Stew Mac Plan Mistakes?

[69GTLP]

Rather than Highjack another thread, can someone let us know what mistakes are on the stew mac LP plans? Also what about guitar building templates dot com??? I was going to order the Korina V and explorer templates? Has anyone ever ordered from them and are they acurate?

[Mr Bones]

Well, I used to think that the truss rod route was wrong for bursts since it was straight, but found out that Gibson switched to the curved route in 60 not 58. There is something else that I can't recall now though.

[69GTLP]

Anyone else got any clues?

[rockappalla]

The body is way too wide at the largest point of the belly...it about 5mm larger per side...in fact it measures 34cm instead of 33...

I made a template out of it and I couldn't put it in the original gibson case! So i decided to use my classic to make a template...

[IceGator8]

I agree with rockappalla. Also the width of the body is mentioned nowhere in the Stew Mac plans. I found the Catto drawings to be more accurate. With that said the neck portion of the Stew Mac plan is very close.

[69GTLP]

When I made my template I used the Catto drawing for the body and the neck from Stew Mac plan also. Now I'm wondering about the fit, so Saturday my buddy is bringing his Les Paul over and I will check the fit in his case. I'm going to start cutting out the other three bodies tomorrow.

[Jered]

I noticed on the plans, the route for the control pots and the shaft holes don't line up properly. You'd think that [probably] the largest guitar parts shop would sell accurate plans.
The plans from Mimf.com are very accurate; drawn on cad and then plotted (a type of printing which is many times more accurate than normally printed sheets)

[single cut 54]

Originally Posted by 69GTLP

Anyone else got any clues?

Pickups are routed at an angle (approx 3 degrees)
The switch cavity hole is approx 42.6mm diam (1.677'')and not 1 3/8'' Diameter(1.375'')
The heel doesn't have a lip but is level with the bottom of the tenon
as in this photo.The tenon has a depth of 1 1/2'' .

[69GTLP]

Thanks for the info, I still don't know why we don't use the Metric system here

[stinger]

The side dot markers on the Stew-Mac plan list 3/16" dia. for the markers. It should be 3/32" dia. It is drwn at the correct size, just list wrong.

[single cut 54]

Originally Posted by 69GTLP

Thanks for the info, I still don't know why we don't use the Metric system here

Headstock angle is nearer to 17degrees (16 degrees on drawing)

[single cut 54]

Truss rod slot is straight, but is 0.500'' deep at the nut and tapers to 0.677''
at the neck pickup cavity(end of slot fill block) . (12.7mm to 17.2mm)

[jack briggs]

Originally Posted by 69GTLP

Thanks for the info, I still don't know why we don't use the Metric system here

It's far more accurate.



Cheers,

[rockappalla]

Originally Posted by single cut 54

Pickups are routed at an angle (approx 3 degrees)
The switch cavity hole is approx 42.6mm diam (1.677'')and not 1 3/8'' Diameter(1.375'')
The heel doesn't have a lip but is level with the bottom of the tenon
as in this photo.The tenon has a depth of 1 1/2'' .

CAn you explain better the heel problem please?

[rockappalla]

Also, Is the 4,4 degrees neck angolation right? and is 9"/16 the right deepness for the "wires" channel? I've just cut it, but my classic has a way deeper channel...I'm wondering if it's deep enough to let all the wires go through...

[single cut 54]

Originally Posted by rockappalla

CAn you explain better the heel problem please?

Hope this helps. This is not to scale just a quick diagram to show the difference.

[single cut 54]

Originally Posted by rockappalla

Also, Is the 4,4 degrees neck angolation right? and is 9"/16 the right deepness for the "wires" channel? I've just cut it, but my classic has a way deeper channel...I'm wondering if it's deep enough to let all the wires go through...

The wire channel does vary,I have a 1958 Burst in at the moment that I'm restoring, the channel measures 13.5mm wide x 13.1mm deep( measured using engineers slip gauges and feeler gauges,this is as accurate as you can get) .
On other Bursts I've measured ,the width can vary between 12.7mm and 14mm with depths varying between 12.7 and 13.5mm.There is no right dimention but all that i've worked on have fallen within these parameters.
Neck angle, I'm not going to commit myself on this as there is not a flat or square face to measure from.Using a straightedge ontop of the frets(average
fret height =1mm ) and down the centre of the finger board ,with the straightedge overhanging the bridge position the height from the maple top to the straightedge has measured between 15mm and15.5mm consistantly on
at least 10 Bursts.

[GooCart]

Ok, thanks single single cut 54, I'll change the tenon/heel on my 3d file.
Could you please explain the angled pickup routing, I don't get it...

[single cut 54]

Originally Posted by GooCart

Ok, thanks single single cut 54, I'll change the tenon/heel on my 3d file.
Could you please explain the angled pickup routing, I don't get it...

Iv'e modified the Stew Mac plan in red pen to show the angle.

[GooCart]

OK, get it. That'll be hard to do with the three-axle cnc cutter because of the undercut. It's doable but I don't think it's worth the effort.

[Mr Bones]

Ok, sorry I started a new thread on this. Here is what I've run into this week. The control cavity route on the "back drawing" doesn't line up with the pots on the "front drawing of the guitar." In fact, they are so far off that if you were to route the cavity according to the back and drill the holes according to the top, you would not be able to install the pots.

The tailpiece is straight no offset like it should be. One of the "feet" holes in the bridge pickup cavity needs to be bigger.

The wiring channel route needs to extend into the switch cavity, not just up to it.

The bridge is in the wrong place, making the scale length too short.

[69GTLP]

Here is a reply from John Catto from another post about plan mistakes along with a link to his plan and measurements he has taken.

Mine first went up a very long time ago on MIMF. The very first version had zillions of errors especially in the shape, I honestly never expected so many people to use or reference it. Since then it's had 10 numbered revisions with some having tiny changes and some very major, not all of them ever went out past my computer. It's the product of me looking at a number of vintage guitars and occasionally revisiting my original traces and their scans when I felt I could improve on them. This is the last version I did, I don't expect that I will do another (or need to) but if I was a nice guy I should bundle in my miscellaneous measurements (I'll will post them here).

http://www.mondocatto.pwp.blueyonder...-ver10full.pdf

A bit of history as I remember it:

After the first version I went back to my original body tracing which was from a '55 standard and rescanned and digitised it, I also removed all logo scans from the file. I think the next changes all referenced parts position (from 58, 59 and 60 bursts) and it gained the traced outlines from the backplates of a 1960 burst, I don't think anyone else's plans include accurate plastic tracings, usually they are from a Historic or worse a standard. Somewhere around version 8 it got a huge overhaul, I completely redid the perimeter based on a trace of a 56 Custom, the sharp edges of the Custom gave me a way more accurate trace than what I had before. Then came more parts location stuff plus a trace of the inside cavity from a shard from a retopped 58. Very last changes were a trace from an actual '59 pickguard and the correct location (or was it verification) of the bridge pickup and angled tailpiece.

That's the story, as it stands now it's the only plan out there that has correct part positions (verified over large numbers of 50s guitars not historic) and the only one with correct outlines and screw hole locations for the plastic (guard and back plates). In any case I consider it a done job at this point!

edit:

The measurements to go with the template

All measured with the usual digital caliper.

Body binding: height 5.96mm thickness ranged from 1.58mm to 1.91mm (for instance in the cutaway).

Neck binding: height 3.91mm thickness .84mm

Exposed body depth (from bottom of binding to back 42.9mm (1.688")

Headstock thickness top: 15.37mm bottom: (nearest nut) 15.58mm

Neck width: At nut 42.91mm At body Joint 54.82mm at fingerboard end 56.92mm

Gap between heel and guitar back 13.24mm (.52")
Depth of heel from bottom of binding (body top edge) to base 37.56mm (1.478")

One more for all those you wonder about toggle switch placement.
Level with 21st fret and 40.32mm from the edge.


ALSO

50's Humbucker Cavity depths

Bridge PU cavity legs: 1.384" deep
Bridge PU cavity depth: Angled from 1.015-.971(bridge side deepest)

Neck PU cavity legs: 1.463" deep
Neck PU cavity depth: 1.097"

[69GTLP]

Another question I had was that the Stew Mac plan scale length is 24.5625"
where as other les pauls that are newer measure 24.625 or something close to that. What did the 58-59's measure? I measured my Stew mac plan and it is dead nuts on at 24.562

[Mr Bones]

I went to kinkos and ran off a few copies of John Catto's plans today. It looks to be a much better plan for the parts layout and cavity and plastic shapes. The outer profile seems a bit messy though. The lines are not smooth. Using the centerlines, I took what I think are the best parts of each plan, and came up with a kind of bastard plan that I am going to use. I started remaking all my templates this afternoon. The only major change I made to the stewmac outline was to narrow the body to match the catto plan. Now back to worrying about how to route the maple in the control cavity.

However, not being a perfect plan for dead nuts replica aside, I do think it is pretty weak for a major company like stewmac to sell a plan that doesn't even match up to itself...

[GooCart]

If anyone is interested I used Mr Catto's plans and redraw them in my cad software.
You can download the contour here. All I did was to smooth the curves. Since I can't check with a real burst I don't know if I'm out of tolerance but the curves are smooth and mathematical correct.

I used the Catto PDF for my 3d LP project which is turning out fine, I just need some fine tuning of the top carve, I found out that the one I made was to smooth.

[Nelson674]

the link to the catoo plans wont work for me?

anyone else have this problem?


_Nelson_

[pinefd]

Originally Posted by GooCart

OK, get it. That'll be hard to do with the three-axle cnc cutter because of the undercut. It's doable but I don't think it's worth the effort.

I don't know if this one's the same or not but it works for me (it's a PDF file): http://www.mondocatto.pwp.blueyonder...-ver10full.pdf

[Nelson674]

Thanks Pine!

[61LPSG]

This may make it easier to see...
This is the John Catto plan on top of the Stew-Mac version.
The area in the red circle shows how the Stew-mac plan is about .180" or 4.57mm larger. I say "about" because they are both on paper and not as stable as vellum.
Single Cut thanks for the info on the heel shape. Too late for me though I already put the step in it. No biggie, I'm not going for hysterical accuracy.

[pinefd]

Originally Posted by single cut 54

Hope this helps. This is not to scale just a quick diagram to show the difference.

Wow, I never realized that the original bursts didn't have that step!?!
That would sure make that neck joint a lot easier to make.

Thanks for that info!