Plane Iron

[Anonymous]

After some burglars broke into my house i now have some new tools including a rebate plane, brace, yankee screwdriver and a 40year old stanley 4 1/2. Not the usual ways things go but i suppose it ofsets the laptop.
Anyway after some sweat i have fettled the plane (i think that is the right term) and it square and flat and looks quite good. However the plane has got everything bar the blade.
I am thinking of buying a new blade but the stanley ones seem to be made of kit kat wrappers. I therefore was wondering as to you suggestions. My budget is £35.00 as the plane came for free. i am wondering if i will need to buy a new chip breaker thing or widen the mouth. The widening seems a little scary as i have a reputaion for over engineering things.
Finally i have a unused 1960,s jointer plane that i aquired (feels nicer than a number 5 in my big hands) and i wondered if i could swap the blade between the two....?

Owen
Trying to understand it all :roll:

 

[bugbear]

Your budget will cover anything bar Holtey (don't ask!).

I would recommend smoothcut - the Japanese laminated blades sold by APTC. If you#re anything like the rest of this group, you'll be ordering from APTC on a regular basis, so just add it to your next order

http://www.axminster.co.uk/product.asp? ... 03&recno=4

(they call it Samurai, but they deliver "Smoothcut")

BugBear

 

[Alf]

After some burglars broke into my house i now have some new tools including a rebate plane, brace, yankee screwdriver and a 40year old stanley 4 1/2. Not the usual ways things go but i suppose it ofsets the laptop.

Hey up, Owen. Am I to understand the burglars removed the laptop, but left the tools in lieu? 'strodinary.

I am thinking of buying a new blade but the stanley ones seem to be made of kit kat wrappers.

:lol: Excellent description!

I therefore was wondering as to you suggestions. My budget is £35.00 as the plane came for free. i am wondering if i will need to buy a new chip breaker thing or widen the mouth. The widening seems a little scary as i have a reputaion for over engineering things.

Gosh, I don't know. I like the Clifton Victors, but I know some people have had trouble with them being too thick. Possibly not a problem with a plane of the age of yours though; I have a feeling it's more of an issue with older USA Stanleys. The Hock carbon steel I have in my #5 1/2 is nice. Fact is they all seem to be pretty good, so I'll be as interested as you to see what the consensus is.

Finally i have a unused 1960,s jointer plane that i aquired (feels nicer than a number 5 in my big hands) and i wondered if i could swap the blade between the two....?

Between the #4 1/2 and the #6? Yep, no reason why not.

Trying to understand it all :roll:

Yeah, me too. :shock:

Cheers, Alf

P.S. What sort of rebate plane?

 

[Possumpoint]

If both blades are the same size (2-3/8" ?), they can be swapped back and forth. However, saying that, there is a school of thought that wants a jointer blade to be ground dead square accross the face and a smoother blade to have a slight crown. There are others who feel a slight crown is desirable on a jointer also. This is especially true if the jointer is used to flatten large panels. If you wonder why the slight crown, it helps prevent the corners of the blade from digging in.

If it was my plane. I'd be looking for a new, old blade for it. You will sometimes find old blades for sale on ebay but make sure the pictures are clear enough that you know what you're getting.

On one of my 4.5 Stanleys, I was totally dissatisfied with the blade. I bought a new LN replacement blade and chipbreaker. I got the ones that are built for Stanleys, both are slightly thicker than original equiptment. The plane preforms much better now. It better, that set me back more than I paid for the plane, about $75 US. Because I bought the blade at a woodworking show, there was no shipping involved.

I must say that the burglers in the UK operate differently that what we experience over here. Nice of them to leave antique tools when they steal your computer.

 

[Anonymous]

I quite fancy one of those hock blades but i don,t know if the chipbreaker will still work or the nut be deep enough.
I should say that the burglars ran when alarm went off and i think the tools were from previous job.
The plane is a stanle 78 i think

 

[Scott]

Owen

I put a Hock A2 blade in a (40ish year old) Stanley #5 and it was a dirct replacement. No probs with chipbreaker or screw

 

[Anonymous]

Hock A2 in my Stanley #5 too. Good blade

 

[Anonymous]

Right then hock A2 it is then. Thanks for the advice

 

[Anonymous]

However, saying that, there is a school of thought that wants a jointer blade to be ground dead square accross the face and a smoother blade to have a slight crown. There are others who feel a slight crown is desirable on a jointer also. This is especially true if the jointer is used to flatten large panels. If you wonder why the slight crown, it helps prevent the corners of the blade from digging in.

OK, old-ish thread that I'm resurrecting, but couldn't let this pass uncommented; could just be a terminology difference between the US and the UK but...

The jointer iron should always have a convex cutting edge, for the simple reason it's impossible to properly square up an edge of stock for jointing with a perfectly square iron (unless shooting, or not using the plane properly). The curve on a jointer iron isn't to stop the corners of the iron digging in, but to enable you to control where on the edge you're removing wood.

Using a jointer to flatten large panels? It's a jointer...for making joints...not a flattener. That's what a scrub, jack (if you're that way inclined) and smoother are for!

A crown on the smoother iron? Hmm, not sure on that one - personally, I have the smoother square with just the corners eased; in this case, the easing IS to prevent the corners digging in.

~Esp (back, and nit-picking already...oh dear)

(and also probably expecting a discussion on curves on irons, or at least a link to a previous argume...discussion on said subject)

 

[Alf]

(and also probably expecting a discussion on curves on irons, or at least a link to a previous argume...discussion on said subject)

Like this one? Although I'm sure we've got more acrimonious about it than that; all seems very polite... :-k :lol: Ah, this one's better. No, that peters out rather too. I'm sure we had a better thread on all this once. Maybe time for another one then... :twisted: :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[Chris Knight]

The jointer iron should always have a convex cutting edge, for the simple reason it's impossible to properly square up an edge of stock for jointing with a perfectly square iron (unless shooting, or not using the plane properly). The curve on a jointer iron isn't to stop the corners of the iron digging in, but to enable you to control where on the edge you're removing wood.

I can't let this one get away - even though my ISP has pulled the rug from under my broadband and I am reduced to a BT dial-up that doesn't encourage repartee!

In short Esp, what you say is absolute tosh! I get fine square jointing edges with either a cambered edge to my blade or a straight one and I don't see where I suddenly become improper using a straight edge. Horsefeathers Sir!

 

[Frank D.]

Hehehe,
I've had great success jointing with perfectly straight blade edges. I don't have a power jointer so do it all by hand. For most of my blades, except my old #5 and scrub which have pronounced curves, I've found that the curve afforded by my waterstones (which I do keep flat) is just enough so I don't have to round over my edges. I most often use shellac as a finish (or a sealer) and rounding the edges of my blades might leave track marks invisible to the naked eye, but it can leave me with big problems when I sand the coats. A flat blade forces me to get the surface truly flat and with a little practice it's easy not to end up with any track marks at all. Gorman's method of jointing isn't the only one; with a series of partial shavings getting gradually wider and steering the plane diagonally if needed, a perfectly flat surface that is square to one side can be obtained.
Frank

 

[Anonymous]

In short Esp, what you say is absolute tosh! I get fine square jointing edges with either a cambered edge to my blade or a straight one and I don't see where I suddenly become improper using a straight edge. Horsefeathers Sir!

Tee Hee - only been back from me gallavanting a day, and already a discussion

OK, perhaps you could explain how you get a square edge with a square ground iron Waterhead - I'm perfectly happy to eat horsefeathers (but only in a red wine sauce please). Say you have your edge, which may or may not be flat (not on about flatness, on about squareness) at 92 degrees to the side. And you lay your plane, with the sole against the edge - so the plane's also at 92 degrees to the side. And you have a square iron, so the iron is also at 92 degrees to the side. And you take a shaving - what do you get? Another edge, 92 degrees to the side, but a slightly narrower board.

So, perhaps you don't lay the sole flat against the edge, but somehow balance it at roughly right-angle to the edge? This would be a technique I'd call 'improper use' of the plane personally.

Mebbe by using the lateral adjuster you could do something, so you have one side of the iron cutting while the other doesn't?

Or perhaps you have another method? Go on, tell all! I know a certain bearded bloke on the Hartland coast of Devon would also be grateful to know

Frank:

with a series of partial shavings getting gradually wider and steering the plane diagonally if needed, a perfectly flat surface that is square to one side can be obtained.

How d'you get the partial shavings?

Cheers
Esp

(PS - these are really honest questions - I'm not taking the michael or being sarcastic or anything...please enlighten me)

<quickly posting a humungous bitmap picture so Waterhead can't reply cos of dial-up :twisted: >

(ok, that last bit wasn't an honest question )

 

[Alf]

Esp, were you in favour of a cambered edge jointing BC*? (A genuine question.)

Cheers, Alf

*Before Charlesworth. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Alf, yes - something I got from Mark Finney's book, which was the 1st woodworking book I ever got, before I'd even really started. Finney explains the technique better than DC does, I think, although doesn't go to the extreme of questioning the possibility of squaring an edge with a square iron.

[edit] so not DC influence in this case, but still influence from reading material rather than practice[/edit]

[edit 2] and since joining this forum, I've also realised the other principal benefit of edge jointing with a camber - the resulting slightly concave edge, reducing the risk, or at least affect, of differential drying in the wood opening up the joint, something I'd never even thought about before[/edit 2]

 

[Alf]

Ah, snap. Well not the Mark Finney book, but the CE BC*. Not sure I can remember where I learnt it; just absorbed that was how you did it I think. Anyway, just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting on a bandwagon/participating in a fad or whatever. :wink:

Cheers, Alf

*Cambered Edge Before Charlesworth of course. :roll:

 

[Frank D.]

Frank: How d'you get the partial shavings?

I use my left hand to control the partial-width shavings. With my thumb on the nose and my index finger underneath touching the side of the board (kind of like a fence), I can get pretty precise partial shavings in increments of about 1/8" on either side of the blade. I'm not bragging, anyone can do this with a little practice. So if one side of an edge is 1/100" high (or so), I know I can start with a partial shaving on the high side, and work my way to full width in 3 or 4 strokes and it'll be square (assuming my shavings are around 2 or 3 thou). I finish with one more full-width shaving to make sure everything is flat (the shaving tells me if I still have convexity across the width). Once you know how to knock off high sides like this it's just a matter of imagination when you have opposing high sides at each end of a board (I swirve the plane left and right, it's quite fun). It sounds quite mechanical or mathematical when explained but it becomes automatic with a little practice. I get virtually invisible glue lines and it takes me a minute or two per edge depending on what I start with (obviously more if I have to take off a lot of wood).
I have to wonder about the advantage of a concave edge along the width. This is kind of like micro-springing joints but on such little wood the glue should not fail even if the wood moves. I would also wonder whether the possible gap in the middle could weaken the glue bond. I look at a lot of old and not-so-old furniture for joint failure and with modern glues the failure is almost never smack-dab on the glue line. Usually cupping, end shrinking, or crook causes failure (cracks) somewhere in one of the boards, or if not, NEXT to the glue line (where opposing stresses meet), but not right down it. In other words, it's almost without exception the wood that fails, not the glue joint itself (I'm talking panels here, tabletops etc.: edge joints), so the benefits (convexity) of preventing gaps that might appear along the line itself, at least it seems to me, are unnecessary.
Hope this doesn't sound too pedantic, feel free to shoot at will,
Frank

 

[Anonymous]

Cheers Frank,

So, if I understood that right, you're using your left hand to raise the plane slightly on one side, so the whole sole & therefore iron aren't in contact with the wood?

shoot at will

Hmm, who's will, and what's he done to deserve shooting? :lol:

Esp

 

[Chris Knight]

ES,

Still no broadband so a short reply.

First I should say that nearly all my plane irons are cambered and I would agree that it is rather easier to use a cambered iron to get square edges freehand than a with a square iron. However I keep one jointer iron square-edged for use with a jointer fence which I use quite a lot and I also often use this plane/iron combination for freehanding edges when the width of a board is too narrow to put in the vice and use the jointer fence on it. I do use the lateral adjuster on the occasions and I amy also tilt the plane which I daresay you think is improper use. Since I get a square edge where I want it and I haven't damaged the plane or my person, I feel that this way of doing it is perfectly proper.

I infer, perhaps erroneously, that you feel that a cambered blade, and a full width shaving with the sole registered on the board edge is the only way to go. In which case, I would ask you to think about the situation when one side of your board's edge is at the intended depth but the other isn't. You now either have to tilt the plane so that the sole is not registered flat on the edge or adjust the blade so it doesn't cut at some point across its width - otherwise your very next shaving will take the side of the edge which is at the correct depth below the intended mark.

 

[Alf]

...I would ask you to think about the situation when one side of your board's edge is at the intended depth but the other isn't. You now either have to tilt the plane so that the sole is not registered flat on the edge or adjust the blade so it doesn't cut at some point across its width - otherwise your very next shaving will take the side of the edge which is at the correct depth below the intended mark.

Erm, if I'm understanding you right, Chris, isn't that the nub of the issue? In which case, with a cambered blade you don't do either. You just shift the whole plane across to the necessary side of the edge and get a tapered (in width) shaving to correct the problem. Maybe even tapering to nothing on one side? As far as going below your intended mark is concerned, good practice would be to sort out your edge straightness and angle before you reach the mark. Wouldn't it? :-k

I dunno; given the thickness, or lack of, of the shavings and the slightness of the camber involved it always surprises me how the myth of "hollow" edges and such persist. It's such a miniscule amount it simply isn't an issue. Unless you're a total klutz you can get sufficiently close to 90degs for any necessary tweaking using a cambered blade to be very slight indeed. We're talking sorting out a degree (or less? Never measured it) either way in many cases. And I confess I can't get accuracy like that tipping a straight iron - either the whole plane or the iron via the lateral adjuster. I've tried, but I can't. And there's always the danger making a convex edge. I agree with DC on that; concavity is to be preferred, slight as it is. Oh well, to each their own.

Hmm, it's just dawned on me I use a cambered blade with a jointer fence too. No ill effects that I can see. Maybe my camber's too small? Are my shavings too thin? Heck, what am I doing wrong?! :shock: :wink:

Cheers, Alf