Bailey style planes, thin irons and cap-irons.

[D_W]

If people are happy using planes that leave chatter marks and give that teeth-jarring high-pitched squeak, that is, of course, entirely their right. However, planes can be set up to minimise the possibility. Some people may wish to do so.

that's taking it a bit far.

Each time I build a wooden plane, if there's a spot that's not bedded well at the bottom (could be left or right), I can get some of that chatter. Of course, I don't leave the plane that way - it'd be pretty rotten for me to give a loud plane to someone when I can seal it up like a vault with another 15 minutes of work. For single iron planes like a rabbet plane in a heavy cut, it may be unavoidable because the support down at the very edge just isn't there.

Point with the stanley planes though is that it doesn't require a perfect patent fit to get the plane to work without chatter, and if the plane doesn't chatter when set up initially, there's no reason to trouble with the patent details.

If it does chatter with the cap iron properly set (in reference to the fit at the front, not necessarily at the back), the problem is 999 times out of 1000 going to be that the iron isn't bedded tightly against the frog, or the frog is not tight.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

If it does chatter with the cap iron properly set (in reference to the fit at the front, not necessarily at the back), the problem is 999 times out of 1000 going to be that the iron isn't bedded tightly against the frog.

I agree with that. Quite a few people (including Sheffield Tony earlier in the thread) over the years have reported a noticable improvement in plane performance just by replacing the factory cap-iron with one of Stay-Set design. I've noticed the same myself years ago on a Record 07, but at that time didn't really understand why. A bent metal cap-iron that applies pressure to the iron in the same way that a Stay-Set does will have the same effect.

 

[Jacob]

If people are happy using planes that leave chatter marks and give that teeth-jarring high-pitched squeak, that is, of course, entirely their right. However, planes can be set up to minimise the possibility. Some people may wish to do so.

It's normal with rebate planes if you are working hard. First time I found the chatter marks in old window glazing rebates I couldn't work out what it was - looked more like machine roller marks than anything. It was only when I used a wooden rebate plane that I twigged.

 

[David C]

Jacob,

I agree. Can't think that I have seen chatter from a well set up Bailey in living memory.

Mind you memory gets a little more unreliable with age!

David

 

[Jacob]

Jacob,

I agree. Can't think that I have seen chatter from a well set up Bailey in living memory.

Mind you memory gets a little more unreliable with age!

David

There you go then we've finally cornered the beast! Chatter is a normal buzz with a woody rebate, an occasional squeak with a bench woody, but doesn't feature at all with a Bailey unless you are doing it wrongly or have adjusted it wrongly.
Doing it wrongly; frinstance - planing end grain with the workpiece sticking too far above the vice and it vibrates or twitches, remedied by dropping it a bit lower

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

CC wrote "The biggest fault was the banana sole - 6 thou concave"

Lurker wrote "It was great.........Sole flat to 1 mm all over"


1mm=40 thou

Some slightly differing views about what is a flat sole!

Paddy

I did actually mean 0.1 (corrected my original post) so maybe CC and I were not that far apart.

BUT is does raise an interesting point
This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?

I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.

Fair play Lurker. I did wonder if it was a typo

 

[D_W]

BUT is does raise an interesting point
This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?
I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.

Something like that in flatness poses no problem to an experienced user unless the toe and rear of the plane are below the mouth. If it's the other way around, it actually works quite well. Biased in favor of the user, I'd say.

The toe and heel of a plane don't have to be much below the mouth to cause problems, only a few thousandths, but they can be way off the other way.

 

[David C]

Tolerances do matter. It is just that many woodworkers do not care to take them seriously.

Let us suppose you are joining two boards, one inch thick and five inches wide.

Your edge planing is 0.1 mm or 0.004" out of square on each edge. Unfortunately due to sod's law the errors do not cancel each other out.

By my reckoning the glued component will need to have 0.020" or 0.5 mm planed of parts of each surface to become flat across the width.

A two thou shaving is quite thick enough in a timber like oak, so this means 10 sets of shavings off each side.

best wishes,
David

 

[D_W]

I can't see how a sole of a plane with the mouth below the toe and the heel would cause any of those problems - the user might, but not the plane.

When I began, I believed that the flatness of the premium planes was important. I wanted that to have a lot to do with getting the work in shape and ready for a no-pressure glue up.

I do my jointing now with a beech jointer, I have no clue what the sole is like on it. I do know that I can match plane two boards much faster than I could with a metal plane and literally true up any end issues with a smoother if the edge is a match planed board, or even if it's not. (Which is the only issues there are - an experienced user never has issues with squareness on a joint. It's square to the square on a reference face and that's it).

I can see why I thought that sole flatness was important when I was a beginner. I like it to be relatively close now - a mouth a hundredth low wouldn't impede (though my beech jointer isn't that far off, I only made it recently). If the mouth is up from the toe and heel, then it's a real problem because you can't make a long flat joint, and on two boards to be put together, you need a second plane to remove the middle.

Also, if we are working two boards in a panel that have been planed before gluing, we match plane them.

If we are working entirely with hand tools, we match plane them first, then we glue them and then thickness them. If needed, we can take some off of a surface for joint aesthetics.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In my original post, I stated that my plane was 6 thou concave out of the box. That's toe and heel 6 thou lower than the mouth. It would take shavings - thick ones - but it would not adjust to take a fine finishing shaving for love nor money. It will now - but that's after some attention to the sole with files and wet-and-dry.

If lurker's plane was 4 thou CONVEX, that's fine and dandy!

 

[D_W]

In my original post, I stated that my plane was 6 thou concave out of the box. That's toe and heel 6 thou lower than the mouth. It would take shavings - thick ones - but it would not adjust to take a fine finishing shaving for love nor money. It will now - but that's after some attention to the sole with files and wet-and-dry.

If lurker's plane was 4 thou CONVEX, that's fine and dandy!

100% identify with your situation. I has a lie nielsen plane that was just at the edge of its spec, and they are definitely rigid. It made it difficult to take a fine through shaving on a long board and have ends meet (perhaps I could've leaned on it to solve the problem). I sold it rather than working the toe and heel (which would've easily fixed it, but people like LN planes to be untouched). I'll bet LN would've fixed it for free, because that's how they operate, but I didn't ask them to because the plane was in spec (they've done right by me in other situations, above and beyond where they'd have needed). If I were making the spec, well, I guess a surface grinder dictates it. In an ideal world, I'd shoot for a plane two thousandth proud on heel and toe.

(I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.

 

[swagman]

https://paulsellers.com/2015/10/plane-q ... -337925241

 

[bridger]

(I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.

Not just for a beginner. As a green woodworker of 17 years or so of age I was given a handful of planes. One of them was a sargent made craftsman branded #4 size smoother that I could not get to work. Time and again I tried different things, but it always defeated me and ended up back in the to do pile. Maybe 5 years ago (I'm now 50) I pulled it out again and took yet another shot at it. This time, and apparently I had never checked this, I laid a straightedge to the sole and discovered that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 50 thou hollow. I fixed that and it has been a decent user since.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Chatter can happen to the best of us - Paul Sellers encounters it at 28mins 30 secs here planing the end-grain of a chunk of oak for a mallet head;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31Ixu6mSHY

The high-pitched squeal is very characteristic; he overcomes it here by skewing the plane to take a more slicing cut.

It happens when the flexibility of the thin blade allows the cutting tip to be driven backwards and slightly down into the wood, until the energy built up in the blade (which, being less than ideally clamped, acts like a flat spring) becomes enough to break the wood and spring the blade back to it's 'rest' position. The tip then digs in again, and the sme thing happens. The closeness of the resulting marks, and the pitch of the squeak, suggest that it happens quite a few times a second - something in the order of 50 to 100 times a second (or 50 - 100 Hertz, if you prefer).

You can demonstrate the blade flexibility to yourself with a six inch steel rule on the bench. Clear a patch of bench, and lay the rule flat on it, at right angles to the edge, hanging hole towards the middle of the bench, with about 10mm (3/8") overhanging the bench edge, which models the contact of the bevel heel with the frog. Put a thumb firmly onthe hanging-hole end, modelling the clamping of the lever-cap cam or screw. Now press down gently on the overhanging end, modelling the contact pressure of the cap-iron tip. You'll notice that the end deflects down a little, and the middle of the rule at about the 60mm (2 1/2") mark pops up off the bench. Pressing down harder (applying a cut) increases both deflections. Now, without removing your thumb, place a finger on the rule at about the 40mm (1 1/2") mark, and apply a little pressure to model the load applied by the lever-cap to the joint-line of a Stay-Set type or Bailey Patent type cap-iron. Now press down on the overhanging end again, and you'll notice that the same pressure causes much less downward deflection.

This is best done with a thin, flexible rule. If you try it with a thicker rule, you'll need a lot more force to get noticable deflections. That's exactly what happens with thicker plane irons - stiffness is proportional to the cube of blade thickness, so you don't need a great increase in thickness to improve stiffness a lot. Conversely, you don't need a great decrease in thickness to magnify problems significantly. That's why those using irons a bit thicker than factory standard experience chatter much less.

Those with thin irons can stop them acting like flat springs storing up energy by ensuring they're clamped better part way up the frog. That's why Stay-Sets and Bailey Patent cap-irons are good ways to cut down the possibility of chatter and generally improve plane performance by stiffening things up where it really matters - the bit that contacts and cuts the wood.

 

[swagman]

Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.

regards Stewie;

 

[D_W]

The screech he's getting may be due to the bench, but who knows? Any time I've had such a sound coming out of a bench plane, it's been either from being a bit quick or having the workpiece too high in my vise.

I agree with his sentiment on the bailey 4 - practice use eliminates most of the need for block planes or any other specialty to work endgrain.

 

[D_W]

Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.

regards Stewie;

Good point, I missed that on the first go around flipping around through the video.

I work the ends of planes similar to that (most of them at least) and don't have any chatter unless the piece is too high in the vise. But I wax the sole before planing them because of the grip the end grain can have.

 

[D_W]

(I had a bedrock 607 that was much worse off than the LN, and I did remedy that on a lap). When you're a beginner, it's very difficult to diagnose a plane that's got the toe and heel below the mouth.

Not just for a beginner. As a green woodworker of 17 years or so of age I was given a handful of planes. One of them was a sargent made craftsman branded #4 size smoother that I could not get to work. Time and again I tried different things, but it always defeated me and ended up back in the to do pile. Maybe 5 years ago (I'm now 50) I pulled it out again and took yet another shot at it. This time, and apparently I had never checked this, I laid a straightedge to the sole and discovered that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 50 thou hollow. I fixed that and it has been a decent user since.

50 thou!! that's a bummer!

that and the secret loose handle are probably the two things that vexed me the most as a beginner. The latter being a plane that had a handle that looked tight with the front screw of the handle tightened down, but there was just a bit of looseness in the back post. You could hardly separate it by hand, but in use, it oscillated. For an hour or so, I thought that plane was cursed.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.

regards Stewie;

Stewie - despite what Sellers says, that's chatter. It's a very distinctive noise.

I fully accept that some people think it doesn't exist. Fine - they're perfectly entitled to their opinion. However, I have experienced it, and suspect that others may also have done without necessarily knowing what the cause was; I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.

 

[Jacob]

... I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.

Thank you so much Cheshirechappie that's very good of you.
I'm not very used to making up my own mind so it might take some time to get up to speed!