Fix a #8 with a fat blade and a narrow mouth

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Here is the way I do it.

http://www.cianperez.com/Wood/WoodDo...outhFiling.htm

Well done write-up, thanks!

[steven c newman]

MadjesterToolworksinc has a pair of #8 irons on that auction site. Right now it is under $20 for the pair. Just a heads up info, I'm NOT the one selling them..

[Patrick Chase]

Why do all these after-market plane iron manufacturers make them so thick? Are they based around standard dimensions that tool steel sheets come in?

Lie-Neilsen's blades are designed for use in their own planes, which can accomodate the thicker blades without modification. It would appear that somebody put one of those into Andrew's #8, leading to the problems discussed here.

Hock and Veritas make thinner blades specifically for classic Stanleys. Those should be usable without modification, so that would be yet another option here.

As to why the blades that modern makers use in their own planes are so thick, my snarky answer is "disinformation about chatter". People have become convinced that chatter is a huge issue (it isn't) and that a monstrous hunk of tool steel is the best way to avoid it (it isn't).

[Trevor Goodwin]

Patrick the Lee Valley link you posted says: "The bench plane blades are 0.100" thick, 25% thicker than the industry standard of 0.080". Increased thickness reduces chatter." That extra thickness still causes problems. I bought a Veritas blade and chipbreaker for my Record #3 and there wasn't enough clearance. The mouth was too small so I decided to stick with the stock blade and use the Veritas chipbreaker.

On another note, I recently purchased a Kunz Plus bevel-up jack plane. Absolute beauty of a plane, probably my favorite now. Unfortunately they use a blade that is 5mm thick. I'm dreading the day that I get a chip in the blade and need to grind it out.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

MadjesterToolworksinc has a pair of #8 irons on that auction site. Right now it is under $20 for the pair. Just a heads up info, I'm NOT the one selling them..

Is that a typo? google is not showing them.... I mean the auction site.

[Glen Canaday]

As to why the blades that modern makers use in their own planes are so thick, my snarky answer is "disinformation about chatter". People have become convinced that chatter is a huge issue (it isn't) and that a monstrous hunk of tool steel is the best way to avoid it (it isn't).

+1. Correct irons can be had every day of the week for far less than the future devaluation of the plane. The proper irons aren't the cause of chatter.

[steven c newman]

I found those irons simply by doing a search for #8 jointer planes. It had 4 bids last night. They are made for Union #8 planes, and will fit the Stanley #8 without any problems. Union was so good, Stanley had to buy them out back about 1920....

[Ron Hock]

A couple of issues in this thread that I'd like to elaborate upon: One is that thicker irons in Stanley-style planes often render the depth-of-cut adjuster inoperable or semi-operable. The adjuster lever reaches through the blade to engage the breaker. If the blade is too thick, it won't reach properly and often not at all.

Thicker blades do not improve performance in a bevel-down plane. In that configuration the bevel is unsupported for its full length. Adding thickness just adds to the length of the unsupported bevel. So no improvement. A thicker blade also requires a wider mouth, perhaps wider than the frog adjustment can accommodate. So, with the potential adjuster problem, the mouth width problem and no upside, it's best to stick with thinner blades. Ours, ahem, for example are 3/32" thick which is as much thicker as they can be without poking the hornet's nest.

If your plane chatters there is something wrong that a thicker blade won't address. There is usually something loose in the system that's allowing the blade to wiggle. Take it all apart, clean everything, making sure that metal-to-metal contact points are truly metal-to-metal -- no paint or crud in between. And be sure the blade is sharp.

One other thing, a lot of plane owners think the frog should be adjusted so that the frog ramp aligns with the rear edge of the mouth opening in the sole. This is in no way necessary nor even desirable as the blade doesn't bear on the sole at all. The blade rests entirely on the ramp so adjust for your preferred mouth aperture.

[Ray Selinger]

I've just finished fitting frogs on a couple of #7 I'm rehabing . Neither frog face was flat.I think Stanley had a habit of milling green cast iron, that's sorta like working with green wood. They were from '47 and mid 50s. I like frogs where you can see their ribs,the lower friction makes for smoother adjustments.

[Stewie Simpson]

Excellent advice from Ron Hock.

http://www.hocktools.com/faq/a2-vs-high-carbon-o1.html

A2 vs. High Carbon (O1)

Our High Carbon Tool Steel is the finest-grained tool steel available and the finer the grain the sharper the edge. A2 is a newer alloy that will hold its edge longer; the alloying elements that increase edge retention form large, tough carbide particles during heat treatment. It’s a little harder to sharpen and bit more expensive but if edge life is paramount, you can’t go wrong with A2. But if ultimate sharpness and ease of sharpening are more important, high carbon steel will allow you the sharpest edge possible.

Warren Mickley's advice is also well founded. imo

I recommend looking for an original iron. Since it is better steel, it will sharpen more easily and yield a better edge. If it is thinner and laminated (both are likely), these qualities add to the ease of sharpening.

There are probably guys with original irons and cap irons in a drawer somewhere, so you might advertise for one. You might find someone willing to exchange. Or you might be able to sell the Lie Nielsen iron and cap iron and make out pretty well in the exchange.

All the world is mad save for me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee. – Old Quaker saying

[Jerry Olexa]

File the mouth backward...

[Patrick Chase]

A couple of issues in this thread that I'd like to elaborate upon: One is that thicker irons in Stanley-style planes often render the depth-of-cut adjuster inoperable or semi-operable. The adjuster lever reaches through the blade to engage the breaker. If the blade is too thick, it won't reach properly and often not at all.

Thicker blades do not improve performance in a bevel-down plane. In that configuration the bevel is unsupported for its full length. Adding thickness just adds to the length of the unsupported bevel. So no improvement. A thicker blade also requires a wider mouth, perhaps wider than the frog adjustment can accommodate. So, with the potential adjuster problem, the mouth width problem and no upside, it's best to stick with thinner blades. Ours, ahem, for example are 3/32" thick which is as much thicker as they can be without poking the hornet's nest.

If your plane chatters there is something wrong that a thicker blade won't address. There is usually something loose in the system that's allowing the blade to wiggle. Take it all apart, clean everything, making sure that metal-to-metal contact points are truly metal-to-metal -- no paint or crud in between. And be sure the blade is sharp.

One other thing, a lot of plane owners think the frog should be adjusted so that the frog ramp aligns with the rear edge of the mouth opening in the sole. This is in no way necessary nor even desirable as the blade doesn't bear on the sole at all. The blade rests entirely on the ramp so adjust for your preferred mouth aperture.

I agree with everything you say (hence my reference to "disinformation about chatter") but that last bit about ramp/opening alignment will likely prove contentious. I said the same thing in a thread a few months back, and it took a few days for the embers to die down. Perhaps your unimpeachable reputation will flameproof you :-).

[steven c newman]

I think this is the area ( and type of frog) that Andrew is dealing with. The #8 he has is a newer model, and has that rib for the frog to straddle. IF you move the frog back, the rib will get in the way.

IMAG0079.jpg
I usually try to get the front edge of the rib and the face of the frog as coplanar as I can. Older Stanleys had a flat face, as in solid iron. No ribs. There IS a slight ramp right behind the mouth opening. Some have BIG ramps, some barely have one. It is the part of the sole the iron touches last, before it emerges out the mouth's opening. If one moves the frog ahead of that little spot, the last little bit of the iron above the bevel sits in mid-air. That might be a cause of the Infamous Chatter.

The Madjester is a seller's name on the auction site. She does have a pair of Union MFG Co. 2-5/8" wide irons. They will also work just fine in a Stanley #8. So fine in fact, that Stanley bought out Union in about ...1920 and used their parts up.

[steve swantee]

Andrew, here's my journey to put a Lie Nielsen iron in a No.8... http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...ron-Experiment

It works wonderfully by the way!

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew, here's my journey to put a Lie Nielsen iron in a No.8... http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...ron-Experiment

It works wonderfully by the way!

Thanks for the link..... Taking my getting to this.... A bunch of things are popping up that I need to handle