Ross No. 4 plane

[Trafalgar]

Hello,

Regarding cap irons, Stanley ones never worked as chip breakers, either, and were simply blade adjustment devices, so let us not be too harsh on LN not understanding the full use of them.

That's ridiculous Mike. They work now and they worked then. You can easily test it in your own workshop. Set one close enough to make the plane cease cutting and then start moving it back in tiny increments and watch the change in the chip, and the surface produced, with your own eyes.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Regarding cap irons, Stanley ones never worked as chip breakers, either, and were simply blade adjustment devices, so let us not be too harsh on LN not understanding the full use of them.

That's ridiculous Mike. They work now and they worked then. You can easily test it in your own workshop. Set one close enough to make the plane cease cutting and then start moving it back in tiny increments and watch the change in the chip, and the surface produced, with your own eyes.

Hello,

If you consider having to file the mating surfaces to fit properly so as not to jam with shavings, smoothing the leading edge with abrasives and taking out some of the bend in them so they don't cock the iron into a banana, as working, then I'll concede the point. If you are trying to suggest that that awful bit of bent tin that Stanley fit as cap irons makes them better than LN, then you really have never used one! And before replying, think carefully about the amount of tinkering done to your cap irons, before you tell me I'm wrong. LN got the angle of the leading edge wrong, which can be corrected, well so did Stanley, for a true cap iron effect. At least LN ones fit, are better made and make the blades rigid, not bent.

Mike.

 

[G S Haydon]

The Bailey cap iron is a marvel of design. Properly shaped to defeat tearout which it does easily, made out of appropriate materials to keep cost down. For me there is nothing not to like!

 

[Vann]

The Bailey cap iron is a marvel of design. Properly shaped to defeat tearout which it does easily, made out of appropriate materials to keep cost down. For me there is nothing not to like!

Except that Stanley (and others) have not made the Bailey cap iron correctly to the design since... maybe the 1930s.

The patent drawing of Mr Bailey's double iron shows the cap-iron laying parallel (flat) on the iron right down to the point where it begins the distinctive hump.

While the design is great, in practice I've seen very few cap-irons of this design that are actually the correct shape. If the bottom edge is not bent down enough the cap-iron will not touch the cutting iron, making the whole thing useless. So manufacturers (including Stanley) ensured that the bottom edge is bent down more than enough. This causes the top end of the hump to not be in contact with the cutting iron - and the result is the bending of the cutting iron we're all familiar with, frequently resulting in chatter.

So while cap-irons correctly manufactured to the design may be great, in practice it's too difficult for manufacturers to get it correct. Purchasers who know what they're doing can faff around with them to get them working well, but many a newbie has been put off (self included 40 years ago) by this and other defects in modern Bailey planes.

Thank goodness TL-N came along and attempted to make a better plane (actually it was with a Veritas LAJ I bought ~7 years ago that I discovered I CAN plane wood)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

Once again, proof that I must be the luckiest guy on the planet. All mine seem to work fine. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

 

[Vann]

Once again, proof that I must be the luckiest guy on the planet. All mine seem to work fine. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Or maybe you had a good tutor who taught you how to set yours up. Or maybe you've got all well made vintage (pre 1930s) Stanleys.

Or maybe not the luckiest, just the most sarcastic... who knows?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[G S Haydon]

Hi Vann,

My current #4 is from the 1960's, works like a charm when the going gets tough. I have not experienced the issue you mention, I got lucky perhaps! They all seem to be made very well.

I reflected on this a bit recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiA6OAnLvrI . Just thinking out loud really. It'd be great to have the ear of Leonard Bailey!

 

[MMUK]

Everyone needs a Ross no.4 or equivalent.

Prepped some reclaimed timber yesterday, did I reach for an old Bailey type or an infill ?

Of course not, Rapier 400 did the job nicely.

I once snapped a nearly new tuffsaws blade on a bit of reclaimed with hidden nails, lesson learned.

Exactly why I have "sacrificial" Acorns and cheapy Silverlines in my cabinet with the others.

 

[Trafalgar]

If a cap iron can cause a plane to cease cutting when set very close then it will function as a chipbreaker when moved back just to the point cutting resumes.

It's pretty much that simple. I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.

It is true that most will need to be honed in order to mate with the flat back of the cutter. Since chipbreakers are not hardened this is about fifteen minutes of work, at most, on medium and fine oilstones. Material is removed very rapidly. There is no need to break out mill files. A wire wheel will remove the burr at the leading edge produced by honing the flat side.

Very fine cap iron settings, and the purpose of same, were covered in Planecraft which was published seven or eight times in different editions. It's my understanding the cap iron information was a permanent feature of the book since the first edition. There are other British woodworking manuals with the admonishment to set the cap iron 'as close as you can get it to the cutting edge..." or words to that effect, when dealing with difficult grain.

None of this is new, any later manufacturers who ignored all of this did so or do so through hubris or ignorance (take your pick).

 

[woodbrains]

I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.

It is true that most will need to be honed in order to mate with the flat back of the cutter. Since chipbreakers are not hardened this is about fifteen minutes of work, at most, on medium and fine oilstones. Material is removed very rapidly. There is no need to break out mill files. A wire wheel will remove the burr at the leading edge produced by honing the flat side.

Hello,

Of course! You've fettled do your cap irons the same as everyone else does. Thanks for admitting it, at last, as this was the point I made, that you deemed ridiculous. So how is this essential component, which everyone in the world knows needs fixing, the brilliant Stanley innovation that makes them superior to LN planes? The cap iron wasn't a Bailey invention, all that had to be done was get it right, but didn't. So, it is down to the user to either back them off so as to not cause trouble, in effect using them only as an adjuster (wot I said) or fixing them to work properly (wot I said) you could similarly fettle a LN cap iron if a cap iron effect is what you need. But, and without any hubris or ignorance, LN conveniently provide us with alternatives to taming tear out, high angle frogs. These are also a tried and tested means of doing the same and along with setting a fine mouth opening, a significant advantage of the bedrock design we have circumvented the need for a cap iron effect. Obviously it is down to personal preference which method to go for, but again if you choose to fettle the Bailey, it can not diminish the virtues of the LN planes, which are very fine tools indeed.

Mike.

 

[MIGNAL]

Last time I 'fettled' a bent tin cap iron ( just 3 weeks ago) it took all of 5 minutes. Fits the blade perfectly, has the correct effect on reducing tearout, if set close enough. It's just so easy, you can take a file to them if you must, I didn't need to and I can't remember ever having to do so.

 

[Vann]

My current #4 is from the 1960's, works like a charm when the going gets tough. I have not experienced the issue you mention, I got lucky perhaps! They all seem to be made very well.

It'd be great to have the ear of Leonard Bailey!

Hi GSH.

As I said in the previous post, the patent drawing of Mr Bailey's double iron shows the cap-iron laying parallel (flat) on the iron, right down to the point where it begins the distinctive hump. IIRC the patent emphasizes how the cap-iron supports the cutting iron at either end of the "hump" (in the same way that Record and Clifton assert that the two-piece cap iron does).

However, when you examine any "Bailey" cap-iron made from the 1930s on (and possibly earlier) you will see that the leading edge of the hump is too big and holds the cap-iron clear of the cutting iron in this important area. I tried a number of cap-irons in an old damaged No.4 to see if any seat the way Leonard Bailey intended.

1950s Stanley irons - note that the gap between the two irons begins just below the cap-iron screw, and grows larger the closer it gets to the "hump". This fails to comply with Baileys patent.

1960s Stanley irons - another fail

1940s Canadian Stanley irons - close, but not quite.

Marples irons - Fail

1950s Record irons - Fail

1950s Record irons - Fail

1950s Record irons - Fail

Wartime Record 2-piece - look at that !! 8) Nice and tight all the way down to the top of the deflector. This is why I believe the Record/Clifton 2-piece is a good design of cap-iron - it achieves what Leonard Bailey set out to do in 1867.

With the cap-iron screw pulling the two irons together in the middle, but the leading edge of the cap-iron forcing the two irons apart, there is a certain amount of tension in the irons (possibly a good thing). Most of the tension is relived by the softer cap-iron bowing, but it is inevitable that the cutting iron also bows a little. This will result in the cutting iron only contacting the frog face at the bottom (near the mouth) and towards the top. The lever-cap will to some extent counter this, but where it fails to - chatter.

It seems daft to install a pair of irons that, through poor manufacturing, are trying to lift off the frog face - exactly the opposite to what is wanted to avoid chatter.

In spite of this many experienced woodworkers get good results from their Bailey style planes - but many potential woodworkers fail and give up (like I did in the 1970s).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think the top leading edge benefits from polishing on a wire wheel. Geometry can be tweaked a bit as well since the wire wheel will remove material from the soft cap iron.

It is true that most will need to be honed in order to mate with the flat back of the cutter. Since chipbreakers are not hardened this is about fifteen minutes of work, at most, on medium and fine oilstones. Material is removed very rapidly. There is no need to break out mill files. A wire wheel will remove the burr at the leading edge produced by honing the flat side.

Hello,

Of course! You've fettled do your cap irons the same as everyone else does. Thanks for admitting it, at last, as this was the point I made, that you deemed ridiculous. So how is this essential component, which everyone in the world knows needs fixing, the brilliant Stanley innovation that makes them superior to LN planes? The cap iron wasn't a Bailey invention, all that had to be done was get it right, but didn't. So, it is down to the user to either back them off so as to not cause trouble, in effect using them only as an adjuster (wot I said) or fixing them to work properly (wot I said) you could similarly fettle a LN cap iron if a cap iron effect is what you need. But, and without any hubris or ignorance, LN conveniently provide us with alternatives to taming tear out, high angle frogs. These are also a tried and tested means of doing the same and along with setting a fine mouth opening, a significant advantage of the bedrock design we have circumvented the need for a cap iron effect. Obviously it is down to personal preference which method to go for, but again if you choose to fettle the Bailey, it can not diminish the virtues of the LN planes, which are very fine tools indeed.

Mike.

If you needed a high angle frog, you didn't have to wait for Lie-Nielsen. ECE have been selling 50* planes for a hundred years or so. Ulmia too.

Otherwise, I guess ten or fifteen minutes of work rises to fettling. If you say so. Barely above knocking off rust as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Vann]

IIRC the patent emphasizes how the cap-iron supports the cutting iron at either end of the "hump" (in the same way that Record and Clifton assert that the two-piece cap iron does).

Found it ! This is from Leonard Bailey's patent application.

My object is to use very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I find that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which firmly holds this thin plane-iron to it’s bed.

It seems ironic to me, that the majority of "Bailey" style planes feature the problem that Leonard Bailey himself wanted to overcome - i.e. the plane-iron not being supported at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from its bed. Go figure.

Cheers, Vann

 

[Downwindtracker2]

Vann, what you say makes sense. I'm no expert, but looking at the cap iron, screw , plane blade, and frog, things just didn't seem to be mating up . At the time,I was wondering why I was being so careful in flattening the frog face. I had in the past simply bought an plane blade and cap iron from Lee Valley and called it good. At 1/3 the price of a new Vertas plane. On the plane I'm working on, a Millers Fall #9 (Stanley #4 clone) with it's hinged lever cap I'm going to fit the cap iron like you suggest.

 

[undergroundhunter]

With the cap-iron screw pulling the two irons together in the middle, but the leading edge of the cap-iron forcing the two irons apart, there is a certain amount of tension in the irons (possibly a good thing). Most of the tension is relived by the softer cap-iron bowing, but it is inevitable that the cutting iron also bows a little. This will result in the cutting iron only contacting the frog face at the bottom (near the mouth) and towards the top. The lever-cap will to some extent counter this, but where it fails to - chatter.

It seems daft to install a pair of irons that, through poor manufacturing, are trying to lift off the frog face - exactly the opposite to what is wanted to avoid chatter.

In spite of this many experienced woodworkers get good results from their Bailey style planes - but many potential woodworkers fail and give up (like I did in the 1970s).

Cheers, Vann.

I agree completely until the part about chatter, all my bailey style planes have standard irons and chipbrakers, never once have I had chatter that want a result of poor technique, skewing or changing direction remedied this.

I was once given one of these

Now that thing did chatter like **** but its only a single iron sat on 2 chunks of metal, makes a good scrub though.

As far as L-N planes are concerned, me personally I would rather spend £20 on a stanley and spend 20 mins tuning it than spend £294.96 on an L-N, I'd rather buy wood.

Matt

 

[Corneel]

Interesting discussion :lol:

I find the Bailey design to be comfortably in the "good enough" zone. There have been all kinds of theoretical objections over the years, but in real practice, the thing just works, is easy to adjust and has all the little details just right. They were quite expensive around 1900, but still they sold in huge numbers. It can't have been so bad.

The capirons usually need attention to get them to fit properly at the leading edge on the face of the cutting blade. This can be a frustrating little job, when you remove material in the middle then suddenly a gap apears at the corners and the other way around. But even with a tiny gap in the middle when holding them with your fingers, it usually closes under the lever cap pressure. The leading angle of the capiron is in the area of 40 to 50 degrees, which is perfect.

The blade is bend upwards and doesn't bed on the frog in the middle. Duh. Wooden planes are exactly the same. They often had the bed hollowed on purpose. Even when you have one that sits flat, as soon as you take a thick shaving it puts pressure on the edge and the iron will bow a litlle and lifts of the bed in the middle. But all that is not a problem. The planes work without chatter anyway. The two part cap design is a solution in search of a problem.

The thin irons. No problem either. When you use the capiron and when you set the frog back so the blade has support from the sole too, the plane works very well even in very hard kinds of wood.

The slop in the adjuster. I suppose it could be iritating, but when it spins freely on the stud, it is just a flick with your thumb to take up the slop. You could hate it. Or not of course.

The lighter weight. Also a matter of personal preference. Wooden planes are even lighter and they work perfectly allright too.

The problem with the LN capiron isn't so much that you need to adjust the angle of the leading edge. It's a one minute job at best. You have to be carefull though, the land under the edge is very narrow. It's just a silly idea that you even have to do it. Why didn't they make the angle just right? Like Ron Hock does? Oh, and occasionally you hear from people who find the capiron being too short or something. They can't set the capiron close enough while still being able to adjust the iron through the mouth.

 

[Trafalgar]

I find the statements made by some of 'giving up' and 'not being able to plane wood' rather far-fetched. The truth of the matter is that one can move the cap iron back a strong eighth, taking it essentially out of the mix except for the greediest of shavings, and a Bailey will still plane wood quite well. Close up the mouth and in this state can produce a finished surface on more species than not.

If the plane chatters try tightening the lever-cap screw, or even loosening it. Too tight is not good, nor is too loose.

 

[Trafalgar]

This man makes a lot of sense:

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/

 

[woodbrains]

This man makes a lot of sense:

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/set ... ker-video/

Hello,

Yet another woodworker fixing a defective Bailey cap iron! Yes he makes some sense, I fixed all mine more or less the same. If you take my original comment, I said that that the Bailey cap irons do not work as purchased, so cannot be used as a positive point for putting down another brand which, in all other aspects of manufacture, is far superior than Stanley ever was, past or present. I have a US 1910 patent Stanley number 8, and the cap iron is perfunctory, from an era when the manufacturer was reputed to be at its zenith. I generally have a preference for Rcord planes and almost all I have have cap irons better made than the Stanley equivalent. Funnily enough, a record 04 I bought new in about 1995 had a better made and designed cap iron than almost any plane I have had, surpassed only by Clifton two piece ones I retrofitted some of my others with. We can all get our planes to work with effort, even the Ross in the OP, but that does not mean we have to be happy about it, or other manufacturers should not try to make better tools. I think there is some sort of austerity woodworkers about, who refuse to acknowledge any tool maker who makes better tools as a valid offering. Are these people not trying to do their best as well? If they are, would they be happy if they were continually admonished for doing fine work, when rough work would do at a pinch, with some fixing by the end user?

Mike.