Replacement Plane Irons.

[Jacob]

Hi,

So now the sole isn't slightly forward of the frog to provide contact in the bevel. I swear you just make it up as you go along.

I swear you just misunderstand it on purpose as you go along! It wants to be in line, even the very tiniest gnats testicle amount forwards so that the back of the blade is in definite contact with the mouth

It is highly unlikely that this portion of the rear mouth opening is even in the same plane as the frog ramp anyway,

Er - well they seem to be by and large

unless you take the trouble of some fettling with a file, etc. and let's face it you haven't done that, either.

A 3mm thick replacement is nearly 3 1/2 times more rigid than a standard one so doesn't require any dubious frog setting so you can close up the mouth like you should to prevent tearout without fear of chatter. Couple this with a 2 piece cap iron which doesn't curve the blade when you nip up the cap screw and you have better frog contact and even more rigidity. Can't see the downside nor any reasonable argument against.

Mike.

For one plane yes a good idea. Convert it into an uber smoother. A no4 ideally? Or buy a LV la smoother, which is what I did. Or get by with scrapers. Stanley 80 is good. Hand-held bits of old saw blade will do it.
One uber smoother is enough . No point in converting all your planes into smoothers! Madness, expensive and you lose the thin blade advantage of ease of sharpening.

 

[Jacob]

Dear Corneel,

If you substituted the iron in your diagram with one with a rounded bevel, the distance at "X" would be shorter and Jacob would be very happy ... so don't! :-$

No, He 'rounds them under', so X would be bigger wouldn't it?

Only if you round under from an edge angle the same as shown 25º. In fact with a normally rounded bevel "X" would be much the same as a 30/25º twin bevel - just smoothed over. Rounding under isn't that radical, even if it does scare everybody sh|tless!!

 

[Vann]

Regarding the sole supporting the blade instead of the frog.

I meassured the thickness of the sole in my 1920's Stanley #7, and in a UK made Stanley #4. It's only 2.5mm thick. It's much thicker at he other ends of the plane, but just there where the frog comes down, they ground the sole to this 2.5 mm.

I too was a "the sole provides no support" believer until I did a similar exercise on CAD, and had to eat my words

Regarding clamping a thin iron to the frog:
I see absolutely no light between the clamp downed iron assembly and the frog while using the thin irons in a good old vintage Stanley.

You make not see any light, but there is nothing holding the assembly against the frog in this area*, so it is free to lift off whenever the cutting edge strikes churlish grain.

*except the rigidity (or lack thereof) of the flimsy iron and cap-iron.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Corneel]

In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.

I've seen claims though that the thick iron's edge lasts a lot longer because it doesn't vibrate so much.
Somebody should rig a high speed camera to a handplane, just to see what really happens at the edge. :idea:

 

[Jacob]

In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.

.....
....

Exactly. It'd be more interesting if the theoreticians came up with explanations of why these things do work in spite of the (demonstrably incorrect) theory! Didn't somebody once theorise that bumble-bees can't possibly fly?
To much theorising and not enough woodwork in my opinion!

 

[woodbrains]

In theory you are right Vann, in practice though, this light and thin iron can handle a lot of tough stuff.

.....
....

Exactly. It'd be more interesting if the theoreticians came up with explanations of why these things do work in spite of the (demonstrably incorrect) theory! Didn't somebody once theorise that bumble-bees can't possibly fly?
To much theorising and not enough woodwork in my opinion!

There is nothing thoeoretical about it, the results I get with my planes are demonsterably better than can be acheived by standard ones, by hugely significant amounts. And we have explained why these things work ad-infinitum; it is simple thick irons vibrate less, firmer blade bed reduces vibration also and finely set mouths reduce tear out and all this is helped by extremely sharp blades. There is no wizardry or magic, just 4 basic ingredients. Since we have already established that your irons cannot be sharp even, since Norton India stones are too coarse, I would expect the rest would be lost on you. If you spent less time arguing and got a fine stone so you could actually get a sharp edge, then maybe you might start to see the light.

Incidentally, no one theorised that bumble bees couldnt fly. That was just a feeble argument invented by the god squad for the proof of 'his' existence, because science at the time could not work out the aero dynamics etc of what was going on with that sort of flight. It is all fully understood now anyway, but that is a moot point. It is self evident that bumble bees can and was always could fly as an observable fact, you just have to open your eyes. True on so many levels!

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

,,,,, it is simple thick irons vibrate less, firmer blade bed reduces vibration also

my planes do not chatter or vibrate. According to the general theory this is impossible.

and finely set mouths reduce tear out ......

May well do but this is not an option with the normal Bailey pattern

.... Since we have already established that your irons cannot be sharp even, since Norton India stones are too coarse,

They are as sharp as I want them to be. I can go to a black washita (ed - arkansas) or strop on leather if I feel the need. They can be sharpened just as sharp as the alternatives, probably sharper than A2 steel by all accounts

........
Incidentally, no one theorised that bumble bees couldnt fly. That was just a feeble argument invented by the god squad for the proof of 'his' existence, ......
Mike.

New to me that god bit. I believe some physicist somewhere did admit to being flummoxed by it - i.e. he couldn't work out how it was possible. I think he knew that is was possible however.
You are in a similar position - you can't see how it is possible for ordinary planes to work at all well; fair enough I'm not too sure myself. So you assume they don't. You are wrong!

 

[woodbrains]

Hi,

Washita stones are not fine stones either and are more or less white or marbled in colour. Since the use of these was 'new' to you until they were metioned to you on this forum relatively recently, you obviously don't use them any way. It is clear you really do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Jacob]

Hi,

Washita stones are not fine stones either and are more or less white or marbled in colour. Since the use of these was 'new' to you until they were metioned to you on this forum relatively recently, you obviously don't use them any way. It is clear you really do not know what you are talking about.

Sorry meant black arkansas. I've got both, amongst many other options. You are wrong about white washita - this is very fine, for woodwork purposes at least, though not enough for the knife enthusiasts.
It's about practical working methods, not ultimate sharpness for enthusiasts.
In seriously practical terms I haven't found anything to improve on a double sided norton for most purposes and an unknown but much finer man made stone for the extra fine edge when required. Plus stropping for even finer.
Reality woodworking, not fantasy sharpening.

 

[GazPal]

It's about practical working methods, not ultimate sharpness for enthusiasts.

In seriously practical terms I haven't found anything to improve on a double sided norton for most purposes and an unknown but much finer man made stone for the extra fine edge when required. Plus stropping for even finer.

I couldn't agree more.

------------

Prior to the internet - speaking from experience - the vast majority of post 60's joiners and carpenters here (UK) used Norton stones (Combination or singles), with lower numbers using/adding Arkansas and the various slates & sandstones (Water stones) to their arsenal (Most often bench joiners and cabinetmakers). This doesn't mean Norton is best, but does indicate the fact they're wholly practical for everyday professional use. The main thing is to use whichever sharpening mediums and methods you find most practical for chosen applications and forget about arguments over who's dad is biggest.

Precisely the same stands for tool set-up.

 

[Jacob]

Chatter gets mentioned a lot on these plane threads. But I've never really had it, even in the past before I was taking much interest in hand tools (was using them but "just doing it"). Idle boast? Does this means my planes are fettled to perfection? Seems unlikely to me
I think I've go it - it's not about the planes at all, it's this:

A huge and heavy bench!
I've often wondered about the fashion for those lightweight continental style benches, they always look flimsy to me, with the absence of an apron as a big weakness. I think they may be the cause of chatter - just not stiff or heavy enough. It's all very well having end vices, sliding deadmen, woodscrew leg vices, 100s of doggy things, you name it, but if the thing isn't stiff and heavy enough it's no good.
And no need to waste time and money on all the trendy plane modifications; it's not about the planes - it's the bench.

 

[Corneel]

That's a nice bench, You decorated it nicely. 8)

My bench is the Roubo type, like it has been repopularised by Chris Schwarz. A different concept but the same idea. Heavy, and stable. No apron but it gets it's stability from thick legs morticed deeply into a thick top. BTW, the other type of bench he promotes in his book is your kind of English joiners bench.

Not all continental benches were light duty affairs. The old ones are big heavy beasts, made of beech. Again, a different design. But very usefull when well executed.

 

[Corneel]

This morning I decided to do a small test.

I have a small piece of jatoba. Quarter sawn with crossgrain. Meaning that every growringth comes with a grain reversal. It is a hard wood species. A good candidate for some testing.

First I tackled it with the UK made Stanley #4, equiped with Ray Iles iron. The frog is set back so the iron rests on the sole too. This iron is so thick I had to file the mouth, back when I bought it. The iron is freshly sharpened, the mouth is tight and the chipbreaker set close to the edge.

It didn't perform badly. Fluffy shavings and almost no tearout. Just a few troublesome spots remained rough.

Having demonstrated that this board is a bit too much for a standard smoother, I got the original Stanley iron from a drawer. Sharpened it up to a 8000 grit waterstone, no strop. Then I put a backbevel on it, freehand, but I guess it's about 10-15 degrees. Installed it in the plane which I didn't change at all. I only had to tighten down the screw for the blade clamp.

And then I planed the board and made it wonderfully smooth with no tear out. There was a bit of chattering on the start of the stroke, but just a little bit of skewing cured that.

This was not an easy job for this plane iron. Hard wood, tearout prone, and the backbevel increases the pressure on the edge even more. But it managed.

I wanted to post some pictures but my camera didn't pick up the tear out nor did you see the difference after it was removed. It is more a thing you feel, then what you can see.

 

[Gerard Scanlan]

I am glad you did this test Corneel. Are you saying that the original thinner stanley blade did a better job than the Ray Ilses?
I do agree with Jacob that the bench has a lot do with the performance of hand tools. It is often overlooked because not many people are making beasts of benches anymore and the tool makers can sometimes blind us with science. A metalurgist in a world of woodworkers can sometimes appear to be the one eyed man in the country of the blind

 

[bugbear]

I am glad you did this test Corneel. Are you saying that the original thinner stanley blade did a better job than the Ray Ilses?

Yes "but". The important change was a back bevel (hence higher effective EP) which reduced tear out, which is what you'd expect.

This is why one always has to be careful when testing to minimise variables.

BugBear

 

[Corneel]

Indeed. The back bevel was what made the iron work. But in this thread some people thought that a thin blade would cause chatter. With this test I "proved" that chatter is'n't really a big problem. With a bit of skill (skewing and putting pressure on the plane in the appropriate spots), this thin blade performed very well in this tough wood. Even with a backbevel, which would promote chatter!

But. Another but. Playing a bit more and I found out why I had replaced this iron in the first place. I got tramlines and on inspecting the edge carefully I found some fresh nicks. So the edge life of these recent Stanley blades isn't great.

My conclusion, after just one simple test. A replacement blade isn't a bad idea in your smoother. It helps to close up the mouth while you still keep the sole support behind the edge. And the steel quality of the Ray Iles O1 blades is very good (Hock is great too, I know from some other blades).
But, don't go rushing out and buy replacement blades for all your Stanley planes! Especially the older blades from Stanley and Record are very good. In a Jack and a Jointer they perform marvously.

I don't really have a stake in this game. I just want to help you save some money.

 

[bugbear]

Indeed. The back bevel was what made the iron work. But in this thread some people thought that a thin blade would cause chatter. With this test I "proved" that chatter is'n't really a big problem. With a bit of skill (skewing and putting pressure on the plane in the appropriate spots), this thin blade performed very well in this tough wood. Even with a backbevel, which would promote chatter!

But. Another but. Playing a bit more and I found out why I had replaced this iron in the first place. I got tramlines and on inspecting the edge carefully I found some fresh nicks. So the edge life of these recent Stanley blades isn't great.

My conclusion, after just one simple test. A replacement blade isn't a bad idea in your smoother. It helps to close up the mouth while you still keep the sole support behind the edge. And the steel quality of the Ray Iles O1 blades is very good (Hock is great too, I know from some other blades).
But, don't go rushing out and buy replacement blades for all your Stanley planes! Especially the older blades from Stanley and Record are very good. In a Jack and a Jointer they perform marvously.

I don't really have a stake in this game. I just want to help you save some money.

I think people are looking for yes/no answers (or loudly asserting yes/no positions) in this thread. The truth is more complex. Planing issues are complex, and there are many factors that affect plane performance. Addressing them ALL (e.g. Holtey) is probably overkill for most circumstances.

But in the middle ground, it probably doesn't matter wether you use a thicker blade, better cap-iron, flattening sole, more rigid bench, or whatever - it's just a question of wether the aggregate improvement exceeds the threshold for the difficulty being addressed.

BugBear

 

[Corneel]

Yup. I think that kind of wraps it up.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The original question was, "Has anybody done a comparative test between plane irons".

We've had lots of interesting discussion, but so far the answer seems to be "no".

Until someone uses the same plane, on the same bench, planing the same wood with the same technique and changing only irons (sharpened in the same way and set the same way in the plane), that comparative test of irons has not been done.

For what it's worth, my opinion (note - opinion) is that if all else is the same, a thicker iron is likely to be a better performer than a thinner one. That is not to say that a thin iron will not do a job, and do some jobs well. I'm sure it's quite possible to rig some smart way of holding a razor-blade in a plane and getting it to work (though getting it to work well for a prolonged period might be more challenging), but that wasn't the original question.

 

[woodbrains]

Hi,

There is no doubt in my mind that a thicker iron/thicker cap-iron combo will improve performance, I've been doing it long enough to know. I built my bench from 4 inch thick, 7 feet long beech top, on a frame of 4by4 legs and 6 by 2 stretchers with glued and pinned mortice and tenons holding it all together, not exactly light weight. I Know how stable the bench needs to be and flat, too. The principle is similarly applied to stability and weight in the plane irons too, there should be no weak links in the chain.

Corneel, If a regularly sharpened Ray Iles iron can approach the performance of a stock iron with a EP of 55 degrees, and have better edge retention, doesn't that confirm what I've been saying all along? And why only stick to the improvements on smoothing planes? I want edge jointing to be equally good for more invisible and stronger glue lines. And I want my Jack to retain it's edge for longer than half a dosen strokes before sharpening. All of my planes were second hand and cost pounds. Adding new irons to boost performance is not like I'm saying I should bin the lot and buy a full set of LN's to get the results I know is achievable. The original question was which irons, performance versus cost is the likelyest option. I WILL be changing my irons, without a doubt, and I look forward to the improved results that I will inevitably get.

Mike.