Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 126

Thread: Calling all owners of Lie-Nielsen Scraping Planes; 212 112 85

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    north of baltimore, md
    Posts
    36
    I own the large LV scraper plane. This tool frustrated the daylights out of me, could not get decent scraping curls. Paul Hamler's spring trick solved all my complaints. Apparently either not a popular modification or maybe not well known. Basically you "unfix" the blade so it can flex during each stroke by removing one of the locking nuts and replace with a spring. Works like a charm for me so I hope no one writes a detailed rebuttal and destroys my illusions.
    Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification. Took me about ten minutes. Took longer to locate the little plastic box of springs I bought at HF. There is one drawback- an annoying snapping sound as the blade returns to its static position once the blade is released from contacting the wood surface.
    No project too small or too expensive.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Kupiec View Post
    I own the large LV scraper plane. This tool frustrated the daylights out of me, could not get decent scraping curls. Paul Hamler's spring trick solved all my complaints. Apparently either not a popular modification or maybe not well known. Basically you "unfix" the blade so it can flex during each stroke by removing one of the locking nuts and replace with a spring. Works like a charm for me so I hope no one writes a detailed rebuttal and destroys my illusions.
    Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification. Took me about ten minutes. Took longer to locate the little plastic box of springs I bought at HF. There is one drawback- an annoying snapping sound as the blade returns to its static position once the blade is released from contacting the wood surface.
    Nope, nothing irredeemably wrong with that mod. As he says in the LJ review the rear nut is the one that carries the load during use, so replacing the front one with a spring doesn't do anything to the "critical (load-bearing) path". As with any such mod there are tradeoffs of course.

    Does that snapping sound go away if you de-tension the camber knob such that you're using the blade flat? The reason I ask is because the one thing the front nut *does* do in that design is resist the camber screw in the unloaded state, which is probably why your modified plane "snaps" when transitioning from cutting to unloaded. The snap you're hearing may actually be the iron de-flexing.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Marina del Rey, Ca
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Kupiec View Post
    ...Here's a link (http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/4047) to an article that describes the modification...
    From that article:
    "With the 0.055” blade that comes with the plane, I found sometimes I just could not get a mixed grain surface just right. The blade had enough flex that it would leave slight unevenness as it transitioned from straight to tougher grain sections and back again. I tried a 1/8” thick 2” wide HSS plane blade from a wooden plane, and it smoothed those areas right out. So, I purchased the thicker A2 blade from LV, which has worked out very well. Then I discovered my tool room guys at work had some 3/32” O1 tool steel, so I had them cut a couple of blade blanks and heat treat to ~52 Rc. This intermediate thickness provides the best of both worlds – a thicker blade that doesn’t flex, but can still be slightly bowed. Ron Hock sells 3/32” O1 scraper plane blades that will fit this plane."
    "Anything seems possible when you don't know what you're doing."

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by andy bessette View Post
    From that article:
    "With the 0.055” blade that comes with the plane, I found sometimes I just could not get a mixed grain surface just right. The blade had enough flex that it would leave slight unevenness as it transitioned from straight to tougher grain sections and back again. I tried a 1/8” thick 2” wide HSS plane blade from a wooden plane, and it smoothed those areas right out. So, I purchased the thicker A2 blade from LV, which has worked out very well. Then I discovered my tool room guys at work had some 3/32” O1 tool steel, so I had them cut a couple of blade blanks and heat treat to ~52 Rc. This intermediate thickness provides the best of both worlds – a thicker blade that doesn’t flex, but can still be slightly bowed. Ron Hock sells 3/32” O1 scraper plane blades that will fit this plane."
    The review doesn't say whether he burred the thicker iron or not, or whether/how he was using the camber screw with the thinner iron (which helps a bit in the situation he outlined). Without knowing those I wouldn't dare to comment except to say that:

    - People have been doing terrific work with ~0.05" irons in 112-style planes (which is what that is) for 132 years. If somebody has trouble achieving good results that way then I think that the presumption has to be that there's a problem with their technique, not the plane/iron.

    - IMO there is nothing inherently wrong about a thicker iron, particularly one that's still thin enough to camber as here. It will be a bit more work to file, stone, and burr, but if the user is willing to "eat" that penalty then more power to them. My gripe with L-N is that they were claiming nonexistent *benefits* for thicker irons.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michiana
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Luter View Post
    I just watched the LN video on using the #112 and I guess I’ve been taking the wrong approach. Deneb claims it’s intended to take exceptionally fine shavings on the order of .001 or thinner. I’ve certainly been trying to be more aggressive than that. Maybe I’ll monkey with it this afternoon and see how it goes.
    Wow! This thread grew some legs.

    I pulled the blade (3/32 Hock) out of my #112 and prepared a pristine edge. Primary bevel was at 45* with a very small secondary at about 46* using my finest abrasive media. It was extremely sharp. No hook was added. I trialed the blade in "hand held" fashion in order to wrap my head around an appropriate angle. Once established, I reloaded the blade into the #112 and dialed it in for a very light cut. The work piece was a length of finely spalted maple I had laying around. I was able to take a very fine shaving, but the surface was not smooth by any means. It was "fuzzy" if that makes sense. I pulled out my trusty #80 (with hook) and peeled off tissue thin shavings that left the surface very smooth.

    I guess my next step is to try a small hook on the #112.
    Last edited by Rob Luter; 01-10-2018 at 7:46 AM.
    Sharp solves all manner of problems.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    north of baltimore, md
    Posts
    36
    Great comments on the LJ article.
    Here's a pix of the thick blade on cherry( I hope I did this right)
    LV scraping plane aruuk
    The snapping sound is greater with the thin blade. It is caused when the blade unloads as in when you pass over the end of the board. Much less an issue with the thick blade, which I favor. It gives more consistent scrapings for me. I should note that when using the spring trick, you can instantly change cut depth with the tip of your index finger, on the fly, by tweaking the knurled adjustment knob. Just like you were using a bevel down plane.
    No project too small or too expensive.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Broadview Heights, OH
    Posts
    711
    Apparently their "unique feature" is not a helpful one. My vintage Stanley 112 experiences no snapping and make shavings just like those shown in the picture above with an ordinary 1/16" spring steel iron. I am not so foolish to think that something new could actually be helpful, but when it comes to the world of old tools and time tested designs, I think manufacturers change things at their own peril. If something like a thick scraping iron or a blade flexing screw in a 112 were important, Stanley would have made them that way. They made what worked and sold to guys that worked with their hands every day, not to satisfy weekend hobbyists. I think this concept is the key take away from this 7 page thread: What is old works best (at least when it comes to scraping)

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michiana
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Taran View Post
    .... What is old works best (at least when it comes to scraping)
    I am old, therefore I work best. Thanks Pete!
    Sharp solves all manner of problems.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Taran View Post
    If something like a thick scraping iron or a blade flexing screw in a 112 were important, Stanley would have made them that way.
    I agree with your overall point, but as you've pointed out Stanley used the blade flexing screw in the #80, so they clearly saw value to that adjustment for this class of tool.

    I suspect that that specific instance is one where material advancements (economical availability of ductile iron) enabled LV to add a feature to the tool that Stanley would have if they could. If you look closely at the LV 112's castings, the presence of that camber adjuster creates some tricky geometry in between the angle adjuster support and the mouth, and would likely be problematic in (relatively brittle) grey iron. The #80 had no such constraints because there's nothing else competing for space behind the mouth.

    I agree about thick irons for scrapers. IMO they're harmful inasmuch as they make it harder to properly fettle the tool (with a burr). With that said you can still get good results with them if you're willing to pay that setup overhead. If you forced me to use such an iron I'd probably use my flat disc grinder instead of filing or something like that.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 01-10-2018 at 12:46 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Per the instructions that came with the Stanley No. 80......a 45 degree bevel was to be ground. Then a burr was form towards the back of the iron.
    clamp view.JPGfront view.JPGsole.JPGSW Logo.JPG

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
    https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthr...g-a-Stanley-80

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,534
    Pat; the last post in the attachment was an interesting read.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
    https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthr...g-a-Stanley-80
    There ought to be a statute of limitations :-).

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ste-Julienne, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    The debate continues. Interesting final post in this thread
    https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthr...g-a-Stanley-80
    In this thread I noticed that both Hock and Superior Tools are not discussing any hook with their instructions for preparing an edge for a scraper. That was in 2004. Today, if you go visit those websites, both talk about a hook.

    It's interesting to see that they've update their website but the fellows discussing this topic in 2004 seems to be happy with a "no burr" solution. Who's right?

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Normand Leblanc View Post
    In this thread I noticed that both Hock and Superior Tools are not discussing any hook with their instructions for preparing an edge for a scraper. That was in 2004. Today, if you go visit those websites, both talk about a hook.

    It's interesting to see that they've update their website but the fellows discussing this topic in 2004 seems to be happy with a "no burr" solution. Who's right?
    I think that the woodworking community have rediscovered a number of "old ways" since the dark ages of the 1990s and 2000s. The most obvious example is proper use and setup of cap irons, and this would appear to be another.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 01-10-2018 at 8:45 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •