no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily

[Racers]

Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).

[/URL]

Hi, Cornell

I see where I went wrong, thanks for that.

I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, or reduce tear out, stiff blade or high angle blade or tight mouth or a very close set cap iron.
No one way is the best on all timbers.

Pete

 

[AndyT]

I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, or reduce tear out, stiff blade or high angle blade or tight mouth or a very close set cap iron.
No one way is the best on all timbers.

Pete

I think that's the reason why discussions like this go on so long and in such detail. The forum has contributors from most of the different branches of woodworking (carpentry, joinery, cabinetmaking etc) and although some tools are common to many of them, the details of their use differ.

Maybe we should preface all statements by saying whether they apply to 'joinery work in softwood' 'utility cabinet making in mild hardwood' or 'fine cabinet making in difficult exotics' etc.
My impression is that sometimes a poster is thinking hard about one such subset of woodwork but does not say so; then someone else thinks about an example from their experience but in a different sort of work - and so confusion follows.

 

[Corneel]

Using the chipbreaker to full effect is pretty universal. The beauty of the thing: when you don't need it in benign wood, you can pull it upwards a bit and get easier planing in return. When the chipbreaker does its work, you can really feel it in the effort to push the plane, just like with a high angle plane.

And of course, a very sharp blade come first.

 

[morfa]

Corneel - Thanks for the extra detail and diagrams.

I'm not 100% sure about whether or not there are any gaps between the blade and chipbreaker, I'll check that later on. However I did check the sharpness of the chipbreaker and it has been sharpened as per your diagram. It's a refurbished plane bought from Ray Iles and it looks like the chipbreaker has been recently re-sharpened, I guess by Ray.

At the moment I don't really have any more money to spend on tools, so I'm planning to use the 5 1/2 as a jointer / jack plane. And anything else that I need it for really. Up till this point I've been doing everything with a no 4 (ala Paul Sellers).

Most of the work that I'm planning on doing is cabinet making with fairly standard woods, eg tulipwood, oak, syamore etc. Just incase that helps people know where I'm coming from. At the moment however I'm finishing off my workbench, which is made of standard pine ('softwood') PSE 'studwork'. Which is probably pretty easy to plane even with a naff setup.

I've no idea how sharp my blades are. I'm normally able to shave off a few hairs with a bit of pressure (I go for that as a standard, just so I know how sharp the blade is, no other reason). They can cut stuff, so I guess they're sharp enough. The blade isn't cambered, it's straight.

I'll take a photo later on and post it up, so you guys can tell me if I need to adjust the frog.

But if the chipbreaker is suitably sharp and there's no gap, what else should I try / do?

I'll try it closer to the edge. From where it was positioned, it was in the right position previously.

I'm thinking it might have been just that I was trying to take really thick shavings and pulling back.

 

[Corneel]

You could try some wooden planes, thei're pretty cheap...

For a jointer ideally you would want a straighter blade then a jackplane. I don't how strong you are, but pushing full width thick shavings can be tyring. Well, you have to strat some where, so I would grind the blade in the shape you need now. For the roughing fase, it helps too go across the grain, which is much easier. Just watch out to remove equal amounts of wood all over the board.

In a Stanley plane, apart from the chipbreaker there is really not much to make it clog. No big burrs in the metal around the mouth?

 

[bugbear]

Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).

[/URL]

Hi, Cornell

I see where I went wrong, thanks for that.

I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, or reduce tear out, stiff blade or high angle blade or tight mouth or a very close set cap iron.
No one way is the best on all timbers.

Pete

The diagram makes its clear that a thicker (after market) blade would change two factors, not one; a thicker blade needs less support (due to mass and stiffness), and also gets less of its support from the sole, and more from the frog.

Good old Henry Richards didn't intend the blade to always sit on the sole!

BugBear

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Racers, do not go to the dark side! The frog was designed, unequivocally, to adjust the mouth opening. The others are just talking about an artefact that may or may not be possible with some planes. (None of mine, incidentally)

I will ask again, someone please explain a reason for the sole of the plane beneath the front of the frog, to be machined lower than the rest of the plane, if it is not to enable the frog to extend further down and support the blade closer to its end, thereby enabling the most practicable amount of support whilst enabling the frog to move backward and forwards as the user sees fit. There is no other reason for it. If support from the rear mouth was intended, the casting here could be ten times thicker and the frog would only be used for blade adjustment. But it is not, it is purposely reduced here so the frog can also be used for mouth adjustment.

Incidentally, Jacob used to contend that the frog should be set a bit further back than the rear mouth, so the support from it would be somewhere in the bevel. Unbelievably so! So now we can neither adjust the mouth, nor the depth of cut, apparently. I ask you?

Mike.

 

[Corneel]

I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable. But it certainly isn't the best feature of the (otherwise pretty brilliant) Bailey type planes. Adjusting the frog is a pain with the screws under the blade. What I do know is that adjusting the frog is not neccesary, and I know that you can get extra support when you set the frog flush with the sole. And extra support with these thin blades is a welcome feature.

All my planes have the blade flapping in the breeze BTW, when you adjust the frog forward. My record with early type frog is the worst with a 3mm thick sole. All my Stanleys, the newer ones and the type 11 jointer have a 2.5mm thick sole at that point. So I don't know what planes you have Mike?

 

[Jacob]

....
Incidentally, Jacob used to contend that the frog should be set a bit further back than the rear mouth, so the support from it would be somewhere in the bevel. Unbelievably so! So now we can neither adjust the mouth, nor the depth of cut, apparently. I ask you?

Mike.

It's called "changing your mind".* I've been finding more out about these things since I started getting more interested in hand tools about 5 years ago. You can change your mind too if you want to, and you can do what you like without asking me!

*PS after having a good look at a few planes. I commend "looking" as a way of finding out about things. Too much theorising can be counter productive.

 

[Jacob]

I don't know why Bailey designed the frog to be movable......

I guess just for ease of manufacture - "adjustability" being an afterthought and a slightly dubious selling point.

On the other hand - if you look at the frog, off the body but with the blade and cap/lever irons in place, you are looking at a very effective "blade unit", not unlike a safety razor but more sophisticated.
I wonder if the brilliantly designed blade unit was conceived separately, with fitting it to the body as the next step?

 

[Jacob]

.....
C/B edge 2mm back is really far too far back to be useful for anything except extremely heavy shavings. ....

It works even better with fine shavings when "chip breaking" isn't so necessary. As you can see on any bevel up plane.

 

[David C]

But for most of the time most planing is not in difficult timber and doesn't involve tear out. It's important to bear this in mind or people will be doing ordinary work with impossibly finely set planes suitable for exceptional circumstances only.

4 thou is a degree of precision irrelevant to most woodworking.

Both these statements are extremely unhelpful and innaccurate when applied to cabinetmaking. Hardwoods are not always benign, American Walnut and American Cherry being two prime examples. Quartered boards are are almost certain to tear out unless extremely fine shavings are taken. Indeed back bevels or scraper planes may well be needed.

As stated earlier 4 thou" is a reasonably robust shaving in hardwood. 2 thou" is a useful working shaving and 1 thou" is a nice fine finishing shaving. Failure to think in these terms, and the standard invective that "woodworkers do not need engineering tolerances", is incorrect and missleading.

One of the problems for forum posters is the inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.

David Charlesworth

 

[Mike.S]

One of the problems for forum posters is the inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.

And, of course, it is often an individual's opinion as to what is fact, as Sheldon's mum explains this better (27 secs in).

 

[Jacob]

But for most of the time most planing is not in difficult timber and doesn't involve tear out. It's important to bear this in mind or people will be doing ordinary work with impossibly finely set planes suitable for exceptional circumstances only.

4 thou is a degree of precision irrelevant to most woodworking.

Both these statements are extremely unhelpful and innaccurate when applied to cabinetmaking. Hardwoods are not always benign, American Walnut and American Cherry being two prime examples. Quartered boards are are almost certain to tear out unless extremely fine shavings are taken. Indeed back bevels or scraper planes may well be needed.

As stated earlier 4 thou" is a reasonably robust shaving in hardwood. 2 thou" is a useful working shaving and 1 thou" is a nice fine finishing shaving. Failure to think in these terms, and the standard invective that "woodworkers do not need engineering tolerances", is incorrect and missleading.

One of the problems for forum posters is the inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.

David Charlesworth

[/quote][/quote]I've never measured the thickness of a shaving. Never felt the need somehow! But I'm fairly certain you could get shavings far thicker than 4 thou - otherwise things would just take far too long. Woodworkers do not need engineering tolerances.

 

[Corneel]

There is way too much discussion about the smoothing side of planing on the forums. At the moment I am working on a table with two big slabs of wallnut. From rough sawn to finish all by handplane. They are cupped about 1 cm over the width of 40 cm each, at the ends near the crotch are two big knots and rediculous hard wood around them. I wish there was a lot more discussion how you effectively aproach a job like that, without developping a new case of golfers elbows. I could use some tips. Smoothing this stuff is the easy part.

So, I don't know which facts are being regarded as opinion. The fact that you can increase the support of the blade in a Bailey style plane when you pull the frog back, is pretty evident I'd say. The rest is a matter of testing for yourself if this is valuable for you. The same with the chipbreaker effect, that's fact. If you want to use it is up to yourself.

 

[David C]

Joiners and carpenters may not need to know, but cabinetmakers and patternmakers undoubtedly do. (We have been here before).

It wouldn't do the former any harm to think on either.

I really would be interested to know what thickness of shaving you find appropriate in what timber species? This is the third time of asking.

David

 

[Jacob]

There is way too much discussion about the smoothing side of planing on the forums. At the moment I am working on a table with two big slabs of wallnut. From rough sawn to finish all by handplane. They are cupped about 1 cm over the width of 40 cm each, at the ends near the crotch are two big knots and rediculous hard wood around them. I wish there was a lot more discussion how you effectively aproach a job like that, without developping a new case of golfers elbows. I could use some tips. .....

The answer could be to scrub. i.e. use a narrow plane with a steeply cambered single iron and a wide mouth. I've been fiddling with various options and am amazed at how fast and easily you can rip off material. Could be a problem near the knots though.

 

[Jacob]

...
I really would be interested to know what thickness of shaving you find appropriate in what timber species? This is the third time of asking.

David

The answer is - as thick as you can get away with.

 

[David C]

Come along, that is not an answer..........

David

 

[Jacob]

Come along, that is not an answer..........

David

Yes it is! You don't refer to some sort of engineer's chart before you begin. You just get stuck in and see how it goes, adjusting your attack accordingly.