no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily

[woodbrains]

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!

Microns! Some here think thou's are too finicky. You are probably correct, though.

Mike.

 

[Peter T]

Sorry, in my world microns are used as everyday measurements!

If you have enough of them you get thou's!!

 

[Jacob]

Deleted - yes I'm outa here too!

 

[Richard T]

deleted on better judgement.

 

[Sawyer]

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.

My Footprint jack was originally a bit like that. Honed the cap iron to remove gaps (there was some daylight), discovered by trial and error, the optimal distance of the cap iron from cutting edge & frog position and learned to sharpen properly (including introducing a camber to the originally straight edge). It has performed superbly ever since.
Not trendy, but it has done a lot of work.

 

[bugbear]

Also an irritating habit of only partially quoting sentences....

Nonsense.

Ooh. Let's see, the evidence is readily to hand.

David C's complete sentence:

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.

Jacob's version:

Morfa,

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

Unless it is the fundamental problem!

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Err - so what exactly?

 

[Corneel]

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!

Did you ever try it out yourself? It really works, the plane becomes more solid and less chattery. Feeling with your fingers to get frog and sole even is "good enough".

In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.

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.

That's not how I use and set a plane. I am not thinking beforehand: "this board needs a 6 thou shaving so let me set the mouth at 7 thou". No, I set the plane by feel. In a jack plane, as thick a shaving as I can push comfortably, maybe changing it when I get tired, or when I hit a particular hard patch. The jackplane is often used across the board (when not using electrical jointers) with a camber, both helping to reduce the tearout. Also the chipbreaker is set as close to the edge as possible on that cambered blade, further helping to reduce tearout as much as possible. You won't completly avoid tearout when using a jackplane, that's the smoothers job.

Let me conclude with saying: set your plane however you like and enjoy using it. Keep an open mind to the ideas from others. And discussion forums are meant to be fun, so don't take anything too seriously.

 

[Vann]

In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.

That's why I the two-piece cap-iron. There's a third pressure point about 1" (25mm) up the iron which considerably reduces or eliminates this "bowing". Heavier one-piece cap-irons (Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, Hock) also help resist the bowing forces.

Let me conclude with saying: set your plane however you like and enjoy using it. Keep an open mind to the ideas from others. And discussion forums are meant to be fun, so don't take anything too seriously.

Well said sir =D>

And on that note of not taking anthing too seriously...

Deleted - yes I'm outa here too!

Err - so what exactly?

We didn't seriously think you were out of here Jacob. Welcome home (after just 20 hours away... (hammer) )

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

Yes to 2 piece cap iron (sorry I just can't keep away!)

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

.....It really works, the plane becomes more solid and less chattery......

Exactly my experience.

In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.

Aha! In theory the probability of two rigid surfaces actually sitting tight on one another, approaches zero. In theory they can only be guaranteed to touch at one point - if one is relatively convex against the other (sphere on a plate) or two if one is cylindrical (cylinder on a plate). Otherwise just 3 (everything else).
Just thought I'd throw that in to confuse things.

 

[G S Haydon]

I'm pleased the two piece cap iron has been mentioned. I purchased a LN chip breaker to use with a standard blade. Apart from a highly improved shape where it meets the blade it bowed the blade just the same or even worse (don't know I didn't think about this before buying one) than a standard item. I am far from an expert on this but it seems unless the blade is strong enough not to deflect when screwed to a chip breaker a two piece is the best solution in a metal plane?
I have a record stay set cap iron and although most people seem to sell the benefit as the ability to sharpen quickly it seems to me the best thing about them is the fact they don't bend the blade therefore making the best out a thin blade.
I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.

 

[Jacob]

....
I have a record stay set cap iron and although most people seem to sell the benefit as the ability to sharpen quickly it seems to me the best thing about them is the fact they don't bend the blade therefore making the best out a thin blade.
I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.

Holds thin blade down tight with improved performance (probably wasted on a thick one?), being quick to remove/replace aids sharpening, makes thin blade more viable which in turn is an advantage as a thin blade is easier to sharpen. I think a SS cap iron is much better added value as compared to buying a fashionable thick blade.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I would welcome hearing anybodies experiences with this.

I have Record and Clifton stay-set cap irons on most of my bench planes and have been using them for years. The best designed cap iron ever.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbrains]

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!

Did you ever try it out yourself? It really works, the plane becomes more solid and less chattery. Feeling with your fingers to get frog and sole even is "good enough".

In your theory you forgot one practical problem: The blade is not flat when the chipbreaker screw is tightened. It is bowed quite considerably. That means (theoretically) only a very thin line where the blade meets the frog or the sole really makes solid contact. In practice the blade bows up and down under planing pressure. When the fulcrum point is lower, less force is vailable for this bowing thus improving the situation.

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.

That's not how I use and set a plane. I am not thinking beforehand: "this board needs a 6 thou shaving so let me set the mouth at 7 thou". No, I set the plane by feel. In a jack plane, as thick a shaving as I can push comfortably, maybe changing it when I get tired, or when I hit a particular hard patch. The jackplane is often used across the board (when not using electrical jointers) with a camber, both helping to reduce the tearout. Also the chipbreaker is set as close to the edge as possible on that cambered blade, further helping to reduce tearout as much as possible. You won't completly avoid tearout when using a jackplane, that's the smoothers job.

Let me conclude with saying: set your plane however you like and enjoy using it. Keep an open mind to the ideas from others. And discussion forums are meant to be fun, so don't take anything too seriously.

Hello,

The bowed blade is a failing of these planes which is why I said earlier ' the problem with Bailey type planes is the thin blade and rudimentary cap irons, change these and everything works'. Why compensate for one lousy component and in doing so deprive yourself of a vital function, an mouth setting that the user is free to choose.

I do not think of how many thou's I need to remove before I start planing either. The numbers are a way of comunicating a situation in words, so people may have a reference to their own situation. And a wide open mouth still does not dictate the rate of work, which was the point I was making, but it does contribute to tear our. Setting a fine mouth does not preclude other methods of reducing tear out either. I'm not sue why people here like to infer other statements from the one contended and then argue it is wrong. If I say I like the daylight, it does not infer That I do not like the night. Stop telling me the benefits of darkness! The falsehood from this thread is that the frogs are not adjustable (they are) moving the frog back will stop a clogging problem ( it won't if the shaving would fit through the mouth initially, which all indications suggest it would. An ill fitting cap iron would be the most likely cause). There is no 'default setting' of the the frog being level with the rear mouth.

The idea that it might be difficult to set the frog level with the rear mouth, might seem abut extreme when talking about microns( not my contention, do not tar me with that brush please) however, the general idea is worth investigating. The rear of the mouth is seldom well machined an often not parallel to the front. This might result in a frog that was not parallel with the mouth, hence a blade out of parallel to the mouth. Also, is the rear mouth even machined at the same angle as the frog? Are we going to start a whole new fettling thread on tuning the back of the mouth to enable a wide open mouth setting? It is much easier to just resign yourself to the fact that Bailey style planes have one fatal flaw, the blade and cap iron are rudimentary cause of problems, the fix is simple - replace. If you buy a 50 year old plane for a tenner, it is hardly extravagant to treat it to a new iron set and open up the whole potential of functions, rather than trying to compensate and limiting them. The thin arced blade will always be a potential source of chatter, even if you do try to get extra support from the rear mouth, so the effort to compensate ar reasonably futile anyway.

Also, I have never said anyone should not use the plane as THEY wish, this is just another inference that seems to have been read into what has been said. This is almost as bad as Jacob altering people's quotes to find something to argue about, which I think should be against forum rules, incidentally.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

......... This is almost as bad as Jacob altering people's quotes to find something to argue about, which I think should be against forum rules, incidentally.

Mike.

Could you give me an example? It's not something I do, as far as I am aware. Bugbear was saying something similar about a quote from Dave, but as far as I could see it was unaltered. Mystified here!
BTW there is a saying in football along the lines of "play the ball, not the man" which think should be borne in mind. Not least because "playing the man" (personal remarks etc) usually implies that the player doing it has nothing else useful to offer!

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks all,

These final few posts seem to of hit the nail on the head. I think it's fair to say that a standard bailey plane blade and chip breaker would not be up to the job for fine cabinet work on figured and difficult timbers, or when you need that high performance.

That said I think the standard arrangement is ok for site guys an most bench joiners. Dad's old bailey is all standard an it has never held him back in the works of "general joinery"

Finally, and for what it's worth I think I will keep using the thin blades for now, when that certain project comes along that needs the extra level of performance or I need to replace a worn blade a thicker blade and breaker would seem a wise investment.

Has anyone used the http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Blade.html and chip breaker in a standard record bench plane?

 

[morfa]

No gap between the chipbreaker and the blade I'm afraid. Also, as I've mentioned, the chipbreaker has been sharpened, so it's nice and pointy. In the way folk suggested it should be.

Someone mentioned the plane sole - it's a reground plane from Ray Iles, so I'm quite sure the sole is nice and flat.

As I said, I do rather think that technique and a thinner shaving has helped.

I'm probably going to be doing some more planing (taking a break from the workbench build to buy food for the week) later on and I'll have a bash at adjusting the frog back slightly.

It's been sharpened a few times since the thread started, so the chipbreaker is further forwards now.

Anyway, hope you all enjoy your 'discussion'.

 

[Corneel]

I have no idea what the limits of a bog standard Bailey plane are. I haven't met them yet. Quarter sawn, ribbon striped jatoba and teak or lignum vitea with grain reversals were no problem for a standard #4 with the original blade, UK made im the 70's or so. There are probably nicer planes to plane that kind of stuff, and in fact I prefer European wood. But these can have their trouble spots too, around knots or so.

I have invested at one time in a Ray Iles iron. Nice thing, seems to stay sharp a little bit longer, sure gives the plane an even more solid feel. But like I wrote, it's not neccessary. Especially not when you prefer European woodspecies. There is no need to start fettling the back of the mouth, it's fine as is, plenty good enough. And I would advice everyone to experiment with the chipbreaker very close, a glint of light, from the edge when smoothing. This works wonders to prevent and repair tearout. In jointers it can be a little bit further away from the edge. It has another advantage, with the chipbreaker in the right spot it straightens out the shavings, helping against clogging too.

BTW, Mike, that was a lighthearted comment at the end of my previous post, meant to relieve the tension a bit. Sorry it didn't work out.

 

[David C]

Corneel,

Delighted to hear you get success with the ultra close chipbreaker.

I enjoy discussion, but not being miss quoted by someone who claims not to have noticed!!!

The missing passage was, "what is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker". Page 8.

David Charlesworth

 

[Jacob]

Corneel,

Delighted to hear you get success with the ultra close chipbreaker.

I enjoy discussion, but not being miss quoted by someone who claims not to have noticed!!!

The missing passage was, "what is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker". Page 8.

David Charlesworth

Fer gawds sake! (again) Dave what are you on about?

I quoted you correctly
Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem,
copy and paste word for word.

You have misquoted yourself (and been ungrammatical)
what is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker
when in fact what (which?) you wrote was
which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.

C'mon pull yourself together! More water in it? Don't let BB draw you astray!

NB I still haven't noticed a misquotation - because there isn't one, except your own. :lol: