bendy cap irons

[D_W]

Not trying to start a fight with my talk about the stanley planes, just stating fact. There's plenty of other misinformation about them out there, too, which is the later "good" ones (before they started cutting the mouth from the outside of the plane) with large adjuster wheels and belt sanded frogs somehow performing worse than the earlier milled planes. I've never found that to be true.

When I started woodworking, it was just stated as law more or less that you plane things that are difficult to plane with a more expensive plane, and use stanley's for easy stuff. It's probably been a very long time since people generally finished off of a plane and without any sandpaper, anyway.

But it's simple fact that a stanley plane will plane anything a lie nielsen or clifton or veritas plane will, or a steep pitch infill. If the stanley won't plane it with the cap set correctly, then it's wood that needs to be scraped (like some of the tropicals) to finish - and such a need is very rare.

Cap iron use makes edge uniformity and clearance a lot more important for finish than pure sharpness. An iron sharpened on a washita stone will take a shaving sub thousandth easily, and cut for about as long as one sharpened on something finer - until the clearance runs out. And it'll provide a good finish as long as the iron doesn't get chipped (which has very little to do with sharpness).

 

[David C]

David,

I would be very interested if you could suggest a simple experiment, which would demonstrate the superiority of the old Stanley cap irons over the new heavier designs?

David Charlesworth

 

[Corneel]

I don't think he sais superior. More like, plenty good enough for all things wood. And the extra weight of the new ones is a detriment.

 

[Trafalgar]

If one feels mass is a help then use a no. 6 or 7 loaded with the standard cap iron and cutter for almost everything. One would be in good company in choosing a No. 07, namely, Alan Peters.

The best smoother I have usually turns out to be my 08.

 

[D_W]

David,

I would be very interested if you could suggest a simple experiment, which would demonstrate the superiority of the old Stanley cap irons over the new heavier designs?

David Charlesworth

We've had this discussion before. In use, the stanley cap iron works just as well as any cap iron (and the profile is already correct out of the box - it's somewhere around 50 degrees at the leading edge when you polish it). It's certainly my preference over all others when one is actually using one.

And then it has the added benefit of more spring with what is a cammed lever cap. That is a luxury, but it sure feels nicer to lock down.

That leads to there being no improvement from "improved" chipbreakers. When the stanley is set properly, chatter is a myth. The plane will stop you in your tracks long before you can get it to chatter.

Beginners generally don't understand those subtleties and assume that a poorly set up plane is the plane's fault. A user who has some gear around like me can generally shop appropriately for a stanley 4 and prepare the cap, the iron and the plane in about 15 minutes.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think lever cap pressure is an often overlooked fine adjustment -- can be too tight and certainly too loose. If a plane is not planing well it's worth adjusting the lever cap pressure one way or the other, and only a slight turn of the screw is required.

 

[D_W]

I don't think he sais superior. More like, plenty good enough for all things wood. And the extra weight of the new ones is a detriment.

A big detriment. The unfortunate truth about a finely milled sole that is perfectly flat is also that it will create much more friction and more abruptly as the wax runs out. Which is something that you will notice with Lie Nielsen or Lee Valley vs. a vintage plane that's functionally flat but not perfectly.

Not noticed too much if you smooth and wax all the time, but start working rough wood and the constant waxing is a bit of a pain.

 

[D_W]

I think lever cap pressure is an often overlooked fine adjustment -- can be too tight and certainly too loose. If a plane is not planing well it's worth adjusting the lever cap pressure one way or the other, and only a slight turn of the screw is required.

Yes, and the comfort range is larger with a little bit more spring from the cap iron.

 

[Trafalgar]

It is certainly a fine adjustment that has the potential to be rendered moot, or close to it, if installing thick aftermarket cutters and cap irons.

I've tried both in a roundabout way, one plane I bought came with a Stay Set and a Hock iron. Works fine, and certainly provides a different set of 'feels' initially, but comparisons 'down the road' did not reveal a daylight to dark sort of thing.

When mass seems to be a factor that might make a difference it's easier just to pick up a bigger plane, or if one's long plane is cutting fine finish the job with it.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I may be wrong, but I almost get the feeling that some people think some flexibility is desirable in a plane iron, or at least, that a moderately flexible plane iron is not detrimental to plane performance.

 

[Trafalgar]

Not at all. Too much lever cap pressure is as bad as too little.

The goal of course is to make the *fine* adjustments one needs on a particular day for the particular species under plane. Standard issue Stanley and Record provide all the adjustments required (by design it practically goes without saying). This isn't to say that these two companies never sent a clunker out the door.

 

[D_W]

I may be wrong, but I almost get the feeling that some people think some flexibility is desirable in a plane iron, or at least, that a moderately flexible plane iron is not detrimental to plane performance.

If the flexibility is so much that chatter is allowed, that's not desirable. What you do want to have is exactly what charles says, compliant adjustability without backing off any pressure as you would have to do in the double-action norris-type adjuster.

There is quite a wide range of tightness that can provide "stop you in your tracks" setup on a stanley plane, so it's not necessary to feel any looseness to have good adjustability and no chatter.

 

[D_W]

There are only two types of planes that I can think of that chatter when properly set up - moulding planes in a very heavy cut (which isn't a big deal, you don't finish with the heavy cut). That includes rabbet planes, especially, where the design leaves a fairly distant contact point to an iron.

And 18th century type single iron planes with very thin irons under a heavy cut.

Every other plane design out there should stop you in your tracks, especially if it has a cap iron. Even the later continental planes that have abbreviated wedge fingers that don't terminate as far down on the cap as they could.

The one thing that I can think of that will make a stanley plane feel flimsy is that the lateral adjusters clank around if they're loose. It gives the perception that something that matters is loose in the plane when it is actually not.

The fact that a common stanley plane can plane anything should be good news, but it's often met with "no it can't, you need a premium plane". That puzzles me some (I'm not singling you out, I still see that often on various forums. Either a premium plane or a steep pitched infill plane is suggested), it's a choice to get luxury planes, not the necessity that it's explained to be.

It's nice to have choices.

Some of us who can afford any type end up working with something less expensive, anyway. If someone walked into my shop tomorrow and offered me a substantial fraction of what I paid for my infills, I would be glad to let them go (I paid less than many because I made them either from scratch or out of a kit). They just have nothing over a stanley when the rubber hits the road.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Would you describe how to 'set up' a common Bailey type plane with a standard iron and cap-iron, please?

 

[Corneel]

That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly.

I think that's about it. Oh yes, sharpen the blade.

 

[Trafalgar]

Lots of permutations CC with regard to frog position (mouth aperture), cap iron position, cutter projection, cutter shape, cap iron pressure. Infinite just considering the cap iron position and frog positions alone. And of course the cutter could have an infinite number of shapes.

There are some general principles to be sure, they hardly need repeating in that they must have been covered dozens of times here, probably thousands when considering all the forums out there not to mention the standard references - Hayward, Joyce, et al.

Most will settle on setups that work for the species normally encountered and then make changes for special jobs or when the planing is not going so well. Thank goodness there is still a bit of art and judgment left in the process and that the Bailey design accommodates it all.

 

[G S Haydon]

The Bailey style is a wonder of industrial design. The only thing against it sole friction but that's not too bad because it's light. As mentioned by other it's great to have choices but the bottom line is the Stanley will everything any other plane will. You could choose to argue better, but lets not start one of those

 

[D_W]

That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly.

I think that's about it. Oh yes, sharpen the blade.

that's pretty much it. If the cap doesn't mate well or is in rough shape, do as little as possible to alter its shape while getting it to fit well.

The biggest aid in setting up a stanley plane is buying one that's not iron-pitted or broken in some way. the rest of the stuff is quick. There is a myriad of classes telling people how to tune their planes by filing and lapping all kinds of stuff on the plane that makes no difference in terms of performance (frog faces, trying to square sides, filing frog feet, etc).

 

[David C]

Well no one has come up with a demonstrable advantage, except weight! (I wonder how few ounces?)

My favorite plane is a highly tuned 1970's Stanley with Hock A2 blade and L-N new improved chipbreaker. (I have described one improvement before, which involves fit between lever cap and hump).

This is in use all the time and the idea of reverting to a soft Stanley 70's blade and thin C/B is ludicrous.

The often repeated assertion of "no improvement" is without a shred of foundation. They are better machined, generally much quicker to fettle and work extremely well.

David Charlesworth

 

[Cheshirechappie]

That's not so difficult. Set the frog inline with the angled portion of the sole. Set the capiron close to the edge, really close when the wood calls for it, but otherwise not too far away either. That capiron gives a bunch of support. Set the levercap screw so that the lever clicks down with a reasuring click, but check that the adjuster still works easilly. Make sure that the sole doesnt have a hump behind the mouth. Make sure that the capiron mates the cutting blade perfectly.

I think that's about it. Oh yes, sharpen the blade.

that's pretty much it. If the cap doesn't mate well or is in rough shape, do as little as possible to alter its shape while getting it to fit well.

The biggest aid in setting up a stanley plane is buying one that's not iron-pitted or broken in some way. the rest of the stuff is quick. There is a myriad of classes telling people how to tune their planes by filing and lapping all kinds of stuff on the plane that makes no difference in terms of performance (frog faces, trying to square sides, filing frog feet, etc).

Ah. Thank you for the answer.

Whenever I've had a Bailey plane so set (Records and a Faithfull in my case, but all with the same standard thickness cutting irons), I've had a gap between the face of the frog and the back of the blade, and another gap between the flat face of the blade and the cap-iron. The blade is unsupported between the base of the frog (or somewhere near the blade's bevel) and somewhere near it's top. The cap-iron contacts close to the cutting edge, and somewhere near the top. Most of the time, that probably doesn't matter very much, but does it matter during those times when things get difficult?

Sometimes, when planing endgrain, redwood (Scot's Pine) with hard knots, even clean-grained beech on occasions, I've had planes chatter. That's with sharp irons and nicely-fitted standard cap-irons, and the work well-held on a decent bench. Using planes with thicker irons (Lie-Nielsen number 4 and 5, and a Record 07 with a Clifton iron and two-piece cap-iron) - same bench, same workpieces - I don't get chatter. Using wooden planes, I don't get chatter. I've never used an infill (cos they're expensive) so can't comment on them.

Perhaps that unsupported blade isn't such a good thing? Perhaps stiffening it up a bit (either thicker iron, closer-fit cap-iron, or both) help a bit at difficult times? I think so, anyway.