No5 Jack How much is too much

[bugbear]

Of course, don't worry about the mouthsize. It's a roughing plane after all.

Mouths growing under trueing is (another) woodie thing, caused by the sloping wear. Even on a woodie, the mouth widening is roughly the same size as the amount removed. Over time this can be substantial (I've seen some "drag racer" woodern jacks), but I wouldn't worry on a Bailey.

BugBear

 

[Bod]

Planes from any factory, have always needed sharpening, before 1st use.
I suggest an experiment.
Sharpen and set the blade,as normal, then try it!
All types of wood, hard and soft, dirty and clean.
It will be interesting how it performs.

Bod

 

[J_SAMa]

Honestly, if the sole is really as bad as you say, then I find 20 quid a little too much... Just got a good old USA No 4.5 for £16. And if you really wanted a BEATER, don't dismiss woodies. £0.99 to 5.00 per piece for the ones in really bad shape. A bit of rehabilitation work (certainly easier than restoring metal planes since you can take another plane to it) and off you go.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

£29 actually, inc. p&p. Enough.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I've been on the lookout for a #5 as well. Here in Oz they appear quite rare. They may be the most common plane in the USA, perhaps so too in the UK, but I rarely come across them in Perth. The ones that I see are Australian (which have a poor reputation) or occasionally Made in England, and handled in painted beech or plastic. When for sale they command high prices - $50 - $80, sometimes much more.

A few weeks ago I learned where all the #5s go ...

I was in Cape Town (celebrating my father's 100th birthday) and visited a shop that specialised in re-purposing objects. I am not a fan of shabby chic but there was a great deal of creative thought there. Then I turned around and saw this clothes rack that for some reason appeared familiar ...

The reason I was looking for a #5 was curiosity. I had never used one, having a woody jack I built, and before that a #5 1/2 - they seem far more common than #5s. I decided to get one via eBay USA. When I looked at the shipping costs, it made more sense to pay a little more and get a cheapish Bedrock #605, which I did. I can sell that more easily and get my money back.

I do wonder why the #5 is so uncommon in Australia, and why the #5 1/2 abounds (I have two, and this is the only plane I have in duplicate .... and no longer use).

The #605 needed stripping to bare metal then repainted, and all surfaces were lapped (the sole was mildly banana-shaped). It ended up a nice looking and solid plane.

Where it counts ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[woodbrains]

Derek

If it wasn't sacrilegious, I want some for my workshop! Somewhere for me coat and apron to hang, a #7 for extension leads. I think they would work better the other way up though. Maybe there is a market for plane hangers for the woodworker who has everything-- enter VERITAS. =P~

Mike.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

With a half hour to myself this afternoon I set about the #5 with some 60 a grit paper. You will remember I had about 0.8 mm gap in places. Well after a the half hour I have the sole tight all done the left side. I can't slide my thinnest feeler gauge 0.05 mm in anywhere. Down the right it is tight all the way from the back to the area adjacent to the mouth which has a tight 0.15 mm gap tapering down to 0.1 mm towards the toe.

I suppose I could live with this but I'll give it a little more time when I have the time to do it to see how close I can get it to "flat"
David
com/user/bluekingfisher/media/imagejpg1-2.jpg.html]

[/URL]

photobucket.com/user/bluekingfisher/media/imagejpg3-1.jpg.html]

[/URL]

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Having googled the measurement and the British Standard (BS) tolerances for sole variation it seems 3 thou of an inch is the figure to achieve. I am still a little way off on the area around the mouth and toe on the right side. With a current gap of 0.15mm (6 thou) I still have some work to do although I have some satisfaction that the gap around the sole is within those tolerances everywhere else.

Should be achievable though.

David

 

[Cheshirechappie]

If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.

I think I'd be tempted to smooth out the 60-grit surface a bit, though there's no need to go too far. Reasonably smooth to the touch should be fine - say about 240 grit or so.

By the way, should you fancy replacing the plastic handles, Crown Tools make a Rosewood replacement set - I think Axminster stock them, among other retailers. Home-made is also perfectly in order, of course!

 

[Bluekingfisher]

If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.

I think I'd be tempted to smooth out the 60-grit surface a bit, though there's no need to go too far. Reasonably smooth to the touch should be fine - say about 240 grit or so.

By the way, should you fancy replacing the plastic handles, Crown Tools make a Rosewood replacement set - I think Axminster stock them, among other retailers. Home-made is also perfectly in order, of course!

I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.

I have got a couple of sets of hardwood handles bought from MTS for about three quid the pair. They actually look and feel like nice handles.

Thanks for confirming the level,of flatness required

Cheers

David

 

[Graham Orm]

If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.

I think I'd be tempted to smooth out the 60-grit surface a bit, though there's no need to go too far. Reasonably smooth to the touch should be fine - say about 240 grit or so.

By the way, should you fancy replacing the plastic handles, Crown Tools make a Rosewood replacement set - I think Axminster stock them, among other retailers. Home-made is also perfectly in order, of course!

I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.

I have got a couple of sets of hardwood handles bought from MTS for about three quid the pair. They actually look and feel like nice handles.

Thanks for confirming the level,of flatness required

Cheers

David

But then again he might be wrong. If there's a void in front of the mouth it's inefficient no matter what you're doing with it.

 

[JimB]

Derek, I think you've managed to solve the problem of why that era of Stanley planes were so poor. Obviously a mix-up with the design department thinking they were manufacturing coat hooks.
ps a marvellous anniversary.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.

That does surprise me. Chris S has also mentioned that he carries an extra (straight) blade to use the #5 as a smoother or jointer, if the need arises. Roughing out certainly does not need the flattest sole in the world, but taking a fine shaving and doing so consistently does require a flat sole, especially in front of the mouth.

My #605 has only been lapped on 100 grit. I may take it to 240 at some stage, but it seems smooth enough at this point. It never ceases to surprise me how much effort it is to flatten the soles on sandpaper, and then how quickly the soles scratch on wood.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

... ps a marvellous anniversary.

Thanks Jim.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Harbo]

A good way of lapping planes is to use valve grinding paste or silicon carbide grits on a sheet of Acrylic - the plastic "holds" the grit in place.

 

[iNewbie]

I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.

That does surprise me. Chris S has also mentioned that he carries an extra (straight) blade to use the #5 as a smoother or jointer, if the need arises. Roughing out certainly does not need the flattest sole in the world, but taking a fine shaving and doing so consistently does require a flat sole, especially in front of the mouth.

Thats video - the short version is here, Derek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IChJoMrNzhw

 

[bugbear]

With a half hour to myself this afternoon I set about the #5 with some 60 a grit paper. You will remember I had about 0.8 mm gap in places. Well after a the half hour I have the sole tight all done the left side. I can't slide my thinnest feeler gauge 0.05 mm in anywhere. Down the right it is tight all the way from the back to the area adjacent to the mouth which has a tight 0.15 mm gap tapering down to 0.1 mm towards the toe.

I suppose I could live with this but I'll give it a little more time when I have the time to do it to see how close I can get it to "flat"

Well done for being brave (or doing good research) and starting with a really coarse grit - a lot of people start way too fine and slow. You also used a big enough sheet to avoid some of the "edge" problems that tend to generate convexity (build up of swarf in the middle of the sheet, more wear of the abrasive in the middle of the sheet; large sheets have more "middle" and less "edge", proportioanally speaking).

A quick check shows the particle size of 60 grit is 268 micron or 10 thou (1/100"), or 0.25 mm. Now, sandpaper particles aren't exactly lathe tools; I would guess that the scratch depth is around 1/3 to 1/2 of the particle size at most. However, I think you're approach the limit of what you can do with 60 grit.

You're now up against some new problems; it's clearly not possible to make a concave sole on a flat sheet of abrasive, but it's rather easy to make convexity, just by leaning.

You're also at a stage where the pressure of the metal on the abrasive is lower - when your plane was only touching at a couple of high points, the pressure was high (and thre rate of removal also high). Now you've got a nice large "flat" the pressure is lower. The leads to spending lots of time rubbing the plane back and forth, with more rick of convexity...

Finally, when your plane was damn near 1 mm out, your reference didn't need to be very flat to be flatter than your plane. Now your plane is flatter, that is no longer so self evident. You need to consider what accuracy you're aiming for in the plane, and (hence) what accuracy is needed in your straight edges and/or lapping surface.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

60 grit is spot on. No need to go finer. If you just use the plane the sharpness will soon be lost - the tops of the scratch ridges get smoothed even though the troughs remain. You can speed this up with a quick pass over very fine e.g 400 grit. You don't have to work through grit sizes - one jump very coarse to very fine is OK.
Easiest if you use paper backed grit and have a large flat area (I use planer machine table) and just flood it with white spirit. This will keep the paper stuck down enough and also carry away the swarf.
Keep the paper between boards so it stays flat in between uses.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

For lapping planes, chisel and plane blades, I use a 3' x 4" section of 1/2" granite. It is as flat as I can measure. Very rigid. To this is contact glued 100 grit cloth-backed "paper" designed for abrading metal. This 100 grit cuts fast, sheds swarf well (not all sandpaper does this), and does not leave the deeper scratches of 60 grit. As I mentioned earlier, I may go to 240 grit. I do not feel any urgency to do so. It is a jack for roughing out, not a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Going straight from 60 to 400 is OK for a smoother too.