Leveling jacks for mill--your thoughts on my design (Norwood LM29)

[esarratt]

I have searched the forum and read about other's leveling jacks.

I am going to put leveling jacks on my mill.   I would like your thoughts about my plan.

The mill is a Norwood LM29.  I bought it used a couple weeks ago.



 

My thinking is a total of 10 jacks (5 on each side) rated at 2000lb each.

1 jack at each corner.


 

And 1 jack at each joint in the rails.  There are 6 vertical joints (3 on each side) where the rail is bolted together.

This Jacks would be used instead of the feet which come with the mill.



 

 



 

 

The jacks I am looking at are round snap ring swivel welded side winding.



 :



 

 

My thinking is to flip the piece that is welded onto the trailer (the L-lip) upside down and put it under the rail's vertical joint for support.  I might even weld some more metal to the L-lip piece so it has more attachment to the rails, then weld that all the way around.

Have any of you done anything similar?

Any feedback about my plan would be useful.

Thanks for the help.

[ladylake]

\ The ones with the round pipe welded on the frame are a lot more sturdy. Steve

[fluidpowerpro]

If your mill is stationary, then I don think you want to use a trailer jack. Use something more like a leveling base for a machine tool. Picture a big bolt through a nut that is welded to a heavy plate.

Better yet would be to not have any leveling jacks.

With my smallest mill I struggled for years with leveling. The best thing I ever did was pulled out my cement mixer and in one Saturday, poured a long slab for it. Once I did that all troubles went away. No matter how many jacks you have, its way better to have the rails sitting directly on a hard level surface. With jacks, there is always going to be a little flex in your rails.

Thats my 2 cents..

[fluidpowerpro]

Or, if you dont pour a slab, put your rails directly on some 5 x 5 or 6 x 6 landscaping timbers and then do any leveling between the timbers and the ground.
That way your rail is fully supported by the timber.

[esarratt]

Thanks!

The mill is just in a temporary location at a house we rent (I can't pour concrete).

I will look into timbers.

[chet]

 

 



That is what I added to my mill more than 20 years ago, and they have and still are working fine.  I originally also had the feet so I could set it on blocking, but soon removed them as the jacks have worked great. 

[MattM]

Should work fine. I have six trailer jacks like this on my 20 foot mill bed. It takes me about 4-5 minutes to level my mill. When on solid dirt I rarely have to level it, if its on soft ground I put pads under the jacks.
Don't over complicate things... If the rails are level and true and your mill head and bunks are adjusted right then you'll cut straight lumber.   

 

[fluidpowerpro]

OK, I stand corrected! 
Sorry to misguide you. Just shared my experience and opinion. 

One thing to consider is the height off of the ground. 

I like higher because I dont have to bend down as much. 
The other side is that closer to the ground is easier to load logs onto.

[chet]

That's one of the reasons I like da jacks, not having bend. 



 

[fluidpowerpro]

When I looked at the pics on the original post, I thought it was a ground based unit. I didnt know it is mobile.....

[Gere Flewelling]

esarrat- It appears the frame on your mill is not as stout as the one shown in the pictures that chet posted.  I think you will definitely need all of those jacks to keep the bounce out of your frame.  Turning a large log with a flat side will slam down hard on the frame and cause flex that will likely mess with the level of the frame. A flat/straight frame is crucial to sawing straight lumber..  If you were going use six jacks (on each corner and two in the middle), I would suggest fabricating a full length sub frame to go under the frame you have out of some rectangular steel tubing.  This will give you something stout to attach your jacks to as well as something to securely attach the original frame to.  The original frame seems rather flimsy compared to most sawmill you will see.  Having a subframe will give you something to support and adjust any unlevel areas of the assembled track in a way that you won't have to worry about in the future.  I would prefer to use the jacks like Mattm suggested since you have welding capabilities as you can remove them easily if you ever have to.  Good Luck with your decision.  Love to see pictures as you progress.  

[esarratt]

When I looked at the pics on the original post, I thought it was a ground based unit. I didnt know it is mobile.....

You are correct.  It is ground based...for now.

It is only mobile if I am willing to throw my back out and be miserable for a week and a half before I can saw again.

I will probably build a trailer for it at some point in the future, but that is a post for another day.

[esarratt]

esarrat- It appears the frame on your mill is not as stout as the one shown in the pictures that chet posted.  I think you will definitely need all of those jacks to keep the bounce out of your frame.

Good point.  Yes, it seems that Norwood cheapened the quality of the frame over time.

Turning a large log with a flat side will slam down hard on the frame and cause flex that will likely mess with the level of the frame.

Thank you.  This is why I post here to vet my ideas.

I had not thought of that.

I plan to mill a lot of heavy timber.

If you were going use six jacks (on each corner and two in the middle), I would suggest fabricating a full length sub frame to go under the frame you have out of some rectangular steel tubing.

Yes, I have been considering a subframe and a trailer at some point in the future.

I can see the writing on the wall.  The jacks I use need to be at least as tall as potential future trailer wheels.

[esarratt]

So, do you think the jacks are best mounted to a square steel subframe (built under the mills frame) OR to the frame of the mill as I mentioned in my original post?

I took some pics of the frame's metal and its thickness.

The previous owner did say he had experience problems with keeping the mill level.  He had it mounted on 6x6 timbers horizontal to the sawmill rails, as specified in the Norwood manual.



 

 



I could not find the thickness of the rails in the Norwood manual so I got out my dial calipers.

I got a rail thickness of .136".  So, that makes it between 1/8" thick and 9/64" thick.

So 1/8" metal?

By the way, all the metal which makes up the rails (the smaller angle pieces and the wide pieces are the same thickness).

[esarratt]

The bunk cross members are thicker metal.  The orange cross pieces and the L-brackets which attach to the long rails are the same thickness of metal.

I got .189" for thickness, so between 3/16" and 13/64".

That would be 3/16" metal correct?



 

 

 

[esarratt]

So, today's project is putting the rails back together and leveling and squaring the frame as per Norwood's manual.

I had to purchase some bolts as some were missing.  3/8" bolts plus washers and lock nuts.  I bought 1-1/4" bolts, but I actually only needed 1" long.



 


 

 

The Norwood manual says to leave all the bolts loose (finger tight).  Get the mill level and run a string, basically a mason's line along the top of the rails.  Then, tighten everything down.

I'm going to temporarily put her back on the leveling feet on patio paver concrete pads until I get some wooden 6"x6" cut.  That way I can use the mill while figuring out a subframe/jack situation.

I had a heck of time loosing some of the leveling feet's bolts, but brute force and some penetrating oil solved the problem.



 

 

 

[MattM]

So, do you think the jacks are best mounted to a square steel subframe (built under the mills frame) OR to the frame of the mill as I mentioned in my original post?

Personally Id go with a sub frame.... I know with my original mill bed I was always having to mess around with it because no matter how solid I had it mounted it always seemed to shift where things were bolted together.
I built my mill bed about 4 years ago now out of 5inx20ft channel connected with 4in channel  cross members and 4 channel for the bunks. It's rock solid and no matter how heavy of a log I load on it I don't have to worry about bolts slipping.  

[Crossroads]

Just tuned in and would vote for building a steel frame to attach the jacked to. Then an axle could later be added to that frame. My experience with the swivel Tralee jacks is that they have quite a bit of side to side wobbly motion. The weld on ones that are pictured in a later reply seem to be better. I have one of each on my Lt40, the swivel one is at the front of the mill and only gets used when the tongue of the mill is too close to the ground to use the OEM jack to get it off the truck. The other is on the back and is a home made fine adjust outrigger. Good luck with your project!

[Gere Flewelling]

esarratt- If you should decide to fabricate and add a steel frame under the original frame you will be much happier with it's performance in my opinion.  I personally prefer to get the log at knee height or higher to save bending all day long when sawing.  I can see two options for steel on the sub-frame.  I prefer rectangular tubing 3/16" thick.  Tubing is very susceptible to warping when being welded on.  It requires great care to keep it straight.  Another option is channel steel.  Channel steel is much easier to keep straight when welding, but tends to flex and twist when used in long lengths. I personally would want to use 6" channel with at least some 6" channel cross members.  4" channel should work for others to keep the weight and expense down.  I would want to add cross member every 2' that are welded solid to help  prevent the lengthwise twisting and flexing. The channel might flex some when trailering but shouldn't bend permanently.  Personally I don't see where angle iron sub-frame would be of any benefit over what you already have.  I would suggest welding jack mounts to the new sub-frame.  The original frame should work fine for the carriage to accurately roll on and once attached to the new sub-frame should be prevented from twisting and going out of alignment.  I noticed that Norwood doesn't use a lot of cross members.  The mill I have has a cross member every 24".  This is a great help in keeping lumber supported at the very ends and better controlling lumber stress and flex.  Many cross member make the chance of lining up the end of the log with one much greater.  It's a lot of work to start with, but when you get to saw with the completed setup I think you will find the effort worthwhile.  If you have your mill at a knee high operational height, you will need a ramp system and possibly a winch to roll logs onto the mill.  That might a project to consider for another day.
Lots of words, but hopefully helpful input!

[fluidpowerpro]

When I looked at the pics on the original post, I thought it was a ground based unit. I didnt know it is mobile.....

You are correct.  It is ground based...for now.

It is only mobile if I am willing to throw my back out and be miserable for a week and a half before I can saw again.

I will probably build a trailer for it at some point in the future, but that is a post for another day.

If it's ground based, use the timbers, not jacks.

[fluidpowerpro]

Since my advice is conflicting with others, I should elaborate a bit on my logic.
You just bought the mill and I bet your anxious to make some sawdust. One of the quickest and easiest ways to get started is to set the tracks on timbers.

Cut some wood. Have some fun and you can always change the base later.

[esarratt]

Since my advice is conflicting with others, I should elaborate a bit on my logic.
You just bought the mill and I bet your anxious to make some sawdust. One of the quickest and easiest ways to get started is to set the tracks on timbers.

Cut some wood. Have some fun and you can always change the base later.

Yes.  This is what I am thinking.

Use timbers now to stabilize the mill so I can get started on my projects.

Then haunt CL and FB for steel for a subframe over the next few months.

[Slingshot]

   
essarrat, here is an underframe, trailer, I built for a MN27 (same bed, rails, as the LM29).........

 



 

[Ljohnsaw]

 When I loaded a big log (42"x 33'), 3 of my 12 jacks sunk their pad in about 6".  So, pulled everything out and laid these 5x9 timbers and that solved the problem.

 

[esarratt]

 
essarrat, here is an underframe, trailer, I built for a MN27 (same bed, rails, as the LM29).........

 

Thank you for your pics.  Do you have any more?  I am leaning toward building a trailer for my mill.
What size steel did you use?  Do you have any flex with larger logs?