Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

For the past week I have had a LN #4-1/2 on loan to use in a review. I am having much difficulty getting a reliable shaving from this plane. The owner of the LN lives on the other side of Oz, so I'd like to diagnose the fault, if any, before I contact him.

I should be setting up this bench plane with my eyes closed. I've done this more times than I can remember. What is happening is that much of the time shavings are only emerging from the sides of the mouth, indicating that the blade is only cutting in these sections. Here is a picture:

Now I have checked and re-checked my waterstones. They are flat, flat, flat. I lap them on 220 grit dry wall mesh between every honing when I compare planes in a review. Every blade is honed in a LV Honing Guide Mk II. I am not experiencing any difficulty with the other planes I am using. And just for good measure, I honed and tested my Stanley #4-1/2, and this was fine.

I checked the sole of the LN by covering it in a blue sharpie (Texta or felt tip to us Aussies), and lapped in on 180 and 360 grit W&D. It was absolutely flat (and even flatter now!). I have checked the frog with a straight edge - flat. The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner, who may not actually have used this plane before - the blade looked as though it had its factory grind).

I was not impressed with the blade. The back was far from flat. See here:

Rather than spend hours flattening it, I made sure that the first 1/2" was flat, then used David Charlesworth's tip for a micro-backbevel. A straightedge on the bevel edge post honing (using the camber accessory for the LV honing guide) looked like a decent shape for a smoother, with cambers at the corners. Still, when the blade is set up in the plane and the mouth is closed up, I can feel that the blade sides projected further than the middle section.

In spite of all this, I have been able to obtain full width shavings at times, enough times to completely plane a couple of small boards. The end result was good, but not as great as I expected.

Ideas?

Confused in Perth

Derek

 

[Nick W]

Is the bed the blade is sitting on flat? If there were for instance a ding in the centre of the mouth that might be enough to distort the blade when it is clamped into position.

 

[Woody Alan]

Derek

First off I am no expert and bow to yours and many others experience here. Looking at your micro bevel in your picture something isn't true because the micro bevel isn't consistent across the blade, so either the blade is not flat or your stone isn't flat or your main bevel isn't straight before you apply the micro bevel. Second guess have you tried the blade in a known good body because it's possible the blade is distorting when fitted, thick though it may be. The thing I don't quite get about my first suggestion is if the blade is being honed more at the edges you would think it would cut less at edges. Final stab are you sure it's sharp in the middle of the blade it really doesn't look like it got the micro bevel in the centre so if there is still a tiny burr it won't cut. I still think your stone isn't flat and you're having problems as it's the first time you've tried micro bevel.

Cheers Alan of course I am often wrong but it's fun guessing

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Alan

Just to clarify, the picture of the blade was taken shortly after I began flattening it. It is an early picture, not one at the end.

I do suspect the blade as the main culprit, but ... There is something wierd going on. I did try and use it in my Stanley #4 1/2, but it is not a good fit (although my 4 1/2 uses a Clifton blade of the same thickness). I tried the Clifton in the LN, however it then did the same as the LN blade ...

The other planes used are bevel ups. They planed magnificently - not a hint of a problem anywhere. It cannot be my waterstones or honing in this case.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Midnight]

Derek.. I'm just speculating here.. but it sounds to me that the blade's slightly hollow... I'd forget the ruler trick for now, clart some marker media on the back and polish the back a little on a known flat stone to see what you're dealing with here..

can you explain what you meant with "The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner"...

I've fitted improved breakers to all of my bench planes... 6 of em... never came across anything that'd involve using a file...

gut reaction is to have the blade replaced.. that factory grind should be way better than it looks..

 

[Woody Alan]

Hi Derek

Haven't you answered your own question though? If you put a different blade in that's OK in another plane, it's either getting distorted or the sole isn't as flat as you think perhaps.... Hang on a minute though, what about the top of the blade how flat is that? mind you you did say the clifton blade did the same thing in that body. Is the cap iron as true as you think after filing? this would surely cause some distortion if not true, perhaps a hone on your flat stone may help.

Alan

 

[MikeW]

...I do suspect the blade as the main culprit, but ...
...I tried the Clifton in the LN, however it then did the same as the LN blade ...

If the Clifton blade doesn't do it in its plane but does in the LN--how could it be the LN blade?

Sounds like the sole is twisted, despite the flattening, the frog is askew or warped or something.

Why not shoot TLN himself an email?

Take care, Mike

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

can you explain what you meant with "The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner"...

Mike

The plane sounds to be an old model. I seriously doubt that the owner has actually used it! Still, he recently bought the improved cap iron to replace the old version (which was similar to the Stanley one). He sent it along. As part of preliminary tuning, I run the underside over a very fine diamond stone.

I agree about the blade - I could not believe that this was an LN. It was hollow like a Japanese blade. But I was able to hone the edge flat, so DC's tip seemed a reasonable strategy at this point.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Ian Dalziel]

Derek,
seems a strange one....youve had a few good theorys to try.
I first thought the blade....seems like a friday afternoon blade on the grinder but if it works fine in the clifton then blade seems ok.

I suspect the frog has a slight machine mark or bump in it....can you balance the tightness of the lever cap till its hardly clamping but still is and try it.
or to measure it sit on a granite plate and use an adjustable arm dial clock with base and run the width of the frog this is quite hard to do but is acheivable ...to see if its out...also check inside the plane body where the frog mounts is even.

DC might come along and answer this one as its more his forte....i'm still an apprentice.

Ian

 

[David C]

Derek,

Interesting problem.

If the blade was significantly hollow, could there be a pronounced bump in the width of the opposite side? The one that seats on the frog. Try checking just behind the heel of the bevel. When pressed down by the lever cap, this might cause the corners to stick out.

I have had trouble with opposite faces, {of other blades}, in the past, as the blanks are held down by a powerful magnetic chuck which can temporarily flatten a twisted blank, when they are surface ground.

The blade seems suspect and I know Tom will replace it, or the whole plane if necessary.

Is the frog surface flat in its width, where the heel of the bevel sits. Is it still flat when the frog is fixed down.

I suggest you email or phone Tom tomorrow and he will put you in touch with his Australian agent if time is short.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[deirdre]

In my experience diagnosing mystifying problems:

There's multiple causes, thus making diagnosis more difficult than it should be.

1) I suspect the LN blade has some issues.
2) I think the frog is also possibly an issue.
3) There may be a third as well.

Assume no piece is known good (except for the sole you flattened).

I'm guessing you flattened it under tension, but have you looked at the sole without tension just to see if that would tell you anything?

 

[JesseM]

From what you describe and the way the shavings look it looks like the sole has a problem. Because the LN blades are so thick I wouldn't think they would deflect very easily which makes me think it is the sole.

I have the #4 1/2 and a couple of other LNs and haven't had any problems. In fact I think its kinda scary how tuned and ready to go mine have come.

 

[Alf]

Elementary deduction* would seem to point the finger of suspicion at the frog, assuming you didn't use the LN cap iron with the Clifton iron. If you did, then the cap iron is a suspect too of course. Tsk, these bevel down planes with all their extra bits and pieces, eh? :roll: :wink:

Cheers, Alf

* Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's birthday today, so that's appropriate.

 

[bugbear]

Since the 2 blades exhibit the same problem, I'm guessing it ain't the blade.

So it sounds like the blades are getting bent in use. The clamping forces are easily strong enough to do that, despite the thickness of the Clifton and/or LN blades.

And say you've checked the frog.

What about the part of the SOLE that contacts the blade?

Or the bed the frog rests on?

Something is distorting the blade. Possibly indirectly.

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

Or the frog adjusting screws/pins or the holes in which they fit?

Paul

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

OK, I've had another look at the whole plane following all the excellent suggestions here and on WC.

As an aside, it is quite an interesting adventure when something like this occurs - it makes one so much more aware of the balance between components in getting everything to work together, and to do so well.

The major culprit has been the blade. This is largely a fault of manufacture, but partly (I believe) a consequence of the honing technique I used with this blade.

Firstly, I went through the plane with a fine tooth comb, again. The sole is flat. The mouth is flat and square. The frog is flat, and sits flat on the body. The cap iron is flat and spreads the load properly. I used just enough tension via the screw and lever cap to hold the blade firmly and so avoid undue distortion of the blade. By now I was a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society.

So back to the blade. Now, the picture I posted earlier has been misunderstood by many as representing how it looked when I used it. Not so. Not nearly so. I took the picture to document the state of the blade when I got it, and shortly after I began trying to flatten the back. Some suggested that I had overdone the micro-backbevel.

I decided to regrind the blade on my belt sander set up and then re-hone on the LV Mk II, in other words, go from scratch. Here is the bevel after my belt sander (120 grit). All this did was tidy up the bevel. You can still see the microbevel.

The problem - I believe - lay with the camber jig I used or, rather, with the way I used the camber jig. I suspect that I applied too much central pressure, which caused the bevel to become slightly hollowed. A straight edge revealed that this was so (too difficult to photograph). So I put away the camber roller and used the straight roller instead. Again honed a final microbevel on 8000 grit and finished with Veritas green rouge.

The result was much, much better. On Rock Maple (with some soft pockets that tore out easily), with the grain, the #4 1/2 planed pretty well. The shavings were somewhat erratic, that is, the thickness was not stable, and gradually the centre section began to labour. Very prematurely, the plane stopped cutting. Clearly, the blade did not hold an edge and was softer in the centre than at the sides.

I re-honed and exchanged the Clifton blade for the LN, keeping the LN chip breaker and settings. The Clifton is the same thickness as the LN. Now we were cooking!! Finally the #4 1/2 was working as I expected it to. Behind the #4 1/2 you can see the shavings made by three planes during the review planing.

The shavings from the #4 1/2 here were made against the grain (45 degree frog).

While the review was principally about the Marcou smoother, I shall be compiling another mini review of the LV BUS and LN 4-1/2 head-to-head.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[hockeydad]

Derek,

Sorry I don't have an answer but I'm very interested because I have the same problem. My 4 1/2 has a york pitch and is a couple of years old. I have had the problem from the time that I received it. I have 2 Stanley type 11's, one with a hock replacement blade and the other with an original. I also tried switching blades to no avail. Both Stanley's consistently outperform the LN to the point that I quit using it. In a pm to you a few weeks ago, in which I requested your opinion on purchasing the LV Jack or the BU smoother, I briefly mentioned that I was contemplating getting rid of the LN because I couldn't get it "right". This was the problem...

As an aside, I did, on your recommendation, purchase the Jack and I culdn't be more pleased. There is no question that as soon as school tuitions are paid this spring a new BU will be in the mail to replace the "ornery" LN.

 

[Alf]

Well that doesn't make any sense, if the Clifton was doing the same thing as you said it was. I'm perplexed. :?

Cheers, Alf

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Alf

I must have honed a slight hollow on the Clifton before using it on the LN first time around. This was very slight however, but just enough to produce the same effects (only much, much milder) as the LN blade. So I stopped using it as soon as it appeared.

The hollow on the LN was more pronounced. Plus the steel appears to be softer, which is why the hollow was more pronounced to begin with, and then stopped cutting (a dozen or so strokes was all I got).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Alf]

So... how come you weren't getting the same effect on the other blades? :-k

Not to get at you, Derek, I'm just genuinely interested.

Cheers, Alf