Clifton Bench Planes one piece cap iron - anyone tried it

[Cheshirechappie]

Just to clarify something. There are two separate issues here - cap-iron settings used to control tear-out, and flexibility of cutting irons when paired with different cap-iron designs, and how that affects their behaviour in use.

Using a cap-iron to control tear-out by adjusting it's distance set from the cutting iron edge won't have any significant effect on a cutting iron's flexibility. It will affect the timber ahead of the cutting edge, and consequently the surface finish achieved. That's been discussed in great depth elsewhere, but is NOT the issue my comments above relate to.

How a cutting iron is supported in a plane when paired with different styles of cap-iron WILL affect it's response in use when the cutting edge enters the wood; in other words, when a load or force are applied to the cutting edge. The different details of clamping will directly affect how the cutting iron's flexibility is controlled - the way in which the cap-iron transmits the lever cap force to the cutting iron, and thus how the cutting iron beds against the frog surface. The lack of contact between cap-iron and cutting iron, and between cutting iron and frog surface, with some cutting iron/cap-iron pairings is what can lead to 'blade flutter' or 'chatter' from thinner, more flexible cutting irons. That's the subject of my comments.

 

[D_W]

I think the cap iron being set correctly reduces chatter, though, even though it doesn't change the properties of the iron and cap iron. That's my experience. I don't know why for sure but suspect it has something to do with evening out the cut behavior.

 

[Vann]

But I haven't had any problem planing anything with a stock stanley. I had gobs of problems with the same years ago before I learned to set the cap iron...

...and I never had problems with chatter prior to that, and I use a stock stanley 4 a LOT. Let me revise - I did have problems with chatter when I was a beginner. Once the planes were set up correctly, I can say for sure that the planes will stop me in my tracks or skip before they chatter, unless the cut is intentionally rank and the cap iron set off a little.

I think here we have the problem. DW has lots of experience planing, and knows how to correctly set up a handplane to get the best from it and avoid chattering, fluttering, skipping, etc.

These days very few schools teach woodwork, and most carpentry apprentices hardly ever use a handplane for fine work. For the home hobbyist it's worse. It's hard to find how to set up a handplane and use it without problems (and remember that the two point contact between the cutting iron and the frog that Cheshirechappie describes a page back is NOT what Leonard Bailey's patent describes, but is what every "Bailey" plane has come with since ~ the 1930s). There's plenty to read about fine tuning and tecnique, but little access to those who can pass on what they know - in person (the best way).

The two-piece cap-iron achieves, what Leonard Bailey intended with his one-piece cap-iron - and so eliminates one of the many problems facing the inexperienced handplaner - who is scratching his head trying to figure out what the hell he's doing wrong, while having no-one to show him. You experts are so skilled you've forgotten the pitfalls that we learners face.

The two-piece has helped me.

I contributed to a thread on the poor seating of cutting irons on frogs, some time ago, with photos of ill fitting (by Leonard's standards) irons. I'll try to find a link.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Vann]

Here we go: 2nd to last post on this page shows the patent.

about-thick-cap-irons-t80018.html?hilit=patent%20leonard&start=15

Five posts later (on the next page), pictures of a whole series of cap-irons that fail to meet the patent design.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

The two-piece cap-iron achieves, what Leonard Bailey intended with his one-piece cap-iron - and so eliminates one of the many problems facing the inexperienced handplaner - who is scratching his head trying to figure out what the hell he's doing wrong, while having no-one to show him. You experts are so skilled you've forgotten the pitfalls that we learners face.

I really don't want to weigh in on this but I feel I must. Back when I was a rank amateur with a shiny new Bailey-style plane I think I experienced chatter a couple of times. That was early on (first few months) and as far as I can remember never, not once, have I had the problem since. Now from reading posts on all the woodworking forums I think I struggled much less than the average learn-as-you-go woodworker but I didn't magically jump from rank amateur to expert, yet the problem went away.

I can't say whether it was improved technique, better sharpening (I am sure by itself that's not it), tightening the cap-iron screw more tightly (v. doubtful) or all three that has avoided it but I can say it had nothing to do with set up/fettling since no extra work was done on any part.

And of course it had nothing to do with whether the cap iron matches the Bailey patent.

So I think the thing about metal bench planes not conforming to the patent is "Interesting, but...". If you're correct that most/all Bailey-style planes since the 30s don't match the patent, and we can take it as a given that most of those sold were used by pros to earn their living, then by definition this is a Red Herring since clearly it doesn't appear to matter much in practice.

 

[Trafalgar]

My shorter planes chattered early on, years ago. Then they quit. I fettled nothing. Maybe it was a squiggle of candle wax that put it all right. Probably was. I always put wax on them now. Planes don't chatter. Don't have cap irons set uber-close either. Wooden ones I've used, even years ago, never chattered.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

My shorter planes chattered early on, years ago. Then they quit. I fettled nothing. Maybe it was a squiggle of candle wax that put it all right. Probably was. I always put wax on them now. Planes don't chatter. Don't have cap irons set uber-close either. Wooden ones I've used, even years ago, never chattered.

Perhaps Charlie, you just got used to how to plane correctly? Happens to all of us, sooner or later!

 

[Trafalgar]

Dunno Tony. I read all this 'stuff' and wonder if it's a skill that could be mastered in one lifetime.... :roll:

 

[Corneel]

I certainly believe that simple, regular skill in using a handplane plays a role in chatter. At least the kind of chatter you get when entering the cut, those skid marks on the front side of the board where the plane starts the cutting stroke. Putting enough pressure on the front end of the plane helps tremendously to reduce this skipping, as does a bit of skewing.

Other kinds of chatter, halfway the board are more rare. Here are some circumstances I can get this washboard effect.
- Rabbet planes in a deep cut. Especially my more modern wooden ones where the wedge only clamps down the blade high up. I have a newer Nooitgedagt like that. It's not a bad plane but in a deep cut it really likes to chatter.
- As mentioned, in end grain. And really, waxing the plane sole helps! For a while. It is also a sign of reduced sharpness. A sharper blade will cut easier so the forces don't build up so much. In end grain you sooner reach that point of too much resistance.
- I have two wooden jackplanes. One likes to chatter in deep cuts, the other doesn't. I should have a look at the bedding or the fit of the wedge in this plane, but it doesn't really mater in jackplane work.

With my old Stanleys I can't remember chatter in long grain planing. Even quite hard stuff like Jatoba. My Stanleys all have the frog pulled back so the iron rests in the frog and that little bit of the sole at the back of the mouth. I also set the capiron relatively close to the edge.

A long long time ago :mrgreen: when I still was a rank beginner I had the usual troubles with my Stanleys. I bought a thick iron from Ray Iles and it cured a lot of problems, the plane felt much more sturdy. But since then I have slowly but surely replaced the original irons again. My #4 still has the Iles iron, but my #3 doesn't and I don't feel that much difference anymore.

So, all in all it is not rocket science, just some attention to details and gaining some skill in using a plane.

 

[nabs]

good news plane fans! Millers Falls solved plane chatter in 1929 when they introduced their new planes with a fancy two part lever cap. The mind boggles!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...plane april 1929&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have bought one to find out what all the fuss is about.

 

[Corneel]

Marvelous! I want one too!

 

[ali27]

A plane blade should be thick enough to resist bending. A chip breaker should
do what it's name says.

A thin plane blade with a thick chipbreaker does not perform as well as a thick
plane blade with a thin chip breaker, at least not in my experience. I tried this
with the thin tsunesaburo samurai laminated plane blade and a 2 piece clifton
plane blade. The blade would get wicked sharp, but not perform as well as
the thicker blade in heavier cuts.

I think for a stanley type plane 4mm would be a good thickness. 2 mm is clearly
too little. 3 mm is much better.

The chipbreaker should only be tightened slightly so it can stay put and do what it
is intended for, breaking chips. This way there is no bending of the plane iron and it
will rest flat on the frog.

It's a pity modern tool companies are selling us plane
irons that have the same hardness overall whereas the japanese are making
plane blades that have a thin strip(1mm or so) of very hard(64-66 HRC) steel and
a thick(3-4mm) upper part of much softer steel. This makes maintaining the geometry
of the iron much easier.

I think this is way more important than discussing a chipbreaker, yet there isn't much
talk about it here. Don't tell me about hollow grinding. I don't like powertools and I
don't want that grit floating in the air.

I have proposed this before. Toolmakers could just make plane blades of 1 mm thick and
glue a 3mm or so thicker piece of mild steel on top of it.

Ali

 

[Corneel]

Well, that has the been one of the subjects of this thread. It seems that plenty of people are happy with their 2mm thin Stanley irons (and all those other millions of craftsmen who bought Stanleys and Records and all that in the past). I feel no need at all to upgrade, and the thinner blade has the advantage of being super easy to sharpen.

I do like the early laminated Stanley planeblades though. Much better to have them forged like that then glued (imo).

 

[ali27]

Well, that has the been one of the subjects of this thread. It seems that plenty of people are happy with their 2mm thin Stanley irons (and all those other millions of craftsmen who bought Stanleys and Records and all that in the past). I feel no need at all to upgrade, and the thinner blade has the advantage of being super easy to sharpen.

I do like the early laminated Stanley planeblades though. Much better to have them forged like that then glued (imo).

I'd like them forged as well, but I think that is too much hassle/time for companies like Lie Nielsen and Veritas.
That is why I thought glueing would be an easier/cheaper option.

My experience is that the 3mm blades perform much better than the 2mm. The 2mm performs ok when planing easy
wood and with a thin setting. I agree no need to update if the 2mm does the stuff for you.

Ali