tuning a Clifton 3110

[Midnight]

OK... I'm open to suggestions..

for the life of me I can't get the damn thing to cut flush much less square; corners are no-go areas and shoulders....well.... lets not go there..

Right now I'm so damn furious at the thing that..... if this is typical Clifton craftsmanship, it'll be my last Clifton purchase; I prefer to spend hard earned on tools that are fit for purpose...

 

[Alf]

Okay, Mike, what have you tried so far?

My best guess: Blade edge ground square? This could actually be a problem if the blade bed isn't square (which ain't uncommon). Set the blade so there's an equal amount protruding each side and then sharpen the blade out of square to get it cutting evenly if necessary. Take a look in DC vol 2 for a better explanation.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Philly]

Mike
Watch this video at Fine Woodworking and see if this helps.
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/wvt085.asp
If not, send it down to me and I'll fettle it for you! (last resort :shock: )
best regards
Philly

 

[Midnight]

Alf..

other than give it a damn good clean (manufacturing swarf all over the place) and a light hone on the fine stone... not very much. Once I get the bench clear tomorrow, I'll take it to bits again and go over it thoroughly with the square and protractor; it's buggin the heck outa me. The blade's way wider than the body making it a devil of a job to set up properly. It doesn't help that there's a lot of side to side slop between the blade and body; nothing to register the blade against. I'll dig out DC's book again and go over it carefully.

Philly

I'd seen the video before, but replayed it again tonight, watching it back to back about 4 times just in case I'd missed anything. I know what it's SUPPOSED to do.. but it struck me that maybe it should be Clifton's QA dept watching the video, cos this puppy sure as **** don't do none of the stuff in the video. Works fine if you want a left handed champher.. useless for anything else. I appreciate the offer to fettle for me, but it's something I gotta figure out for myself. I figure I need to understand exactly what's wrong with it to communicate to Axminster; maybe they can persuade Clifton to learn about quality control. It hasn't escaped me that Terry Gordon's "seconds" quality planes are guaranteed to be functional.. someone needs to learn some lessons from this, myself included. I know I wouldn't be having these probs with either of TLN's or Rob Lee's planes... lesson in there too.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike

I don't know what a 3110 is but I guess a shoulder plane? If so, then it is usual for the blade to be a bit wider than the body although I do not understand why.

I have bought one Clifton plane, a #5 and found it to be as good as my LNs in every way barring looks - I prefer the shape of the LN and the use of bronze and brass rather than steel.

My Clifton worked straight from the box (after cleaning some 'gloop' from it) and cuts at least as good as my LNs. I use it more than my LN 4.5.

I think you were just unlucky.
I suggest that you phone Clifton. When I received my #5 it was covered in some brown 'gloop' to prevent rusting during transit and I called them to ask about removing it. I spoke with their production manager who was really nice and very helpful.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

I picked up a #3110 18 months ago at Ally Pally and have been very happy with it - it's a plane I simply wouldn't be without now. A couple of things that might help you...

1 - Is the nose fitted correctly so that the sole is flat?

2 - The blade should overhang the edge slightly (can't remember the exact amount, but around 0.5-1mm is what I use). The reason for this is to make the blade reach right into the corner that you're planing along. I think I saw this tip somewhere in The Handplane Book, but it might be somewhere else...

If these fail, try finding somebody else locally who also has one, and compare notes?

Cheers,

AG

 

[ike]

Tony wrote;

don't know what a 3110 is but I guess a shoulder plane?

Its a shoulder, bullnose and chisel plane all in one.

I've had mine for several years and it's such a useful little tool. I find it works very well, although 2 things about it are (or were) a bit irritating - the sharp edges twixt the ground faces and the cast faces were not fettled properly and the blade is not registered sideways by screws so it is a bit fiddly to adjust the side cut. Still a damn good tool IMO.

Ike

 

[Midnight]

AG...

sorry I haven't replied sooner...
I checked the sole as you suggested, using DC's guidelines as a guide, (thanks Alf :wink: )i.e. blade retracted but set to working tension; the rear of the sole looks parallel with the front, but not flush. Blade overhang is (plus or minus) 0.27mm each side. Additionally, the blade is hollow ground with wire edges left on the side bevels. Seems I need to do quite a bit of fettling here.

The thing I've found most frustrating was brought to the fore yesterday; using it as a rebate plane to clean the bottom of some huge dado's, it worked absolutely fine, but when trying to fine tune tenon cheeks and shoulders, it wasn't having any of it....nothing but left handed chamfers. I'll try tuning it and see if that makes a difference; shouldn't take too long as it didn't look to be that far out.

One last question re sharpening... secondary bevel or just hone the primary..??

edit...

just as a curiosity exercise, I've stripped down and checked my newly acquired #73 as a comparison; blade is fully flat and polished with no sign of wire edges, body is fully de-burred, free of swarf and lightly oiled, the sole is perfectly flat when checked with the blade fitted and set to working pressure, blade width at the tip measured 31.95mm, body width behind the mouth measures 31.8mm....

 

[ike]

Mike,

Additionally, the blade is hollow ground with wire edges left on the side bevels.

Interesting... the blade in mine was flat and smooth ground - square too. Maybe Clico don't have a very effective QC dept now.

Ike

 

[Alf]

Maybe Clico don't have a very effective QC dept now.

Funny, 'cos I was getting the impression they were trying to improve that side of things. Could this be old stock?

Cheers, Alf

 

[Midnight]

Could this be old stock?

Possibly... there's no telling how long Axminster had it on the shelf for...

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

My understanding is that there's no need for a secondary bevel on these, you just work with a single bevel. That's what Planecraft says anyway, or at least I think it does (my copy somehow lost within days of purchase, no doubt taken away by the woodworking book & magazine fairy).

Cheers,

Lee

 

[Midnight]

Lee...

gotchya... that rang a bell, but Icouldn't remember from where to confirm.. I need to re-read DC's books again; first time around it was all too new to take it all in... might have a better chance this time around