Hi,

I have an Amolco attachment with a column base fitting for Myford ML10. As far as I know the makers only ever made base fittings to suit the ML7, the Super 7, the ML10 and the Boxford 9" lathe range. So, each machine has a different base. You can see photos of the attachment here:

Amolco

One of the photos shows the base for an ML7, I believe. The base is mostly flat with a central longitudinal tongue designed to fit between the shears of the ML7. The whole assembly is secured by 2 vertical screws through the base and attached to 2 keeper plates that tighten up against the flat undersides of the shears. It's fairly critical that the tongue be well-fitted to the slot between the shears else the base/column may shift under cutting pressure.

I assume your target attachment is likely to have an ML7 base fitting — this you'll need to establish, of course, and report back. Whether you can fit it to your ML4 will depend on 2 issues:

(1) What the measurement between the shears of your ML4 is on the one hand, and a standard ML7 on the other. You should determine this measurement for your ML4 and report back. Maybe other members who have standard ML7s could kindly state what this value is for their machines.

(2) The other issue concerns the end profile of the slot between the shears. The underside of the ML7 shears is machined such that the end profile forms, in effect, a T-slot. This is what allows the Amolco keeper plates to lock the assembly. Does your ML4 have this feature and if so, what is the full width of the space beneath your machine's shears and are their undersides machined? Again, maybe ML7 owners could state this dimension for their machines.

As regards the attachment itself, the practical limit of the area you can mill is somewhat less than the area of the crosslide. Interpose a vice and it's even less but if the model components you plan to mill are fairly small scale, you'll do fine. Having said that, I seem to remember machining a 4" x 3" angleplate (using a solid vice) and rough machining a Stent 'L' bed at 2 settings, though the finish machining was done on a proper milling machine. The nice thing about the Amolco was that it provided what basic hobbyist milling machines don't — autofeed via the lathe leadscrew!

If you get back to us with the measurements mentioned above we can assess whether the attachment can be adapted to your ML4.

Joe

Edited By joegib on 03/11/2012 18:21:51

Hi Kevin,

Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. Please find below a rough picture of the end profile of an ML7 and how the Amolco attachment is secured by 2 keep plates to the undercuts beneath that model's shears:

You've stated what the 'A' dimension is. We need to know what the 'B' dimension is for your ML4 as this will show how much width/area the keep plates will be able to seat on.

Since last posting I've had a look at an ML4 document on the Myford Yahoo Group — see picture:

— and there doesn't seem to be much of an undercut at all beneath the shears. If that's right, then I don't think that an Amolco attachment with an ML7 base will be easily adaptable to your machine.

The above picture is taken from this document:

ML4

Joe

joegib,

Re your post on 4/11@0910. Google says the link given by you is broken.

John

Strange, it worked when I tested it after posting. Anyway, I've uploaded the file elsewhere — hopefully, it works here:

ML4 new link

Joe

The Amolco and many similar types of milling attachments including DIY ones are far better fitted semi permanently at the back of the bed about half way along .

Doing this means that for most of the work likely to be done the milling attachment is in place ready to use AND the basic functions of the lathe are unaffected and also ready to use .

Some further advantages are that quite big workpieces can be milled and a proper boring table can be used .

On ML4 some DIY brackets needed but no problem . Ideally there will be some adjustment so that you can move milling attachment in and out to address different types of work and further adjustment to push or swing attachment out of the way altogether .

Regards ,

Michael Williams .

Hi Kevin,

Here's an outline sketch for a set-up that should allow you to use an ML7 type Amolco with your ML4:

Note that:

1. I've designed it so that you can use the ML7 type fitting as-is i.e. no butchery required. That way you can sell on the machine intact if you later get a milling machine.

2. The new sub-base replicates the ML10 set-up whereby the unit base is locked against the bed dovetail Vees by means of a rising Wedge/Gib Strip arrangement. In the ML10 set-up the cap screws are actually on top of the base and pull up the wedge. Here I've reversed the arrangement so that they push up the wedge from the bottom. A little less convenient perhaps but again that means you don't have to machine the ML7 base.

3 The ML7 base is locked to the sub base by the existing keep plates. You'll need to machine 2 rectangular recesses in the underside of the sub-base to accommodate the keep plates — it's important that these are below the support surface so they don't mar your lathe bed shears when fitting the Amolco. On the other hand it doesn't matter if the lock-nuts project beyond the support surface because these are narrow enough to fit between the bed sheers.

4. The sub-base can be made from a piece of cast iron 100mm x 140mm x 30mm. This will raise the machine a little higher than the standard base but shouldn't affect normal operation.

5. I'm still a little concerned by the cantilever bed. If you go ahead with the project I'd recommend that you set up a jackscrew arrangement to give additional support to the end of the bed.

As regards whether the project's worthwhile, well it's definitely significantly better than a vertical slide. But that still leaves you with a fairly small work envelope compared with even quite modest standalone mills. Bear in mind that a limiting factor is the travel of your crosslide (which appears to be appreciably shorter than the ML10 'long' crosslide on my machine).

You can't regard this sort of set-up as a cheap substitute for full milling capability. I suspect for most of us who've had these machines, it's a stop-gap on the road to a standalone mill.

Joe

Edited By joegib on 05/11/2012 15:02:08

Gentlemen, whilst you may well be happy with quoting the Myford Shear dimension in mm, they are nevertheless imperial from the start and an exact dimension. Your stated mm are but an approximation.

KWIL,

Now you've got me confused. Philosophically, all measurements are approximations. I dare say that the sniffier NPL scientists would dismiss the output yielded by your finest micrometers as mere appoximations. It's all a matter of degree (and the context of the discussion).

It's not as though I'm designing and building the sub-base for Kevin's machine. If he went ahead plainly he'd have to design the sub-base by reference to the actual dimensions of his lathe and the Amolco unit he acquired. But even then, the only fairly critical consideration is that the Wedge/Gib Strip be sized so as not to bottom-out (or top-out?) before lock-up against the shears is achieved. Indeed, the very nature of the wedge mechanism allows some significant flexibility in that regard.

Yours approximately (it's 6am!)

Joe

Myford did eventually offer a semi decent tailstock with "a separate sole plate" because their original tailstocks were pretty rubbish

**LINK**

If you can get hold of one of these it would probbly make things easier

Edited By Ady1 on 06/11/2012 08:29:56

Firstly sorry for resurecting such an old thread. However i will soon be fitting an Amolco milling attachment to my ML4.

It has been donated to me by a friend and after some discussion with him it was decided to make an adaptor plate. The pics posted above show the end of the lathe closed off, however inside the casting of the bed there is the same profile as the ML7 has albeit smaller. This means that the original foot will be mounted into an andaptor plate with M6 cap head screws securing it to the base of the original foot. the original clamping method will be employed to hold it to the ML4 bed, but new clamps will be made to allow for this to happen. as the undercut on the ways is narrower.

Below is the proposed adaptor plate and how it will fit onto the ML4. The points raised about the cantilever bed are valid, and this will limit the fuction slightly as it will need to be brought more to the center of the lathe to maintain ridgidity. Not all the dimentions are shown here, this is just so as it can be visulised. CAD drawings done by Sandy.

Note what Mike said about "light" milling requirements.

I used to have a ML7 and used a Rodney milling attachment on it. maybe i was heavy handed, taking 0.020" cuts, but I did not like the way that it shook the ML7. I do not imagine that the ML4 is any more rigid, so would advise taking only light cuts.

That is why I went out and bought a Mill/Drill, and there are times when I can see the vice and machine flexing.

Not in the same league as the Cincinattis that i used as an apprentice, but they weighed about forty times as much!

Howard