Franko's Hf Engine Hoist Mod

One more thought on eye bolts, they hate side loads. By that I mean the load rating drops quick as the load added moves out of line with the eye bolt. Yes I do not seem using this hoist to drag much in a side load (front, back or side). However as the lift arm lifts the load shifts to the back of the bolt. These drops in load rating can be fond in charts from the manufacture and probably generic charts. As long as you stay within those ranges you should be fine. As far as the tube ripping that can be solved by adding a sleeve to the end of the tube (inside or out)
Mark
 
Having moved the mill around the shop with m hf lift I can tell it sux on so many levels your mod is a great improvement. Nested toobs would've been a great option.
 
Last edited:
Primitive_Pete said:
Having moved the mill around the shop with m hf lift I can tell it six on so many levels your mod is a great improvement. Nested toobs would've been a great option.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pete. The choice not to use nested tubes was economic. I opted to re-purpose the existing legs. The cat. 40 pipe was the only thing I could find that would fit and was affordable.

As I mentioned earlier, the tubing this hoist is made of is metric, which is stupendously expensive in these parts.
 
Franko,

With the wider stance is there enough boom extension and load capacity to pick up a Bridgeport a few inches, enough to slide Unisorb leveling pads in?

Nice work, btw.

Thank you.
 
Bamban, there is about 32" between the legs. The legs extend about 16" beyond the longest extension of the boom. At that extension, it is rated at 500 pounds. I don't know the dimensions of a Bridgeport mill.

My mill base is high enough off the floor that I can use a floor jack to make foot adjustments on my Carrymasters.

If you can't get a hoist over the mill, you might try a crowbar and cribbing to tilt it back enough to install the leveling feet.
 
Yes on the crow bar. another way would be wedges. I love wedges for short lifts.
 
Franko said:
Thanks, Pete. The choice not to use nested tubes was economic. I opted to re-purpose the existing legs. The cat. 40 pipe was the only thing I could find that would fit and was affordable.

As I mentioned earlier, the tubing this hoist is made of is metric, which is stupendously expensive in these parts.
Click to expand...
yeah it is here too, as is everything else... I was lamenting the fact that the price of metric tubes wouldn't be worth effort. I hadn't even thought about them being metric.
 
Pete, I have cogitated about a way to reduce the size (footpring) of the hoist when stored, which it is, most of the time. If I wanted to reduce the width, I could make some hangers to mount on the boom support. The legs could be detached from the chanels and hung on those hangers.

Or, I could drill pivot holes perpendicular to the existing pivot holes and fold them up with the zig zag front to back, decreasing the width.
 
Frank what about add in plates to the smaller tube to build size match the hole. It needed not be perfect .
 
I thought of that, but the better solution was to widen the stance of the legs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top