When one is making such a large number of planes, lowering the cost of the blade by even a half of a cent makes for a lot of savings.Why did he use such thin irons anyway?
jtk
Contributor
When one is making such a large number of planes, lowering the cost of the blade by even a half of a cent makes for a lot of savings.Why did he use such thin irons anyway?
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
Joe
I think you've been well advised in terms of fitting a new, thick iron into the plane. I'll be interested to hear you thoughts once you can compare irons. Although Steven's post is direct, my experience has also been the standard iron and cap iron are more than up to the job for high quality woodworking.
Contributor
Could someone post a few pictures of the recommended frog position? I am having a little trouble visualizing the different suggestions. I would really appreciate it!Originally Posted by Kees Heiden
Many Kind Regards . . . Allen
No, the sky is not falling - just chunks of it are.
Member
I also vote for filing the mouth to fit the thicker iron. I've done this on two planes and both of them work so much better with the thicker aftermarket blades (I have a pm-v11 veritas in my #8c, and an IBC blade+breaker in my #3).
Contributor
IMAG0076.jpg
Not much options, when there is a rib involved
Member
While Leonard Bailey was a technical genius, his marketing skills evidently left something to be desired.
After all, he completely missed out on the the fact that he could upsell people to overly thick irons just by chattering on about, well, "chatter".
It turned out OK for Stanley, though, as Justus Traut was much more attuned to Madison Avenue. Why add real, costly steel when you can get people to pay for a pointlessly rejiggered frog instead?
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 06-15-2017 at 6:34 PM.
Contributor
And moved away from those thick, TAPERED irons?
Member
Joe; your likely to experience chatter with the option highlighted. If the LV Cap Iron are the same as LN, they provide little to no spring tension to the cutting iron. imo, the shaping of the cap iron by Bailey is a superior design.
Member
I think it's important not to confuse deflection with preload.
The Stanley cap iron does indeed deflect a lot more when installed than the LN (and newer LV) type. The LN-style irons are however much thicker and therefore stiffer, such that the preload (the amount of force the cap iron applies to the blade) is about the same either way. Force = deflection*stiffness, High-deflection times low-stiffness ~= low-deflection times high-stiffness.
I agree that the Stanley-style cap iron is a superior design in the sense that it gets the same job done with less metal and a less involved manufacturing process. You can't get much simpler/cheaper than bending constant-thickness sheet metal. I don't think that makes the LN-type technically or functionally inferior, though. As far as I can tell they create similar interfaces and have similar impacts on the shape of the blade.
Contributor
Allen, here is an old post of mine that gets into a bit of detail:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...ker-to-Jointer
The frog setting is in about the 10th post.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
I would say that if you are not getting amazing results with the original iron and cap iron, something is very wrong with the way you are using the plane. Chasing new equipment just postpones solving your problems. You need to observe and reason.
Member
You could have just had a bad iron? Had one on a #5, could shave hair then it would not cut after a few strokes, assumed it was not tempered correctly or someone messed with it at sometime.
Nothing wrong with changing irons if you want, I tend to use Hock replacement irons, they hold their edge well and given that they are closer to the original size it does not take a lot of adjusting to replace and then I have extra irons, that can still be used without a lot of changes.....
Read in some book, believe it was "Planecraft" the statement went something like--the thin blade plane is a technical marvel, it reduces weight, and manufacturing costs, but more importantly it reduces sharpening effort/time, and works just as well as a tick iron....could be wrong about the source, but "Planecraft" was also an advertisement for Record planes so I think it's in there.
That LV blade will stay sharper longer, and even though I agree it's not necessarily a requirement for making an old Stanley's performance better, it's a fine upgrade....
Andy
Contributor
That is a simplistic observation. As Patrick stated, the loading needs are different for a thick vs thin blade. The thin blade benefits from a little tension to ensure that it sits flat on the frog, while the thicker blades do not.
Both chipbreaker types require attention given to the mating surfaces, ensuring that they are flat and do not permit shavings to creep under the leading edge.
The rounded Stanley chipbreaker is more likely to have its leading edge at the desired angle to deflect shavings, while the LN/LV/Hock etc require a secondary micro bevel to raise their leading edge from 30 degrees to around 50 degrees. There is no assurance that the Stanley will be at the ideal angle since the steel is thin and flexible. I often come across mis-shapen Stanley chipbreakers with a flatter front section.
The issue I have experienced with the Stanley chipbreaker is that it is a little more work to set up at the edge. I do use them, as well as LN and LV chipbreakers, and all work well, but the Stanley will flex a little as the screw is tightened, and this can move the leading edge forward.
There is also a difference in chipbreaker screws that is worth noting: The LN is the odd man out here. All the others have knurled edges, which provide a more secure grip when finger tightening. The LV has the thickest screw head, which makes it the easiest to grip. A small issue, but part of the process.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
Patrick; so why the need to match the thicker irons with a thicker 1/8" cap iron.
Contributor
You may ask the same question about infill planes, such as Norris and Spiers, or woodies with tapered irons that end in a 3/16" thick bevel end. Why do you think that, Stewie? Why is Stanley the odd man out?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote