Large Dado Stack Recommedations

[jack forsberg]

Jack, do you prefer the two tooth chippers to four or is that just what they make? The outside blades have lots of teeth. Any tearout? Dave

what i like are only 1/8" chiper and one at a 1/16". Don't like chippers wider than that yet the FS is the only one lets you pick. at theses rim speeds there are no chipping Dave. Lots of teeth for cross cut but if you look there lots of room for chips extraction . Slow feed rate for dado work right?

[David Kumm]

I see they make 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16, no 3/32. Is the plate such that you can shim enough to get to odd sizes? I've used Forrest up to 10" and I think they go to 12". Dave

[Rich Enders]

George,

I have a Forrest 10 inch set with a 1 inch bore, and 4 tooth chippers to go about 7/8 inch wide.

I am not sure of the depth of cut on your Oliver, but on my MM combo an 8 inch Forrest set cuts to 1.25 inches. That would imply that this 10 inch Forrest would cut to about 2.25 inch depth.

Does that make sense?

[jack forsberg]

I see they make 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16, no 3/32. Is the plate such that you can shim enough to get to odd sizes? I've used Forrest up to 10" and I think they go to 12". Dave

I don't shim dado's i rabbit its mate Dave. The work i do with the dado is not carcase to sheet size its mostly rabbit cuts and cross cuts.

[George Bregar]

FS Tool is the place for large dado stacks. You can order as many chipers as you like too. I have 2 14" stacks from them 2" wide and a 16" stack for the 18" Wadkin PK slider. if the 88DX has a good power plant than no use going small on the stack as the price is the same. Now i am not sure but i thought there was a problem with the blade flask not closing on the 88 with a dado but that could be the 260 i am thinking of. you may what to check that?

It has a 5HP motor, but I'm not sure what a "blade flask" is. Is it the shroud that surrounds the plade for dust containment/extraction? Here is a shot of that on the 88-DX:
flask.jpg

The Oliver literature says the 88-DX "lip on the rolling table can be removed to dado up to 3-1/2" wide. I have the dado arbor also.
lip.jpg

[jack forsberg]

The 88 come so many ways George. So your slider does not open? looks like some tin work for the flask?

Personally, I find the oliver model 88 to be superior to the Oliver coveted 260. The 88 came in many different forms beginning with the 88-D. Then you get a sliding table and some other aerospace features which gives you the model 88-DM. Here you have a crank on the left to move the sliding table left by 4 inches to install a dado blade and to do work on the blade arbor. The rolling table is very simple in design but rolls very smoothy. Then you have the monster 88s. The oliver 88-DX and 88-DY both had sliding tables that weigh close to 1000 pounds each supported by ball bearing rollers riding cinched tracks in an undercarriaige that bolted to the left side of the 88 body. This saw can straight line rip a 4x8 sheet of plywood like notbody's business. In fact, you
can stack plywood up to 4.5 inches deep and precision cut multiple sheets in one pass.


I really find this saw much to large for my needs and I like more simple saws and a smaller saws but still 18" saws. Personally, I like the 18" wadkin PK(blade fully retracts and does not spoil the riving knife). Its super cute and just the right size for my home workshop. But wadkin did not sell many PKs in the US/ Canada and the ones that made it there are coveted by those who have them. They are very unusual and very much liked. So they are rare and tend to be expense for what they are.

Lastly, I spend my free time restoring old woodworking machines. I have reached a point in terms of space and time where I wish to concentrate on certain machines. The PK is one of these collectable machines just as the 88 D is.

It has a 5HP motor, but I'm not sure what a "blade flask" is. Is it the shroud that surrounds the plade for dust containment/extraction? Here is a shot of that on the 88-DX:
flask.jpg

The Oliver literature says the 88-DX "lip on the rolling table can be removed to dado up to 3-1/2" wide. I have the dado arbor also.
lip.jpg

[Rick Alexander]

Holy moly that's a big ole saw. Looks to be in great shape too.

[George Bregar]

The 88 come so many ways George. So your slider does not open? looks like some tin work for the flask?

No, there is a lip that requires removal (red arrows in previous pic), you can see it better here:

1f.jpg

Personally, I find the oliver model 88 to be superior to the Oliver coveted 260. The 88 came in many different forms beginning with the 88-D. Then you get a sliding table and some other aerospace features which gives you the model 88-DM. Here you have a crank on the left to move the sliding table left by 4 inches to install a dado blade and to do work on the blade arbor. The rolling table is very simple in design but rolls very smoothy. Then you have the monster 88s. The oliver 88-DX and 88-DY both had sliding tables that weigh close to 1000 pounds each supported by ball bearing rollers riding cinched tracks in an undercarriaige that bolted to the left side of the 88 body. This saw can straight line rip a 4x8 sheet of plywood like notbody's business. In fact, you
can stack plywood up to 4.5 inches deep and precision cut multiple sheets in one pass.

I agree, I had a very complete 260-D and sold it when I purchased the 88-DX. The double arbor and slider/quadrant are cool on the 260-D, but in the end the 88-DX is much more versatile day to day because of the ;arge slider. Being able to x-cut large glues or ply is something that is very difficult with a traditional shop built sled.

I really find this saw much to large for my needs and I like more simple saws and a smaller saws but still 18" saws. Personally, I like the 18" wadkin PK(blade fully retracts and does not spoil the riving knife). Its super cute and just the right size for my home workshop. But wadkin did not sell many PKs in the US/ Canada and the ones that made it there are coveted by those who have them. They are very unusual and very much liked. So they are rare and tend to be expense for what they are.

Lastly, I spend my free time restoring old woodworking machines. I have reached a point in terms of space and time where I wish to concentrate on certain machines. The PK is one of these collectable machines just as the 88 D is.

I've seen your stuff Jack...and the PK's are just beautiful machines. Heck, all Wadkins are.

[Charles Wiggins]

Published depth of cut with a 16" blade is 3-1/2"

Well now, that's just stupid - bad design. My Jet 10" will do 3 1/8". With a 16" blade I'd expect somewhere around a 10" possible (though not advisable) depth of cut. Sorry. I know this doesn't help you. I'm just surprised.

I have not found anything beyond what others have already posted.

[David Kumm]

Direct drive were not a bad design. Depth of cut was the tradeoff for large bearings spread wide apart and no radial stress due to multiple belts and pulleys. Hard to explain until you run one. Dave

[George Bregar]

Well now, that's just stupid - bad design. My Jet 10" will do 3 1/8". With a 16" blade I'd expect somewhere around a 10" possible (though not advisable) depth of cut. Sorry. I know this doesn't help you. I'm just surprised.

I have not found anything beyond what others have already posted.

Charles, you couldn't be more wrong. Your Jet has a belted arbor (Red), the Oliver has a direct drive motor (Blue). See how that limits depth of cut below?

DOC.jpg

It's neither stupid nor a bad design because maximum depth of cut with the smallest blade is not the target. Capacities are however, and the Oliver exceeds your Jet in depth of cut, 4-3/4" with an 18" blade, 3-1/2" with a 16" blade. The direct drive design provides a higher quality of cut because of reduced vibration, much better than your Jet, or any saw with an arbor driven with a belt. It also provides much faster feed rate because those teeth on a 16" are coming faster. The Oliver is designed for high quality, and high production. A comparable saw today costs around $40,000.

[George Bregar]

Direct drive were not a bad design. Depth of cut was the tradeoff for large bearings spread wide apart and no radial stress due to multiple belts and pulleys. Hard to explain until you run one. Dave

And all that allows a larger blade so you still have DOC capacity.

[jack forsberg]

Well now, that's just stupid - bad design. My Jet 10" will do 3 1/8". With a 16" blade I'd expect somewhere around a 10" possible (though not advisable) depth of cut. Sorry. I know this doesn't help you. I'm just surprised.

I have not found anything beyond what others have already posted.

Charles
I thick what you fail to see is that your jet saw is belt drive and the Oliver is direct motor dive just like a RAS is. the blade arbor is the motor spindle.The blade has to clear the motor before it can cut and so that's the reason for loss in the DOC. This is why theses saws have large blades. With large blades come larger bearing and there is plenty of room for bigger bearings in these DD saws. there is no belt slippage or small 6000 series bearings to fail so the drive is way smother with out vibration. I ware/dull a 10" blade out in a month in the shop were as the 18" blade takes about a year. The cut from these is way cleaner too because the rim speed of the tooth is at about 18000 SFPM or about 2 time as fast as your belted 10" saw. you have to have used on to really see how clean an 18" blades cut through thick hard wood.

[Mark Bolton]

Charles
I thick what you fail to see is that your jet saw is belt drive and the Oliver is direct motor dive just like a RAS is. the blade arbor is the motor spindle.The blade has to clear the motor before it can cut and so that's the reason for loss in the DOC. This is why theses saws have large blades. With large blades come larger bearing and there is plenty of room for bigger bearings in these DD saws. there is no belt slippage or small 6000 series bearings to fail so the drive is way smother with out vibration. I ware/dull a 10" blade out in a month in the shop were as the 18" blade takes about a year. The cut from these is way cleaner too because the rim speed of the tooth is at about 18000 SFPM or about 2 time as fast as your belted 10" saw. you have to have used on to really see how clean an 18" blades cut through thick hard wood.

My understanding was always another major advantage of the larger blades is reduced/eliminating tearout due to the much shallower exit angle as the tooth leaves the work?

This had always been my understanding when looking at large euro saws which run 14"-16" blades, and larger, yet are still belt driven arbors. I know there are cases where depth of cut is an issue especially in shops which use saws, as George mentioned, stacking multiple sheets and gang cutting. But where that blade would shine to me is cutting at normal depths or in sheet goods and having little to no tearout.

I had looked at some big older Martin's at one point and several shop owners told me with large blades, and of course sharp, they never had a need for scoring.

[Michael W. Clark]

George, what is the rip capacity between the blade and fence? Maybe its not important with the sliding table as you could use stops and put the keeper on the left side of the blade?

Cool looking saw! You could probably put my G1023 on it and saw it in half!