Replacement Plane Irons.

[woodbloke]

If you have a look at the wooden planes offered by Philly, he makes (or made) them with EP's up to and including 70deg - Rob

 

[Cheshirechappie]

So - how about this for a summary.

Site joinery and carpentry - Standard Bailey type, lowish cost so it doesn't matter too much if it gets knocked about or lifted by someone with magnetic fingers. Bog standard irons.

Bench joinery and carpentry - Maybe something a bit better, bailey pattern with a thicker iron.

Run-of-the-mill cabinetmaking in temperate hardwoods and milder tropical timbers - Bailey pattern, tuned a bit, with thicker irons of O1 steel, or maybe A2 for longer runs between honings.

Cabinetmaking in wilder-grained temperate hardwoods and demanding tropical timbers - Steel-soled infill planes with fine mouths, thick irons and maybe higher bedding angles. For really nasty timbers, A2 or even D2 steel. Perhaps even hand-made planes to uit the job with very thick irons a-la Krenov.

In other words, horses for courses.

(By the way, I see that Ray Isles offers both A2 and D2 steel irons on his website - just google 'Ray Isles' - I can't do links for some reason.)

(Edit to add a correction - Ray Isls offers both O1 and D2 steel irons, not A2.)

 

[Jacob]

Thats OK except that you dismiss work done with "temperate hardwoods and milder tropical timbers" as "run of the mill". In fact very fine joinery/cabinet making is done with all manner of materials.
Most of the work you'd do with "wilder-grained temperate hardwoods and demanding tropical timbers" would still be done with ordinary planes; it's mostly preparation. Only when you get to finishing do you need something a bit better or a different technique, but this is true of many woods e.g. getting a good finish on anything at all knotty, even if it's rubbish like Leylandii.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Jacob - perhaps my choice of words wasn't as nuanced as it might have been, but I wasn't trying to "dismiss" anything; just trying to make a distinction between the gentler-working timbers and the more difficult specimens.

I suspect that most of us amateurs won't do a great deal of cabinet work in some of the rarer and more costly exotics that some pros may have to do battle with, though we might meet some wild-grained pieces of quite common timbers from time to time. Besides, different approaches may work for different people. My summary was just an attempt to promote further discussion, really.

Another thought that occurred is that A2 is a relatively modern innovation to wood cutting tools. I think it was Karl Holtey who first used it in the late 1990's, and everybody else jumped on the bandwagon. Prior to that, there was the old 'cast steel' plain carbon steel thick irons, either laminated or solid, and Bailey-type standard irons (the steel of which is metallurgically quite good - I'm sure I've got one stamped 'tungsten steel' or similar - but they're just too thin). So the cabinetmakers of old were tackling some pretty demanding timbers with plain carbon steel irons - but thick ones. (O1 is about the nearest modern equivalent to plain carbon steel, metallurgically.)

 

[Jacob]

....... Bailey-type standard irons (the steel of which is metallurgically quite good - I'm sure I've got one stamped 'tungsten steel' or similar

All the old Records I've seen (I've got a few) have "Tungsten Steel" on the blades

- but they're just too thin). So the cabinetmakers of old were tackling some pretty demanding timbers with plain carbon steel irons - but thick ones. (O1 is about the nearest modern equivalent to plain carbon steel, metallurgically.)

If they are too thin you have to ask why they all took them up so readily in preference to the thicker bladed woodies. I think the answer is mainly in the precision adjustment, which in the Bailey is unsurpassed. I was thinking this only yesterday - planing a 2" board edge in sycamore. 5 1/2 Record just makes it so easy - a little tilt adjustment one way to square the edge, then adjust for a fine straight cut down the middle etc. Had to finish off with a LV la Jack due to slight tear-out in one spot. LV a good cut but a clumsy beast otherwise - no real lateral adjustment at all except with a little hammer. Using a Bailey for preference is a no-brainer, until you reach it's limit. Then it's out with the ROS etc!

 

[woodbrains]

So - how about this for a summary.

Site joinery and carpentry - Standard Bailey type, lowish cost so it doesn't matter too much if it gets knocked about or lifted by someone with magnetic fingers. Bog standard irons.

Bench joinery and carpentry - Maybe something a bit better, bailey pattern with a thicker iron.

Run-of-the-mill cabinetmaking in temperate hardwoods and milder tropical timbers - Bailey pattern, tuned a bit, with thicker irons of O1 steel, or maybe A2 for longer runs between honings.

Cabinetmaking in wilder-grained temperate hardwoods and demanding tropical timbers - Steel-soled infill planes with fine mouths, thick irons and maybe higher bedding angles. For really nasty timbers, A2 or even D2 steel. Perhaps even hand-made planes to uit the job with very thick irons a-la Krenov.

In other words, horses for courses.

(By the way, I see that Ray Isles offers both A2 and D2 steel irons on his website - just google 'Ray Isles' - I can't do links for some reason.)

Hi,

Couldn't agree more! Incidentally, I was taught by Krenov meeself (to a point, anyway). He almost never used sandpaper nor scrapers; everything was finished straight from his planes. The idea that a plane is only to remove material relatively roughly and then finished with scrapers and abrasives is false, I'm afraid. And I do think the notion was a direct result of planes becoming the perfunctory, mass produced items rather than fine instruments that they used to be and are now becoming again.

I do not own any LV LN or Clifton bench planes, so anyone who owns any of these will know exactly the reason why I want to upgrade. ( I do have a Veritas shoulder plane) I think my total set of bench planes cost no more than a single new one of the above, so i do not think I am wasting money replacing the irons and it definately is not to no good effect. The trouble is, I have so many of the blighters, and I do use them all, I think I could probably do with 6 irons or so, which could be costly if I use Cliftons and cap irons to boot.

I'm not a metallurgist, but the steel in the original irons is OK, but they were churned out like cookies, so all the fancy alloying agents were added to try to get the steel as good as hand hammered high carbon steel, without the effort. The tungsten was added to improve the grain structure, without the effort of hammering as done in Cliffie irons, to make them cheaper to produce. It did not necesarily make a better or even comparable product. And the thin irons had nothing to do with ease of adjustment, it just saved lots of money for the manufacturer. Norris and the like had fine adjustment in their planes with tremendously thick irons. I still think the best adjustment is with a wedged iron and a hammer, anyway!


Mike.

 

[Jacob]

....... And the thin irons had nothing to do with ease of adjustment, it just saved lots of money for the manufacturer.

Very unlikely. The tiny bit of steel saved would be nothing compared to the overall weight of the plane. Saving steel on the most critical component would be madness. It was a carefully considered design decision.

Norris and the like had fine adjustment in their planes with tremendously thick irons. I still think the best adjustment is with a wedged iron and a hammer, anyway!


Mike.

Norris adjusters look good but don't work too well. Bailey adjusters look rubbish but work brilliantly.

Krenov ...The idea that a plane is only to remove material relatively roughly and then finished with scrapers and abrasives is false, I'm afraid.

I don't think anybody says that do they? Anyway you could argue that a plane is false compared to an axe, or a scraper, or nibbling with your teeth!
Over-finishing certainly can spoil things and nice clean cuts look good even if not perfect.
But struggling, at great expense, to plane the impossible, is a mug's game!

 

[Corneel]

I must say that I agree somewhat with Jacob. With growing experience I am getting more and more fond of my simple Stanley's. There is no reason to replace the older irons, they are just good stuff, hold an edge for a long time and are easy to sharpen. I also have an older Record #5 with original blade and likewise performance. It hogs off thick shavings all day long.

My smoother #4 has a Ray Iles O1 iron. That's also a good blade. Pretty thick, so I had to file the mouth. With this plane I always had some chatter during the start of a cut, and that was instantly cured with the thick iron. But now I think that was a bit of beginners problem too, somehow not engaging the plane on the wood in the right manner. I can't describe what I do different now, but I never have this problem anymore with any of my planes. Another smoother I like very much is an Ulmia Reform smoother also with a thin blade. It's an equally nice plane. The iron is bedded on wood and the plane has a Stanley like clamp, no wedge. Easy to adjust with a small hammer and light taps. This plane has a 49 degree bed.

At the other hand I also have a rather modern Stanley Handiman. That one is awfull on all ends, and the blade wants to fold it's edge. It's now on the back of the shelf and never used anymore.

For very difficult tropical wood I use a backbevel on my Stanley #4. Works wonders. When I still get tearout I use a scraper and a bit of sandpaper.

 

[Jacob]

.......I always had some chatter during the start of a cut, and that was instantly cured with the thick iron. But now I think that was a bit of beginners problem too, somehow not engaging the plane on the wood in the right manner. I can't describe what I do different now, but I never have this problem anymore with any of my planes..........

Exactly. Chatter just means you are doing it wrong - you can't blame the plane, though some are more prone to chatter than others, which means more attention to technique is required.
The big attraction of the thick blade modern planes is that they are silly person proof - almost!

more and more fond of my simple Stanley's.

IMHO they aren't that simple. Quite the opposite - a sophisticated and highly developed design. Like a lot of good design they get taken for granted from sheer familiarity.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Chatter was something I experienced, and not just at the start of cuts, when I was even younger and less experienced a woodworker than I am now. Only on hardwoods, specifically beech. A finer cut solved that problem then, but at the expense of taking a lot longer over the job. Since I've had the Cliffie iron in the plane, I've never had any chatter problems.

My engineering experience leads me to believe that chatter occurs because of lack of stiffness in the blade. (In centre-lathe turning, chatter is usually cured by stiffening up the tool and toolholder in some way.) So stiffer (i.e. thicker) iron, less likelihood of chatter. (My woody jackplane never chatters, even when set to the point that I can barely push it - the iron is nigh-on 1/4" thick at the business end.)

Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?

 

[Corneel]

The prewar Baileys were just as thick as the new ones. No idea on the metal type.

And I am not going to replace my almost full length prewar Stanley 7 iron. It's perfect. It can take big cuts too in maple, beech and oak without even a hint of chatter.

Something Jacob also mentions often is setting back the frog so the iron rests on the sole too. That will help with any chatter tendencies.
The smoother I like with a narrow mouth though so the thicker Ray Iles cold be helpfull there.

 

[ali27]

Guys what are the opinions on the laminated samurai blade as
replacement for a standard stanley blade? It's as thick as the
stanley blade, but has real heard steel at the cutting edge, I
believe 66-68HRC.

Brent beach did some testing and found that this blade was
almost as durable as A2 steel. Best performing blade in the
high carbon steel category.

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/TSUtest.html

Anybody else try this one.

Sharpening should be very easy as the soft steel is easily
abraded and there is only a very thin layer of very hard steel.
I think Jacob you used this one right?

 

[woodbrains]

Chatter was something I experienced, and not just at the start of cuts, when I was even younger and less experienced a woodworker than I am now. Only on hardwoods, specifically beech. A finer cut solved that problem then, but at the expense of taking a lot longer over the job. Since I've had the Cliffie iron in the plane, I've never had any chatter problems.

My engineering experience leads me to believe that chatter occurs because of lack of stiffness in the blade. (In centre-lathe turning, chatter is usually cured by stiffening up the tool and toolholder in some way.) So stiffer (i.e. thicker) iron, less likelihood of chatter. (My woody jackplane never chatters, even when set to the point that I can barely push it - the iron is nigh-on 1/4" thick at the business end.)

Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?

Hi,

Nail on the head again, thicker irons mean less/no chatter, thin irons with poor cap irons invite chatter. This is not really debatable, it is backed up by the experience of many well respected craftsmen. Plane pine all day long with a 'standard' plane and you will wonder what the fuss is but change to some twisty elm and you will wonder if planes could ever work here. Like the many who have resorted to all manner of power sanding tools because planes don't work. I am not a beginner by any means, I have been involved with wood all my life and cut my teeth with my dad's old Record 04 and a beaten up wooden coffin smoother. Even as a pre teenage lad, I worked out that the coffin smoother with its thick iron and rock solid blade seating gave superior results. Of the planes I own now, the few with the thicker irons and the heavier cap irons work better. They just do.

The Hock irons that Krenov uses are plain O1 steel, but thick with a substantial cap irons. He made the blades seat at the regular pitch of the Baily's we are talking about but they work better; night and day different. I'm not saying that really cranky grain can be tamed with one, but you can go degrees more ornery than the point where a standard Baily gave up the ghost. Why? conventional wisdom says that all should be equal unless you introduce high bed angles or resort to scraping, but they work better. Thick irons, thick cap irons, firm blade bedding and SHARPER O1 steel versus thin irons screwed to a bit of tin which warps the blade assy so it can't be clamped to the bed firmly enough and an edge which becomes duller sooner. It is a no brainer, really.

Jacob, did I misread you owning a BU smoother/jack, which you reserve for more demanding woods? Thick iron with a firm bed support right to the cutting edge; I think you are secretly agreeing with me.

I have a 1910 patent Stanley Bailey N08 with original sweetheart iron. It is thin too, I don't think they were ever made to be thicker than we see now.

Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

And I am not going to replace my almost full length prewar Stanley 7 iron. It's perfect. It can take big cuts too in maple, beech and oak without even a hint of chatter.

Something Jacob also mentions often is setting back the frog so the iron rests on the sole too. That will help with any chatter tendencies.
The smoother I like with a narrow mouth though so the thicker Ray Iles cold be helpfull there.

Hi,

Maple, beech and oak aren't what I would call difficult timber, though from time to time you find examples that are. If this is the sort of timber you use, And there is nothing wrong with that, then you may well get by with your standard No7. Esp if you finish with your finely set smoother, Ray Iles equipped.

The idea of moving the frog backwards so the iron rest on the plane body is flawed in that the wider mouth will cause more tearout, negatin any benefit in doing so. The bevel down blade probably won't get much more, if any, support in doing so, anyway. Thicker blades rule for so many reasons.

Mike.

 

[Vann]

Out of interest, does anybody with more knowledge of plane history than I (in other words, pretty much everyone!) know how thick the irons of pre-war Bailey-type planes were relative to the modern offerings? And what grade of steel was used?

I can't tell you anything about the grade of steel, but when it comes to thickness...

The majority of my ..ahem, accumulation of planes are Records from the 1931 to 1959 period. Using 'cutter' types as outlined in David Lynch's recordhandplanes site:

The first profile of the cutter had a straight top with angled sides and marked "RECORD, Made in England, Best Crucible Cast, Tungsten Steel" from 1930 to mid 1950's. I have several of these measuring from 1.85mm to 2.40mm thick (as measured with a 'verynear').

I have no examples of the second type.

The third profile had the curved top with angled sides and marked "RECORD, Tungsten Vanadium Steel, Made in England" from 1959. I have measured two of this profile. Both measure 1.95mm thick.

Finally, I have two more of the same profile but without any wording. Both are from Record SP4 planes, made 1992-95, and both measure 2.25mm thick.

While I don't think this is a big enough sampling to draw firm conclusions, it does suggest that Record may have thinned down their irons at one stage, but beefed up the thickness again towards the end.

Anybody got too many Stanleys to measure?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Corneel]

Why? conventional wisdom says that all should be equal unless you introduce high bed angles or resort to scraping, but they work better. Thick irons, thick cap irons, firm blade bedding and SHARPER O1 steel versus thin irons screwed to a bit of tin which warps the blade assy so it can't be clamped to the bed firmly enough and an edge which becomes duller sooner. It is a no brainer, really.

You forget to mention one pretty important part: the blade clamp. That one presses down the thin iron and thin capiron on the frog. When you have the screw tight enough, there is no problem to clamp it absolutely flat on the frog. The curve in the capiron helps to get the pressure exactly where you want it, just behind the edge. It's a smart design. Of course the older Stanleys and Records present a lot more bedding surface then the newer ones.

With a back bevel and the Ray Iles iron in my #4 I have no problem with crossgrained quarter sawn Jatoba. I have a big stack of that stuff. It's hard work though and I prefer the local woods. My maple has a lot of wavy grain, which can be a challenge too.

 

[Vann]

You forget to mention one pretty important part: the blade clamp. That one presses down the thin iron and thin capiron on the frog. When you have the screw tight enough, there is no problem to clamp it absolutely flat on the frog. The curve in the capiron helps to get the pressure exactly where you want it, just behind the edge. It's a smart design.

I'm not sure I agree. The blade clamp only applies pressure at 2 points: near the top of the cap-iron (under the cam); and on the bend near the base of the cap-iron (under the leading edge). The cap-iron transfers these forces to the cutting iron near the top (again under the cam); and immediately above the cutting edge. There is little or no force holding the middle of the iron against the frog.

When the iron hits a hard spot, the resistance forces the cutting edge back minutely and the iron pivots around the base of the frog lifting the centre portion off the frog momentarily - chatter!

A thicker iron better resists this pivoting/bending. A thicker, flat cap-iron helps hold down the centre of the cutting iron. With a two-piece cap-iron the force from the lever-cap on to the bottom piece of the cap-iron (the deflector) is transferred to the cutting edge and to a point about 1 inch above the cutting edge (where the deflector meets the main part of the cap-iron) holding this whole area flat against the frog. The Stanley-Bailey bent cap-iron simply does not do this well.

Or at least that's my theory...

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Corneel]

Maybe you are right. Everything is possible in this world. :lol:
I'm going to look hard at a Stanley plane tonight to see exactly what you mean.

But in the mean time, my message to any readers of this thread: The standard Stanley/Record with the standard blade is a very capable plane. So first try it to see if it doesn't accidentally meet your requirements, before ordering an expensive replacement iron.

 

[David C]

If you check, I think you will find that all chipbreakers (except Stay Set) bend the blade. This causes two point contact with the frog. Top and bottom of the slope. The lever cap does not flatten the middle of the blade, to touch the frog surface. This can be demonstrated with cigarette papers or telephone book paper. Later Stanley frog surfaces are very badly machined and frequently need attention. Hollowness of width at the bottom of the slope is an invitation to chatter.

It is clear that thicker blades, properly hardened, work better and stay usable longer than the standard Stanley blade, produced from the seventies onward. Mine are about 1.8mm thick. Early Stanley propaganda said the advantage of the thin blade was less or no grinding. It said nothing about performance!
Thick chipbreakers will improve the performance of thin blades.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about Stanley soles being good enough to work out of the box. The first year and a half of my career was blighted by a 5 1/2 with a faulty sole. Working it on coarse belt sander paper stretched over a planer table, transformed performance. Hollow soles which are quite common will not plane a straight edge.......

Over the years I have discovered more and more of the subtle manufacturing flaws which prevent planes from working really well. These can generally be fixed. This is one of the topics covered on my tool tuning courses which start in May.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[woodbloke]

There is a lot of rubbish talked about Stanley soles being good enough to work out of the box. The first year and a half of my career was blighted by a 5 1/2 with a faulty sole. Working it on coarse belt sander paper stretched over a planer table, transformed performance. Hollow soles which are quite common will not plane a straight edge.......

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

In the mid-70's when I started at college, we were in one of the workshops and one of the lads called me over as no matter what he did, he couldn't get his new Record No5 to cut...nothing! He tried extending the blade to it's full extent and the thing would only just touch the wood. He was a bit puzzled and called me over and I couldn't work it out either til I put a straight edge across the sole...it was a genuine banana plane with a gap in the middle of about 2mm. It went straight back to the shop whence it came :wink: - Rob