Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
You said it yourself above; 1.8 mm ish or a bit more? It'll vary with the use demanded of it. And a lot of other variables of course.
Replacement plane iron, standard thickness
- Thread starter mathias
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
bugbear
Established Member
Jacob":ojs9948o said:
Wise words.
BugBear
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":35sbxhtw said:
It'll vary with the use demanded of it....
Well, quite. Isn't that the point of the discussion? Some say a thin iron is all they needed, some say a slightly thicker one will work better in some circumstances. Seems you agree.
Not just down to ease of sharpening, then....
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
The point of having a blade as thin as possible for the job in hand is that it makes it easier to sharpen. The steel plane and Bailey design makes it possible to use thinner blades for the same jobs - the primary advantage of which is easier sharpening.Cheshirechappie":1j2o4esh said:
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":1zqzdl67 said:
Well, as Paul Chapman pointed out earlier, most people sharpen by just attacking the bit that does the work, not the whole bevel (which is only trimmed up on a grinder now and again). Thus, blade thickness is pretty much immaterial when honing.
I think we have established that a blade as thin as possible for the job in hand means that thinner blades struggle with some jobs. Thus, a plane with a slightly thicker blade, all other things being equal, will give better performance in more demanding circumstances.
It's also worth noting that a thicker, stiffer cap-iron used with a given blade will improve performance as well; a point noticed by a number of experienced workers, and recommended as a method of improving the performance of Bailey-type plane.
There is a practical limit to the thickness of iron, cap-iron or both that can be used, and several possible problems that can arise if thicker components are fitted. The plane's mouth might be too narrow to accept the new assembly (curable by filing the mouth wider), the yoke may not engage properly with the cap-iron slot (curable by fitting a longer-nosed yoke available from several specialist suppliers), the adjuster stud in the back of the frog may be a little short (curable by fitting a longer stud available from several specialist suppliers), the cap-iron screw may be a bit short - they're short enough anyway! (curable by fitting a longer cap-iron screw available from several specialist suppliers), and the lever-cap screw in the top face of the frog may have insufficient thread engagement in it's hole once adjusted for the thicker assembly (curable by fitting a slightly longer screw available from etc. etc.). It might be worth investigating whether those problems could affect your plane before shelling out for thicker iron and/or cap-iron, and deciding whether you wish to replace the other components or not.
Another alternative (again mentioned by Paul Chapman earlier) is to buy a premium plane, which will be fitted with thick irons and cap-irons as standard.....
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
If you don't count grinding the bevel as sharpening then you are right.Cheshirechappie":hqlip0mm said:
But it is an inescapable part of sharpening, so you are wrong! Even wronger if you do it all by hand.
Anyway grinding is quicker with a thinner blade too.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Ah - the Jacob default position! Can't beat 'em on blade thickness, so let's have a sharpening debate instead!
If you want to "do it all by hand" that's your right. Good luck to you. However, most of us do the heavy metal removal on a grinder, and use the stones just to produce a polished bit right at the cutting edge. Thus, plane blade thickness is pretty well immaterial when sharpening. It isn't when planing, though....
If you want to "do it all by hand" that's your right. Good luck to you. However, most of us do the heavy metal removal on a grinder, and use the stones just to produce a polished bit right at the cutting edge. Thus, plane blade thickness is pretty well immaterial when sharpening. It isn't when planing, though....
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Just done a small calculation. Reducing the thickness of a plane blade 200mm x 50mm from 2.4mm to 2mm saves about 3 tons of toolsteel per 100,000 blades. A worthwhile saving if you're mass producing planes - or operating under wartime constraints. Given that toolsteel is among the more expensive steels, you'd regard a saving like that as worthwhile, provided you didn't get too many complaints about quality; and especially if you could add it to the profit margin and not pass the saving on to the customer.
200 x 50 x 0.4mm x 100,000 units = 0.2 x 0.05 x 0.0004m x 100,000 units = 0.4 cu. m.
Density of steel is about 7800kg/cu m, so 7800 x 0.4 = 3120kg = about 3 tons.
(A question was raised a while ago asking if anybody knew how many Bailey planes had been made. None of us had an answer except 'a lot', so I don't know whether 100,000 units amounts to a month's production, a year's production or a decade's production.
Speculating - if the reduction happened during the war years, it could be that it was one of those many token gestures made at the time 'to save resources', and return to former specification didn't happen when normality slowly returned after the war.)
200 x 50 x 0.4mm x 100,000 units = 0.2 x 0.05 x 0.0004m x 100,000 units = 0.4 cu. m.
Density of steel is about 7800kg/cu m, so 7800 x 0.4 = 3120kg = about 3 tons.
(A question was raised a while ago asking if anybody knew how many Bailey planes had been made. None of us had an answer except 'a lot', so I don't know whether 100,000 units amounts to a month's production, a year's production or a decade's production.
Speculating - if the reduction happened during the war years, it could be that it was one of those many token gestures made at the time 'to save resources', and return to former specification didn't happen when normality slowly returned after the war.)
iNewbie
Established Member
mathias
Established Member
Jacob":t12nmtpc said:
I will use the precent blade. I thought that I've made that clear. I want an extra blade shaped for example for scrub work with my No4 as I don't have/want a dedicated scrub plane. Please don't tell me to get a second hand scrub plane for whatever reason since I don't want a separate one (and please don't ask).
mathias
Established Member
Cheshirechappie":13r4k2t0 said:
Don't worry, my budget is very limited and as I said in the beginning, standard size iron and if possible as good as original Record square type of iron. A Faithfull iron I think is less then 6£ and as there have been some good comments (concidering the price) on some of their products (the No4 plane and the blue handled chisels) I was hoping for some comments/experience in this area.
Jacob, if you are still reading. When an iron is worn out, what would you buy?
mathias
Established Member
Oh, grinding/honing is done by hand,dont have a grinder nor a workshop. Wood work is done in the dining room ;-)
For a while I used our future childs room but the future is here since almost four years....
For a while I used our future childs room but the future is here since almost four years....
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I've done a lot of woodwork over the years but have never yet worn out a blade except a block plane which I replaced with the standard identical Stanley offering.mathias":1bg7h7rx said:
You have to do a hell of a lot of hand work to wear them out, or be a crazy sharpener with a grinding wheel.
In any case a 2nd hand plane is going to be cheaper than a replacement blade. I've got a few, which defers even further the likelihood of ever wearing one out.
mathias
Established Member
Thanks Jacob. I live in France and not many 2nd hand here and shipping from UK is expensive so it is a bit more complicated for me.
A new Faithfull iron is less than 6£ but I'd rather by beer for that if the iron is no good at all.
A new Faithfull iron is less than 6£ but I'd rather by beer for that if the iron is no good at all.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
I have a Faithfull number 3 plane, which I bought out of curiosity, and to fettle up into something better. Straight from the maker, it just about works, but in all honesty it's not very good.
The iron is a bit soft compared to most I have. It sharpens very easily to a good edge, but doesn't hold it as long as as most irons. If you are prepared to pay a bit more for a Stanley replacement iron (about £12 in the UK, but you may be able to buy one locally and save international postage), I think you'd find it will give a better performance than the Faithfull iron.
The iron is a bit soft compared to most I have. It sharpens very easily to a good edge, but doesn't hold it as long as as most irons. If you are prepared to pay a bit more for a Stanley replacement iron (about £12 in the UK, but you may be able to buy one locally and save international postage), I think you'd find it will give a better performance than the Faithfull iron.
mathias
Established Member
I found a Uk shop that have several of the things I have on my list and they have Stanley 2" at 8.21£. Not a big difference so why not if it is better. Is this a personale experience, Stanley better then Faithfull I mean?
Billy Flitch
Established Member
Yesterday while looking for something I came across this tid bit of information.It may add something to the conversation on plane irons,then again maybe not?
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london
The interesting points are the approx date of the iron 1750 its size 2 m/m at the cutting edge trailing to 1 m/m at its head and its very early use of a backing iron.
If you don't wish to read it all scroll down to the part headed The irons,
http://www.taths.org.uk/tools-and-trade ... -of-london
worn thumbs
Established Member
I have worn out three smoothing plane irons,two block plane irons and two spokeshave irons.I replaced them all with Stanley offerings as thats what they had originally and they worked perfectly well.I know that the alternatives exist and they seem to be marketed on the basis that they are cheaper or better than the original type.I suppose they have to be or there would be no business to be done.
I have never seen the point of extra thick or extra hard replacements as they tend to be more brittle and when you do need to sharpen them it takes a lot more work.I suppose it impresses the hobbyist to see a long list of features describing them.I once had such a specimen tell me he had just bought a cryogenically hardened iron-sounds good doesn't it?So I asked him what the advantage was and got no sensible answer.
I have never seen the point of extra thick or extra hard replacements as they tend to be more brittle and when you do need to sharpen them it takes a lot more work.I suppose it impresses the hobbyist to see a long list of features describing them.I once had such a specimen tell me he had just bought a cryogenically hardened iron-sounds good doesn't it?So I asked him what the advantage was and got no sensible answer.
David C
In Memorium
For the final set of fine shavings, off my 8' by 16" beech bench top, I used to use three sharp Stanley blades.
Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.
It is possible that 1970's Stanley blades were not a high point.
David Charlesworth
Today, I get this job done with one Hock A2 blade.
It is possible that 1970's Stanley blades were not a high point.
David Charlesworth
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
They were cheap, easy to sharpen and got the job done.David C":35c6ltrg said:
Similar threads
