# no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily



## morfa (20 May 2013)

I've just got a no 5 1/2 plane as a 'second' plane to go with my no 4. It seems to clog really quickly, compared to my no 4 which rarely does. Basically after a couple of strokes, the gap by the blade gets filled up with small fragments of wood, which get stuck on top of the chipbreaker and just fill up the whole gap (no idea what that gap is called sorry) and then the plane won't cut.

So I have to remove the blade and push the wood out. Then it cuts wonderfully. But again it clogs really quickly. I can't believe that it's normal practice to have to do that for planes? I certainly don't need to do it on my no 4.

Any ideas of what I'm doing wrong? Or does something need fettling? Its a Stanley no 5 1/2, I got it from Ray Iles (one of his reground ones).

Can provide a photo if that helps?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 May 2013)

The frog might need moving back slightly, or the back iron might not be seating on the iron properly. If you are used to using a very small mouth, it's worth filing the edge of the casting so that the edge is angled from the mouth towards the front of the plane, being careful not to enlarge the mouth. This gives the shavings a little more room to clear.


----------



## Peter T (20 May 2013)

I can't claim to be any sort of expert in these matters, but from my limitted experience it sounds like the mouth, the gap by the blade, is set too small for the thickness of cut you are trying to take, and/or the chipbreaker is set too close to cutting edge of the blade.

First thing I would do would be to reduce the thickness of the cut until the clogging stops.

If the clogging stops with finer cuts, but you want to take heavier cuts, you will need to open the mouth and/or move the chipbreaker back from the cutting edge.

If you still get clogging even with the finest cuts, the mouth may be set so fine that it's never going to work and, again, you will need to open the mouth.

Good luck,


----------



## G S Haydon (20 May 2013)

Hi Morfa,

I experienced this when I fitted a thicker aftermarket plane iron. The mouth became too small and would clog on heavier cuts. As the others have mentioned if the frog can be moved backward do so. If that still does not sort the problem the mouth may need adjustment. The following site has good images on how to do this and if you choose to fine tune your plane further there is a copy of David Charlesworth's methods on the site. http://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/planes ... tuneup.htm


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

You want to set the frog back until it is dead in line with the back of the mouth. Line it up by squinting through from both sides. Forget about closing the mouth for finer cut - this is a bit mythical and is pointless.
Make sure the cap iron sits tight on the blade just 1 to 2mm behind the edge.
Shape (and polish) the top of the cap iron edge to make it a smooth curve so shavings can slide up and over.
Make sure the blade sits tight - squint through side to side (against the light) to see that it's tight on the frog.
Sharpen it.
As you plane, lift at the end of each stoke - if you just slide it back, shavings can get pulled back through, and jam in on the next forwards stroke


----------



## G S Haydon (20 May 2013)

Great advice Jacob,

Morfa find out for yourself before you take this part of Jacobs post as gospel "Forget about closing the mouth for finer cut - this is a bit mythical and is pointless."


----------



## Mike.S (20 May 2013)

Jacob":2ci6wmum said:


> Make sure the cap iron sits tight on the blade just 1 to 2mm behind the edge.
> Shape (and polish) the top of the cap iron edge to make it a smooth curve so shavings can slide up and over.



+1

I had a similar problem and found that there was a very slight 'flat' on the leading edge of the cap iron (where it meets the iron near the cutting edge). Shavings hit this and rather than sliding up and over became compressed - quickly clogging the mouth.


----------



## morfa (20 May 2013)

Looks like it's a mix of frog and technique then. When planing I don't lift the plane up, just slide it back. However the frog does protrude slightly, by about 1 mm, I'll move it back and test.


----------



## Racers (20 May 2013)

I never lift and never have problems.
The curvature of the cap iron can cause problems,but can be fixed with an after market cap iron, and they improve the performance as well.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

Racers":21hwbe07 said:


> I never lift and never have problems....
> 
> Pete


You probably don't do a lot of planing then. 
It's fine shavings the worst - they can slip back out as you slide back, just enough to be in the way when you go forwards again.
Also it's just a bit lazy sliding it back as you are also wearing out the blade.
It's not a rule, but sometimes you have to lift between strokes


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 May 2013)

:idea: Surely if you don't lift, you are just stropping your iron on wood?


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

phil.p":eghhrjvg said:


> :idea: Surely if you don't lift, you are just stropping your iron on wood?


I suppose so, but you are stropping with zero relief angle. It's more the shavings getting caught up which is the issue. Doesn't always happen but can be a nuisance.


----------



## Racers (20 May 2013)

Jacob":16m2p062 said:


> Racers":16m2p062 said:
> 
> 
> > I never lift and never have problems....
> ...



I do a lot, if you plane past the end of the board of lift at end of the stroke the shaving is no longer attached to the board and can't get pulled back.


Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

Racers":nrq75j57 said:


> Jacob":nrq75j57 said:
> 
> 
> > Racers":nrq75j57 said:
> ...


It can if it's still trailing through the mouth. This isn't theoretical - it's what happens!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 May 2013)

Morfa - it might be worth checking the fit of the cap-iron to the blade. I've had trouble with this one in the past - a very slight gap somewhere along the length of the line where the two touch is enough for a fine shaving to get under the capiron and jam. It's easy to check for; take the iron and capiron out of the plane, still fixed together as they should be for normal use, and hold up to the light. Peer into the gap between blade and cap-iron, and look at the back edge of the contact between the two near the cutting edge. You should see no light at all between the two. If you do, that'll be where the shaving is jamming. It can be corrected by careful filing of the cap-iron with a very fine file, but a better 'fix' is to put the edge of the capiron on a sharpening stone, near the edge, with the tail-end pointing a little below the stone's surface, and whet until the cap-iron fits the cutting iron tightly right at the cap-iron's tip. This doesn't usually take too long, since the cap-iron is rarely made of hard steel.


----------



## bugbear (20 May 2013)

Cheshirechappie":u7gn2q0k said:


> Morfa - it might be worth checking the fit of the cap-iron to the blade. I've had trouble with this one in the past - a very slight gap somewhere along the length of the line where the two touch is enough for a fine shaving to get under the capiron and jam. It's easy to check for; take the iron and capiron out of the plane, still fixed together as they should be for normal use, and hold up to the light. Peer into the gap between blade and cap-iron, and look at the back edge of the contact between the two near the cutting edge. You should see no light at all between the two. If you do, that'll be where the shaving is jamming. It can be corrected by careful filing of the cap-iron with a very fine file, but a better 'fix' is to put the edge of the capiron on a sharpening stone, near the edge, with the tail-end pointing a little below the stone's surface, and whet until the cap-iron fits the cutting iron tightly right at the cap-iron's tip. This doesn't usually take too long, since the cap-iron is rarely made of hard steel.



I've posted on this before;

post628272.html?hilit=%20clogged%20bits%20#p628272

There's a helpful diagram in that post.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 May 2013)

bugbear":1cxnnf9t said:


> Cheshirechappie":1cxnnf9t said:
> 
> 
> > Morfa - it might be worth checking the fit of the cap-iron to the blade. I've had trouble with this one in the past - a very slight gap somewhere along the length of the line where the two touch is enough for a fine shaving to get under the capiron and jam. It's easy to check for; take the iron and capiron out of the plane, still fixed together as they should be for normal use, and hold up to the light. Peer into the gap between blade and cap-iron, and look at the back edge of the contact between the two near the cutting edge. You should see no light at all between the two. If you do, that'll be where the shaving is jamming. It can be corrected by careful filing of the cap-iron with a very fine file, but a better 'fix' is to put the edge of the capiron on a sharpening stone, near the edge, with the tail-end pointing a little below the stone's surface, and whet until the cap-iron fits the cutting iron tightly right at the cap-iron's tip. This doesn't usually take too long, since the cap-iron is rarely made of hard steel.
> ...



That's it exactly, BB! The diagrams help a lot, too.


----------



## woodbrains (20 May 2013)

Jacob":2f54mpyb said:


> You want to set the frog back until it is dead in line with the back of the mouth. Line it up by squinting through from both sides. Forget about closing the mouth for finer cut - this is a bit mythical and is pointless.
> Make sure the cap iron sits tight on the blade just 1 to 2mm behind the edge.
> Shape (and polish) the top of the cap iron edge to make it a smooth curve so shavings can slide up and over.
> Make sure the blade sits tight - squint through side to side (against the light) to see that it's tight on the frog.
> ...



Hello,

There is nothing mythical about a finely set plane mouth, the pressure exerted by the front of the sole helps hold down the shaving and prevents tear out. This is not greatly important if you are using the jack plane for rough work, but then again, you don't want to cause more tear out than necessary, as you will just have to work harder with the smoother later.

The plane was not designed to have the frog only set level with the rear of the mouth. Firstly, it is adjustable for a reason, i,e. to close the mouth to prevent tear out. Secondly, the thickness of the plane base is reduced just in front of the frog, allow the frog to be as close to the end of the blade as possible. If the plane was designed to have the frog level with the back of the mouth, it would just be left thick and negate the extra machining process in manufacture.

Dragging the plane backwards over the work can possibly dull the blade by increasing the wear bevel, though I have not tested this. Since doing so can sometimes drag a shaving back into the mouth, there is little need in testing the theory, it is best to avoid doing it. Ask a metal worker about dragging a file back over the work, he will tell you it dulls the file quicker.


----------



## David C (20 May 2013)

Most choking is caused by badly shaped chipbreakers.

The front edge is a precision shape. It must touch the back of the blade , and a littlee clearance is useful here . 

The front of the top surface must not exceed 45 degrees to the back of blade. Polish is useful. Filing or honing is often needed. When prepared like this the mouth can be set as fine as you like, provided front edge of throat is smooth and square.

This is part of the work that I do with short course students, while tuning their bench planes, on my 5 day summer short courses.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

David C":342r3891 said:


> ..... When prepared like this the mouth can be set as fine as you like, provided front edge of throat is smooth and square.......


Not if you merely want to remove a lot of material i.e. just doing normal planing. 
Beginners pick up on the fine mouth idea when opening the mouth may be the solution to their problems. Wide open (frog set back flush with the mouth) is best for most purposes especially for beginners. Also gives a bit of extra support to the back of the blade with less chatter etc. This just about cancels out any fine mouth adjustment advantage, as you then lose the extra support.


----------



## Racers (20 May 2013)

Hi, Chaps

Re moving the frog right back to support the blade.

This is a Record blade sharpened at 25 deg honed at 30 deg




The bevel measures 3.9mm




And transferring the measurement up through the mouth shows where the back of the blade touches, its on the frog.





The blade needs regrinding, so the length of the bevel will be even longer and further up the frog.

Pete


----------



## David C (20 May 2013)

Spot on Pete.

The width of mouth one chooses will be dictated by the type of work done. The operative word is chooses. I would be interested to hear what thickness of shaving Jacob uses for his "normal planing"?

David


----------



## woodbrains (20 May 2013)

Hello,

Pete Maddox, some sense at last, I've been saying that there is no support from the sole beneath the frog for ages. The planes were never designed for that anyway. The mouth only need be set a gnat's wider than the shaving that comes through and will not clog if the cap iron is well fitting and smooth. A wider mouth will introduce tear out. The best way to increase stiffness in the blade assy is to fit a heavier cap iron, and then a thicker blade. Since a 3 mm thick blade is more than twice a stiff as the 2mm stock ones, the benefit is remarkable, and allows the full adjustment of the frog for a fine mouth setting without fussing about where in relation to the back of the mouth the frog is. Thick blades will take heavier cuts without chatter too, which is a boon in a jack as much as anything else.

Mike.

Edit, I was writing this as David C was posting, and sorry, it is Maddex, not how I spelled it, but still good sense Pete.


----------



## G S Haydon (20 May 2013)

Pete, David, Woodbrains thank you all for making this so clear. I look forward to experimenting


----------



## morfa (20 May 2013)

Okay, had a go with my worktop and the plane this evening. Seems that doing the following has made a difference:

- Resetting the chipbreaker to be a little further back (it's about 2mm back now, it was more like just under 1mm before)
- Lifting the plane up
- Setting it to take much thinner shavings

Looking at the frog, it could maybe do with being a tidge further back. But as it's much improved now, I'll bear the frog thing in mind and next time I use it properly, I'll do that then. I think that I'll need to do that when I next whan to take thicker shavings with it.

The chipbreaker looks like it's sharpened properly. But it's glad to know about that.

Thanks to all for the advice.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

Racers":btq9l9ly said:


> Hi, Chaps
> .........
> The blade needs regrinding, so the length of the bevel will be even longer and further up the frog.
> 
> Pete


Except you've got it wrong, again! I can see why but I'll leave it to you to work it out.
It often can be more useful to actually _look_ at things rather than theorising, calculating, measuring, all of which are prone to error.
If you take a bog standard plane, set it to fine cut, then carefully remove blade, frog, replace blade in frog without disturbing the setting, you get something like this. 







You can see immediately how much blade would be seated on the mouth. There'd be even more if you had wound it up for a deeper cut. I've tried this with various planes and depending on details this repeats. You don't have to believe me try it for yourself. This also shows what a good idea it is to have a steep bevel ideally flat at 30º as this gives more support. A longer 25º bevel reduces this.

This is the plane - an old but classy Record 5 1/2






You can also look at the blade in situ if you clean off the dust and shine a bright light into the mouth. I'll try to take a photo tomorrow.

_Looking at things_ can be really useful and save a lot of head scratching! Let me know if you can't work out why you got it wrong. An accurate scale drawing might help but actually it is fairly obvious and an easy mistake.


----------



## Racers (20 May 2013)

Jacob, If I have overlooked some thing please point it out.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

David C":9gwzmfvq said:


> Spot on Pete.
> 
> The width of mouth one chooses will be dictated by the type of work done. The operative word is chooses. I would be interested to hear what thickness of shaving Jacob uses for his "normal planing"?
> 
> David


By normal planing I mean anything from the thickest shaving you can take off, to the very thinnest. 
When there is tear out you have the option of adjusting the mouth. On a normal plane like my 5 1/2 this is not easy (nor very effective) and it's simpler to pick up another plane with an adjustable mouth. 
For me this would be the Stanley SW 4 which is a very good plane - cuts just as well as any of the posh opposition but at a fraction of the price. Or my Clifton 4 which is very nice but the bedrock thing is a PITA though a slight improvement on the standard frog.
I'm selling my LV LA smoother (redundant and too expensive) and I might sell the Clfton for the same reason, though it's a very nice plane


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2013)

Racers":3nbbmdaw said:


> Jacob, If I have overlooked some thing please point it out.
> 
> Pete


OK. If the heel of the bevel is say 4mm up from the edge (as measured parallel to the face) and the heel is also 4mm up from the edge of the mouth, the cutting edge is up in the air well away from the sole (depending on the thickness of the blade). You'd have to wind it well forwards to cut. Do a drawing and you will see.

PS if it was _bevel up_ you would be spot on, edge and mouth exactly together.


----------



## David C (20 May 2013)

Still no wiser about the thickness of Jacob's shavings during his "normal"planing.......

I know that for the work I do in hardwoods four thousandths of an inch thick is hard to push, six thou is about my limit. But I should state that I use my 5 1/2 as a smoother, which might not be to everyones taste.

David


----------



## morfa (20 May 2013)

David C":1nfmx3js said:


> Still no wiser about the thickness of Jacob's shavings during his "normal"planing.......
> 
> I know that for the work I do in hardwoods four thousandths of an inch thick is hard to push, six thou is about my limit. But I should state that I use my 5 1/2 as a smoother, which might not be to everyones taste.
> 
> David



Don't know about Jacob, but I'd always assumed that a no 5 1/2 (and bigger) would take much thicker shavings than a no 4. I'm beginning to realise that assumption might have been wrong. 

Anyway, it's working much better now. I had heard somewhere that lifting the plane after each stroke was what you're supposed to do, but I didn't realise why. Also taking much thinner shavings helps.


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":3vujrlx8 said:


> Still no wiser about the thickness of Jacob's shavings during his "normal"planing.......
> 
> I know that for the work I do in hardwoods four thousandths of an inch thick is hard to push, six thou is about my limit. But I should state that I use my 5 1/2 as a smoother, which might not be to everyones taste.
> 
> David


Try wider mouth and deeper camber. You will get more material off faster and thicker shavings more easily.


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

morfa":dmd0v4kv said:


> ..
> 
> Don't know about Jacob, but I'd always assumed that a no 5 1/2 (and bigger) would take much thicker shavings than a no 4. I'm beginning to realise that assumption might have been wrong. ,,,


Yes wrong. A narrow deep cutting (cambered) blade will produce thicker shavings and remove material faster _from a wide surface_. But if you are planing a narrow board edge then a wide mouth is all you need for thick shavings, whatever the plane.
Arguably, for rapid material removal, long planes* are for board edges, small narrow planes with cambered edges for surfaces. For fine smoothing - short ones (finely set and tighter mouth). But in fact there is a lot of crossover as we all know, and the challenge is to get the job done with whatever plane you can lay your hands on, however cruddy!.

PS the length is for straightness. But you can get things straight/flat with short planes and a bit more hand an eye skill i.e. _looking_ at the work as you go


----------



## David C (21 May 2013)

Obviously scrub plane type setups remove thicker shavings.

But to return to the original post, there will be no choking with a properly prepared chipbreaker and a fine mouth.

C/B edge 2mm back is really far too far back to be useful for anything except extremely heavy shavings. A setting as close as 4 thou" , with a fine shaving, will virtually eliminate tearout in the most difficult of timbers. see the Kawai & Kato resarch video. However close is probably more practical for general use, say 0.5 mm.

David


----------



## Racers (21 May 2013)

Jacob":ybutgj7c said:


> Racers":ybutgj7c said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, If I have overlooked some thing please point it out.
> ...


Jacob
No you are wrong, in fact I don't know what you are on about, the blade contacts the frog, not the base of the plane so sliding it back won't make and difference.

David C
I have plained some Burr silver birch with the cap iron as close as possible and got crinkled shavings and a no tear out, its a very useful technique.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":247hks3u said:


> Obviously scrub plane type setups remove thicker shavings.
> 
> But to return to the original post, there will be no choking with a properly prepared chipbreaker and a fine mouth.


There will if you try to take too deep a cut


> C/B edge 2mm back is really far too far back to be useful for anything except extremely heavy shavings. A setting as close as 4 thou" , with a fine shaving, will virtually eliminate tearout in the most difficult of timbers. see the Kawai & Kato resarch video. However close is probably more practical for general use, say 0.5 mm.
> 
> David


But for most of the time most planing is not in difficult timber and doesn't involve tear out. It's important to bear this in mind or people will be doing ordinary work with impossibly finely set planes suitable for exceptional circumstances only.
4 thou is a degree of precision irrelevant to most woodworking.


----------



## woodbrains (21 May 2013)

Hello,

Jacob, explain to me why the sole of the plane, under the front portion of the frog is machined thinner, if it is not to allow the frog to be lower here and contact the end of the blade closer to the bevel, negating the possibility of the blade contacting the rear of the mouth. The manufacturers go through this extra machining process for a reason, so if not this, what? Racers' plane is a perfect example of the frog supporting the blade as low down as possible, it could not be better. The frog can be placed anywhere in the mouth the user chooses and the support is maximum at whatever he/she decides. Why else is the frog adjustable?

I once Owned a Sargent VBM jack that was not machined lower at this critical point. With the frog set level with the rear mouth gave a mouth setting a mile wide and tore out like crazy. The frog moved forwards to where the mouth was more to my liking, left a massive overhang on the blade and the lack of support made for terrible chatter. The plane was a junker and illustrates that a frog supporting the blade as low as possible and the frog adjusted for a fine mouth is essential for the function of the plane. Planing technology is a subtle art, which you obviously do not understand, even with pictorial evidence!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

Right now I am not sure about the very old American Stanleys with the thinner castings, but on everything made in the UK, Jacob is right. The sole provides valuable support to the blade. Way back, I had a similar discussion with Jacob, even tried to "prove" him wrong with some trigonometrics, but I made the same mistake you are making. The edge isn't touching the wood in your example.

Morfa, the Stanleys are not very prone to clogging, unless there is a problem with the fitting of the chipbreaker to the blade. Moving it 2mm out of the way does indeed "cure" the problem, but you loose all valuable effects from the chipbreaker. First it supports the edge (which isn't a bad idea with the thin Stanley blades) and second it won't help you to break the chips in order to prevent tearout.

Now, first you should decide how you want to use the plane. is it going to be a roughing tool, a big jack plane so to speak? The 5 1/2 is very heavy and wide for this task, but it can be used as a foreplane to flatten panels after a jack. In that case add a camber about 10" to 12" radius to the edge. I you want to use it as a jackplane, add a camber about 8". In both cases the chipbreaker isn't much help to break chips, but it can still help to stabilise the edge, so don't move it too far away.

If you want to take thin shavings with this plane, like a smoother (or if you want to learn something for your nr. 4) then you will have to prepare your chipbreaker with much more care. First it should sit flat over the entire width of the blade. No light visible through the gap! Most any old plane I get is defective in this department and it really makes your plane clogging. I would also make sure your jack, fore and jointer is repaired in this area, beacuse it it so important to prevent clogging. Also make sure the edge of the chipbreaker ends in a rather sharp edge with some relieve behind it, like in this picture:



[/URL]

In this picture you can see something else, a small steep front bevel. It really should be small, I've seen 0.2 to 0.3 mm mentioned. This is optional! But it improves the chipbreaker's ability to break the chips. In order to actually break the chips it should be set very very close to the edge, just a bit more then shaving thickness. Especially on smoothers and jointers. On a jack or a foreplane it can be a bit further away.

Closing the mouth helps to avoid tearout, but only when it is very tight, just open enough to pass the shaving. You loose the support of the blade from the sole of the plane, and the little helpfull steep part on the front of the chipbreaker gets in the way. And more important, when you learn how to use the chipbreaker, you don't need a tight mouth. So, if you really, really, really want a tight mouth, then by all means, set the mouth tight. But know that you don't really need it so tight and it has adverse effects too.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).




[/URL]


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

Corneel":3f1spr3i said:


> Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's more like it! 
With your set up Pete you have the blade retracted quite some way.

And with a thin blade with a 30º bevel you get even more support, which explains why a thin blade can be so effective if set up in this way.


----------



## Racers (21 May 2013)

Corneel":3cbb24tf said:


> Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi, Cornell

I see where I went wrong, thanks for that. 

I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, or reduce tear out, stiff blade or high angle blade or tight mouth or a very close set cap iron.
No one way is the best on all timbers.

Pete


----------



## AndyT (21 May 2013)

Racers":1kak13ei said:


> I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, or reduce tear out, stiff blade or high angle blade or tight mouth or a very close set cap iron.
> No one way is the best on all timbers.
> 
> Pete



I think that's the reason why discussions like this go on so long and in such detail. The forum has contributors from most of the different branches of woodworking (carpentry, joinery, cabinetmaking etc) and although some tools are common to many of them, the details of their use differ.

Maybe we should preface all statements by saying whether they apply to 'joinery work in softwood' 'utility cabinet making in mild hardwood' or 'fine cabinet making in difficult exotics' etc. 
My impression is that sometimes a poster is thinking hard about one such subset of woodwork but does not say so; then someone else thinks about an example from their experience but in a different sort of work - and so confusion follows.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

Using the chipbreaker to full effect is pretty universal. The beauty of the thing: when you don't need it in benign wood, you can pull it upwards a bit and get easier planing in return. When the chipbreaker does its work, you can really feel it in the effort to push the plane, just like with a high angle plane. 

And of course, a very sharp blade come first.


----------



## morfa (21 May 2013)

Corneel - Thanks for the extra detail and diagrams.

I'm not 100% sure about whether or not there are any gaps between the blade and chipbreaker, I'll check that later on. However I did check the sharpness of the chipbreaker and it has been sharpened as per your diagram. It's a refurbished plane bought from Ray Iles and it looks like the chipbreaker has been recently re-sharpened, I guess by Ray.

At the moment I don't really have any more money to spend on tools, so I'm planning to use the 5 1/2 as a jointer / jack plane. And anything else that I need it for really. Up till this point I've been doing everything with a no 4 (ala Paul Sellers).

Most of the work that I'm planning on doing is cabinet making with fairly standard woods, eg tulipwood, oak, syamore etc. Just incase that helps people know where I'm coming from. At the moment however I'm finishing off my workbench, which is made of standard pine ('softwood') PSE 'studwork'. Which is probably pretty easy to plane even with a naff setup.

I've no idea how sharp my blades are. I'm normally able to shave off a few hairs with a bit of pressure (I go for that as a standard, just so I know how sharp the blade is, no other reason). They can cut stuff, so I guess they're sharp enough. The blade isn't cambered, it's straight. 

I'll take a photo later on and post it up, so you guys can tell me if I need to adjust the frog.

But if the chipbreaker is suitably sharp and there's no gap, what else should I try / do?

I'll try it closer to the edge. From where it was positioned, it was in the right position previously.

I'm thinking it might have been just that I was trying to take really thick shavings and pulling back.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

You could try some wooden planes, thei're pretty cheap...

For a jointer ideally you would want a straighter blade then a jackplane. I don't how strong you are, but pushing full width thick shavings can be tyring. Well, you have to strat some where, so I would grind the blade in the shape you need now. For the roughing fase, it helps too go across the grain, which is much easier. Just watch out to remove equal amounts of wood all over the board.

In a Stanley plane, apart from the chipbreaker there is really not much to make it clog. No big burrs in the metal around the mouth?


----------



## bugbear (21 May 2013)

Racers":1907obos said:


> Corneel":1907obos said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).
> ...



The diagram makes its clear that a thicker (after market) blade would change two factors, not one; a thicker blade needs less support (due to mass and stiffness), and also gets less of its support from the sole, and more from the frog.

Good old Henry Richards didn't intend the blade to always sit on the sole!

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (21 May 2013)

Hello,

Racers, do not go to the dark side! The frog was designed, unequivocally, to adjust the mouth opening. The others are just talking about an artefact that may or may not be possible with some planes. (None of mine, incidentally)

I will ask again, someone please explain a reason for the sole of the plane beneath the front of the frog, to be machined lower than the rest of the plane, if it is not to enable the frog to extend further down and support the blade closer to its end, thereby enabling the most practicable amount of support whilst enabling the frog to move backward and forwards as the user sees fit. There is no other reason for it. If support from the rear mouth was intended, the casting here could be ten times thicker and the frog would only be used for blade adjustment. But it is not, it is purposely reduced here so the frog can also be used for mouth adjustment.

Incidentally, Jacob used to contend that the frog should be set a bit further back than the rear mouth, so the support from it would be somewhere in the bevel. Unbelievably so! So now we can neither adjust the mouth, nor the depth of cut, apparently. I ask you?

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable. But it certainly isn't the best feature of the (otherwise pretty brilliant) Bailey type planes. Adjusting the frog is a pain with the screws under the blade. What I do know is that adjusting the frog is not neccesary, and I know that you can get extra support when you set the frog flush with the sole. And extra support with these thin blades is a welcome feature.

All my planes have the blade flapping in the breeze BTW, when you adjust the frog forward. My record with early type frog is the worst with a 3mm thick sole. All my Stanleys, the newer ones and the type 11 jointer have a 2.5mm thick sole at that point. So I don't know what planes you have Mike?


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

woodbrains":53cdhk0t said:


> ....
> Incidentally, Jacob used to contend that the frog should be set a bit further back than the rear mouth, so the support from it would be somewhere in the bevel. Unbelievably so! So now we can neither adjust the mouth, nor the depth of cut, apparently. I ask you?
> 
> Mike.


It's called "changing your mind".* I've been finding more out about these things since I started getting more interested in hand tools about 5 years ago. You can change your mind too if you want to, and you can do what you like without asking me!

*PS after having a good look at a few planes. I commend "looking" as a way of finding out about things. Too much theorising can be counter productive.


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

Corneel":1mefzvu6 said:


> I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable......


I guess just for ease of manufacture - "adjustability" being an afterthought and a slightly dubious selling point.

On the other hand - if you look at the frog, off the body but with the blade and cap/lever irons in place, you are looking at a very effective "blade unit", not unlike a safety razor but more sophisticated. 
I wonder if the brilliantly designed blade unit was conceived separately, with fitting it to the body as the next step?


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":1dbptu72 said:


> .....
> C/B edge 2mm back is really far too far back to be useful for anything except extremely heavy shavings. ....


It works even better with fine shavings when "chip breaking" isn't so necessary. As you can see on any bevel up plane.


----------



## David C (21 May 2013)

Jacob[/quote said:


> But for most of the time most planing is not in difficult timber and doesn't involve tear out. It's important to bear this in mind or people will be doing ordinary work with impossibly finely set planes suitable for exceptional circumstances only.
> 
> 4 thou is a degree of precision irrelevant to most woodworking.



Both these statements are extremely unhelpful and innaccurate when applied to cabinetmaking. Hardwoods are not always benign, American Walnut and American Cherry being two prime examples. Quartered boards are are almost certain to tear out unless extremely fine shavings are taken. Indeed back bevels or scraper planes may well be needed.

As stated earlier 4 thou" is a reasonably robust shaving in hardwood. 2 thou" is a useful working shaving and 1 thou" is a nice fine finishing shaving. Failure to think in these terms, and the standard invective that "woodworkers do not need engineering tolerances", is incorrect and missleading.

One of the problems for forum posters is the inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Mike.S (21 May 2013)

David C":23iupxpk said:


> One of the problems for forum posters is the inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.



And, of course, it is often an individual's opinion as to what is fact, as Sheldon's mum explains this better (27 secs in).


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":h5wcpiz7 said:


> Jacob said:
> 
> 
> > But for most of the time most planing is not in difficult timber and doesn't involve tear out. It's important to bear this in mind or people will be doing ordinary work with impossibly finely set planes suitable for exceptional circumstances only.
> ...


[/quote][/quote]I've never measured the thickness of a shaving. Never felt the need somehow! But I'm fairly certain you could get shavings far thicker than 4 thou - otherwise things would just take far too long. Woodworkers do not need engineering tolerances.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

There is way too much discussion about the smoothing side of planing on the forums. At the moment I am working on a table with two big slabs of wallnut. From rough sawn to finish all by handplane. They are cupped about 1 cm over the width of 40 cm each, at the ends near the crotch are two big knots and rediculous hard wood around them. I wish there was a lot more discussion how you effectively aproach a job like that, without developping a new case of golfers elbows. I could use some tips. Smoothing this stuff is the easy part.

So, I don't know which facts are being regarded as opinion. The fact that you can increase the support of the blade in a Bailey style plane when you pull the frog back, is pretty evident I'd say. The rest is a matter of testing for yourself if this is valuable for you. The same with the chipbreaker effect, that's fact. If you want to use it is up to yourself.


----------



## David C (21 May 2013)

Joiners and carpenters may not need to know, but cabinetmakers and patternmakers undoubtedly do. (We have been here before).

It wouldn't do the former any harm to think on either.

I really would be interested to know what thickness of shaving you find appropriate in what timber species? This is the third time of asking.

David


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

Corneel":1xwnx5un said:


> There is way too much discussion about the smoothing side of planing on the forums. At the moment I am working on a table with two big slabs of wallnut. From rough sawn to finish all by handplane. They are cupped about 1 cm over the width of 40 cm each, at the ends near the crotch are two big knots and rediculous hard wood around them. I wish there was a lot more discussion how you effectively aproach a job like that, without developping a new case of golfers elbows. I could use some tips. .....


The answer could be to scrub. i.e. use a narrow plane with a steeply cambered single iron and a wide mouth. I've been fiddling with various options and am amazed at how fast and easily you can rip off material. Could be a problem near the knots though.


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":kpav17vg said:


> ...
> I really would be interested to know what thickness of shaving you find appropriate in what timber species? This is the third time of asking.
> 
> David


The answer is - as thick as you can get away with.


----------



## David C (21 May 2013)

Come along, that is not an answer..........

David


----------



## Jacob (21 May 2013)

David C":ci8fr0p0 said:


> Come along, that is not an answer..........
> 
> David


Yes it is! You don't refer to some sort of engineer's chart before you begin. You just get stuck in and see how it goes, adjusting your attack accordingly.


----------



## G S Haydon (21 May 2013)

FWIW I have found the hand tools section of this forum hard going at times, but I'm coming around to it. As a joiner from the modern age any hand planning I did would limited to removing an arris, ease a gap or work on site. I'm looking forward to reviewing the info here as I refurb my planes. I must confess to ignorance on my shaving thickness, although I'm looking forward to experimenting. Thanks to everyone for sharing your experience,


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

Jacob":2fymohfo said:


> The answer could be to scrub. i.e. use a narrow plane with a steeply cambered single iron and a wide mouth. I've been fiddling with various options and am amazed at how fast and easily you can rip off material. Could be a problem near the knots though.



Yes I use a narrow German scrub first, then a wooden foreplane. You should watch out with the scrub, easy to go too deep or ruin the edges of the board or so. I now feel that I could use something in between my scrub and my foreplane. I'll dig through my set of planes to see what I have. After the foreplane I follow up with a Stanley #7. It's weird, the first set of strokes feels like nothing happens because you only take of the tops of the ridges left by the cambered blade. Mostly working across the board, then diagonally. Only working along the grain at the end with the jointer.

I am not a very strong guy, so I think I take rather light shavings, otherwise I can't push the plane. But I try as thick as possible, otherwise it takes forever. Jointer shavings I guess something like 0.2mm. Smoother shavings 0.05 to 0.1mm. Sometimes on really difficult wood, wanting to tear out all the time, you need to go thinner. But it's quite a while ago since I meassured shavings.


----------



## G S Haydon (21 May 2013)

Corneel,

I prepared some boards for the bottom of my tool chest by hand http://pinterest.com/pin/519532506983647434/ . I used the number 6 fore with a cambered blade to flatten and level, a number 8 to get a flat reference surface and number four to smooth it off. I felt like an apprentice again. Although I enjoyed the process and I will want to perfect it I don't always see myself wanting to prepare my own timber by hand (unless it's to wide to do by machine or I want to do it).


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 May 2013)

Corneel":abi7gjka said:


> I now feel that I could use something in between my scrub and my foreplane.



You could use a plane with a toothed blade, which is parfticularly good for avoiding tear out. Demonstration here by Deneb Puchalski http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8Tj1lU ... F&index=31

I use one in a bevel down plane - usually a #7 





Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

That would be an idea worth looking into. Does it remove a lot of material quickly, without too much physical input? On a small piece like Deneb planes, it's no trouble to use the normal planes, but on my 210x40 cm boards I could get some help, just to save energy.

I thought Kunz had a toothing blade for Stanley planes?

Another of my tacticts in this project, I don't do it in one rush. Just an hour here or there.


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 May 2013)

Corneel":2e5edplf said:


> Does it remove a lot of material quickly, without too much physical input?



I find it quite easy to use, without too much effort. You can take heavy or light shavings depending on what you are trying to achieve. Here's a picture of mine being used in my Record #7 to flatten some Sapele boards which used to be part of a staircase





The blade I have is the one from Kunz. If you use the blade in a bevel-down plane you need to set the cap iron back a fair distance so as to stop shaving getting jammed between the blade and cap iron (see previous picture). I ground some metal off the end of the cap iron so that I could get it sufficiently far back.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2013)

Thanks for the tip.


----------



## woodbrains (21 May 2013)

Corneel":1auy0sbx said:


> I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable. But it certainly isn't the best feature of the (otherwise pretty brilliant) Bailey type planes. Adjusting the frog is a pain with the screws under the blade. What I do know is that adjusting the frog is not neccesary, and I know that you can get extra support when you set the frog flush with the sole. And extra support with these thin blades is a welcome feature.



Hello,

It does not matter whether or not the adjustable frog is easy to do or not, this is a matter of opinion or ability of the user, but adjustable they most definitely are. In fact a finely set mouth is more significant to tame tear out than the cap iron. Since most people set the cap irons too far back to have any effect anyway ( 2mm Jacob is as good as not having one) not being able to (not allowing oneself the facility) to set a fine mouth is a double jeopardy.

Yes, my blades flap about in the breeze, no matter where I set the frog, because the rear mouth does not contact the blade anyhow! But a better cap iron stiffens the blade assy, so I can have a fine mouth adjustment.

It does not matter who uses the plane; cabinetmaker, joiner, whoever, the shaving only needs a tiny amount thicker than itself to pass and it will not clog. If the shaving is 4 thou, then a 5 thou mouth is plenty. It will never clog, unless the cap iron is poorly fitted. A wider mouth is just going to cause torn grain, so why would you want it wide? Theoretical extra support from the rear mouth, but the plane produces tear out-what use is that then? A stiffer blade assy and a fine mouth is what you want, no chatter and no tear out.

If you are only using undemanding wood, then it really doesn't matter if there is any cap iron effect and the mouth is wide enough to post letters through, but then you really shouldn't have an opinion on how to set up a plane. If you do use more demanding wood, treat yourself to a better cap iron and a fine mouth and you will notice a night and day transformation in the result. Add a thicker iron and you'll find your electric sander being made redundant. Quangsheng replacements are as inexpensive as the tinfoil originals, so there is no reason not to.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 May 2013)

woodbrains":2br6gete said:


> ...
> Hello,
> 
> It does not matter whether or not the adjustable frog is easy to do or not, this is a matter of opinion or ability of the user......


No it's a fact! They are difficult to adjust. The bedrock is only slightly better. The adjustable front sole piece is a vastly superior design.


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2013)

Sure, tight mouth works against tearout. Been there, done that. Even did comparative tests in the same piece of wood planing against the grain. My conclusion was that the mouth needs to be super close. For me setting the mouth was way more cumbersome then using the chipbreaker. And I immediatelly got troubles with chatter on the start of the planing stroke again, like I always had in the beginning of this woodworking hobby.

With the small modification on the front edge of the chipbreaker (like I described earlier) you have a lot more wiggle room. And if it is set a little too far from the edge you still don't get deep teraout, it works a bit like a stop and warns you before you cut a chunk out of your prestine tabletop. BTW, I don't think I've written about setting the capiron 2mm from the edge. 0.2 to 0.3 mm is more like it.

Lately I have been using wooden planes a lot and tight mouths are a bit utopic in these. And another thing, unlike you, I am not the kind of guy who throws away perfectly usable irons. Especially the prewar Stanley blades are mostly very good. Nothing wrong with the chipbreaker either. Even the postwar UK blades are no tinfoil. Certainly not the best in the world, but servicable nonetheless.

And this comes from an Australian Stanley booklet. I wish I could find the original link again.





[/URL]


----------



## AndyT (22 May 2013)

Corneel":14xnodcf said:


> And this comes from an Australian Stanley booklet. I wish I could find the original link again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's on Gary Robert's Toolemera site at http://www.toolemera.com/pampdf/stanleyhintsplaneAU.pdf alongside many other good things.


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2013)

To anyone actually interested in some of the motivation, thought and reasoning behind the design features of planes, you can get it here

http://www.datamp.org/

straight from the horses mouth.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (22 May 2013)

bugbear":34nnan25 said:


> To anyone actually interested in some of the motivation, thought and reasoning behind the design features of planes, you can get it here
> 
> http://www.datamp.org/
> 
> ...



That's a very good reminder!

In case the forum goes very quiet while we all read through the *700* plane-related patents indexed by the good people at DATAMP, you might like to home in on this one in which Mr Stanley explains how his design of frog (with a thin section of sole just behind the mouth) allows adjustment, eliminates chatter and gives the maximum degree of adjustability: http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/advance.php?pn=707365&id=8966&set=84


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2013)

Interesting Andy, but that design was never used. It looks a bit like a precursor of the bedrock design. This would indicate that the Bailey design was not good enough against chatter.

You won't find patents about the chipbreaker effect, because it is much older, long before the patent offices. The oldest know source about the double iron is from an advertisement in an American newspaper (1776 if I remember correctly). Designed for planing curly stuff.






PS, thanks for the link to the toolemera site, Andy.


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2013)

Corneel":1f08fjzt said:


> Interesting Andy, but that design was never used. It looks a bit like a precursor of the bedrock design.



But the bedrock frog (and hence frog seating) is flat, not stepped, really most unlike the Bailey design shown.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2013)

The most important feature of the bedrock design is the sloped surface. This allows full support of frog and blade as low down as possible in all positions. The Bailey design moves the frog in a horizontal path.


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2013)

Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:

http://www.datamp.org/patents/advance.p ... 960&set=90

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (22 May 2013)

Brilliant. I wondered where I would find a "from the horses mouth document" about the bailey style planes. A true goldmine and thanks to those who posted the info.
You can't beat going back to the source to find our exactly what was intended. Good to cut through some of the conjecture and get down to the foundation. Dead Sea Scrolls for the Bailey plane


----------



## AndyT (22 May 2013)

bugbear":1gard8ig said:


> Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:
> 
> http://www.datamp.org/patents/advance.p ... 960&set=90
> 
> BugBear



:idea: 

So _that's_ the Henry Richards you meant earlier. (Some of us are struggling to keep up!)


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2013)

AndyT":1ncm3irn said:


> bugbear":1ncm3irn said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:
> ...



I normally assume people will google things they don't know. I'm not cut 'n' pasting the whole internet for this forum!

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (22 May 2013)

bugbear":16wp7m7z said:


> AndyT":16wp7m7z said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":16wp7m7z said:
> ...



Yebbut...apparently he's not as famous as some other Henry Richards - no presence on Facebook, no LinkdIn profile, not even his own blog!


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2013)

AndyT":26e819o3 said:


> Yebbut...apparently he's not as famous as some other Henry Richards - no presence on Facebook, no LinkdIn profile, not even his own blog!



All true. How shallow modern culture is.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2013)

Nice stuff to read. Of course, you shouldn't read too much into it. The inventor claims that his invention will do something. It doesn't say it will actually do these things. We know from later devellopments (the Bedrock was brought to market), that Stanley wasn't too happy with the chatter from the Bailey planes. We also know from the limitted commercial succes from the Bedrock planes that most users found other ways to deal with chatter in Bailey planes. And from our own experience we know how to avoid chatter in bailey planes, through moving back the frog. 

And of course, all this is just opinion. :twisted:


----------



## woodbrains (23 May 2013)

Hello,

So, where are we at? The plane's frog IS adjustable, was DESIGNED to be adjustable and INTENDED to be adjusted to alter the mouth setting. A fine mouth setting WILL reduce tear out and a cap iron set close to the blade tip WILL also.

Who knew?

The main thing wrong with the Baily pattern is the thin irons and fairly rudimentary cap irons. Change one or both and the lack of chatter frees up the user to set the mouth where he darn well pleases and we have a fully functioning tool. After all, you cannot harp on about the irons being designed thin and are better for it and then on the other hand say that because something was designed that way doesn't mean it works. Install a stiffer iron and everything works!

Mike.


----------



## Racers (23 May 2013)

Hi Mike

Everything is a compromise I guess.

Looks like they where designed to be cheap and fairly effective, a good woody smother or infill plane would give a better finish in difficult woods, but will not be as flexible.

A bailey pattern plane with a very thick blade would work very well, but then you might as well have an infill of woody smoother.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (23 May 2013)

woodbrains":1s3f7h83 said:


> Hello,
> 
> So, where are we at? The plane's frog IS adjustable,


Possible but not easy


> was DESIGNED to be adjustable and INTENDED to be adjusted to alter the mouth setting.


Doubt it. An afterthought IMHO. They were very competent designers and did eventually come up with an adjustable mouth, after a not very good first attempt (the bedrock). They finally arrived at the adjustable sole piece which is the obvious answer.


> A fine mouth setting WILL reduce tear out


Not so well with the ordinary frog (loses support from the mouth hardly worth the bother) but yes with the moveable sole piece


> and a cap iron set close to the blade tip WILL also.


Yes, though BU planes don't have them and seem to work fine. Why is this?


> ...
> The main thing wrong with the Baily pattern is the thin irons


Thin iron is the very strength and main point of the Bailey design which is designed around the concept. Thinness and quick release/replace make sharpening so much easier.
I agree about stayset cap irons, they are better.


----------



## Corneel (23 May 2013)

Point is, you don't NEED to spend money on a new blade and a new caprion. The old ones are perfectly servicable, when you give them full support. And luckily you don't NEED the extremely narrow mouth if you know how to use the chipbreaker. Only thing wrong with them is that the chipbreaker is usually poorly fitted to the face of the blade. You'll have to invest some time in that (which brings us back to the original question).

The Ray Iles blade in my #4 is nice and less chattery then the old blade, but certainly not immune when it doesn't have the full support of the sole. The whole package just becomes more solid when you slide the frog back.


----------



## David C (23 May 2013)

Is it not odd, that all the quality cabinetmaking planes of the last two centuries, have great big thick blades and chipbreakers??

Spiers, Norris, Addis, Mathieson, Holtey, Lie-Nielsen, Veritas, Clifton Sauer & Steiner, Bridge City, Hock, Gordon,...........the list is endless. The wooden bench planes which work so well have the same. I do not see a single modern planemaker chosing to use a thin blade. Jacob will doubtless see this as a deluded modern fashion, but I don't think so.

The Stanley propaganda which recommended thin irons was a cynical ruse to reduce sharpening time. It did this, but performance suffered as a result.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## G S Haydon (23 May 2013)

Hi David,

The only woodworker I know of that promotes the thin blade is P Sellers, his style seems more joinery orientated so I guess he is less demanding on the plane?


----------



## Jacob (24 May 2013)

David C":2a0o99o5 said:


> Is it not odd, that all the quality cabinetmaking planes of the last two centuries, have great big thick blades and chipbreakers??
> 
> Spiers, Norris, Addis, ....


And all the low quality planes too. That's how they made them until Stanley/Bailey introduced the modern plane which swept the board.


G S Haydon":2a0o99o5 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> The only woodworker I know of that promotes the thin blade is P Sellers, his style seems more joinery orientated so I guess he is less demanding on the plane?


You could argue that everybody who uses a Stanley, Record, Acorn, Woden, and a lot of other Bailey copiers, also promote the thin blade. They have the option - they make their choices. Are they all deluded?


> I do not see a single modern planemaker chosing to use a thin blade.


Fashions come and go.

NB it was the thin blade (and ease of adjustment) which made Stanley's and Bailey's name


----------



## David C (24 May 2013)

Cabinetmakers who wanted planes which were better able to tackle hard exotic timbers, valued infill planes above all others for the whole of the last century.

The only selling point for Stanley was that they were relatively cheap. Unfortunately Stanley's response to a diminishing market, which certainly set in after the second world war, if not earlier, was to try and maintain low cost by cutting quality. By the 2000 the tools were unfit for purpose without extensive fettling. I was given a new no 5 at that time which was 6 thou hollow in length. It could not plane a straight edge.

The "fashion" argument is baseless twaddle.

David


----------



## Jacob (24 May 2013)

David C":23q32g0t said:


> ...
> The only selling point for Stanley was that they were relatively cheap. ....


Steel planes were relatively expensive until quite recently. When I was at school the few steel planes were kept in cupboard and only brought out under supervision!
The selling point was the vastly improved performance and ease of use.


----------



## Corneel (24 May 2013)

When you look at planes sold in the last two centuries you see two big ones: Stanley and wooden planes. Both totally different, both very effective at planing wood. Infills were mainly a UK thing, pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things. The same for all the new planes available today, mostly used in the hobby market.

There is no denying that Stanley blades are quicker to sharpen then woodie blades and the Stanleys are easier to adjust. And this comes from a big time wooden plane fan.

BTW, 18th century benchplanes had remarkably thin irons. They needed solid bedding too.


----------



## Racers (24 May 2013)

When I was at school we used wooden jack planes, probably because that was the way it was always done, and if you knock a wooden jack off the bench it doesn't break.

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2013)

Pete, when were you at school? I was there '65 - '72, and we were only shown woodies as an exhibit. We never actually used them at all.


----------



## Corneel (24 May 2013)

BTW, thick irons can chatter too when the bedding isn't correct. My foreplane is a bit like that. Sometimes it chatters in a heavy cut. There is a bit of a bulge in the bed, I should mend that. So, it came as a bit of a surpise to me that people advocate to reduce the bedding in a Stanley plane with a thin iron.


----------



## bugbear (24 May 2013)

Jacob":2egnabx3 said:


> You could argue that everybody who uses a Stanley, Record, Acorn, Woden, and a lot of other Bailey copiers, also promote the thin blade. They have the option - they make their choices. Are they all deluded?



Now that's an *excellent justification* for the usability of the frog adjustment. :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (24 May 2013)

G S Haydon":1hj9hjlv said:


> Hi David,
> 
> The only woodworker I know of that promotes the thin blade is P Sellers, his style seems more joinery orientated so I guess he is less demanding on the plane?



Actually, Sellers actual techniques aren't as rebellious as selective quoting might make then appear.

For example, Sellers carefully flattens the backs of his chisels, using SiC paper on a granite surface plate (because ordinary granite slabs aren't flat enough) and polishes the backs right up to 1500 grit.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (24 May 2013)

phil.p":1dsg9f83 said:


> Pete, when were you at school? I was there '65 - '72, and we were only shown woodies as an exhibit. We never actually used them at all.



Phil, I'm slightly younger than you, but our standard bench tool kit had only one plane per boy, a wooden jack like this 







There were some Stanley number 4s but they were - as Pete said - only released from their protective storage when your work was ready for a last cleaning up stage, to remove weeks of sweat marks and smudgy pencillings!


----------



## AndyT (24 May 2013)

bugbear":3rpzhtht said:


> G S Haydon":3rpzhtht said:
> 
> 
> > Hi David,
> ...



Agreed. And I wouldn't describe his furniture making as 'joinery' either. 

Also, given the numbers sold, I suspect that there are plenty of owners of thin-bladed planes happily getting on and using them, regardless of what one or another pundit may have said.


----------



## Racers (24 May 2013)

phil.p":33wmlvi7 said:


> Pete, when were you at school? I was there '65 - '72, and we were only shown woodies as an exhibit. We never actually used them at all.


Early 70s I am 54, we had a old woodwork teacher, he retired after a couple of years.


Pete


----------



## G S Haydon (24 May 2013)

OK so I didn't make my point very well and please don't think I was trying to put down anyone and their work. It was more an observation that a lot of the P Sellers content on line shows situations where tools aren't pushed to the max or need to be the finest type, such as the bench build. A thin plane iron would work just fine on the bench build kind of project and that kind of project feels to me more joinery orientated. I know he is a high end furniture maker too and like I said my comment was not meant to be a put down.
I guess it's just what works for you the user and the type of work you do. If thin blades and frog set right back work well keep doing it and if thick blades on exotics give you the edge that's cool too.


----------



## AndyT (24 May 2013)

G S Haydon":3gj6ucrc said:


> OK so I didn't make my point very well and please don't think I was trying to put down anyone and their work. It was more an observation that a lot of the P Sellers content on line shows situations where tools aren't pushed to the max or need to be the finest type, such as the bench build. A thin plane iron would work just fine on the bench build kind of project and that kind of project feels to me more joinery orientated. I know he is a high end furniture maker too and like I said my comment was not meant to be a put down.
> I guess it's just what works for you the user and the type of work you do. If thin blades and frog set right back work well keep doing it and if thick blades on exotics give you the edge that's cool too.



I'm sure you didn't mean it as a put-down. I agree entirely if you are talking about his bench build, where one of the points he was making is that you can get started in woodwork without spending thousands of pounds on specialist tools. (A point well worth making, in my opinion.)


----------



## Jacob (24 May 2013)

bugbear":1lpojqm9 said:


> ...
> 
> Actually, Sellers actual techniques aren't as rebellious as selective quoting might make then appear.
> 
> ...


I noticed that and was surprised. But he's only human and can make mistakes just like the rest of us, such as this deviation into crazy sharpening. I expect he will grow out of it!


----------



## Richard T (24 May 2013)

So ... how's the clogging problem coming along? 

I once bought a brand new Footprint jack. No matter how I set it with each pass the shaving would concertina together in the throat and I would have to take the iron out to free it - every time. As years passed and I found out more about planes I would periodically give it another go. Always the same result. I tried opening the mouth but as the shaving was clogging after it had passed through the mouth so in hindsight this seems to have been a pointless exercise. 
I eventually gave it away to a dealer explaining its flaw. I never did solve it. I can only conclude that it must have been something to do with the shape of the cap iron. Its fit seemed fine.


----------



## woodbrains (24 May 2013)

Hello,

Since most of my Bailey planes are 50-90 years old, and cost little, it was usually about time for a blade replacement when I acquired them. It would have been stupid to replace them with a manufacturers original, wouldn't it? Old castings and a new thick iron makes for a very good cabinet makers tool for little money and a fair bit less fuss than the nay-Sayers would have us believe.

A thick blade in a woodie or infil with a fully supportive frog work beautifully, to a great extent, because of the vibration absorbing mass of the blade/cap iron assembly. But a thick blade in these is not supported lower than the back of the blade above the bevel will allow. Logically a thicker blade in a Bailey is supported as low down as could be, so why the out of hand rejection of the idea from some. Just one component upgraded transforms the plane to a fully functional and fine tool, which can rival LN, Clifton etc. for much less. I think my cabinet of planes, aside from some Veritas additions lately, could be bought for the price of one LN try plane. I have a lot of planes.

Incidentally, when I say the frog is adjustable , I do not mean to say that it is done often. I do it to the optimal setting for the job in hand and leave it that way. It has never been optimal for the frog to be set level with the rear mouth for the work I do and I don't intend disadvantaging myself by setting them this way, because the thin irons are essentially defective. It is ludicrous to say that thin irons are prone to chatter, so keep the iron and adjust the plane so it compensate for this and have it perform poorly in another area because of it. If the original iron is still serviceable, then I effectively have two mouth settings without any adjustment other than a blade swap. Brilliant. Better still, since used examples of these planes are dirt cheap, I have more than one plane of often used types, with different mouth settings for different conditions. Like Antonio Banderas in Deperado, I just cast one weapon aside and pick up the next. Come to think of it, once I am set, I nearly never adjust the depth of cut. I just swap plane and go! Efficient! I'm not suggesting everyone should have lots of planes, but let us face it, we all do! A smoother with a fine mouth, one with a super fine mouth and super fine cut and another with a back bevel and I can tackle anything.

Mike.


----------



## morfa (24 May 2013)

Richard T":22niztzz said:


> So ... how's the clogging problem coming along?



I've actually been, y'know, woodworking, so haven't had time to take photos and fiddle. Especially since my initial fiddle and technique adjustment seems to have made a difference.

I've been chopping mortices and cutting tenons for my workbench. So haven't been using the plane. I'm hoping to finish off the workbench over the bank holiday, so I'll try the suggestions out. 

Which is basically move the frog back a tidge?


----------



## Vann (25 May 2013)

bugbear":16f8s9td said:


> Jacob":16f8s9td said:
> 
> 
> > You could argue that everybody who uses a Stanley, Record, *Acorn*, Woden, and a lot of other Bailey copiers, also promote the thin blade. They have the option - they make their choices. Are they all deluded?
> ...


Except that the Acorn has no frog adjuster* (hammer) :lol: (though, to be fair, it does have an adjustable frog)

*at least my single example, a Stanley era No.4, doesn't. Come to think of it, nor do the Record SP04/05s, and I think the Stanley handyman series. Though I hardly think Stanley/Record saw the light, but only improved their cheaper ranges (by removal of adjusters)

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## David C (25 May 2013)

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbrains (25 May 2013)

David C":28zx9pys said:


> Morfa,
> 
> Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.
> 
> David Charlesworth



Hello,

The most likely suspect and the first to fix, most definitely. Then make sure the mouth is smooth and angled outwards, so that the exit side of the mouth is wider than the sole side. This has been mentioned earlier.

After that, I would look at the blade seating. If there is a hump in the frog bed, the whole blade assembly vibrates and can cause the shavings to be rather 'jittery' for want of a better word. These catch on whatever is an obstacle on their way through the mouth and subsequent shavings compound the problem into a jam. Not to mention the poor finish left behind. I even suspect that this form of mechanical chatter can, at its worst, cause the cap iron to open and close from the mouth, letting crumbs and then shavings in. I have had wood between the cap iron and blade, on a perfectly well fitting cap iron, when I have gone over a particularly hard knot, which caused the irons to shudder as they passed. A dull iron can cause this effect also, so make sure your irons are super sharp. The extra effort required and the deeper cutter setting needed to get the plane to cut can be a cause of chatter, unsmooth shavings and clogging.

Dare I say that a sole that is not flat can cause this too. A hollow sole prompts too coarse a blade projection to get to the point of cut and loss of control as a result.

Even timber with a radical grain run out, planed in the wrong direction can cause the blade to judder and invite clogging.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

David C":2oi2o1o9 said:


> Morfa,
> 
> Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,


Unless it _is_ the fundamental problem! 
Good idea to have it back flush with the mouth as detailed as you then have it in the safe "default" position, which I think everybody now understands. 
You can aways try adjusting differently when you have got it sorted, but many don't bother.


----------



## woodbrains (25 May 2013)

Jacob":2k21pin7 said:


> David C":2k21pin7 said:
> 
> 
> > Morfa,
> ...



Hello,

The only fundamental problem is, that Jacob's default position is to totally ignore what anyone who has superbly functioning planes has to say, to argue against what is plainly clear to see from registered designs and archived data on the subject and to generally troll ' till he actually thinks people are beginning to believe his nonsense. 

Jacob has freely admitted hat he has only recently started 'experimenting' with hand tools as this has been lacking in his knowledge until lately. Whereas several contributors here have been tuning and perfecting tools for decades. People posting questions here genuinely wanting to learn clearly have a choice.....

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

woodbrains":2istiipt said:


> Jacob":2istiipt said:
> 
> 
> > David C":2istiipt said:
> ...


Fer gawds sake! I've been using hand planes since about 1980 in serious way. I started a business doing stuff entirely by hand including planing, morticing and everything else until I could afford some machines.
Prior to that I suppose I first used one about 1955 ish. 
My "experiments" have been about looking more closely - especially as a whole new load of information/misinformation has taken centre stage since I started and I've bought (and largely sold on) a number of modern planes. I was never happy with honing jigs so that was one of the first things I ditched in recent years.

Be assured anybody reading this - if you want your plane to work at its best just set the frog back as described (amongst other things). By all means experiment in the ways our "experts" suggest but there is little in the way of magic solutions awaiting discovery, in spite of all the blather!

NB Working entirely with hand tools means planing will take up more of your time than anything else. Most of this is in reducing stuff to size and speed and thick shavings are what is needed. A few people talk as though planing consists entirely of removing very thin shavings from small samples of strange exotic woods. This isn't how it is for most of us.


----------



## David C (25 May 2013)

Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences. Thus altering the sense.

eg omitting "most likely to be"

David


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

David C":38h6vpsf said:


> Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences. Thus altering the sense.
> 
> eg omitting "most likely to be"
> 
> David


 Nonsense.


----------



## woodbrains (25 May 2013)

Jacob":2iym21tw said:


> Fer gawds sake! I've been using hand planes since about 1980 in serious way. I started a business doing stuff entirely by hand including planing, morticing and everything else until I could afford some machines.
> Prior to that I suppose I first used one about 1955 ish.
> My "experiments" have been about looking more closely - especially as a whole new load of information/misinformation has taken centre stage since I started and I've bought (and largely sold on) a number of modern planes. I was never happy with honing jigs so that was one of the first things I ditched in recent years.
> 
> ...



We have different sorts of planes for rough and fine work, to expedite the process, setting the mouth wide has no bearing on the speed we can plane. If , as David C states, the thickest shaving is about 6 thou, then a mouth setting of 7 thou would be ample, in say a jack. Then when fine tools are used, we do not have horrendous tear out to deal with, which will inevitably take us longer in the end.

Jacob, if you worked exclusively with hand tools from the 1980's, would it not have been smarter to discover how they worked sooner than now? It also baffles me somewhat, as to the reason why you still don't know what a scrub plane is for. It would have been a boon in a hand tool only shop for reducing boards to thickness.

Also, you do quote people out of context, you know you do.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

This is a tedious thread.


----------



## David C (25 May 2013)

Jacob,

Your ability to argue that black is white, fortunately devalues your opinions.

This thread was made tedious by you.

David


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

Oooh! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Peter T (25 May 2013)

What are the chances of getting the frog so accurately aligned with the back of the mouth that the iron is actually touching, and supported by, both the frog and the back of the mouth at the same time?? 

Very slim IMHO.

If the frog is set a few microns too far forward, then the iron won't touch the back of the mouth, and won't be supported by it.

If the frog is set a few microns too far back, then the iron will be lifted off the from by the protruding back of the mouth.

The "Safe, default position" may be a nice idea, but one that is virtually impossible to achieve!


----------



## woodbrains (25 May 2013)

Peter T":3iu6d2av said:


> What are the chances of getting the frog so accurately aligned with the back of the mouth that the iron is actually touching, and supported by, both the frog and the back of the mouth at the same time??
> 
> Very slim IMHO.
> 
> ...



Microns! Some here think thou's are too finicky. You are probably correct, though.

Mike.


----------



## Peter T (25 May 2013)

Sorry, in my world microns are used as everyday measurements! 

If you have enough of them you get thou's!!


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2013)

Deleted - yes I'm outa here too!


----------



## Richard T (26 May 2013)

deleted on better judgement.


----------



## Sawyer (26 May 2013)

Richard T":vb5px7g8 said:


> So ... how's the clogging problem coming along?
> 
> I once bought a brand new Footprint jack. No matter how I set it with each pass the shaving would concertina together in the throat and I would have to take the iron out to free it - every time. As years passed and I found out more about planes I would periodically give it another go. Always the same result. I tried opening the mouth but as the shaving was clogging after it had passed through the mouth so in hindsight this seems to have been a pointless exercise.
> I eventually gave it away to a dealer explaining its flaw. I never did solve it. I can only conclude that it must have been something to do with the shape of the cap iron. Its fit seemed fine.


 
My Footprint jack was originally a bit like that. Honed the cap iron to remove gaps (there was some daylight), discovered by trial and error, the optimal distance of the cap iron from cutting edge & frog position and learned to sharpen properly (including introducing a camber to the originally straight edge). It has performed superbly ever since.
Not trendy, but it has done a lot of work.


----------



## bugbear (26 May 2013)

Jacob":2rvdz9pw said:


> David C":2rvdz9pw said:
> 
> 
> > Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences....
> ...



Ooh. Let's see, the evidence is readily to hand.

David C's complete sentence:


David C":2rvdz9pw said:


> Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.



Jacob's version:


Jacob":2rvdz9pw said:


> David C":2rvdz9pw said:
> 
> 
> > Morfa,
> ...



BugBear


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2013)

Err - so what exactly?


----------



## Corneel (26 May 2013)

Peter T":2ccrvn0j said:


> What are the chances of getting the frog so accurately aligned with the back of the mouth that the iron is actually touching, and supported by, both the frog and the back of the mouth at the same time??
> 
> Very slim IMHO.
> 
> ...



Did you ever try it out yourself? It really works, the plane becomes more solid and less chattery. Feeling with your fingers to get frog and sole even is "good enough".

In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.




woodbrains":2ccrvn0j said:


> We have different sorts of planes for rough and fine work, to expedite the process, setting the mouth wide has no bearing on the speed we can plane. If , as David C states, the thickest shaving is about 6 thou, then a mouth setting of 7 thou would be ample, in say a jack. Then when fine tools are used, we do not have horrendous tear out to deal with, which will inevitably take us longer in the end.



That's not how I use and set a plane. I am not thinking beforehand: "this board needs a 6 thou shaving so let me set the mouth at 7 thou". No, I set the plane by feel. In a jack plane, as thick a shaving as I can push comfortably, maybe changing it when I get tired, or when I hit a particular hard patch. The jackplane is often used across the board (when not using electrical jointers) with a camber, both helping to reduce the tearout. Also the chipbreaker is set as close to the edge as possible on that cambered blade, further helping to reduce tearout as much as possible. You won't completly avoid tearout when using a jackplane, that's the smoothers job.

Let me conclude with saying: set your plane however you like and enjoy using it. Keep an open mind to the ideas from others. And discussion forums are meant to be fun, so don't take anything too seriously.


----------



## Vann (26 May 2013)

Corneel":231nn314 said:


> In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.


That's why I the two-piece cap-iron. There's a third pressure point about 1" (25mm) up the iron which considerably reduces or eliminates this "bowing". Heavier one-piece cap-irons (Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, Hock) also help resist the bowing forces.



Corneel":231nn314 said:


> Let me conclude with saying: set your plane however you like and enjoy using it. Keep an open mind to the ideas from others. And discussion forums are meant to be fun, so don't take anything too seriously.


Well said sir =D> 

And on that note of not taking anthing too seriously...


Jacob":231nn314 said:


> Deleted - yes I'm outa here too!





Jacob":231nn314 said:


> Err - so what exactly?


We didn't seriously think you were out of here Jacob. Welcome home (after just 20 hours away... (hammer) )

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

Yes to 2 piece cap iron (sorry I just can't keep away!)



> > .....The "Safe, default position" may be a nice idea, but one that is virtually impossible to achieve!.....
> 
> 
> .....It really works, the plane becomes more solid and less chattery......


Exactly my experience.


> In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.


Aha! In theory the probability of two rigid surfaces actually sitting tight on one another, approaches zero. In theory they can only be guaranteed to touch at one point - if one is relatively convex against the other (sphere on a plate) or two if one is cylindrical (cylinder on a plate). Otherwise just 3 (everything else).
Just thought I'd throw that in to confuse things.


----------



## G S Haydon (27 May 2013)

I'm pleased the two piece cap iron has been mentioned. I purchased a LN chip breaker to use with a standard blade. Apart from a highly improved shape where it meets the blade it bowed the blade just the same or even worse (don't know I didn't think about this before buying one) than a standard item. I am far from an expert on this but it seems unless the blade is strong enough not to deflect when screwed to a chip breaker a two piece is the best solution in a metal plane?
I have a record stay set cap iron and although most people seem to sell the benefit as the ability to sharpen quickly it seems to me the best thing about them is the fact they don't bend the blade therefore making the best out a thin blade. 
I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

G S Haydon":1benpbs8 said:


> ....
> I have a record stay set cap iron and although most people seem to sell the benefit as the ability to sharpen quickly it seems to me the best thing about them is the fact they don't bend the blade therefore making the best out a thin blade.
> I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.


Holds thin blade down tight with improved performance (probably wasted on a thick one?), being quick to remove/replace aids sharpening, makes thin blade more viable which in turn is an advantage as a thin blade is easier to sharpen. I think a SS cap iron is much better added value as compared to buying a fashionable thick blade.


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 May 2013)

G S Haydon":s8uymvey said:


> I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.



I have Record and Clifton stay-set cap irons on most of my bench planes and have been using them for years. The best designed cap iron ever.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbrains (27 May 2013)

Corneel":3lxmejfg said:


> Peter T":3lxmejfg said:
> 
> 
> > What are the chances of getting the frog so accurately aligned with the back of the mouth that the iron is actually touching, and supported by, both the frog and the back of the mouth at the same time??
> ...



Hello,

The bowed blade is a failing of these planes which is why I said earlier ' the problem with Bailey type planes is the thin blade and rudimentary cap irons, change these and everything works'. Why compensate for one lousy component and in doing so deprive yourself of a vital function, an mouth setting that the user is free to choose. 

I do not think of how many thou's I need to remove before I start planing either. The numbers are a way of comunicating a situation in words, so people may have a reference to their own situation. And a wide open mouth still does not dictate the rate of work, which was the point I was making, but it does contribute to tear our. Setting a fine mouth does not preclude other methods of reducing tear out either. I'm not sue why people here like to infer other statements from the one contended and then argue it is wrong. If I say I like the daylight, it does not infer That I do not like the night. Stop telling me the benefits of darkness! The falsehood from this thread is that the frogs are not adjustable (they are) moving the frog back will stop a clogging problem ( it won't if the shaving would fit through the mouth initially, which all indications suggest it would. An ill fitting cap iron would be the most likely cause). There is no 'default setting' of the the frog being level with the rear mouth.

The idea that it might be difficult to set the frog level with the rear mouth, might seem abut extreme when talking about microns( not my contention, do not tar me with that brush please) however, the general idea is worth investigating. The rear of the mouth is seldom well machined an often not parallel to the front. This might result in a frog that was not parallel with the mouth, hence a blade out of parallel to the mouth. Also, is the rear mouth even machined at the same angle as the frog? Are we going to start a whole new fettling thread on tuning the back of the mouth to enable a wide open mouth setting? It is much easier to just resign yourself to the fact that Bailey style planes have one fatal flaw, the blade and cap iron are rudimentary cause of problems, the fix is simple - replace. If you buy a 50 year old plane for a tenner, it is hardly extravagant to treat it to a new iron set and open up the whole potential of functions, rather than trying to compensate and limiting them. The thin arced blade will always be a potential source of chatter, even if you do try to get extra support from the rear mouth, so the effort to compensate ar reasonably futile anyway.

Also, I have never said anyone should not use the plane as THEY wish, this is just another inference that seems to have been read into what has been said. This is almost as bad as Jacob altering people's quotes to find something to argue about, which I think should be against forum rules, incidentally. 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

woodbrains":2b33bdk7 said:


> ......... This is almost as bad as Jacob altering people's quotes to find something to argue about, which I think should be against forum rules, incidentally.
> 
> Mike.


Could you give me an example? It's not something I do, as far as I am aware. Bugbear was saying something similar about a quote from Dave, but as far as I could see it was unaltered. Mystified here!
BTW there is a saying in football along the lines of "play the ball, not the man" which think should be borne in mind. Not least because "playing the man" (personal remarks etc) usually implies that the player doing it has nothing else useful to offer!


----------



## G S Haydon (27 May 2013)

Thanks all,

These final few posts seem to of hit the nail on the head. I think it's fair to say that a standard bailey plane blade and chip breaker would not be up to the job for fine cabinet work on figured and difficult timbers, or when you need that high performance.

That said I think the standard arrangement is ok for site guys an most bench joiners. Dad's old bailey is all standard an it has never held him back in the works of "general joinery"

Finally, and for what it's worth I think I will keep using the thin blades for now, when that certain project comes along that needs the extra level of performance or I need to replace a worn blade a thicker blade and breaker would seem a wise investment. 

Has anyone used the http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Blade.html and chip breaker in a standard record bench plane?


----------



## morfa (27 May 2013)

No gap between the chipbreaker and the blade I'm afraid. Also, as I've mentioned, the chipbreaker has been sharpened, so it's nice and pointy. In the way folk suggested it should be.

Someone mentioned the plane sole - it's a reground plane from Ray Iles, so I'm quite sure the sole is nice and flat.

As I said, I do rather think that technique and a thinner shaving has helped.

I'm probably going to be doing some more planing (taking a break from the workbench build to buy food for the week) later on and I'll have a bash at adjusting the frog back slightly.

It's been sharpened a few times since the thread started, so the chipbreaker is further forwards now.

Anyway, hope you all enjoy your 'discussion'.


----------



## Corneel (27 May 2013)

I have no idea what the limits of a bog standard Bailey plane are. I haven't met them yet. Quarter sawn, ribbon striped jatoba and teak or lignum vitea with grain reversals were no problem for a standard #4 with the original blade, UK made im the 70's or so. There are probably nicer planes to plane that kind of stuff, and in fact I prefer European wood. But these can have their trouble spots too, around knots or so.

I have invested at one time in a Ray Iles iron. Nice thing, seems to stay sharp a little bit longer, sure gives the plane an even more solid feel. But like I wrote, it's not neccessary. Especially not when you prefer European woodspecies. There is no need to start fettling the back of the mouth, it's fine as is, plenty good enough. And I would advice everyone to experiment with the chipbreaker very close, a glint of light, from the edge when smoothing. This works wonders to prevent and repair tearout. In jointers it can be a little bit further away from the edge. It has another advantage, with the chipbreaker in the right spot it straightens out the shavings, helping against clogging too.

BTW, Mike, that was a lighthearted comment at the end of my previous post, meant to relieve the tension a bit. Sorry it didn't work out.


----------



## David C (27 May 2013)

Corneel,

Delighted to hear you get success with the ultra close chipbreaker.

I enjoy discussion, but not being miss quoted by someone who claims not to have noticed!!!

The missing passage was, "what is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker". Page 8.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

David C":q93tyhsq said:


> Corneel,
> 
> Delighted to hear you get success with the ultra close chipbreaker.
> 
> ...


Fer gawds sake! (again) Dave what are you on about?

I quoted you correctly 
_Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,_
copy and paste word for word.

You have misquoted yourself (and been ungrammatical)
_what is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker_ 
when in fact what (which?) you wrote was 
_which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker_.

C'mon pull yourself together! More water in it? Don't let BB draw you astray!

NB I still haven't noticed a misquotation - because there isn't one, except your own. :lol:


----------



## David C (28 May 2013)

It seems you can't distinguish between a comma and a full stop.

A significant chunk of that sentence is missing.

Glasses needed?

David


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2013)

David C":3nq9qc5t said:


> It seems you can't distinguish between a comma and a full stop.
> 
> A significant chunk of that sentence is missing.
> 
> ...


Dave
I was only quoting part of the sentence. Understand? That's how quotations are used - you aren't compelled to quote the whole text. Imagine if you were quoting from Shakespeare - you'd have to write out the whole play every time!
Whereas "misquoting" is to change it - like which/what you did! Glasses needed? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

In any case if I'd quoted the full sentence it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the sense of what I was saying. I don't know what you are banging on about Dave and I think you should give it a rest.

PS I guess he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing....", but I'm not guilty there either. :lol:

PPS and to settle it once and for all here is an expanded version I could have written without snipped quotations



> David C's complete sentence:
> 
> 
> David C":3nq9qc5t said:
> ...



Surely that's enough about frog positions for the time being!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 May 2013)

](*,) It doesn't matter a jot how these threads start, we can always guarantee how they end. :roll:


----------



## Vann (29 May 2013)

Wot he said :!: 

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (29 May 2013)

Jacob":1aqq3vgz said:


> he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing...."



By George, I think he's got it,

BugBear


----------



## morfa (29 May 2013)

phil.p":36wfdq8o said:


> ](*,) It doesn't matter a jot how these threads start, we can always guarantee how they end. :roll:



Phil,

Tell me about it. I just wanted a bit of help about sorting out my plane! However it's better now and in amongst the 'discussion' is some good info, incase I get stuck again.

Morfa


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2013)

bugbear":ng40jw05 said:


> Jacob":ng40jw05 said:
> 
> 
> > he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing...."
> ...


Yes I have , but you have not. 
The quote was snipped (common practice and uncontroversial) but not selectively so that it altered the meaning. 
NB you have done exactly the same yourself above i.e. snipped my sentence but without changing the meaning (of the remainder). That's OK by me. The usual thing is to put stops or something ....... to indicate missing bits, but it's not compulsory.

Isn't it time to give this a rest? It's going nowhere and boring everybody to death including me. And the only misquotation so far in this whole thread, has been Dave's own! :lol:

PS and I'm still waiting for Mick to come up with examples!!!


----------



## rafezetter (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":37j0vc7b said:


> Corneel":37j0vc7b said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).
> ...



Is this essential - to have the sole of the plane at the mouth supporting the back of the blade? I'll have to do some filing I think to make it do that because at the moment the sole angle at the rear of the mouth is more oblique so with the frog set exactly to the mouth, the blade completely clear this, and I think my block planes have the reverse - just barely touching at the mouth edge. And should it be the entire section (matched inline perfectly with the frog as per picture) or can you get away with just the bottom of the mouth touching (file the mouth section more acutely) ?

My lever iron at the front by the mouth also juts out over the cap iron - by about 2 mm or so - do I have to back cut that to reduce the possibililty of things getting wedged under that leading edge (I'd already fettled the cap iron as recommended)... It'll take some grinding to do...


but then, if I move the frog forward to close the mouth tighter the blade isn't touching the sole mouth section anyway....

*scratches head*


oh and is it vital the frog exactly matches the blade too, no gaps?


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Just do your best and don't worry about it!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jun 2013)

Your lever cap shouldn't be anywhere near the edge of the cap iron, let alone be overhanging. I've just looked at three different makes of plane, and they are all between 5mm and 8mm back. I wonder why yours is longer?


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2013)

It seems like you have attracted a bit of a problem child. But before you do any major surgery I would try the plane first and see how it works.

My lever caps all end somewhere on the hump of the chipbreaker.

All the soles of my planes are pretty accurately manufactured to 45 degrees at the back of the mouth. Only a Stanley Handyman from the 1990's vintage has a rectangular cut in that spot. I never got that one right, but it does pretty good work as a scrubplane. 

Because the chipbreaker bends the blade, they never sit airtight on the frog. So that's no problem.


----------



## rafezetter (16 Jun 2013)

Well to be honest Corneel, I don't really have any plane of reference (*groan*). This is my first No.4 I've used (first plane of this type, after a block plane, full stop) it's an Acorn, seems to be ok on the drawer sides for some fit fine tuning I did on a reno project, no tearout long as I went with the grain on pine, and fine enough shreds(??) as I wasn't using it as a smoother, just removal compared to a sander. I've fettled it a bit; back of blade, sole, chipbreaker, scary sharpened to 1200 but I'm wondering if it could be made better with a bit more effort. 

I'm not expecting see-thru 4 thou shavings, BUT if it could provide close to that with some work then I'm happy to do it, plus it'll help me diagnose when my old No.7 fixer-upper ebay special arrives.

as for the lever cap - I could add a small plastic sleeve to the bolt so the leading edge sits more on top of the hump rather than projecting over the front.


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2013)

Experiment a bit, do lots of planing, and it will all come together sooner then later. My humble beginnings were with that Handyman plane, and I now look down on it. But I learned quite a bit from it. When you have some cash floating around I would invest in a Stanley #4 or #5. There are plenty around and the UK made models are mostly plenty good enough. Sharpening is very important, so maybe invest in an oilstone first and a piece of leather for stropping.

If the levercap doesn't clog the shavings I wouldn't worry about it, but filing the edge a bit shorter won't harm it either.


----------

