"Flattening" Chip Breaker

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
El Barto":pj3katdo said:
Out of interest, when buying Bailey planers on eBay etc is there any way of telling if the item truly is one of the older models?
Yes but you're going to have to immerse yourself a bit in the culture of Stanley planes to be able to reliably spot what's early, what's early and the stuff from later (which in Stanley plane circles is after WW2).

CStanford has posted the link to one of THE reference sites, you should also look through the rather unfortunately titled Patrick's Blood & Gore.

As you'll see one of the easy reference points for really early ones is the keyhole-shaped hole in the lever cap (prior to a change to a kidney shape), along with no name cast down near the nose. But as lever caps can become separated from the plane they were originally associated with you can sometimes find an older one on a later plane so you have to look at other details as well. Ditto early blades could be in a later plane, later (even present-day) irons could be in an early one because the previous ones were worn down near to the slot, were believed to be too rusted to salvage, or the body just became separated from its iron set.

El Barto":pj3katdo said:
I got a No. 5 planer off there a while back and it has moulded plastic handles... they reek of poor quality.
Don't let plastic handles alone put you off, some decent users are sold with plastic handles. And your Stanley could have the best examples of those going! No kidding. I picked up a plastic-handled no. 4 of English manufacture recently for next to nothing (basically free with the Acorn I was buying) and the material the handles are cast in has a nice feel, but more important than that the rear handle (the part you'll invariably read called a tote on American sources) is the best shape of any of the smoothers I own, actually superior to the later-era rosewood handles that Stanley produced where some compromises were made on shape for reasons of production efficiency, at the expense of ergonomics.
 
ED65":usy211n8 said:
El Barto":usy211n8 said:
Out of interest, when buying Bailey planers on eBay etc is there any way of telling if the item truly is one of the older models?
Yes but you're going to have to immerse yourself a bit in the culture of Stanley planes to be able to reliably spot what's early, what's early and the stuff from later (which in Stanley plane circles is after WW2).

CStanford has posted the link to one of THE reference sites, you should also look through the rather unfortunately titled Patrick's Blood & Gore.

As you'll see one of the easy reference points for really early ones is the keyhole-shaped hole in the lever cap (prior to a change to a kidney shape), along with no name cast down near the nose. But as lever caps can become separated from the plane they were originally associated with you can sometimes find an older one on a later plane so you have to look at other details as well. Ditto early blades could be in a later plane, later (even present-day) irons could be in an early one because the previous ones were worn down near to the slot, were believed to be too rusted to salvage, or the body just became separated from its iron set.

El Barto":usy211n8 said:
I got a No. 5 planer off there a while back and it has moulded plastic handles... they reek of poor quality.
Don't let plastic handles alone put you off, some decent users are sold with plastic handles. And your Stanley could have the best examples of those going! No kidding. I picked up a plastic-handled no. 4 of English manufacture recently for next to nothing (basically free with the Acorn I was buying) and the material the handles are cast in has a nice feel, but more important than that the rear handle (the part you'll invariably read called a tote on American sources) is the best shape of any of the smoothers I own, actually superior to the later-era rosewood handles that Stanley produced where some compromises were made on shape for reasons of production efficiency, at the expense of ergonomics.

That's interesting. I hadn't quite written off the planer but the handles didn't exactly inspire confidence. I haven't put it to enough use to really know if it's any good, nor would I really know what to look for anyway!
 
I have plastic handles on my number 5, which i bought in error off t'web and to be honest i don't mind them. Mine is an old Bailey which had a broken wooden handle and now has a plastic one but i also have a much later number 4 which had a plastic handle when i bought it new as a young man with no knowledge of provenance. It's rubbish compared to my other planes and i hardly ever use it.
 
As a second comment to the modern planes - the type 20 smoother that I have and like is the one plane I have gotten that had a soft iron in it. I'm convinced that the iron is similar to what David Charlesworth talks about when he mentions the very soft irons of the 70s. No clue why they were made like that.

Just this last year, I purchased a sheffield made plastic handled stanley plane for 20 bucks to see how it would work. The iron in it was actually quite good (that is not a statement that all of them will be, though). It was much later than the 1970s. Unfortunately, the adjuster was cast so oversize that it didn't fit in the slot on the cap iron and the whole thing was literally suspended several millimeters off of the frog with zero hope of ever actually touching the frog. I enlarged the hole, but never found enough favor for the plane otherwise (it had a huge mouth, which I'm not a fan of on a smoother, because it makes it hard to do things like bevel the ends of small parts).

I do much appreciate having the extra screws, posts, a decent iron and a cap iron from that plane.

I wouldn't write off that plastic handled plane quite yet. If the iron and cap iron are as good as the one in my plane, and the rest of the plane is functional without having a giant mouth, then it should work pretty well. I just got a dud.
 
I thought it was worth mentioning that the top/beveled surface of a c/b needs to be well finished as well.

Approximately 1 1/2 degrees of clearance angle will be formed on the underside, if a small wooden prop is used for the top of the c/b. This prop should be about 3 mm below the surface of the stone. The edge of the stone only can be used and the short honing stroke is at rightangles to the length of the stone.

The persistent wire edge problem can be solved by working each face in turn, using fewer and fewer strokes, on finer and finer stones.

This is conveniently managed if the c/b is held in an Eclipse type guide.

This work is shown in my plane sharpening DVD and a new version will be available soon. The old version is on sale from my website shop.

Best wishes,
David
 
I generally go through three steps with the cap iron, depending on the type:
* the old woody type or on old infills are often neglected - I work on the 80 grit lap, then on a mid grit stone and then a strop with dursol polish. That makes the wire edge weak if it stays
* on the stanley type, usually just something like a mid grit diamond hone, a fine oilstone and then strop off the wire edge on a strop with dursol polish.

The cap irons that I've seen on most old planes lead me to believe that the users weren't using the cap irons to control tearout, even on infills that have a fairly large mouth. I wonder what the users were doing, but I guess it doesn't really matter.

I think I prepared my last plane last night (except for newly made woodies that I have no idea who they'll go to), but this stuff should generally be easy and more is made of it than there is to it.
 
i have all pre 1950 record planes and have them all with the stay set cap ironand i think this is the best thing as it sits 100% flat to the blade giging the whole blade mor ridgidity i had all the problems with the original cap iron blade marriage until i was in a mates joiners shop and he showed me the stay set cap iron if its good enough for record and clifton then its good enough for all of us.
 
I've got some of each from record and prefer their copy of the Stanley type, but I guess it's a personal choice.
 
CStanford":yp3miz2h said:
El Barto":yp3miz2h said:
Doing a bit of sharpening today and on a couple of second hand planes the chip breakers don't sit perfectly flush with the iron.

A few goes on the stone gets an improvement but still got gaps on both sides. Is it just a case of working the breaker on the stone until it's square and flat?

I'm sure somebody must have already mentioned it but you need to figure out if the breaker is high in the middle or the plane iron has a bump or it's a little of both. Hopefully, it'll just be the breaker since the steel is soft and easy to remove. You can easily put selective pressure on the breaker where it's high while rubbing it on an oilstone or sandpaper on a flat surface.

This video may be of some help. Maguire has a no-nonsense, direct approach to getting tools ready for work and not making a career out of hand plane tuning. As with any woodworking instruction there will always be those who have quibbles. Judge it for yourself.

If your cap iron is just a wreck, sometimes it's easier to replace it on the vintage market or aftermarket new.

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/pre ... ker-video/

Just seen this. Thanks for the link, I actually had already seen the video and a few of his others - really enjoy his approach, like you said, no nonsense.
 
CStanford":20cujura said:
Good luck with your woodworking.

Thank you.

Incidentally, I got the plane restored and the cap iron flat (or at least close to flat) and have put it to use.

At first I tried The English Woodworker's method of placing the cap iron VERY close to the edge of the blade. It worked for a bit and then started to cause some really nasty tearout and clog up quite badly. I took the cap iron and blade to the stone and strop and gave it another go, same problem. Any ideas what might be causing this? I placed the cap iron about 2mm from the blade and the problem went away, but still interested to know what I might have been doing wrong.
 
Sounds like the cap iron isn't fitting properly you still have a small gap that the shavings are getting caught in, the further away settings gives the shavings time to curl away from the gap.

Pete
 
Not enough clearnace angle under the tip of the capiron, so you still have a gap at the very edge? Or is there still a wire edge clinging to the capiron edge? And how tight is the mouth? I would open it a bit to 1mm or so.
 
El Barto":1yekkooc said:
CStanford":1yekkooc said:
Good luck with your woodworking.

Thank you.

Incidentally, I got the plane restored and the cap iron flat (or at least close to flat) and have put it to use.

At first I tried The English Woodworker's method of placing the cap iron VERY close to the edge of the blade. It worked for a bit and then started to cause some really nasty tearout and clog up quite badly. I took the cap iron and blade to the stone and strop and gave it another go, same problem. Any ideas what might be causing this? I placed the cap iron about 2mm from the blade and the problem went away, but still interested to know what I might have been doing wrong.

The board needs to be pretty flat for super close cap iron settings to work this is especially so if the plane sole is a little convex and sort of bobs its way down the board cutting deeper in spots and refusing to cut in others.

You need to see if the shavings are jamming in the throat of the plane or jamming between the cap iron and the cutter. Huge difference. If jamming in the throat then move the frog back a little to open it up. If jamming between the cap iron and cutter then you may still need to do a little work on the cap iron. Note that you can get the cap iron so close that it causes the plane to stop cutting altogether and/or it immediately jams with material. It needs to be moved back a little from there to state the obvious.

If you've back beveled the iron a very close setting may not work at all but you shouldn't need one as you'd be planing at a higher effective angle and eliminating tear out that way -- a perfectly legitimate way to work.
 
I agree with the sentiments above. When you take the plane apart, if there are shavings between the iron and cap iron, there is a fit issue still. If there are not, then:
* cap iron was set too close (which should just result in a scraping cut, but it will create a clog - however, that will not create tearout unless you are planing directly across grain
* there isn't enough clearance between the mouth and the cap iron. A mouth of a 32nd to a 16th is fine on a smoother, if it's really tight, back it off.

It'll be worth the trouble when you get it to work.
 
El Barto":33ardq5m said:
I got the plane restored and the cap iron flat (or at least close to flat) and have put it to use.

At first I tried The English Woodworker's method of placing the cap iron VERY close to the edge of the blade. It worked for a bit and then started to cause some really nasty tearout and clog up quite badly. I took the cap iron and blade to the stone and strop and gave it another go, same problem. Any ideas what might be causing this? I placed the cap iron about 2mm from the blade and the problem went away, but still interested to know what I might have been doing wrong.

Was it you Barto that said you often pass through Hampshire? I'm a bit snowed under getting stuff out of the workshop for Christmas, but if you're still struggling in the New Year then drop by the workshop and we'll get your plane sorted, you can help yourself to some hardwood off-cuts at the same time if you want something to practise on. I'm on the coast, mid way between Bournemouth and Southampton.

Good luck!
 
custard":3fniweuu said:
El Barto":3fniweuu said:
I got the plane restored and the cap iron flat (or at least close to flat) and have put it to use.

At first I tried The English Woodworker's method of placing the cap iron VERY close to the edge of the blade. It worked for a bit and then started to cause some really nasty tearout and clog up quite badly. I took the cap iron and blade to the stone and strop and gave it another go, same problem. Any ideas what might be causing this? I placed the cap iron about 2mm from the blade and the problem went away, but still interested to know what I might have been doing wrong.

Was it you Barto that said you often pass through Hampshire? I'm a bit snowed under getting stuff out of the workshop for Christmas, but if you're still struggling in the New Year then drop by the workshop and we'll get your plane sorted, you can help yourself to some hardwood off-cuts at the same time if you want something to practise on. I'm on the coast, mid way between Bournemouth and Southampton.

Good luck!

That'd be amazing! My mum is just outside Andover so I'm often down there and will be for Christmas. Even if you need an extra pair of hands over Christmas or the New Year I'd be more than happy to come and help in exchange for some tips (will try not to **** anything up too badly :twisted: :D ).

Edit: Having said that all in my earlier post about the plane, I was definitely seeing an improvement with it the more I used it, especially after moving the cap iron away from the edge and opening the mouth a bit. Like D_W said "* cap iron was set too close (which should just result in a scraping cut, but it will create a clog - however, that will not create tearout unless you are planing directly across grain" - I'm sure this was the problem. I may have been mistaking tearout for scraping?!

And like CStandford said, the board needs to be flat for my initial setup to work... and it wasn't. Thanks all for the comments.
 
Great that you're seeing an improvement in your plane, but not so great if you have to move the cap iron right back in order to stop shavings getting trapped.

DW has done a great job publicising the benefits of a closely set cap iron, and there's no denying that it's a transformative technique. With a closely set cap iron you don't have to fear tear out even on wild grained and difficult timbers, consequently you're spared the faff of scraping, back bevels, high pitched frogs, and all the other paraphernalia that I've previously had to use to get a clean finish on highly figured timbers.

It would be a real shame if the only way you can get your plane to perform is by setting the cap iron far back, and it really doesn't have to be that way.

Try David Charlesworth's trick of setting up a simple platform 3mm lower than the height of your stone, and use that to clean up the cap iron mating surface consistently and accurately. Then get the back of your plane iron good and flat and you should be good to go.

But no problems if you can't get it resolved, let's swap PM's in the new year and we'll get your plane singing in double quick time!

Good luck!
 
custard":19ftp2ao said:
Great that you're seeing an improvement in your plane, but not so great if you have to move the cap iron right back in order to stop shavings getting trapped.

DW has done a great job publicising the benefits of a closely set cap iron, and there's no denying that it's a transformative technique. With a closely set cap iron you don't have to fear tear out even on wild grained and difficult timbers, consequently you're spared the faff of scraping, back bevels, high pitched frogs, and all the other paraphernalia that I've previously had to use to get a clean finish on highly figured timbers.

It would be a real shame if the only way you can get your plane to perform is by setting the cap iron far back, and it really doesn't have to be that way.

Try David Charlesworth's trick of setting up a simple platform 3mm lower than the height of your stone, and use that to clean up the cap iron mating surface consistently and accurately. Then get the back of your plane iron good and flat and you should be good to go.

But no problems if you can't get it resolved, let's swap PM's in the new year and we'll get your plane singing in double quick time!

Good luck!

Thanks, I'll give it another go. Incidentally when I hold the assembled cap iron and plane iron up to the light, the only visible gaps are very slightly at the edges - nothing in the middle. This led me to believe that a gap in the middle wasn't the problem. However ... I'll go back and give it another go.

If I understand David Charlesworth's technique correctly, is it basically the same as what's being done in this video (except with a 3mm difference rather than whatever is being used here)? https://youtu.be/fVfJxDFNinc?t=211
 

Latest posts

Back
Top