584,854 active members*
4,254 visitors online*
Register for free
Login
Page 5 of 5 345
Results 81 to 87 of 87
  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    8

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    Quote Originally Posted by TurboStep View Post
    Yes I was! A lot of the TTS holders I see from china don't have a ground mating surface; this one did, so I felt comfortable getting one. Not super cheap, but I'm from europe, so it's still better than importing it from america. I also got an ER20 holder from the same seller to test out, as well as some ER20 collets from different sellers to compare the runout.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurboStep View Post

    Which shell mill were you looking at?
    I was looking at one of these: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3283...3e2e4c4dv2gJgl

    I'm a fool though; I bought the 80 mm 5T version not realising the arbor is 27 mm lol

  2. #82
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    8

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    Quote Originally Posted by kstrauss View Post
    I use both daily for aluminum on my 770 with two SEHT inserts (the same insert as the SuperFly) and get an excellent finish.
    Why do you use only two?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1788

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    In my experience a 770 doesn't have enough spindle power to run 4 inserts plus with two a stupid mistake is less expensive (yes, we all make them!). With a 4-tooth head it is perfectly balanced with only two. I mostly use the head to take a light skim to ensure that stock is flat prior to anything else so MRR is not important. I frequently set the resultant surface as Z-zero so no reason to use the Haimer.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    8

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    I see. Should be alright from my end; I've got 1.8 kW to work with

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    60

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    Quote Originally Posted by kstrauss View Post
    In my experience a 770 doesn't have enough spindle power to run 4 inserts plus with two a stupid mistake is less expensive (yes, we all make them!). With a 4-tooth head it is perfectly balanced with only two. I mostly use the head to take a light skim to ensure that stock is flat prior to anything else so MRR is not important. I frequently set the resultant surface as Z-zero so no reason to use the Haimer.
    I have read with interest comments regarding using face mills over the superfly. I also have a 770. The main reason to using a FM is balance. Any 770 owners who have accidentally started their mill at high speed with a Superfly fitted will know what I am talking about !!!!
    I bought two sizes of FM on ebay at low cost K12/63-22-4T which uses the same inserts as the Superfly. The other BAP400R-50-22-4F Face cutter.
    The arbor for the later was made from a Tormach TTS blank. The larger arbor as machined from 50mm dia EN24 steel ( don't know what the US equivalent is)

    My aim was to keep the stick out to a minimum. Depth of the larger arbor is 14mm, the other 16mm.
    I have 2 inserts fitted on the larger and kept 4 inserts on the 50mm FM . I have not tried these yet, but see no reason that they will not perform as well as the Superfly.
    I am not using the mill for production so I am unlikely to take a depth of cut that would challenge the motor power. Both cutters can run at high speed with no vibration.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1788

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    They look nice and I'm sure that they will work well. The only likely problem is if the insert pockets are poorly positioned and one insert is lower than the other; you can always use a single insert with minimal vibration due to the mass of the head.

    I took the somewhat cheaper approach of purchasing a Chinese 3/4-inch straight shank arbour and machining the TTS locating groove around the shank.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    60

    Re: 2” facemill recomendations

    Quote Originally Posted by kstrauss View Post
    They look nice and I'm sure that they will work well. The only likely problem is if the insert pockets are poorly positioned and one insert is lower than the other; you can always use a single insert with minimal vibration due to the mass of the head.

    I took the somewhat cheaper approach of purchasing a Chinese 3/4-inch straight shank arbour and machining the TTS locating groove around the shank.
    I did check the two inserts that I fitted for height and were within 0.0005" Don't know how close they should be. I dare say if I tried different insert faces or use the other two fittings I might improve this.
    The 50 mm FM seems of low quality I had to remove sharp edges and clean up poorly machined faces with a diamond file. Laying the FM on a flat surface it rocked. I changed one of the 4 inserts for another and made an improvement. Will check this properly later on. Buyers should be aware that there could be accuracy issues not easy to rectify.
    I will try the large FM with 1 insert in also, next time I have some alloy that needs facing.

Page 5 of 5 345

Similar Threads

  1. In the market for a new facemill?
    By pearldiver in forum Australia, New Zealand Club House
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 12:42 PM
  2. Facemill Advice
    By pearldiver in forum Uncategorised MetalWorking Machines
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 10:26 PM
  3. Facemill results
    By turbo2ltr in forum Uncategorised MetalWorking Machines
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 09:45 PM
  4. Have facemill but no inserts....
    By H.O in forum Want To Buy...Need help!
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 05:12 AM
  5. Facemill Finish
    By weaston in forum MetalWork Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 04:31 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •