Anyone using a Stanley 5 1/4??

[Curtis Niedermier]

I stopped at a little flea market type place the other day. It's the kind of place that buys out estates and then resells all the junk...I mean, stuff.

I found a box of odd and end tool parts, nails, sandpaper, and this and that. Among the detritus was the rotted out remnants of a Stanley 5 1/4. It was missing parts (though I found the cap iron in another box) and was rusted to the point that it was seized up. Cruddiness aside, it was a really neat plane. I loved its size and weight - or lack of weight, I should say.

Anyone out there use a 5 1/4 on a regular basis? I kind of want one now. The one I described is the only one I can recall seeing in the wild, but I've never really looked for one before. I checked FleaBay and saw some nice examples, but the prices ranged from about $30 to $150+. Not sure what that's about. Are some types very rare and deserving of a crazy high price tag?

I'm in a phase where I don't really enjoy using bevel-down planes with an iron wider than what's in the No. 4 and 5. I use the LV BU Jack all the time, and its iron is wider, but I rarely reach for my 5 1/2 or 607. Seems like taking any wider shaving than is necessary is just extra work.

What say ye regarding the 5 1/4?

[Jim Reed]

Although 5 1/4s don't get a lot of street cred, I like them. It is easier to push than a #5. If you find a good one or rehab a sad one, you will find many uses for it on your bench. Don't worry about missing parts--you can use a #3 donor for most items. Good luck in your search.

[Rick Whitehead]

Yes, I used to use a 5-1/4 all the time when I worked for a custom millwork company. That and a block plane were the only planes in my toolbox.
I really like the 5-1/4's size and narrow width iron.
Are you sure you can't restore the 5-1/4 you have? As Jim said, many parts from a #3 (the iron, lever cap, and frog, assuming it's the right type) will fit.
If you do have to look for one, the prices shouldn't be too high for an ordinary 5-1/4. The high-dollar ones are the 5-1/4C, at about $150.00, and the 605-1/4 and 605-1/4C, which can go for several hundred dollars.
I'd advise you to try to restore the 5-1/4 you have.If you need parts, PM me. I might have some.
Rick

[Chris Hachet]

It seems like a very useful size. Lie Nielson discontinued their version of the plane. It is on my bucket lsit. the 605 1/4 is as mentioned above very rare...I have held one in my hands, but only seen one in my life as a woodworker.

Buying vintage Stanley planes is addictive, I just found a Minty #6 for $45 (type 16, NICE) with the help of a fellow creek member.

[Tony Wilkins]

It seems like a very useful size. Lie Nielson discontinued their version of the plane. It is on my bucket lsit. the 605 1/4 is as mentioned above very rare...I have held one in my hands, but only seen one in my life as a woodworker.

Buying vintage Stanley planes is addictive, I just found a Minty #6 for $45 (type 16, NICE) with the help of a fellow creek member.

Chris, it's not in their catalog anymore but you can still get them to make you one. I have one but haven't had a chance to use it yet.

[Glen Canaday]

Before I got a scrub I used a MF #11 (same as #5 1/4) with a big camber on the iron.

They definitely are easier to push than a 5.

[Curtis Niedermier]

Rick, I didn't buy the plane. Decided it was too far gone for me. I'm burned out on major tool restorations. I enjoy a basic clean-up, tuneup and some fiddling to get an old tool back in primo working shape, but I've had enough of scrubbing rust out of tiny threads, dirty sandpaper, chemicals, sore hands and wasting hours doing all of the above. Sorry...my little rant for the day.

I think I'll dig up a 5 1/4 this year. I travel quite a bit for work and can't hardly pass up an antiquish looking joint. I'm also on the lookout for a No. 6. I'm not sure why, but I feel like I need to add it to the row of planes on the shelf.

[Curtis Niedermier]

My first thought was that it'd make a nice scrub plane, but I think if I find one I'll use it as a jack/smoothing type hybrid. I've got plans to build a wooden scrub.

[steven c newman]

I use a Millers Fall No.11 when things are too short for the longer ones. It is also nice near the near of a long day of pushing #6s and #7s around. Little candle wax on the sole, and away we go. Before the #11? had a Stanley 4Square Junior jack....liked the millers Falls better. Mine also has no camber on the iron, I have a Corsair #5 for that sort of thing. It has an 8" camber.

Just depends on what size of project I am working on.

[Nick Stokes]

I have a beautiful #605 1/4. I don't use it because it's nice and rare. I would part with it if someone offered me a pretty number.

There's no reason not to use it though, it's a great little plane.

[Jim Koepke]

The #5-1/4 was often the choice of high school shop classes. It is often called the "Junior Jack" for its relationship to the #5 Jack plane.

My first foray into purchasing a pair of #5-1/4s was an ebay auction. Of course it was one of the few plane sizes not in my shop and I leapt without looking real close. The two were likely from a high school shop full of hormone addled teenagers with fits of anger taken out on the shop tools. I have seen ground meat that looked in better shape.

They sat in a box for a few years. In the meantime another member who lives in the Pacific Northwest was kind enough to send my one in wonderful shape. It has been a handy addition to my fleet. It gets used often as the perfect plane for the job.

Since then one of the beat up #5-1/4s has been turned into a scrub plane. At one time all my wood came surfaced on four sides. After finding a few local mills and milling some of my own wood a scrub plane made sense. It is a great size for scrub work. If the cracks around the mouth eventually give way, well then there is another cracked base to take its place.

So, my feeling is if one is working rough sawn lumber, there may be need of two in the shop. One that can be a beat up mess for a scrub plane and one in good condition to use like a small Jack plane.

As to the #6 mentioned, I find it a very useful plane as a short jointer or as a large Jack plane for flattening a panel or a long board. I like them so much I have two. Though the second one was purchased because it is a type 4 and only cost $10 with many parts missing.

jtk

[Chuck Nickerson]

I've got a 5-1/4 set up with a 5" radius on the blade. I use it when a scrub seems like too much and a jack (8" radius) isn't fast enough.

[Lenore Epstein]

Veritas sells a No. 5 1/4W for $249 which I've found tempting. Here's how they compare it to the Stanley 5 1/4:

"Our #5-1/4W differs from the original [Stanley] in many ways – mainly, ours has a wider blade and the mouth is 4-3/8" behind the nose, unlike the original at 3-1/2". For better accuracy, an extra-long sole in front of the blade makes it easier to keep the sole flush to the wood when starting a cut. Combined, the mouth location and sensitive feed adjustment let the #5-1/4W serve as a jointer for most cabinet work.
. . . .
The body is fully stress-relieved ductile cast iron. The surface-ground 12" x 2-1/2" sole is flat and square to the sides, with extra-large side wings for stable shooting. The bubinga front knob and rear tote provide excellent control and comfort. A combined feed and lateral adjustment mechanism make blade setting easy and accurate. The 2" wide lapped blade is a full 1/8" thick, made in your choice of A2, O1 or PM-V11® tool steel."

I've never seen a Stanley 5 1/4, and probably wouldn't be a great judge of its character if I had, but I get the impression that its bad rep comes from the generally awful condition they're in after getting beat up in trade or high school classes then stored in a basement for 30 years. So it's entirely possible that a Stanley in good condition would sell for about as much as other bench planes--perhaps there are even buyers who'll pay more for the nostalgia factor...

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2601s6.jpg

http://www.leevalley.com/US/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2601d1.gif

http://www.leevalley.com/US/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2401s9.jpg

[Stew Denton]

Curtis,

From what I know about the Bedrocks, I agree with Rick. Seems that the big market for size 5 1/4 planes was high school manual training classes. Not many schools would spring for the extra cost of the Bedrock planes vs the Baileys. When the kids grew up and became carpenters, maintenance men, handy men, farmers, and even just hobby woodworkers, they bought #5, if they were going to buy a Jack plane, and in those situations the Jack plane was the main seller.

There just aren't that many #605 1/4 Bed Rocks around, and since the Bed Rocks are loved by collectors, the size 5 1/4 Bed Rocks (the 605 1/4s) go for premium dollars, due to relative rarity.

On the other hand, schools eventually sold off quite a few of their older shop class tools, and there are a lot of the Bailey 5 1/4 planes around so they bring a lot less. If the shop teacher ran a tight ship, some of those Bailey school planes aren't too bad. I just looked at Ebay, and $30 for a good vintage type 11 to type 14 Bailey plane seems to be a starting point for the Bailey 5 1/4s and some end up selling for about that. I did see folks wanting the $150 range Bailey 5 1/4s out there, but those over priced planes will be on the market on Ebay for a long time.

As an example of the overpriced planes, I see folks asking $300 (and even quite a bit more than that) for Stanley 605 Bedrocks that has been fixed up to look nice frequently. If you look 6 months later, almost all of those overpriced planes will still be there, if the guys have not reduced the price.

What I am saying is that someone ASKING that $150 for a Bailey 5 1/4 plane, and them getting that for it are two very different things.

Stew

[Mike Holbrook]

It took me quite a while on an auction site to find a 5 1/4 at a reasonable price. I gave up on the 5 1/4C and bought a regular smooth bottom version. I bought a PM-V11 blade from LV for it, also fits my two #3's. I have about an 8" radius on the blade of mine, at the moment. I am still working on the blade fit, I may have to widen the mouth to get the Veritas plane blade to fit. As others have mentioned it is a very easy size to work with.

[Patrick Chase]

Veritas sells a No. 5 1/4W for $249 which I've found tempting. Here's how they compare it to the Stanley 5 1/4:

"Our #5-1/4W differs from the original [Stanley] in many ways – mainly, ours has a wider blade and the mouth is 4-3/8" behind the nose, unlike the original at 3-1/2". For better accuracy, an extra-long sole in front of the blade makes it easier to keep the sole flush to the wood when starting a cut. Combined, the mouth location and sensitive feed adjustment let the #5-1/4W serve as a jointer for most cabinet work.

I have the Veritas 5-1/4W and have used a 5-1/4. They are VERY different planes, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Probably the biggest difference is that the Veritas is uniquely proportioned. All Veritas planes are proportioned with the mouth set a bit further back than usual, but the 5-1/4W is extreme in that regard even by their standards. IMO that makes it great for work where you want the plane accurately registered on the piece before you start cutting (when using it as a junior jointer for example) but it makes for very different handling.

Also, the Veritas uses a 2" blade just like the #5, so it isn't any easier to push than a full-blown Jack. In contrast the 5-1/4 has a 1-3/4" blade like the #3.

You can think of the 5-1/4W as either a long-toed #4 or short-heeled #5, whereas the 5-1/4 is basically a scaled-down (in all dimensions) #5.

[Michael Ray Smith]

I use a 5 1/4 as my scrub plane. I added a thicker, cambered blade. No idea what the radius is because I just eyeballed it, but it's not nearly as tight as the blade on a No. 40. I had to open the mouth with the file just a bit to get the blade to fit and to allow clearance for thicker chips, probably so little that most people probably wouldn't notice it. I had a No. 40 before. I switched because I could sell the No. 40 for more than I had to put into the 5 1/4 plus the new blade. As it turns out, I like the 5 1/4 for that purpose better than the No. 40. Some people criticize the No. 40 for being so light, and now that I've switched, I have to agree with them.

[James W Glenn]

I've got a couple some. Their nice for a tool box plane and off the bench boat work. I've seen a number of old rosewood and lignum vite shipwright planes of the same general proportions.

[Curtis Niedermier]

So on Saturday I went back to the store that had the plane that sparked the initial post for this thread. I've rethought my original evaluation of the tool. It's salvagable, but it's missing the iron and lever cap. Finding a new iron isn't too big of a deal. But when I checked eBay (best source I could think of) to see what a lever cap would cost, there weren't many for that size for sale. Looks like I'd expect to pay $30 or so. Honestly, I figure I'll eventually find a complete 5 1/4 in decent shape and can probably get it for about that price. So I think I'll hold off.

I did pick up a handful of cool other tools. I got two sets of brand new Starrett dividers still in the original box. They're only about 3 1/2 inches tall, and the points are wicked sharp. They stuck in my thumb and I didn't even know it. I found another box with a combo of one set of brand new Starrett dividers and a brand new inside caliper, about the same size but slightly longer. There were a few other Starrett tools that I passed up. The store bought out an estate that belonged to, I believe, a guy who taught metalworking and was a hobby machinist, and a hobby photographer with his own dark room. There was some cool stuff. I filled a milk crate with odd and end small pieces.

[steven c newman]

A lever cap for a #3 works just fine. Go to nhplaneparts.com Eric might even have a few....

[Jeffrey Martel]

I've got one. Got it for free, actually. It does OK, but it's a post WWII version, so not the greatest. I mostly use it as an initial rough flattening tool on the diagonals and cross grain type of stuff. Before breaking out the #6 or #8. I've got a regular rosewood #5 that I haven't used yet, actually as it needs some work.

[Lenore Epstein]

You can think of the 5-1/4W as either a long-toed #4 or short-heeled #5, whereas the 5-1/4 is basically a scaled-down (in all dimensions) #5.
Nice summary. Thanks!

[Mike Holbrook]

Michael thanks for posting your alterations to your 5 1/4. Now I want feel too bad running a file into the mouth of mine. The Veritas PM-V11 blade I have for mine, 8" camber, just does not allow for chip clearance. The 8" camber on mine looks like a good amount on the thinner blade. I suspected that cambering it more would accentuate the issue of blade clearance, as the blade would need to extend even further for the entire camber to be exposed.

[Patrick Chase]

Michael thanks for posting your alterations to your 5 1/4. Now I want feel too bad running a file into the mouth of mine. The Veritas PM-V11 blade I have for mine, 8" camber, just does not allow for chip clearance. The 8" camber on mine looks like a good amount on the thinner blade. I suspected that cambering it more would accentuate the issue of blade clearance, as the blade would need to extend even further for the entire camber to be exposed.

You might want to try filing the back of the mouth instead of the front if you haven't already, particularly if your plane is a Bed Rock. If you file the front then you'll eventually lose the ability to close the mouth all the way down with a stock-thickness blade. In contrast, filing the back allows you to set the mouth adjustment further back with a highly cambered/extended blade, but you retain the ability to close down.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that the downside to filing the back of the mouth is that you at least theoretically lose some frog/blade support. When I've done this in the past (for example for the WR #5 that I reviewed here a whole back) I file the front as much as I can while still being able to close down all the way with a stock-thickness uncambered blade. If I get to that point and still need a larger opening then I do all remaining filing from the back of the mouth. IMO it's more important to be able to close all the way down than it is to have every last bit of frog supported by the sole...

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for that suggestion Patrick. I will apply the file to the rear of the mouth. I have been grinding old Veritas A2 BU plane blades, back to 25 -30 degrees. I had one that was 38 and one that was just messed up. I hope to get to the 5 1/4 mouth next.

[steven c newman]

Actually, I do use one

331150
No camber, used as a smallish jointer for shorter length boards. Been known to use it to do raised panels.

Millers Falls No. 11.....same as the Stanley #5-1/4.
331151331152331153
Not too bad a plane.

[Glen Canaday]

You might want to try filing the back of the mouth instead of the front if you haven't already, particularly if your plane is a Bed Rock. If you file the front then you'll eventually lose the ability to close the mouth all the way down with a stock-thickness blade. In contrast, filing the back allows you to set the mouth adjustment further back with a highly cambered/extended blade, but you retain the ability to close down.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that the downside to filing the back of the mouth is that you at least theoretically lose some frog/blade support. When I've done this in the past (for example for the WR #5 that I reviewed here a whole back) I file the front as much as I can while still being able to close down all the way with a stock-thickness uncambered blade. If I get to that point and still need a larger opening then I do all remaining filing from the back of the mouth. IMO it's more important to be able to close all the way down than it is to have every last bit of frog supported by the sole...

If you're moving the frog forward to close the mouth, you don't have that support in the first place.

I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost.

Keep in mind also that the bevel on the iron may be so large that the iron never actually touches this part of the casting, and then it's a moot point anyway.

[Patrick Chase]

I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost.

Count me among those who think that requiring the iron to be supported by both the sole and the frog is hoary superstition. Never done it, never will, never had chatter as a result (I have had chatter, but it was always because of some *other* bit of idiocy on my part)

[Mike Holbrook]

"I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost."

The issue is the blade actually touches/rests against the top side of the mouth, leaving no place for shavings to exit. I believe others have experienced this issue, trying to get newer, particularly Veritas PM-V11 blades working in older planes. The issue is made more complicated by the radiuses many people use on blades in these planes. Maybe there is some other alternative, but I do not see what that would be. I think this is very relevant to this discussion as getting an old 5 1/4 plane, with it's very small mouth, to work with newer irons would seem to be quite important and germane to discussion of using these planes. Maybe a user of an old 5 1/4 plane will find used blades, but how long can one count on the old iron inventory to last? I bought an old iron not to long ago, it and the chip breaker were not in good shape (bent) requiring considerable time & effort to correct.

[steven c newman]

Re: Old irons for a 5-1/4 plane. Just about any iron for a #3 sized plane will work, but, use the chipbreaker that came with that 5-1/4 plane. Not all makers used the same sized chipbreaker. Some have almost an inch difference in where the slot is. Even an iron from an old Transistional (sp) that used a 1-3/4 wide iron will work. Again, watch the chipbreakers.

The Millers Falls No. 11 I use, uses the same iron and chipbreaker a Millers Falls No.8 does.

If all you want is a LONG scrub plane, go out and find a CHEAP #5 sized plane shaped object, like ones from Great Neck Tool Co. They have a big, wide mouth. The one I have has an 8" radius ground into the iron. It has been sharpened maybe twice in the time I've used it. Cost a whopping $6+ tax.

Re: Frog and sole mated inline? That is where I always set up the frog. Maybe a fingertip to feel that they are inline. IF at some time, the frog MIGHT need to move forward.....that is when I start to get a bit of chattering. When the iron can rest FLAT on the frog and the small ramp at the back of the mouth opening, never had any chattering. Reason: Chipbreaker might help an iron stay stiff, IF the other side of the iron is also supported. Loose that support, and the iron may start to deflect backwards, away from the chipbreaker. With the support, I can just cut right through a knot, without? It will skitter across, and not cut.

BTW: Have yet to need to install any thicker iron in a Vintage plane. Although, some actually came with a thicker, tapered iron ( Ohio Tool Co. Auburn Tool Co. ) Their mouths were set up to handle the thicker irons. By design.

[Glen Canaday]

Answer: a very long time. A #3 iron is the same iron, and they are still made by quite a few companies.

The thicker iron is not required. The current trend toward thicker and thicker irons is a modern thing. Were the thinner irons they originally shipped with not adequate, for over 100 years? The reason I do not stand behind altering the mouth on a dwindling supply is just that: they are not making any more of them. On a modern plane, sure, alter as you see fit, you can get another easily if a bad decision is made and something is learned. But consider whether the alteration is done because someone is glued to fashion rather than expediency or practicality.

Absolutely take a file to it if the mouth is badly shaped and marking the work, but if the mouth has to be wider to accept a new, thicker iron (which may also not fit the depth adjustment yoke!), consider also whether the iron's thickness is not the culprit instead. IIRC, you can get Stanley thickness Hock irons.

I won't preach about it (do whatever you like), but I see a lot of cheerleading for thick irons that the planes weren't designed to accept. I merely wish to offer a counterpoint so that people will think about their reasoning before they go hog wild on antique iron.

[Jim Koepke]

Some of my Stanley/Bailey planes, even with the original blades, have tight mouths. Some have been altered, most have not.

Yesterday some time was taken to rehabilitate an old #3. There was a chip at the back of the mouth that was filed away.

Even with a mouth that is a bit wide it can still take fine shavings. It can also take heavy shavings. One of the fatter cuts, I call them zipper cuts because that is what they sound like when being made, measured at 0.021". Save that sucker for when a shim is needed.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Re: Frog and sole mated inline? That is where I always set up the frog. Maybe a fingertip to feel that they are inline. IF at some time, the frog MIGHT need to move forward.....that is when I start to get a bit of chattering. When the iron can rest FLAT on the frog and the small ramp at the back of the mouth opening, never had any chattering. Reason: Chipbreaker might help an iron stay stiff, IF the other side of the iron is also supported. Loose that support, and the iron may start to deflect backwards, away from the chipbreaker. With the support, I can just cut right through a knot, without? It will skitter across, and not cut.

I realize that making arguments based on physics (as opposed to superstition and lore) is frowned upon, but: Your explanation make no sense.

The old style "humped" cap irons have ~2 mm of preload (i.e. the blade would have to deflect by 2 mm to disengage from the cap iron), and even the newer milled ones have close to a millimeter of preload. In order for your hypothesis to be possible the blade would therefore have to deflect away from the cap iron by 1-2 mm. Keep in mind that the blade and cap iron share a common pivot-point at the bottom edge of the lever cap, so all of the separation would have to take place below that.

Doing some quick back-of-the-envelope math for the blade stiffness, the force required to do that would be measured in hundreds of pounds if not tons. Many other components (the cutting edge itself, lever cap screw, depth-adjustment fork, etc) would fail catastrophically long before that happened.

[Jim Koepke]

Doing some quick back-of-the-envelope math for the blade stiffness, the force required to do that would be measured in hundreds of pounds if not tons.

No room for decimal points on the back of that envelope?

Next we will have a thread on what is and isn't chatter when planing. My understanding has been it to be any vibration caused by the interaction of the blade and wood being worked. Sometimes it is high pitched, sometimes it sounds like a vehicle going over the indentions in the sides of roads as a warning to wandering drivers.

It never occurred to me the blade and the chip breaker had to separate before it could be called chatter. Besides, my bet is most blades do not need to move a full 2mm before gaps occur between the blade and an old Stanley/Bailey style chip breaker.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Well, sorry, Professor..

Just going by what I have actually seen over the years. Sometimes, one can even hear the "PING' as an iron flexes....

closed mouth openings quickly become fouled mouth openings, as there isn't enough room for the shavings to clear their way up and out of the plane.

besides, it is more the operation of the chipbreaker, rather than how closed the mouth is. Wasn't there a study a few years ago from Japan about that?

[Patrick Chase]

Well, sorry, Professor..

Just going by what I have actually seen over the years. Sometimes, one can even hear the "PING' as an iron flexes....

Really, so you have high-speed video showing that that's what actually happened and caused the noise you heard?

The most loosely attached component in the system is the lever cap (particularly if you've set it loose enough to be able to adjust depth while planing), so any sound you heard is vastly more likely to have originated at the interface between lever-cap and cap-iron.

In other words, the evidence you cite doesn't specifically support your claim. It has other much more probable explanations.


closed mouth openings quickly become fouled mouth openings, as there isn't enough room for the shavings to clear their way up and out of the plane.

besides, it is more the operation of the chipbreaker, rather than how closed the mouth is. Wasn't there a study a few years ago from Japan about that?

Indeed, but as many have pointed out the use of a close-set cap iron has its own drawbacks (it impacts surface quality a bit for starters).

My BD smoothers are set up so that I have both options (close down the mouth or tighten the cap iron set, but seldom both). I would never modify a plane such that I lost the ability to close down the mouth.

[Patrick Chase]

No room for decimal points on the back of that envelope?

It seems rather unlikely that could happen at realistic planing forces.


Next we will have a thread on what is and isn't chatter when planing. My understanding has been it to be any vibration caused by the interaction of the blade and wood being worked. Sometimes it is high pitched, sometimes it sounds like a vehicle going over the indentions in the sides of roads as a warning to wandering drivers

I don't think that the "roadside" kind is an interaction between the blade and wood - it's far too low in frequency for a system that stiff. In my experience the "washboard" kind is more of a pilot-induced oscillation (borrowing a term from the aerospace world)...


It never occurred to me the blade and the chip breaker had to separate before it could be called chatter. Besides, my bet is most blades do not need to move a full 2mm before gaps occur between the blade and an old Stanley/Bailey style chip breaker.
jtk

To be clear: I was replying to Steven's specific claim that chatter happens when the blade "loses the support" of the cap iron.

I've experienced chatter, and I'm 99.999% sure that the cap iron was engaged when it happened. I'm also 99.999% sure that it happened because I had done something else wrong, for example using a blade that wasn't sufficiently sharp for the cut I was taking, taking too rank of a cut, failing to skew when there were already striations in the wood, etc. That's what I meant when I said in my previous post that in my experience chatter had always happened because of "other idiocy on my part". IMO chatter is a real problem, but it has root causes and fixes separate from what's being discussed here.

[steven c newman]

Sounds like a Crusade going here? Arguements do nothing to help the OP. Make a Youtube Show about all of this. Oh, wait, the japanese already did one.

Why would I ever NEED a "High Speed Video to confirm what I both feel and see when I actually use these planes. haven't the time, or the money, nor the reason.

Maybe a little hands on work, instead?

I'm going merely on what I have actually seen while using these planes, trying various settings to find what does indeed work, and what will not. Maybe that is why I can use that 5-1/4 I have to smooth out a glued up panel? chatter-free, and see through shavings are a nice bennefit of all the research I actually put in.

Not sure HOW you have YOUR lever cap set, not really interested anyway. I set mine so things stay put when I have the plane set the way I need it to be. Lever cap is on the other side of the cap iron from the iron, correct? So, all it does is contact the chipbreaker. If the iron does deflect BACKWARDS from these two, not much they can do about it.

This entire "Class" really has nothing to do with what the OP was asking. Maybe YOU should start a seperate thread and teach?

[Jim Koepke]

IMO chatter is a real problem, but it has root causes and fixes separate from what's being discussed here.

How ever did you apply the "hundreds of pounds if not tons" you said would be required?


Doing some quick back-of-the-envelope math for the blade stiffness, the force required to do that would be measured in hundreds of pounds if not tons.

Then:


To be clear: I was replying to Steven's specific claim that chatter happens when the blade "loses the support" of the cap iron.

My understanding of Steven's statement was chatter is more likely when the blade looses support from the plane's base below the frog. The cap iron is pressing on the blade as the wood being planed is also deforming it. When the wood submits there is a sudden move forward due to the flex of the metal. Then it all starts again. This can be anywhere from the sub-audible range up to frequencies that cause the neighborhood dogs to bark.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

How ever did you apply the "hundreds of pounds if not tons" you said would be required?

I didn't, and that's why I'm pretty sure that the cap iron never separated from the blade. On the rare occasion that chatter happens it involves vibration of the entire blade+cap-iron package (or the entire plane in the washboard/roadside case), not one separating from the other.

[Glen Canaday]

Yesterday some time was taken to rehabilitate an old #3. There was a chip at the back of the mouth that was filed away.

Even with a mouth that is a bit wide it can still take fine shaving.
jtk

Yup, and yup.

I have a Miller Falls 24 jointer (#8 size) with a chip at the back of the mouth. It does mark the work. I'll probably build up jb weld and then file that back down to the original size and shape.

It's not original, it's a usability rehab!

To tie it back to the OP, the 5 1/4 works great as a small jack without modification. It's light and maneuverable.

[paul cottingham]

Before I got a scrub I used a MF #11 (same as #5 1/4) with a big camber on the iron.

They definitely are easier to push than a 5.

This. I have a MF11 i use as a scrub. Works great.would love to have a dedicated scrub, but can't justify the cost.