Redlineman's Logan 200 Rescue

Redlineman, you're right. There is no thread where the dial set screw is but it does interfere with the keyway. Since I just assembled mine yesterday, I wasn't able to look at mine when I read your post. I think the point is it is a bad design even for 1942. After all, we did have planes flying then didn't we? I agree with your comment about the set screw in the crank but my hand crank has a locator pin instead of a set screw.

This picture should help people understand this conversation a little better, eh?
IMG_0993_zpstapvjxb3.jpg

Mike B.
 
Last edited:
Good Lord. Are they all like that? Are there two nuts, one on either side of the crank?
 
Hey;

The early 200s had a set screw to locate the handle in the keyway. It is called a pin in the diagram (LA-271 Ball Crank with Pin 273). Not sure why, but that's what they did. I do not know for sure, and this is speculation on my part, but it may have been a decision made to keep costs low for the production agreement they had with Montgomery Wards. I'm not sure what the company actually knew about metal machines, as it is my understanding they made mining equipment. My further speculation is that this was a subcontract arrangement that turned into a business. When the 200s first came out, they had many improvements over the Wards versions, but also still used a lot of the same bits. When they went into what I refer to as "serial production", somewhere after 1942, they changed to a handwheel with a key instead. I prefer the look of the ball handle, but would certainly rather have the key. It wouldn't be that hard to broach a keyway into an early handle, if one were so inclined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha... you guys were typing while I was distracted. Interesting that yours is actually a pin, Mike, like it says in the diagram. I would guess a lot of them got tapped and set screwed after the first time they came apart. Both of mine had screws, and I never knew any different. Whichever, pin or screw, it is a dumb idea, probably again due to reasons I speculated on. They fixed it with a wheel and key when they went bigtime in '43. The "Tombstone Era", for the nameplate shape, as I refer to it.
 
Last edited:
Funny, Mike;

Your threads and keyway are FAR better than either of mine, but the spot where your dial set screw sits is really buggered. Neither of mine have any marks there at all. I'm left wondering what kind of load was induced into the dial, and why, that would cause it to spin its set screw that badly? Is this the result of being bent, and not adjusted accordingly?
 
You guys are doing great with those nice shiny handles.
Here's what I started with:
Old Logan Crossfeed Handle.jpg
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the socket head screw was a home job retrofit.
It actually worked fine in that condition. Go figure.
Really nice job polishing the handle.
 
OK. I had heard somewhere that Logan got into the machine tool business sorta sideways. Kinda like Helena Rubenstein and the last contract for R-390/URR receivers.

The crank is salvagable with a piece of all-thread, some stud lock and a broach. But I would have to put that screw out to pasture. The engineer who designed that should have been sent to Guadalcanal. Reminds me of a few I've had working for me.
 
There you go again...

Trashing on Logans. Yeh... pretty dumb design. Probably the result of circumstance and expedience. Not a machine tool company. Trying to get a subcontract product to market to compete with the mighty Sears Roebuck. Trying to get ANY machine thrown together as fast as possible to satisfy the voracious appetite of the war effort. That is speculative, but at least possible, if not probable. Did they have bean counters back then? This idea would strongly point to their existence. This practice may have continued all the way until 1946, according to dates on the diagrams I have. I don't even think that pin is necessary, as long as the nuts remain tight, but the convention was to key them, and for obvious reason. No real good reason not too that I can think of, so it remains a mystery. Call it "personality." Overall they did pretty darn well and made a great little machine.

Tom; that is the ugliest unit I have ever seen. I will no longer complain about the sorry state of mine. They are pristine by comparison. I actually debated long and hard about trying to graft on a new threaded end onto my original. Now that I have replaced it with a "better" one, I may actually give that idea another look, just for grins.
 
Ground control to Major Tom ??? Wassup in Logan re-build land ?

I'm needing some closure on this one. Run it over the line and spike the ball my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top