[flyingdragon]

Happy holidays to all,
I have question that driving me crazy

what is the advantage and the disadvantage of the integrated FM vs the non integrated FM
I am about to order glacren FM 45 2.5 for my new G0707

the price is: $150.00 FM 45 2.5 (none integrated FM)
$150.00 R8-FM 45 2.5 (integrated FM)
so what is your choice if you are going to pick one of these two FM setups

I just think that the integrated FM is more rigid and repeatable since it's close to the spindle and one complete piece, resulting in better finish than the none integrated one,

I know some of you getting really nice finish with the none integrated FM
, and I know it's just depend on the materiel you cutting and the right IPM

any opinion or comments will be appreciated

Regards
OZ

[WOTDesigns]

Get the integrated. The advantage of non integrated is that if crashed hard you can replace just the lower portion or keep a lower set up with inserts for steel and another with inserts for aluminum and change the lower saving time and money.

However for a less rigid machine the greater your distance from spindle the more issues you will have. The dove tails are a pivot point on a finite term even the casting will bend and flex to a degree so the longer your tool the more torque you are applying. Go small or go home

Lemme go snap u a picture of what a bad day with Glacern FM looks like...

[WOTDesigns]

Get the integrated. The advantage of non integrated is that if crashed hard you can replace just the lower portion or keep a lower set up with inserts for steel and another with inserts for aluminum and change the lower saving time and money.

However for a less rigid machine the greater your distance from spindle the more issues you will have. The dove tails are a pivot point on a finite term even the casting will bend and flex to a degree so the longer your tool the more torque you are applying. Go small or go home

Lemme go snap u a picture of what a bad day with Glacern FM looks like...

Bad programmer. No. NO! ::smacks with newspaper::

[MFchief]

Wow! I'm impressed..............
Terry

[Hirudin]

If you're cool with using it as an R8 tool, I'd also recommend going with the integrated shank. Seems that it's better in almost every way.

One caveat though, if you might change to a machine that doesn't have or use an R8 taper, you might regret buying the integrated shank. I have an integrated-shank Glacern facemill (or maybe it's Maritool). It seemed to be fine, but when I started using TTS tooling I basically set it aside, never to be used again. Now that I have a new machine, with a BT-30 taper, it continues to sit unused. If I had bought a non-integrated facemill originally I could have, conceivably, continued to use it with a TTS tool holder, and I could have kept using it up to today with the newer machine. Of course, new machines might warrant new tooling anyway, making any preparation moot.

It's a tough call, but if you aren't going to use anything other than R8, the integrated shank is prolly the best way to go.

[SCzEngrgGroup]

If you're cool with using it as an R8 tool, I'd also recommend going with the integrated shank. Seems that it's better in almost every way.

One caveat though, if you might change to a machine that doesn't have or use an R8 taper, you might regret buying the integrated shank. I have an integrated-shank Glacern facemill (or maybe it's Maritool). It seemed to be fine, but when I started using TTS tooling I basically set it aside, never to be used again. Now that I have a new machine, with a BT-30 taper, it continues to sit unused. If I had bought a non-integrated facemill originally I could have, conceivably, continued to use it with a TTS tool holder, and I could have kept using it up to today with the newer machine. Of course, new machines might warrant new tooling anyway, making any preparation moot.

It's a tough call, but if you aren't going to use anything other than R8, the integrated shank is prolly the best way to go.

Ditto. I have a beautiful Glacern 4" R8 shank face mill I'll probably never use again because it's not ATC-friendly. I now do all my facing using a 2.75" Shars TTS-shank face mill.

Regards,
Ray L.

[SCzEngrgGroup]

Bad programmer. No. NO! ::smacks with newspaper::

Yeah, I learned the hard way my 2-3/4" face mill will NOT cut full-width, 1/2" deep, at 35 IPM:



Regards,
Ray L.

[flyingdragon]

Thank you to all of you,
so now I understood that the longer the tool the more torque will be applied to the work piece?
so for having small mill like my g0704 its better to go with small? mean (integrated FM)

ZHirudin; l have no problem to use R8 face mill but I got the TTS in my all other tools..
still can take the tormach r8 collet out and put the FM in few seconds since I am not into any mass production, and the point is to do few parts that required really quality finish and that is why I went to Glacren FM.


but in another way...if somebody ask which setup will give better finish look?

if we talk in perfect setup as speed, new inserts, correct IPM setup and of curse (mist likely aluminum)

is it the integrated FM will give better and nicer finish than the TTS setup?

Oz

[WOTDesigns]

Thank you to all of you,
so now I understood that the longer the tool the more torque will be applied to the work piece?
so for having small mill like my g0704 its better to go with small? mean (integrated FM)

ZHirudin; l have no problem to use R8 face mill but I got the TTS in my all other tools..
still can take the tormach r8 collet out and put the FM in few seconds since I am not into any mass production, and the point is to do few parts that required really quality finish and that is why I went to Glacren FM.


but in another way...if somebody ask which setup will give better finish look?

if we talk in perfect setup as speed, new inserts, correct IPM setup and of curse (mist likely aluminum)

is it the integrated FM will give better and nicer finish than the TTS setup?

Oz

All things equal, yes. A more rigid set up should produce better finish. This is theoretical and lots of other factors effect it, but in theory shorter means less flex so more purdy

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I learned the hard way my 2-3/4" face mill will NOT cut full-width, 1/2" deep, at 35 IPM:



Regards,
Ray L.

Dayum.

[SCzEngrgGroup]

but in another way...if somebody ask which setup will give better finish look?

if we talk in perfect setup as speed, new inserts, correct IPM setup and of curse (mist likely aluminum)

is it the integrated FM will give better and nicer finish than the TTS setup?

Oz

It won't make one tiny bit of difference. There are FAR more significant factors that will affect finish quality long before the stiffness of the shank will come into play.

Regards,
Ray L.

[flyingdragon]

It won't make one tiny bit of difference. There are FAR more significant factors that will affect finish quality long before the stiffness of the shank will come into play.

Regards,
Ray L.

Well, it's look like a tough call then! I know that there are so many people go with TTS setup even if it's more $$ just to do quick change and most important when you have an ATC !

I think like what others said here the integrated FM is more rigid and less runout, but then if I crash, I may damage my spindle! Big ouch

That is the only downside in my case... Wish to see other people comments and see some pics to their finishing surfaces !

OZ

[Hirudin]

Switching to TTS was one of my best decisions, I'd suggest going the TTS route for the convenience alone, but the accuracy and speed are nice bonuses.

Sorry to offer conflicting advice... It's a tough call. Integrated is "better". If you're looking for the best tool, integrated is the way to go IMO. But a TTS facemill will still be "quite good" while offering extra convenience as well.

I agree, you prolly aren't going to notice a difference in surface finish. Not unless you're looking really close. I've heard that single-point is the way to go if surface finish is your main concern. It makes sense to me, but I haven't tested it myself or anything. A face mill with only one insert would prolly be slightly better than something like the Superfly, because it would be more balanced and more rigid, but at the expense of costing more. The Superfly IS adjustable. I suppose that could be advantageous, though I never adjusted mine. I set it to the max radius and left it there.

[Paul-JB]

I vote TTS for all the reasons mentioned but that just me. If you only plan to use the FM occasionally I don't see the big deal switching out the dedicated TTS R8 then back when finished. I have these I use on my Bridgeport and could swap into the Tormach I suppose.. The Tormach is not as robust as the BP so a 2-1/2" face mill might be pushing it. I have yet to try it but maybe one of these days.
So far the Maritool 2-1/2" FM works wonderful in the BP. The 1" tool is an Iscar HM90 and it works great as well.
Attachment 300758

[pickled]

Yeah, I learned the hard way my 2-3/4" face mill will NOT cut full-width, 1/2" deep, at 35 IPM:



Regards,
Ray L.

Now THAT'S a pretty substantial crash right there!! I've blown a few insert end mills up and snapped a fly cutter here and there, but you got me beat!

[SCzEngrgGroup]

Now THAT'S a pretty substantial crash right there!! I've blown a few insert end mills up and snapped a fly cutter here and there, but you got me beat!

The amazing thins is, it didn't lose position! It was still moving when I hit E-Stop. Those AC servos have some serious power!

Regards,
Ray L.

[pickled]

The amazing thins is, it didn't lose position! It was still moving when I hit E-Stop. Those AC servos have some serious power!

Regards,
Ray L.

Absolutely! I am always more weary when I work on AC servo driven equipment because they just don't want to quit until the position is reached. They don't care if your arm, or whole body for that matter, is in the way.... must keep pushing! As for the OP's question I am a fan of the integrated FM myself for several of the previously posted reasons.

[flyingdragon]

I already got one er20 for my end mills, and tormach super flycutter.. along with few hss end mills,,, I am waiting the delivery of my AA 18x24 granite surface plate mybe will show up someday this week!

but I lost here when it comes to the face mill....as I see so many people using TTS and never seeing anybody using this integral R8-FM 45
!!!! just strange!

I mean when it comes to changing the tools... I don't see any west of time by taking the tts R8 collet off and insert the integral R8 FM in!! correct? I am with Paul-JB; it's not a big deal!

I mean it take less time than when you take the shank off the FM and change the FM dia to bigger one on the tts fm setup

oz

[pickled]

I still use some R8 tooling and you are correct in the fact that it isn't much more tenuous to change out than a TTS tool. The TTS advantage is mainly extremely repeatable Z heights upon re-insertion of the tool. If you are manually touching off on your stock and immediately facing it prior to running your program (or cleaning up features after the program is over) then there will not be an issue with R8 integrated tools. It gets a little tricky when you try to incorporate them into a multi-tool machining program. PathPilot wants all your tool heights entered before you run. The ability to simply reset on a datum when a tool change is in process is no longer available as it was in Mach. I miss it and despise having to play the "stop the program", reset Z, restart the coolant and the spindle and then hunt and peck for the restart point within a program with 10's of thousands of lines of code.

[mountaindew]

PathPilot wants all your tool heights entered before you run. The ability to simply reset on a datum when a tool change is in process is no longer available as it was in Mach. I miss it and despise having to play the "stop the program", reset Z, restart the coolant and the spindle and then hunt and peck for the restart point within a program with 10's of thousands of lines of code.

I agree, and complained about this from start!
Over the past few months I have more or less developed procedures and adapted to PP and its lack of offset access. Still I can run into major problems with operations that in the past were easy and now impossible!
Example: Part of your program drills a number of holes in exact locations each of these require a hand tap operation and you want to use Tormach spring loaded tap guide to position hand tap above each hole after its drilled!
How can this be done in PP?
Don't even notice a problem doing this in mach
I do find this PP behavior very limiting

[photomankc]

Bad programmer. No. NO! ::smacks with newspaper::

LOL! Yes, using the facemill to remove the footing stock on long thin parts can create a great deal of "excitement".