The cap iron is sort of like driving a stickshift in the city and then finding out that an automatic is available and using it. You still have to be able to drive, but if you ever go to a city with bad traffic and drive a car with a tall first gear and a stickshift, you'll fall in love with an automatic.
As far as setup goes, the little traces of this are everywhere until planes got cheap (cheap meaning manufacturers started to cut corners and leave tuning and fitting up to you, because the budget wasn't there to have someone making everything just so). I recall the first prewar norris plane I got, I thought, "well, if the mouth is really tight, I won't be able to set the cap close, and I'll have to just use the plane as a pattern and build another". What I actually found was a very deliberate filing of the front of the mouth above the sole so that the cap could be set all the way down, but the plane would still work with a mouth that's no more than a hundredth. The setup more or less becomes the same for all of these planes, and bad performance is a matter of defect and not design problems. What I'm getting at here is that I could state for a double iron plane that I've not used, but of familiar pattern, i could guarantee how the best setup would be achieved. Ttrees is correct in this case. Of course, you can get by with a less good setup (that's cumbersome to say), but there's no reason to do it when better is free.
FWIW, I actually did it "your way" for 6 years, but didn't make a move to do a lot of the rough work with planes until the latter part of that period. I find working with machines dissatisfying and confusing, because I'm disorganized and creative, as opposed to organized and not so creative. I don't have the brain type that enjoys a massive cut list, follow the steps and see if it fits together at the end, or see if you mis-made something. Hand dimensioning closes that gap and keeps me involved the whole way, but it took four years for me to figure that out. I think others would like it, too, and the cap iron is the one link in the chain that gets people there. I've gotten better at using machines since then (even if you're disorganized, experience makes things easier), but still only use them when time counts.
Ttrees question about direction of planing even when there's not tearout tells me he's on the right track.
It not that curious to me that people would throw a fit about the cap iron (you are not included in this comment, and you're entitled to get triggered regardless), and refuse to do something that would make their day easier, just because they don't like where the message is coming from. I'm sure there were plenty of people who resented the only person who was really beating a drum about it 10 years ago (Warren Mickley) and wanted to prove him wrong because they thought he was a troll. That's too bad, I guess - I've always tried the things that people suggest (when I have disagreed with them) - because whether I like them or not, if their way is the best way, I'm going to do it.
As far as setup goes, the little traces of this are everywhere until planes got cheap (cheap meaning manufacturers started to cut corners and leave tuning and fitting up to you, because the budget wasn't there to have someone making everything just so). I recall the first prewar norris plane I got, I thought, "well, if the mouth is really tight, I won't be able to set the cap close, and I'll have to just use the plane as a pattern and build another". What I actually found was a very deliberate filing of the front of the mouth above the sole so that the cap could be set all the way down, but the plane would still work with a mouth that's no more than a hundredth. The setup more or less becomes the same for all of these planes, and bad performance is a matter of defect and not design problems. What I'm getting at here is that I could state for a double iron plane that I've not used, but of familiar pattern, i could guarantee how the best setup would be achieved. Ttrees is correct in this case. Of course, you can get by with a less good setup (that's cumbersome to say), but there's no reason to do it when better is free.
FWIW, I actually did it "your way" for 6 years, but didn't make a move to do a lot of the rough work with planes until the latter part of that period. I find working with machines dissatisfying and confusing, because I'm disorganized and creative, as opposed to organized and not so creative. I don't have the brain type that enjoys a massive cut list, follow the steps and see if it fits together at the end, or see if you mis-made something. Hand dimensioning closes that gap and keeps me involved the whole way, but it took four years for me to figure that out. I think others would like it, too, and the cap iron is the one link in the chain that gets people there. I've gotten better at using machines since then (even if you're disorganized, experience makes things easier), but still only use them when time counts.
Ttrees question about direction of planing even when there's not tearout tells me he's on the right track.
It not that curious to me that people would throw a fit about the cap iron (you are not included in this comment, and you're entitled to get triggered regardless), and refuse to do something that would make their day easier, just because they don't like where the message is coming from. I'm sure there were plenty of people who resented the only person who was really beating a drum about it 10 years ago (Warren Mickley) and wanted to prove him wrong because they thought he was a troll. That's too bad, I guess - I've always tried the things that people suggest (when I have disagreed with them) - because whether I like them or not, if their way is the best way, I'm going to do it.
