Would this be Useful?

[Jim Koepke]

I have thought of making a spread sheet for the Neander Wisdom/FAQs listing the characteristics of cap irons / chip breakers for the different plane makers.
I can take care of the Stanley models. Others would have to provide information on other makers. There would most likely only be three dimensions needed, A=distance from bottom of the adjuster yoke hole to the bottom edge of the breaker. B=Center of the cap iron screw hole. C=Center of lever cap screw passage hole.

Most likely many are the same as Stanley, but I have some that are not. If people wanted, we could also include cap irons for woodies or transitionals.

I know the Stanley 113 uses a different cap iron than their other planes of the same blade width. I have one of these, so if any one has a circle plane from another maker please check it out.

It is also likely some of the different size planes will be different. My accumulation includes all the Stanley bench planes except a #1. I do not have the #9 miter plane or any of the #10 rabbets.

So, anyone who wants to check out their Bushnell, Winchester, Miller Falls, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen, Sargent, Falcon, Titan, Turner or any others you may have, post it in this thread and then a spread sheet can be put together nice and neat for the Neanderthal Wisdom as an easy to find record.

If you have other ideas, please comment.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

Please respond to this thread.
In the other one of the same name, I goofed on the drawing of the cap iron. That is what I get for not checking my work late at night.

jim

[rick fulton]

Hi Jim,

I think it would be useful, particularly since I bought a whole box of random sized irons and chip breakers at an old tool swap meet a few years ago. A couple came in handy for rehabbing old planes, and a couple were used for building my own woodies. Other irons could be useful if only I new what brand/size plane parts to match them to.

I have a hand full of non-Stanley planes that I could take measurements of.

rick

[Brian Kent]

Jim, I am all for this project of yours. I checked and I am fresh out of Bushnell, Winchester, Miller Falls, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen, Sargent, Falcon, Titan, Turner planes. But if I find any, I'm with you!

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim,

I think it would be useful, particularly since I bought a whole box of random sized irons and chip breakers at an old tool swap meet a few years ago. A couple came in handy for rehabbing old planes, and a couple were used for building my own woodies. Other irons could be useful if only I new what brand/size plane parts to match them to.

I have a hand full of non-Stanley planes that I could take measurements of.

rick

Great, looking forward to your list.

I will likely take measurements on my Stanley planes tomorrow. Then make a small spread sheet so people will have an opportunity to comment and lend their ideas before it is set in a final form.

jim

[John Keeton]

Jim, I certainly do not have anything to offer here, but I ran into this thread doing some research. It appears that there may be an accumulation of some of this data available - although mostly Stanley and you have that covered. For whatever it is worth -
http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=81527

Not sure if posting this violates the rules - hope not.

[Zahid Naqvi]

I think it might be useful to someone who is looking for purchase, or finds blades in the wild and wondering what they can be used for. I don't have too many metal planes (mostly woodies or transitionals) but I will add my wares to this thread.

[David Keller NC]

"If you have other ideas, please comment."

Jim - I do indeed think this would be useful, particularly for someone that's trying to buy an upgrade iron from Hock or Lie-Nielsen to fit an off-brand antique.

Towards that end, I'm going to suggest one other measurement - the mouth opening on the plane. Most replacement blades don't have interference problems on the newer (post 1900) Stanley planes, but I've run across those that do.

Unfortunately, all I could help you with would be lie-nielsen. My Stanleys are all run-of-the-mill bench planes from the 20's - 50's, and it sounds as if you've already got that covered.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim, I certainly do not have anything to offer here, but I ran into this thread doing some research. It appears that there may be an accumulation of some of this data available - although mostly Stanley and you have that covered. For whatever it is worth -
http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=81527

Not sure if posting this violates the rules - hope not.

Thanks for the link. Sometimes I have lurked on that site. Interesting to see what folks down under are doing.

It looks like a lot to go through. Mostly so far it is all blades, but I've only looked at a small part of it.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

This is just the beginning using the Stanley blades that are in my shop.

I do not have a Stanley #1. Do have a Lie-Nielsen #1 but did not measure that one yet. When some other LN information comes in it can be added in with that.

I used my inexpensive, bought on eBay dial caliper and a rule divided down to 32nds to check this all. The numbers are likely to be a little off, but hopefully they will be close enough or be corrected.

The center of the screw was done pretty much by eye. The bottom of the screw is rounded, so this helps.

The lever cap screw passage was measured for opening size, then from edge to edge, then half the opening was added to the measurement from the bottom edge of the hole to the bottom of the chip breaker.

David suggested a listing of the mouth opening. I am not sure if this is always the same from year to year. If this is included, maybe the mouth width should be listed. I understand the thought behind this, have to remember to do the math. The blade comes through at an angle and a 1/8 inch blade at 45° would actually have a cross section of about 11/64 inch extended through the mouth.

I can hold my own at math, but in a case like this it is easier to break out the files. After all the punching of numbers into a calculator, it still either fits or it doesn't.

A reference of the blade width might be helpful. For me though, once this is in the head, there is no need for a table. Besides, that is something easy to find at Blood & Gore.

jim

[David Keller NC]

"I can hold my own at math, but in a case like this it is easier to break out the files. After all the punching of numbers into a calculator, it still either fits or it doesn't."

Jim - I was going at this from the standpoint of someone that has a plane, and either no blade, or wants to purchase a better one. There's a lot of would-be plane users that wouldn't even consider filing the mouth, and knowing whether a prospective replacement that they can get the measurements from the vendor will fit or not would greatly assist them, I would think.

To make it simple, one could just measure the mouth width and let the person that's fitting a new blade figure out the math.

[Jim Koepke]

I was going at this from the standpoint of someone that has a plane, and either no blade, or wants to purchase a better one. There's a lot of would-be plane users that wouldn't even consider filing the mouth, and knowing whether a prospective replacement that they can get the measurements from the vendor will fit or not would greatly assist them, I would think.

To make it simple, one could just measure the mouth width and let the person that's fitting a new blade figure out the math.

OK, I will try some mouth measurements today. I will have to make sure they have not been modified. For this a sampling may be a better way to go. Since there are only a few sizes of planes in which my accumulation has multiples, with most being within a few types of type 9, someone else will have to supply information on the newer types. I am not sure if there is any or much variation over the years. There may also be an inconsistent size among planes made in the same year. We can come up with a nominal size. Like so many things in life, there will be no guarantees.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

At the Request of David Keller NC, I measured the mouths on a few different planes. I was surprised by what is actually a somewhat sensible finding. The nominal mouth size seems to be around 0.160 inches.

Measurements were taken in a few places and usually they only varied by 0.005 inches on any one mouth.

The smallest mouth was 0.155 - 0.160 inches on my #8.

My #2 and type 6 #4 came in at 0.170 inches.

The biggest mouth was on my #3 at 0.182 inches, but that doesn't count since this mouth was modified for a Hock blade.

Stanley used the same thickness on all their bench plane blades. It only makes sense that all the bench plane mouths would have the same size opening. Not giving this much thought before, it was a minor epiphany.

jim

[David Keller NC]

"Stanley used the same thickness on all their bench plane blades. It only makes sense that all the bench plane mouths would have the same size opening. Not giving this much thought before, it was a minor epiphany."

I've got a very limited number of restored Stanleys in use in my shop, I'll see if I can't measure them today. These would all be 1930's - 1950's planes (I seem to recall that you generally have the older ones), so it'll be interesting to see how they compare.

[Jim Koepke]

"Stanley used the same thickness on all their bench plane blades. It only makes sense that all the bench plane mouths would have the same size opening. Not giving this much thought before, it was a minor epiphany."

I've got a very limited number of restored Stanleys in use in my shop, I'll see if I can't measure them today. These would all be 1930's - 1950's planes (I seem to recall that you generally have the older ones), so it'll be interesting to see how they compare.

Yes, those checked were from type 6 to type 13. I did not want to take the blade out of my type 4. Once the lateral adjustment on that is set, it is left alone until it needs sharpening.

Interesting that my #7 is a type 11 with a 0.160 mouth and a Hock blade. It is rather tight mouthed, but it has not been modified. Someday it will need to hog off some wood, then the files will come out.

jim

[Ben Davis]

Yes, those checked were from type 6 to type 13. I did not want to take the blade out of my type 4. Once the lateral adjustment on that is set, it is left alone until it needs sharpening.

Interesting that my #7 is a type 11 with a 0.160 mouth and a Hock blade. It is rather tight mouthed, but it has not been modified. Someday it will need to hog off some wood, then the files will come out.

jim
Just as an aside on the math portion.

Multiple the thickness of the blade by the below factors for the theoretically required minimum mouth opening.

For a 45° bed: 1.414 [sqrt(2)]
For a 30° bed: 1.732 [sqrt(3)]

e.g. a 0.125" thick blade bedded at 45° would require a 0.176" mouth opening.

[Jim Koepke]

e.g. a 0.125" thick blade bedded at 45° would require a 0.176" mouth opening.

If the whole blade has to come through. Most of the time, the chip breaker would hit the front of the mouth before that happens.

I do not recall the thickness of the Stanley blade off the top of my head. Guess one of those is getting squeezed by the calipers today.

jim