Record No.8 Blade

[pitch pine]

Does anyone have any experience of fitting an alternative blade to this plane? The original is quite thin and it not performing as well as it could. Could I fit a clifton or similar without major surgery? When you do replacements do you need to change the cap iron as well? Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

I fitted a LN 5.5 blade to a Record #6 without any problems at all. I filed around 0.5mm from the front of the mouth (30 seconds work), and that was all that was required.

Your #8 is the same width of plane I believe

 

[Paul Chapman]

The blade for the Record #8 is 2 5/8" the ones for the #6 and #7 are 2 3/8".

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Racers]

Hi,

The record No8 had a 2 5/8 blade not the 2 3/8 blade in the 4.5 5.5 6 7.
clifton's should fit but if you need file the mouth do the back of the
mouth so you don't have any problems if you fit the old blade. Try Hock and others as well, I have had no problems with my original blade in mine what problems are you having and how old it your No8?, have you flattened the frog etc?


Pete

 

[Anonymous]

The blade for the Record #8 is 2 5/8" the ones for the #6 and #7 are 2 3/8".

Cheers :wink:

Paul

not got a #8 and thought they were the same width as the #6 # 7


In that case, the blade from a LN #8 will probably fit as your #8 has probably the same frog etc. as the #6 apart from the width

 

[bugbear]

In that case, the bladefrom a LN #8 will probably fit as your #8 has probably the same frog etc. as the #6 apart from the width

No. Worst possible blade. The LN #8 has a uniquely thick blade, which makes it a very nice plane. Very unsuitable blade for a Record #8 though...

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=8

LN do list, however, a replacement blade for "other" #8's

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?cat=512

This is less thick

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

In that case, the bladefrom a LN #8 will probably fit as your #8 has probably the same frog etc. as the #6 apart from the width

No. Worst possible blade. The LN #8 has a uniquely thick blade, which makes it a very nice plane. Very unsuitable blade for a Record #8 though...
BugBear

Oops. Didn't realise that - I only look at LNs website when I am intending to order and never seriously looked at the #8 as a plane I might own

Surely this is a desirable attribute though (less chatter). Simply move the frog back on the record along with a bit of quick file work will facilitate its use. The LN fitted into the Record #6 very easily

 

[bugbear]

Surely this is a desirable attribute though (less chatter). Simply move the frog back on the record along with a bit of quick file work will facilitate its use. The LN fitted into the Record #6 very easily

LN #6 blade: 0.140" thick

LN #8 blade 0.1875" thick

LN #6 third-party blade: 0.095" thick

LN #8 third-party blade: 0.095" thick

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

Simply move the frog back on the record along with a bit of quick file work will facilitate its use. The LN fitted into the Record #6 very easily

I don't think it's as simple as that, Tony. When Rob (Woodbloke) tried to fit a LN blade to his Record T5, he found that it was impossible to fit for reasons other than the thickness of the blade. He eventually fitted a Clifton. I think there are differences, other than the thickness, between the blades LN makes for their own plane and those it makes to fit other makes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[pitch pine]

Thanks for the replies. 2 and 5/8s it is. The plane is a 1970s version hardly used with the original blade. It has worked well on pine and oak, but I tried to edge joint some tropical hardwood without success and lots of tear-out. When I have had the blade out for sharpening it looks a bit puny (probably because of the extra width) I just thought the plane would be even better with something heavier and better quality steel.

 

[Anonymous]

Simply move the frog back on the record along with a bit of quick file work will facilitate its use. The LN fitted into the Record #6 very easily

I don't think it's as simple as that, Tony. When Rob (Woodbloke) tried to fit a LN blade to his Record T5, he found that it was impossible to fit for reasons other than the thickness of the blade. He eventually fitted a Clifton. I think there are differences, other than the thickness, between the blades LN makes for their own plane and those it makes to fit other makes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Paul, the standard LN blade slipped into my Stanley #5 a few years ago with no adjustments other than moving the frog, and I fitted a standard LN #6 into my record #6 with only a little file work, so it does work on some planes.

 

[Racers]

Hi, pitch pine

So your blade has round shoulders not like the early square shoudered blades like mine, the 70s was when the quality started to nose dive. I would go for the Hock blade its O1 steel, I have a couple of home made O1 steel blades and they last very well.

Pete

 

[JesseM]

Thanks for the replies. 2 and 5/8s it is. The plane is a 1970s version hardly used with the original blade. It has worked well on pine and oak, but I tried to edge joint some tropical hardwood without success and lots of tear-out. When I have had the blade out for sharpening it looks a bit puny (probably because of the extra width) I just thought the plane would be even better with something heavier and better quality steel.

There are ways to minimize tearout. With BD planes you need a higher angle frog or a back bevel. I have an LN 5.5 with the 55 degree frog and it works very well. With BU planes increasing the primary angle on the blade increases the effective cutting angle and reduces tearout. I have a BU jointer with a 50 degree primary bevel that tackles the knarliest thing I have encountered so far. For either type of plane closing the mouth as much as possible helps, but the higher the effective cutting angle the less likely this will matter. And finally make sure the iron is as sharp as possible. I know when planing with the 50 degree blade the edge does not last long.

 

[NeilO]

Tony, would that be THE No6......?

just used it recently to clean up some old window frames (hardwood, poss mahogany or similar)
But what a differnce from my well tuned No4, the No6 is almost if not effortless in comparasion, and having a bigger plane now with a thicker (and I do mean Thicker, tony will understand :lol: ) I dont get any blade chatter anymore

 

[Paul Chapman]

I tried to edge joint some tropical hardwood without success and lots of tear-out.

One thing you could consider is whether for that piece of wood a cabinet scraper might be better way of eliminating the tear out. The picture below is of a piece of Indian laurel

That is a piece of wood that Rob (Woodbloke) has been trying to get a good finish on for ages. Several of us have had a go at it using many different planes including Lie Nielsen, Veritas BU, Clifton, Calvert Stevens, a Record with a back bevel on the blade and others, but nothing would produce a finish free from tear out.

Last week when I visited Rob and Pete (Newt) I took my Veritas #80 scraper and Veritas scraper plane along. You can see them in the picture below

The Veritas #80 scraper produced a perfect finish, completely free of tear out (the Veritas scraper plane would probably have done so as well but the piece of wood was a little too short to use it properly).

Sometimes the wood is such that nothing will work quite as well as a scraper :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

Tony, would that be THE No6......?

That's the one! :wink: Glad to hear you like it

 

[bugbear]

I tried to edge joint some tropical hardwood without success and lots of tear-out.

One thing you could consider is whether for that piece of wood a cabinet scraper might be better way of eliminating the tear out.

I wouldn't use a scraper for edge jointing; frankly I wouldn't worry too much about tear out when edge jointing either. It's a gluing surface, not on show.

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

I wouldn't use a scraper for edge jointing; frankly I wouldn't worry too much about tear out when edge jointing either. It's a gluing surface, not on show.

I agree, BB - my point was really about the best way to deal with tear out.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

I wouldn't use a scraper for edge jointing; frankly I wouldn't worry too much about tear out when edge jointing either. It's a gluing surface, not on show.

I agree, BB - my point was really about the best way to deal with tear out.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I half guessed that, but was concerned that the OP might misunderstand.

BugBear

 

[pitch pine]

Thanks again for more replies. I had wondered about scrapers but haven't any experience yet (they are still in the bag!). I take the point about not worrying about the surface when edge jointing, but this is bad tear-out....really bad and probably the opportunity for me to learn some new skills. If anyone wants a sample to practice on like paul will gladly post a bit. In the short-term I might change my plans....

Nick[/img]