no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily

[Racers]

Pete, when were you at school? I was there '65 - '72, and we were only shown woodies as an exhibit. We never actually used them at all.

Early 70s I am 54, we had a old woodwork teacher, he retired after a couple of years.


Pete

 

[G S Haydon]

OK so I didn't make my point very well and please don't think I was trying to put down anyone and their work. It was more an observation that a lot of the P Sellers content on line shows situations where tools aren't pushed to the max or need to be the finest type, such as the bench build. A thin plane iron would work just fine on the bench build kind of project and that kind of project feels to me more joinery orientated. I know he is a high end furniture maker too and like I said my comment was not meant to be a put down.
I guess it's just what works for you the user and the type of work you do. If thin blades and frog set right back work well keep doing it and if thick blades on exotics give you the edge that's cool too.

 

[AndyT]

OK so I didn't make my point very well and please don't think I was trying to put down anyone and their work. It was more an observation that a lot of the P Sellers content on line shows situations where tools aren't pushed to the max or need to be the finest type, such as the bench build. A thin plane iron would work just fine on the bench build kind of project and that kind of project feels to me more joinery orientated. I know he is a high end furniture maker too and like I said my comment was not meant to be a put down.
I guess it's just what works for you the user and the type of work you do. If thin blades and frog set right back work well keep doing it and if thick blades on exotics give you the edge that's cool too.

I'm sure you didn't mean it as a put-down. I agree entirely if you are talking about his bench build, where one of the points he was making is that you can get started in woodwork without spending thousands of pounds on specialist tools. (A point well worth making, in my opinion.)

 

[Jacob]

...

Actually, Sellers actual techniques aren't as rebellious as selective quoting might make then appear.

For example, Sellers carefully flattens the backs of his chisels, using SiC paper on a granite surface plate (because ordinary granite slabs aren't flat enough) and polishes the backs right up to 1500 grit.

BugBear

I noticed that and was surprised. But he's only human and can make mistakes just like the rest of us, such as this deviation into crazy sharpening. I expect he will grow out of it!

 

[Richard T]

So ... how's the clogging problem coming along?

I once bought a brand new Footprint jack. No matter how I set it with each pass the shaving would concertina together in the throat and I would have to take the iron out to free it - every time. As years passed and I found out more about planes I would periodically give it another go. Always the same result. I tried opening the mouth but as the shaving was clogging after it had passed through the mouth so in hindsight this seems to have been a pointless exercise.
I eventually gave it away to a dealer explaining its flaw. I never did solve it. I can only conclude that it must have been something to do with the shape of the cap iron. Its fit seemed fine.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Since most of my Bailey planes are 50-90 years old, and cost little, it was usually about time for a blade replacement when I acquired them. It would have been stupid to replace them with a manufacturers original, wouldn't it? Old castings and a new thick iron makes for a very good cabinet makers tool for little money and a fair bit less fuss than the nay-Sayers would have us believe.

A thick blade in a woodie or infil with a fully supportive frog work beautifully, to a great extent, because of the vibration absorbing mass of the blade/cap iron assembly. But a thick blade in these is not supported lower than the back of the blade above the bevel will allow. Logically a thicker blade in a Bailey is supported as low down as could be, so why the out of hand rejection of the idea from some. Just one component upgraded transforms the plane to a fully functional and fine tool, which can rival LN, Clifton etc. for much less. I think my cabinet of planes, aside from some Veritas additions lately, could be bought for the price of one LN try plane. I have a lot of planes.

Incidentally, when I say the frog is adjustable , I do not mean to say that it is done often. I do it to the optimal setting for the job in hand and leave it that way. It has never been optimal for the frog to be set level with the rear mouth for the work I do and I don't intend disadvantaging myself by setting them this way, because the thin irons are essentially defective. It is ludicrous to say that thin irons are prone to chatter, so keep the iron and adjust the plane so it compensate for this and have it perform poorly in another area because of it. If the original iron is still serviceable, then I effectively have two mouth settings without any adjustment other than a blade swap. Brilliant. Better still, since used examples of these planes are dirt cheap, I have more than one plane of often used types, with different mouth settings for different conditions. Like Antonio Banderas in Deperado, I just cast one weapon aside and pick up the next. Come to think of it, once I am set, I nearly never adjust the depth of cut. I just swap plane and go! Efficient! I'm not suggesting everyone should have lots of planes, but let us face it, we all do! A smoother with a fine mouth, one with a super fine mouth and super fine cut and another with a back bevel and I can tackle anything.

Mike.

 

[morfa]

So ... how's the clogging problem coming along?

I've actually been, y'know, woodworking, so haven't had time to take photos and fiddle. Especially since my initial fiddle and technique adjustment seems to have made a difference.

I've been chopping mortices and cutting tenons for my workbench. So haven't been using the plane. I'm hoping to finish off the workbench over the bank holiday, so I'll try the suggestions out.

Which is basically move the frog back a tidge?

 

[Vann]

You could argue that everybody who uses a Stanley, Record, Acorn, Woden, and a lot of other Bailey copiers, also promote the thin blade. They have the option - they make their choices. Are they all deluded?

Now that's an excellent justification for the usability of the frog adjustment. :lol:

Except that the Acorn has no frog adjuster* (hammer) :lol: (though, to be fair, it does have an adjustable frog)

*at least my single example, a Stanley era No.4, doesn't. Come to think of it, nor do the Record SP04/05s, and I think the Stanley handyman series. Though I hardly think Stanley/Record saw the light, but only improved their cheaper ranges (by removal of adjusters)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[David C]

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.

David Charlesworth

 

[woodbrains]

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.

David Charlesworth

Hello,

The most likely suspect and the first to fix, most definitely. Then make sure the mouth is smooth and angled outwards, so that the exit side of the mouth is wider than the sole side. This has been mentioned earlier.

After that, I would look at the blade seating. If there is a hump in the frog bed, the whole blade assembly vibrates and can cause the shavings to be rather 'jittery' for want of a better word. These catch on whatever is an obstacle on their way through the mouth and subsequent shavings compound the problem into a jam. Not to mention the poor finish left behind. I even suspect that this form of mechanical chatter can, at its worst, cause the cap iron to open and close from the mouth, letting crumbs and then shavings in. I have had wood between the cap iron and blade, on a perfectly well fitting cap iron, when I have gone over a particularly hard knot, which caused the irons to shudder as they passed. A dull iron can cause this effect also, so make sure your irons are super sharp. The extra effort required and the deeper cutter setting needed to get the plane to cut can be a cause of chatter, unsmooth shavings and clogging.

Dare I say that a sole that is not flat can cause this too. A hollow sole prompts too coarse a blade projection to get to the point of cut and loss of control as a result.

Even timber with a radical grain run out, planed in the wrong direction can cause the blade to judder and invite clogging.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,

Unless it is the fundamental problem!
Good idea to have it back flush with the mouth as detailed as you then have it in the safe "default" position, which I think everybody now understands.
You can aways try adjusting differently when you have got it sorted, but many don't bother.

 

[woodbrains]

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,

Unless it is the fundamental problem!
Good idea to have it back flush with the mouth as detailed as you then have it in the safe "default" position, which I think everybody now understands.
You can aways try adjusting differently when you have got it sorted, but many don't bother.

Hello,

The only fundamental problem is, that Jacob's default position is to totally ignore what anyone who has superbly functioning planes has to say, to argue against what is plainly clear to see from registered designs and archived data on the subject and to generally troll ' till he actually thinks people are beginning to believe his nonsense.

Jacob has freely admitted hat he has only recently started 'experimenting' with hand tools as this has been lacking in his knowledge until lately. Whereas several contributors here have been tuning and perfecting tools for decades. People posting questions here genuinely wanting to learn clearly have a choice.....

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Morfa,

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,

Unless it is the fundamental problem!
Good idea to have it back flush with the mouth as detailed as you then have it in the safe "default" position, which I think everybody now understands.
You can aways try adjusting differently when you have got it sorted, but many don't bother.

Hello,

The only fundamental problem is, that Jacob's default position is to totally ignore what anyone who has superbly functioning planes has to say, to argue against what is plainly clear to see from registered designs and archived data on the subject and to generally troll ' till he actually thinks people are beginning to believe his nonsense.

Jacob has freely admitted hat he has only recently started 'experimenting' with hand tools as this has been lacking in his knowledge until lately. Whereas several contributors here have been tuning and perfecting tools for decades. People posting questions here genuinely wanting to learn clearly have a choice.....

Mike.

Fer gawds sake! I've been using hand planes since about 1980 in serious way. I started a business doing stuff entirely by hand including planing, morticing and everything else until I could afford some machines.
Prior to that I suppose I first used one about 1955 ish.
My "experiments" have been about looking more closely - especially as a whole new load of information/misinformation has taken centre stage since I started and I've bought (and largely sold on) a number of modern planes. I was never happy with honing jigs so that was one of the first things I ditched in recent years.

Be assured anybody reading this - if you want your plane to work at its best just set the frog back as described (amongst other things). By all means experiment in the ways our "experts" suggest but there is little in the way of magic solutions awaiting discovery, in spite of all the blather!

NB Working entirely with hand tools means planing will take up more of your time than anything else. Most of this is in reducing stuff to size and speed and thick shavings are what is needed. A few people talk as though planing consists entirely of removing very thin shavings from small samples of strange exotic woods. This isn't how it is for most of us.

 

[David C]

Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences. Thus altering the sense.

eg omitting "most likely to be"

David

 

[Jacob]

Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences. Thus altering the sense.

eg omitting "most likely to be"

David

Nonsense.

 

[woodbrains]

Fer gawds sake! I've been using hand planes since about 1980 in serious way. I started a business doing stuff entirely by hand including planing, morticing and everything else until I could afford some machines.
Prior to that I suppose I first used one about 1955 ish.
My "experiments" have been about looking more closely - especially as a whole new load of information/misinformation has taken centre stage since I started and I've bought (and largely sold on) a number of modern planes. I was never happy with honing jigs so that was one of the first things I ditched in recent years.

Be assured anybody reading this - if you want your plane to work at its best just set the frog back as described (amongst other things). By all means experiment in the ways our "experts" suggest but there is little in the way of magic solutions awaiting discovery, in spite of all the blather!

NB Working entirely with hand tools means planing will take up more of your time than anything else. Most of this is in reducing stuff to size and speed and thick shavings are what is needed. A few people talk as though planing consists entirely of removing very thin shavings from small samples of strange exotic woods. This isn't how it is for most of us.

We have different sorts of planes for rough and fine work, to expedite the process, setting the mouth wide has no bearing on the speed we can plane. If , as David C states, the thickest shaving is about 6 thou, then a mouth setting of 7 thou would be ample, in say a jack. Then when fine tools are used, we do not have horrendous tear out to deal with, which will inevitably take us longer in the end.

Jacob, if you worked exclusively with hand tools from the 1980's, would it not have been smarter to discover how they worked sooner than now? It also baffles me somewhat, as to the reason why you still don't know what a scrub plane is for. It would have been a boon in a hand tool only shop for reducing boards to thickness.

Also, you do quote people out of context, you know you do.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

This is a tedious thread.

 

[David C]

Jacob,

Your ability to argue that black is white, fortunately devalues your opinions.

This thread was made tedious by you.

David

 

[Jacob]

Oooh! :lol: :lol:

 

[Peter T]

What are the chances of getting the frog so accurately aligned with the back of the mouth that the iron is actually touching, and supported by, both the frog and the back of the mouth at the same time??

Very slim IMHO.

If the frog is set a few microns too far forward, then the iron won't touch the back of the mouth, and won't be supported by it.

If the frog is set a few microns too far back, then the iron will be lifted off the from by the protruding back of the mouth.

The "Safe, default position" may be a nice idea, but one that is virtually impossible to achieve!