FWIW, ECE mentions making their planes so the irons bed on only three points (and how this affects the lateral adjustment of their planes). Makes sense. The last thing you want is a hump, that's for sure.
bendy cap irons
- Thread starter nabs
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
If you think I might not know much about planes, by the way, here is a recently made plane - I made this 100% by hand. No electricity, not even for roughing or resawing the billet it came from.
It awaits a handle, which can't be made until the future owner of it is known. I've done quite a lot of planemaking of various types of planes to get to this point. It's funny that the two types of planes that vexed me as a beginner are the two types that were used to make this one. No chatter. This is beech, of course.
Early in my planemaking, I was dead set on making "improved" planes that were better than anything I could buy. I made single iron wooden planes and single iron infill planes. It took that hardheadedness and experience to learn why leonard bailey's planes sold so well and why this type of double iron plane wiped out single iron planes in all but economy grades. It took a little longer to figure out how to shape the cap and plane so that it would feed reliably (and the cap is shown in the picture as I drawfiled it to give it an appropriate geometry for a wooden plane - it's later sheffield make and a bit fat at the business end. Or was a bit fat. The shape of lord stanley's work is very close to the shape of this cap where it meets the wood.
http://s27.postimg.org/u5x8qjxab/20160221_160217.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/giml4ldtv/20160221_160228.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/pcdhlp0sj/20160221_160306.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/ii36w085f/20160221_160327.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/vfv25lr2b/20160221_160357.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/pnuxygh8j/20160221_160420.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/l0ovwotvn/20160221_160529.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/9x9v4txz7/20160221_160623.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/fiwa8vyo3/20160221_160724.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/bqhtq9phf/20160221_160831.jpg
It awaits a handle, which can't be made until the future owner of it is known. I've done quite a lot of planemaking of various types of planes to get to this point. It's funny that the two types of planes that vexed me as a beginner are the two types that were used to make this one. No chatter. This is beech, of course.
Early in my planemaking, I was dead set on making "improved" planes that were better than anything I could buy. I made single iron wooden planes and single iron infill planes. It took that hardheadedness and experience to learn why leonard bailey's planes sold so well and why this type of double iron plane wiped out single iron planes in all but economy grades. It took a little longer to figure out how to shape the cap and plane so that it would feed reliably (and the cap is shown in the picture as I drawfiled it to give it an appropriate geometry for a wooden plane - it's later sheffield make and a bit fat at the business end. Or was a bit fat. The shape of lord stanley's work is very close to the shape of this cap where it meets the wood.
http://s27.postimg.org/u5x8qjxab/20160221_160217.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/giml4ldtv/20160221_160228.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/pcdhlp0sj/20160221_160306.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/ii36w085f/20160221_160327.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/vfv25lr2b/20160221_160357.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/pnuxygh8j/20160221_160420.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/l0ovwotvn/20160221_160529.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/9x9v4txz7/20160221_160623.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/fiwa8vyo3/20160221_160724.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/bqhtq9phf/20160221_160831.jpg
Solid craftsmanship. I'd be proud of it.
Surely folks must realize that Bailey's design wasn't his first drawing of the thing. I'm sure he went through many iterations and trials.
That people expect the same performance from later, poorly executed Bailey copies in substandard materials speaks for itself I'd say.
Stanley or Record of good vintage will give good service, as history has proved.
Surely folks must realize that Bailey's design wasn't his first drawing of the thing. I'm sure he went through many iterations and trials.
That people expect the same performance from later, poorly executed Bailey copies in substandard materials speaks for itself I'd say.
Stanley or Record of good vintage will give good service, as history has proved.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
LEONARD BAILEY, OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
Letters Patent No. 72,443, dated December 24, 1867.
IMPROVEMENTIN GARPENTERS PLANES.
TO ALL PERSONS TO WHOM vTHESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
Be it known that I, LEONARD BAILEY, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Bench-Planes; and I do hereby declare the same to be fully described in the following specification` and represented in the accompanying drawings, of which- Figure 1 is a top view, and
Figure 2, a longitudinal section of a plane-iron and its cap-iron, and their holding-devices, such cap-iron being constructed in accordance with my improvement.
Figure 3 is a longitudinal section of the plane-iron and cap-iron, as ordinarily constructed, that is to say, with one bend, a, only near the bearing-edge of the capiron. l
My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.
The cap-iron, as commonly constructed, that is, as shown at D, in tig. 3, when applied to the plane-iron E, will rest thereon only at the extreme lower end of the cap-iron, and also at or very nearits upper end. There will be along angular space, between the two irons, when they are clamped together by the holding-devices which are represented in figs. 2 and 3, at A, B, and C, and consist of a screw, A, a bearing, B, and ay cam-lever, C, arranged in a manner well'known.
The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.
In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, b, (see figs. 2 and 3,) ata short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main benda, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and l, so as to cause the cap-iron Dto bear on the plane-iron Ein threelplaces, or at the toe and auxil-V iary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel 'or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D completely obviates the diiculty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement.
In all bench-planes the plane-iron must project slightly beyond its bed or bearing, the edge of the bed beyond which it projects serving as a fulcrum to the force of the pressure of the cap upon the extreme edge of the planeiron. When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. K
What I claim asV my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent in the adaptation of thin steel to the plane-irons of bench-planes, is-
The auxiliary point of impact between the cap and the thin planeiron, at the point or portion thereof where the thin/steel tends to buckle under the pressure of the cap upon theprojecting edge of the plane-iron, substantially inthe manner described.
LEONARD BAILEY.
Witnesses:
R. H. EDDY, IF. P. HALE, Jr.
Letters Patent No. 72,443, dated December 24, 1867.
IMPROVEMENTIN GARPENTERS PLANES.
TO ALL PERSONS TO WHOM vTHESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
Be it known that I, LEONARD BAILEY, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Bench-Planes; and I do hereby declare the same to be fully described in the following specification` and represented in the accompanying drawings, of which- Figure 1 is a top view, and
Figure 2, a longitudinal section of a plane-iron and its cap-iron, and their holding-devices, such cap-iron being constructed in accordance with my improvement.
Figure 3 is a longitudinal section of the plane-iron and cap-iron, as ordinarily constructed, that is to say, with one bend, a, only near the bearing-edge of the capiron. l
My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.
The cap-iron, as commonly constructed, that is, as shown at D, in tig. 3, when applied to the plane-iron E, will rest thereon only at the extreme lower end of the cap-iron, and also at or very nearits upper end. There will be along angular space, between the two irons, when they are clamped together by the holding-devices which are represented in figs. 2 and 3, at A, B, and C, and consist of a screw, A, a bearing, B, and ay cam-lever, C, arranged in a manner well'known.
The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.
In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, b, (see figs. 2 and 3,) ata short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main benda, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and l, so as to cause the cap-iron Dto bear on the plane-iron Ein threelplaces, or at the toe and auxil-V iary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel 'or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D completely obviates the diiculty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement.
In all bench-planes the plane-iron must project slightly beyond its bed or bearing, the edge of the bed beyond which it projects serving as a fulcrum to the force of the pressure of the cap upon the extreme edge of the planeiron. When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. K
What I claim asV my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent in the adaptation of thin steel to the plane-irons of bench-planes, is-
The auxiliary point of impact between the cap and the thin planeiron, at the point or portion thereof where the thin/steel tends to buckle under the pressure of the cap upon theprojecting edge of the plane-iron, substantially inthe manner described.
LEONARD BAILEY.
Witnesses:
R. H. EDDY, IF. P. HALE, Jr.
There may be some early types of the frog that have a gap between the frog and the casting. I can't recall if I've had stanley planes of that type, but I know I've had KK planes and ohio planes that had a span that the iron was unsupported. I don't like them much.
Most stanley planes that you'll find will allow you to set the frog flush with the casting and the iron will be supported all the way down as far as it can be supported. If you have one of the early types of frogs where the iron goes unsupported for a span, that may be part of the problem.
Once you learn to use the cap iron, there's no good reason to set the frog anywhere other than flush with the casting to get the most support possible for the iron down at the end. Ideally, you want it to be resting at the edge of the bevel on the back.
When you build an infill plane, if you do the best you can, you do the same thing with the iron. There is wood there, but it is more desirable to have a bias so the metal is a bit proud and the iron is not bedding on the wood except at the top of the plane. It beds on the metal just above the bevel for the best fit possible and the most support possible.
I know bailey advocated being able to close the mouth of the plane, but I'd imagine that the frog was more beneficial to the maker by given them something easier to manufacture than a one-piece plane.
Most stanley planes that you'll find will allow you to set the frog flush with the casting and the iron will be supported all the way down as far as it can be supported. If you have one of the early types of frogs where the iron goes unsupported for a span, that may be part of the problem.
Once you learn to use the cap iron, there's no good reason to set the frog anywhere other than flush with the casting to get the most support possible for the iron down at the end. Ideally, you want it to be resting at the edge of the bevel on the back.
When you build an infill plane, if you do the best you can, you do the same thing with the iron. There is wood there, but it is more desirable to have a bias so the metal is a bit proud and the iron is not bedding on the wood except at the top of the plane. It beds on the metal just above the bevel for the best fit possible and the most support possible.
I know bailey advocated being able to close the mouth of the plane, but I'd imagine that the frog was more beneficial to the maker by given them something easier to manufacture than a one-piece plane.
I think Holtey beds his irons on three metal buttons (for lack of a better term) inserted into to the wood of the infill.
CStanford":3ugnj2w3 said:
Thanks for the kind words, Charley.
If Leonard didn't get it right on the first try (later planes came with lateral and thicker castings), Stanley certainly had enough chances to figure out what the market wanted. And plenty of others introduced things that got no traction.
Ohio tools at one point made a cap iron design that is a lot like the current "improved" cap irons, but it got no traction in the market. The iron was thick but no better than stanley's and I'd imagine some people used to hand grinding thin irons didn't find much favor in it.
There are also other vintage irons that are thicker, but again, no traction. If the market of professionals saw no need for a thicker iron and heavier cap iron, i can't imagine what the current market of amateurs thinks they can "improve". I followed that mentality, that there's an easy improvement around the corner for everything, but the improvement is in the craftsman, and if the craftsman improves, it's no surprise that they will begin to favor what professionals favored.
Same thing exists in the world of chisels. It looks like there are a whole lot of hand tool woodworkers who like something styled similar to a ward or marples chisels more than they like a modern interpretation of a construction chisel made 4 clicks harder on the rockwell scale. I've been through that, too, and must admit that nothing is better to use than vintage english carbon steel chisels.
CStanford":3qfvu0pi said:
I don't know the configuration for sure, but he does prefer metal bits to bed the irons in at least some planes, and as I recall his discussion of his S designs (I think that's what they are), it's clear he doesn't much appreciate the inability to control the bed of a wooden infill in the long term without them.
He's a solid fellow.
Interesting stuff David.
Agree with you on the chisels wholeheartedly.
Agree with you on the chisels wholeheartedly.
David C
In Memorium
Just for the record, I had nothing whatever to do with the design or sale of L-N new improved chipbreakers.
I have used them since they first came out and they work very well indeed, a fact which D-W seems to be in denial over.
Sorry OP, I have never seen a Stanley C/B touch the blade back in 3 positions.
David Charlesworth
I have used them since they first came out and they work very well indeed, a fact which D-W seems to be in denial over.
Sorry OP, I have never seen a Stanley C/B touch the blade back in 3 positions.
David Charlesworth
My Record cap irons all touch the cutter at top and bottom before the screw is tightened (but not in the middle), then they touch in the middle when the screw is tightened. I'm assuming this is a good thing. They seem to work fine.
Perhaps the overall design, itself, leaves scope for variance but still provides good performance?
Blissfully ignorant in Memphis....
Perhaps the overall design, itself, leaves scope for variance but still provides good performance?
Blissfully ignorant in Memphis....
David C":2rg0aqnm said:
That is again outside the scope of what I said. I said they're not an improvement on vintage cap irons.
The only "improvement" that could be speculated is comparing a misused and abused vintage cap iron to a new milled cap iron.
I still can't figure out why lie nielsen prepares them with a flat front on them, but they know less about the cap iron than I do, too. You might not like it, but it's just plain truth. They certainly know a lot more about mass producing metal planes, but they didn't know what a cap iron was for when they made their improved version, something which is easily known based on the fact that they shipped many planes with cap irons drilled such that they couldn't get all the way to the edge of the iron without running out of travel on the adjuster. And they got caught up in that goofiness of making steeper frogs - as if professional users wouldn't have demanded that were it necessary. That again is a bandaid for beginners, something in lieu of learning to set a cap iron, which is something that can be learned in a matter of a couple of weeks - all the longer it took for me to get the hang of it in a vacuum with no assistance or data.
They otherwise make nice planes, they're nice people, they service customers well and they provide people with planes that are very close to ready to use. But an experienced user gains nothing with their gear or any other new gear. I never gained any time with it at the bench, either, and i'm quite happy now to have irons that work well with a washita stone, another lost art in the day of "flatten it every time" guide sharpening. Everything is taught as paint by number now, which is a shame.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Thick cutting irons (say 2.5mm and thicker) are stiff enough not to vibrate in service, and thus cap-iron design and bedding are less critical.
Thin cutting irons (2mm or less) are flexible enough to vibrate (chatter) in some circumstances, and need more attention paid to stiffening up by use of a suitable cap-iron design and better trapping against the frog bed. This was discovered by Leonard Bailey many years ago, hence his patent to alleviate the problem, allowing him to use thinner irons successfully. Most modern cap-irons in thin-ironed Bailey-type planes do not, for some reason unknown, accord with the provisions of Bailey's patent, leaving the planes liable to chatter in adverse circumstances.
This is not just abstract theory. It accords with observation and practical experience.
(Engineering note - stiffness is proportional to the cube of thickness, so only a relatively small increase in thickness of a plane iron will give a significant increase in stiffness. Conversely, only a small decrease in thickness will give a significant increase in flexibility.)
The rest is just noise.
Thin cutting irons (2mm or less) are flexible enough to vibrate (chatter) in some circumstances, and need more attention paid to stiffening up by use of a suitable cap-iron design and better trapping against the frog bed. This was discovered by Leonard Bailey many years ago, hence his patent to alleviate the problem, allowing him to use thinner irons successfully. Most modern cap-irons in thin-ironed Bailey-type planes do not, for some reason unknown, accord with the provisions of Bailey's patent, leaving the planes liable to chatter in adverse circumstances.
This is not just abstract theory. It accords with observation and practical experience.
(Engineering note - stiffness is proportional to the cube of thickness, so only a relatively small increase in thickness of a plane iron will give a significant increase in stiffness. Conversely, only a small decrease in thickness will give a significant increase in flexibility.)
The rest is just noise.
Corneel
Established Member
Stanley planes with thin irons do not chatter.
Unless the blade is dull, or the lever cap way too loose or something like that. The exact curvature of the capiron is not critical.
Unless the blade is dull, or the lever cap way too loose or something like that. The exact curvature of the capiron is not critical.
I have two No.4's. A super fettled Stanley, pre 60's vintage. I did everything to that. Initially I fit it with a very thick Sorby iron but with a modified standard chipbreaker. Sometime later I bought a thick Ray Iles blade and a two piece Clifton chip breaker. Not once have I found it to work any better thatn the 50's Record No.4 that I bought for £15 (including the postage!). That was fettled too but only the sole and the blade. The frog, mouth or chipbreaker wasn't touched. In fact the Stanley sits on the shelf, unused for almost a year. I work some pretty hard woods, Ebony, Rosewood, Bubinga, Oak. I think it would need to be very exceptional circumstances for it to chatter. I haven't tried the knotty endgrain but I'd almost certainly wet that endgrain before it even saw a plane. I sometimes plane endgrain Ebony but that is in thin stuff, 8 mm 's thin which isn't that much of a test, even in Ebony endgrain.. I've a feeling my 70's Stanley No.5.5 would pass the knotty end grain test, even without wetting it. I'll give it a go. Just don't expect a full width shaving.
I suspect Paul Sellers is right when he attributes chatter to friction of the sole of the plane:
https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/
Or I guess somebody would have to come up with a reason why a plane chatters on one pass and then does not on the next after the sole is lubricated.
Might make sense to try the easy fix first. The cost is a candle-stub.
https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/
Or I guess somebody would have to come up with a reason why a plane chatters on one pass and then does not on the next after the sole is lubricated.
Might make sense to try the easy fix first. The cost is a candle-stub.
Cheshirechappie":tpdrqyai said:
Some of the old frog designs that leave the iron suspended may chatter (I can't say, I don't keep those types because I don't like the gap between the frog and casting). The designs that have the frog going all the way to the casting do not chatter unless the user causes them to.
As charlie pointed out, Sellers is correct that it's an issue of too little wax. I plane the ends of the planes that I just showed. No wax, and the planes skip. Wax, and they do not.
For what it's worth, I plane the ends of those (and not particularly thin shavings) using a vintage iron that's been sharpened only with a washita and a bare strop (I am not chasing the atom to prevent chatter).
I can't remember the last time I got true chatter from a stanley or millers falls (the two type of planes I have on hand) plane. Sometime before learning to set the cap iron, I guess.
There is one other thing that appears fairly often in stanley type planes that haven't been used in a while, and that's a rear handle that feels tight to the hand, but isn't quite tight. It will cause a plane to skip (but not cause the iron to chatter).
I appreciate that leonard said what you printed in the patent, but it would appear to be out of date as it's not an issue with most of the stanley planes that have been made (in number), especially the ones people are likely to be using.
All of this discussion has sent me out to peebay to see if I can snag another 4, they are common as water.
But Jeez, the price of them has gone up in the last couple of years.
I once (in my early days of much tool rotation) had one with rubber handles, and I thought it was hard on the eyes because of the rubber handles. They were probably somewhere around wartime. I'd like to get another one of those. The rubber that was used, thinking back, was quite nice. It wasn't cheap feeling like plastic, but it didn't rub your hands raw, either.
But Jeez, the price of them has gone up in the last couple of years.
I once (in my early days of much tool rotation) had one with rubber handles, and I thought it was hard on the eyes because of the rubber handles. They were probably somewhere around wartime. I'd like to get another one of those. The rubber that was used, thinking back, was quite nice. It wasn't cheap feeling like plastic, but it didn't rub your hands raw, either.
Corneel
Established Member
CStanford":13yms037 said:
Hey I learned something from this thread! Thanks for the link Charly. I was fitting a replacement piece for a doorsill tonight, just a bit of carpentry work in meranti. I had cut it just a tad too long. When planing the endgrain to make it shorter, the plane squealed quite horribly. I didn't really detect chatter marks, but I didn't look very closely either. Anyway, a dab of wax on the bottom of the plane and the squeal was gone, planing was much smoother.
Similar threads
