no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily

[G S Haydon]

FWIW I have found the hand tools section of this forum hard going at times, but I'm coming around to it. As a joiner from the modern age any hand planning I did would limited to removing an arris, ease a gap or work on site. I'm looking forward to reviewing the info here as I refurb my planes. I must confess to ignorance on my shaving thickness, although I'm looking forward to experimenting. Thanks to everyone for sharing your experience,

 

[Corneel]

The answer could be to scrub. i.e. use a narrow plane with a steeply cambered single iron and a wide mouth. I've been fiddling with various options and am amazed at how fast and easily you can rip off material. Could be a problem near the knots though.

Yes I use a narrow German scrub first, then a wooden foreplane. You should watch out with the scrub, easy to go too deep or ruin the edges of the board or so. I now feel that I could use something in between my scrub and my foreplane. I'll dig through my set of planes to see what I have. After the foreplane I follow up with a Stanley #7. It's weird, the first set of strokes feels like nothing happens because you only take of the tops of the ridges left by the cambered blade. Mostly working across the board, then diagonally. Only working along the grain at the end with the jointer.

I am not a very strong guy, so I think I take rather light shavings, otherwise I can't push the plane. But I try as thick as possible, otherwise it takes forever. Jointer shavings I guess something like 0.2mm. Smoother shavings 0.05 to 0.1mm. Sometimes on really difficult wood, wanting to tear out all the time, you need to go thinner. But it's quite a while ago since I meassured shavings.

 

[G S Haydon]

Corneel,

I prepared some boards for the bottom of my tool chest by hand http://pinterest.com/pin/519532506983647434/ . I used the number 6 fore with a cambered blade to flatten and level, a number 8 to get a flat reference surface and number four to smooth it off. I felt like an apprentice again. Although I enjoyed the process and I will want to perfect it I don't always see myself wanting to prepare my own timber by hand (unless it's to wide to do by machine or I want to do it).

 

[Paul Chapman]

I now feel that I could use something in between my scrub and my foreplane.

You could use a plane with a toothed blade, which is parfticularly good for avoiding tear out. Demonstration here by Deneb Puchalski http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8Tj1lU ... F&index=31

I use one in a bevel down plane - usually a #7



Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Corneel]

That would be an idea worth looking into. Does it remove a lot of material quickly, without too much physical input? On a small piece like Deneb planes, it's no trouble to use the normal planes, but on my 210x40 cm boards I could get some help, just to save energy.

I thought Kunz had a toothing blade for Stanley planes?

Another of my tacticts in this project, I don't do it in one rush. Just an hour here or there.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Does it remove a lot of material quickly, without too much physical input?

I find it quite easy to use, without too much effort. You can take heavy or light shavings depending on what you are trying to achieve. Here's a picture of mine being used in my Record #7 to flatten some Sapele boards which used to be part of a staircase



The blade I have is the one from Kunz. If you use the blade in a bevel-down plane you need to set the cap iron back a fair distance so as to stop shaving getting jammed between the blade and cap iron (see previous picture). I ground some metal off the end of the cap iron so that I could get it sufficiently far back.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Corneel]

Thanks for the tip.

 

[woodbrains]

I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable. But it certainly isn't the best feature of the (otherwise pretty brilliant) Bailey type planes. Adjusting the frog is a pain with the screws under the blade. What I do know is that adjusting the frog is not neccesary, and I know that you can get extra support when you set the frog flush with the sole. And extra support with these thin blades is a welcome feature.

Hello,

It does not matter whether or not the adjustable frog is easy to do or not, this is a matter of opinion or ability of the user, but adjustable they most definitely are. In fact a finely set mouth is more significant to tame tear out than the cap iron. Since most people set the cap irons too far back to have any effect anyway ( 2mm Jacob is as good as not having one) not being able to (not allowing oneself the facility) to set a fine mouth is a double jeopardy.

Yes, my blades flap about in the breeze, no matter where I set the frog, because the rear mouth does not contact the blade anyhow! But a better cap iron stiffens the blade assy, so I can have a fine mouth adjustment.

It does not matter who uses the plane; cabinetmaker, joiner, whoever, the shaving only needs a tiny amount thicker than itself to pass and it will not clog. If the shaving is 4 thou, then a 5 thou mouth is plenty. It will never clog, unless the cap iron is poorly fitted. A wider mouth is just going to cause torn grain, so why would you want it wide? Theoretical extra support from the rear mouth, but the plane produces tear out-what use is that then? A stiffer blade assy and a fine mouth is what you want, no chatter and no tear out.

If you are only using undemanding wood, then it really doesn't matter if there is any cap iron effect and the mouth is wide enough to post letters through, but then you really shouldn't have an opinion on how to set up a plane. If you do use more demanding wood, treat yourself to a better cap iron and a fine mouth and you will notice a night and day transformation in the result. Add a thicker iron and you'll find your electric sander being made redundant. Quangsheng replacements are as inexpensive as the tinfoil originals, so there is no reason not to.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

...
Hello,

It does not matter whether or not the adjustable frog is easy to do or not, this is a matter of opinion or ability of the user......

No it's a fact! They are difficult to adjust. The bedrock is only slightly better. The adjustable front sole piece is a vastly superior design.

 

[Corneel]

Sure, tight mouth works against tearout. Been there, done that. Even did comparative tests in the same piece of wood planing against the grain. My conclusion was that the mouth needs to be super close. For me setting the mouth was way more cumbersome then using the chipbreaker. And I immediatelly got troubles with chatter on the start of the planing stroke again, like I always had in the beginning of this woodworking hobby.

With the small modification on the front edge of the chipbreaker (like I described earlier) you have a lot more wiggle room. And if it is set a little too far from the edge you still don't get deep teraout, it works a bit like a stop and warns you before you cut a chunk out of your prestine tabletop. BTW, I don't think I've written about setting the capiron 2mm from the edge. 0.2 to 0.3 mm is more like it.

Lately I have been using wooden planes a lot and tight mouths are a bit utopic in these. And another thing, unlike you, I am not the kind of guy who throws away perfectly usable irons. Especially the prewar Stanley blades are mostly very good. Nothing wrong with the chipbreaker either. Even the postwar UK blades are no tinfoil. Certainly not the best in the world, but servicable nonetheless.

And this comes from an Australian Stanley booklet. I wish I could find the original link again.

[/URL]

 

[AndyT]

And this comes from an Australian Stanley booklet. I wish I could find the original link again.

[/URL]

It's on Gary Robert's Toolemera site at http://www.toolemera.com/pampdf/stanleyhintsplaneAU.pdf alongside many other good things.

 

[bugbear]

To anyone actually interested in some of the motivation, thought and reasoning behind the design features of planes, you can get it here

http://www.datamp.org/

straight from the horses mouth.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

To anyone actually interested in some of the motivation, thought and reasoning behind the design features of planes, you can get it here

http://www.datamp.org/

straight from the horses mouth.

BugBear

That's a very good reminder!

In case the forum goes very quiet while we all read through the 700 plane-related patents indexed by the good people at DATAMP, you might like to home in on this one in which Mr Stanley explains how his design of frog (with a thin section of sole just behind the mouth) allows adjustment, eliminates chatter and gives the maximum degree of adjustability: http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/advance.php?pn=707365&id=8966&set=84

 

[Corneel]

Interesting Andy, but that design was never used. It looks a bit like a precursor of the bedrock design. This would indicate that the Bailey design was not good enough against chatter.

You won't find patents about the chipbreaker effect, because it is much older, long before the patent offices. The oldest know source about the double iron is from an advertisement in an American newspaper (1776 if I remember correctly). Designed for planing curly stuff.

PS, thanks for the link to the toolemera site, Andy.

 

[bugbear]

Interesting Andy, but that design was never used. It looks a bit like a precursor of the bedrock design.

But the bedrock frog (and hence frog seating) is flat, not stepped, really most unlike the Bailey design shown.

BugBear

 

[Corneel]

The most important feature of the bedrock design is the sloped surface. This allows full support of frog and blade as low down as possible in all positions. The Bailey design moves the frog in a horizontal path.

 

[bugbear]

Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:

http://www.datamp.org/patents/advance.p ... 960&set=90

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

Brilliant. I wondered where I would find a "from the horses mouth document" about the bailey style planes. A true goldmine and thanks to those who posted the info.
You can't beat going back to the source to find our exactly what was intended. Good to cut through some of the conjecture and get down to the foundation. Dead Sea Scrolls for the Bailey plane

 

[AndyT]

Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:

http://www.datamp.org/patents/advance.p ... 960&set=90

BugBear

:idea:

So that's the Henry Richards you meant earlier. (Some of us are struggling to keep up!)

 

[bugbear]

Here's the "main" patent concerning the frog design in later Baileys:

http://www.datamp.org/patents/advance.p ... 960&set=90

BugBear

:idea:

So that's the Henry Richards you meant earlier. (Some of us are struggling to keep up!)

I normally assume people will google things they don't know. I'm not cut 'n' pasting the whole internet for this forum!

BugBear