that a properly built and aligned Mark V can exhibit the extension table alignment issues that we all have (to some degree or other).
The jig, as simple and fundamental as it is, will allow me to do this in a very controlled manner.
Ignore the small plywood pieces that are atop the Way and Bench Tubes. Those are cutoffs from the pattern I made. Not part of the Jig.
Attachments
Tube Jig 003 (Large).JPG (840.55 KiB) Viewed 2135 times
Table Jig 001 (Large).JPG (638.51 KiB) Viewed 2111 times
Last edited by dusty on Fri May 06, 2016 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Making Sawdust Safely" Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
dusty wrote:OKAY, I am ready. Bring it on. The Double Tilt Kit that is!
I believe that I am probably going to break mine down into its many pieces and build it back up as a Double Tilt. It is my theory that this will be the way that I will get the alignment that I want. There is no way, in my mind, that a properly built and aligned Mark V can exhibit the extension table alignment issues that we all have (to some degree or other).
The jig, as simple and fundamental as it is, will allow me to do this in a very controlled manner.
Ignore the small plywood pieces that are atop the Way and Bench Tubes. Those are cutoffs from the pattern I made. Not part of the Jig.
1" MDF?
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
I assume you are getting the Double Tilt to allow under the table shaping and routing. I also would like the additional safety of putting the cutter under the table but I am considering the Speed Increaser even though I have a PowerPro because it is a lower cost and easier implemented alternative. Have you made that trade off and if so what made you go with the Double Tilt?
The Double Tilt, for me, is just a whim. I have no real long term objectives. Yes, I would like to get a Power Pro and I might do some under the table routing/shaping but that will be limited to what the 510 can support.
My main objective right now is to convince myself that the extension table alignment issue is a deficiency brought about by the Headrest and Tie Bar Locking Mechanism. With very careful alignment, I can achieve end to end swap capability with the equipment that I have BUT after a few set ups and tear downs it creeps out of perfect alignment. I don't believe that will be the case with the Double Tilt Base Arm Assemblies.
If the two piece base arm assembly does not lock together in a very tight assembly (no lateral; movement), I will have failed to prove a point. Please remember, I am attempting to prove nothing other than to myself.
I, BTW, have modified my 510 configuration. I have a psuedo double tilt right now. I removed the Headrest (and thus the tie bar) and have installed in its place a second Base Arm Assembly. It is working to my satisfaction.
Steve, this is simply one of my quirks. You have not been with the forum long enough to recognize that. I am the old fogy who has to either do it my way or be shown that it can not be done that way.
"Making Sawdust Safely" Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
dusty wrote:The Double Tilt, for me, is just a whim. I have no real long term objectives. Yes, I would like to get a Power Pro and I might do some under the table routing/shaping but that will be limited to what the 510 can support.
My main objective right now is to convince myself that the extension table alignment issue is a deficiency brought about by the Headrest and Tie Bar Locking Mechanism. With very careful alignment, I can achieve end to end swap capability with the equipment that I have BUT after a few set ups and tear downs it creeps out of perfect alignment. I don't believe that will be the case with the Double Tilt Base Arm Assemblies.
If the two piece base arm assembly does not lock together in a very tight assembly (no lateral; movement), I will have failed to prove a point. Please remember, I am attempting to prove nothing other than to myself.
I, BTW, have modified my 510 configuration. I have a psuedo double tilt right now. I removed the Headrest (and thus the tie bar) and have installed in its place a second Base Arm Assembly. It is working to my satisfaction.
Steve, this is simply one of my quirks. You have not been with the forum long enough to recognize that. I am the old fogy who has to either do it my way or be shown that it can not be done that way.
I hope you succeed and educate all of us. I get it.
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
Extension table alignment is a concern for me as well. I thought it would be corrected when I upgraded from the 510 to the 520 but it didn't work out that way. I still can't get consistent fence alignment on the extension table (within .005"). So that is a consideration of killing two birds with one stone and justifying the additional cost and work of implementing the Double Tilt. Why do you think the new headrests will be better? Well, I guess we will know for sure in a couple of weeks after you get the upgrade done and do the measurements.
