Hand plane features

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

As a well seasoned woodworker of all of 3 months, I can confidently say that there are some features I like in handplanes and some I don't quite get.

sarcasm aside, my favorite 2 planes are my LN no.8 and no.4 (I wish I got the 4-1/2 but that is another issue)
the Low Angle offers an adjustable mouth, which I find much more useful. question is - how come they never made bevel downs with adjustable mouths? seems like that way you could make the frog sit perfectly, you could make it swappable for angles if you wanted, but adjustability would no longer be a factor to contend with. also you would be able to adjust the mouth almost as readily as you adjust the depth of cut - on the fly.

I was wondering what some of the folks with *real* experience think of this?

[J. Greg Jones]

how come they never made bevel downs with adjustable mouths? seems like that way you could make the frog sit perfectly, you could make it swappable for angles if you wanted, but adjustability would no longer be a factor to contend with. also you would be able to adjust the mouth almost as readily as you adjust the depth of cut - on the fly.
You can buy bevel-down planes with adjustable mouths and swappable frogs today-check out the Lee Valley/Veritas line of custom bench planes.

[Warren Mickley]

The "Low Angle" plane was developed by people just like you. They had no *real* experience and had some plane features they did not quite get.

We have used the double iron for controlling tear out for over 250 years. For myself I have not changed a mouth opening for 45 years.

[Jim Koepke]

question is - how come they never made bevel downs with adjustable mouths?

Stanley did make one bevel down plane with an adjustable mouth, the #10-1/2. This feature was discontinued fairly early in the plane's production.

Like Warren mentioned, none of my bevel down plane's have been changed once set. My time period on this is much shorter than Warren's.

On my bevel up planes with adjustable mouths this is used mostly when working on curved areas to keep the blade from turning them flat.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

There were several American companies, as early as the 1860s, that offered adjustable mouth bevel down double iron planes. Actually, the Metallic Plane Co. invented this feature, along with the corrugated sole feature, they offered them in metal and metal/wood transitionals. The Union Mfg. Co. also made adjustable mouth BD planes. In fact, the company has been restarted and it began manufacturing smoothers with this feature, see https://www.unionmfgco.com/products/union-manufacturing-co-x-no-4-14-dat4f.

Metallic Plane Co. plane, the first picture is off of the internet, the second if of a jointer plane I have, after I disassembled the mouth pieces.
457978457980

There was an attachment added to coffin smoothers and even jack planes to perhaps make their mouth adjustable, a metal plate at the front of the mouth. This one is mine, I think a Greenslade, from the UK.

457976457977457982

In some circles it is emphasized the necessity of closing the mouth of a BD double iron plane to mitigate tearout, you'll have to make up your mind over time as to the value of that advise.

Cheers,

Rafael

[Nathan Johnson]

I mean, I'm no expert, but once I've set a frog on a bevel down plane I've never adjusted it again.

[J. Greg Jones]

I mean, I'm no expert, but once I've set a frog on a bevel down plane I've never adjusted it again.
Many people do, especially on Bedrock planes. Instead of adjusting the cap iron to adjust for tear-out, they will leave the cap iron at about 1/32” and close/open the mouth by adjusting the frog. Both methods work, but the thinking in the last few years is that adjusting the cap iron is the preferred method.

[Thomas Wilson]

Assaf, you are on your way to owning a full set of Lie-Nielsen bench planes. The mouth of your bevel down planes is adjusted from behind the frog. Loosen the two screws on either side. The screw in the middle adjusts the frog forward and back. The adjustments can be made with the blade, cap iron, and cam lever cap installed so you can see the effect of the adjustment. Lie-Nielsen planes are set at the factory for a fairly tight opening. If you are taking heavy cuts with thick shavings, you will have to open the mouth a bit. Otherwise the shaving will jam in the mouth. Tearout on fine finish cuts can be reduced by setting the mouth tight. The front of the mouth opening holds the wood down in front of the blade rather than to allow a chip to pull up as the blade pushes forward. As J. Greg points out, setting the cap iron close to the edge of the blade helps to reduce tearout. The cap iron forces the shaving upward at a steep angle cause it to sever cleanly.

I use my 4 and 8 for finish cuts and the mouths are set close. The 5 and 5 1/2 are for flattening and dimensioning. Their mouths are pretty much wide open.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Assaf, you are on your way to owning a full set of Lie-Nielsen bench planes.

LOL you are probably right about that

[Tom Trees]

A tight mouth is a poor substitute for a close set cap iron if elimination of tearout is of concern.
Having a tight mouth and a close set cap iron together won't work.
The plane will refuse to cut if you've got the cap set to say 1/64", and takes real effort to push when set at 1/32"
so much so that the plane will get very warm.

Might be worth getting your no.4 and doing a test on the toughest example of timber you've got.
You might find the no.4 is just about the perfect width.

A lot easier to justify buying a few old planes for various cambers/associated cap distance, than having one smoother, one jack, and one jointer plane,
if your work is varied, i.e having two jacks like Follansbee.

Money aside, I'd buy a Lie Nielsen if I wanted a ductile iron plane.
That's about the only advantage I see in them.
Well that, and the square sides if one wanted to do some long grain shooting.

If those things weren't the biggest factor in the decision, then it would seem that one is still in the dark about how the double iron
works in a plane.

Tom

[Rob Lee]

Hi Assaf -

From a manufacturing stand point - it's a heck of lot easier to make an adjustable frog, than an adjustable mouth. Putting both on a plane would really add cost - and 100 years ago, hand tools were relatively price sensitive.

The movable frog was an ideal solution - the milling of the frog bed was straightforward, and the frog itself was all exterior milling (which means no clearance issues). keeping the blade square to the mouth opening is easy - by skewing the frog slightly. Milling a perfect tapered blade bed is much more difficult (for LA planes) - and there is no adjustability for squaring the blade to the mouth opening - aside from filing the edge of the moveable toe. (squareness to the mouth is much more a visual issue than a functional one in most cases).

Cheers -

Rob

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

wait, I need to understand - are you telling me that I need to chose between the mouth opening and the set of the chipbreaker? that its an either or situation?
could someone please elaborate?

what I have done on all the planes is to set the chipbreaker as close to the edge as possible, I shine a bright light and move it forward until I can just barely see the blade reflect past the chipbreaker edge. I mean barely.

if I do that how should I set the mouth?

[Rob Young]

I mean, I'm no expert, but once I've set a frog on a bevel down plane I've never adjusted it again.

This.

Move the frog to adjust the effective mouth opening.

Most of the anti-tearout is managed by the cap-iron as well as a properly sharp blade.

[Rob Young]

wait, I need to understand - are you telling me that I need to chose between the mouth opening and the set of the chipbreaker? that its an either or situation?
could someone please elaborate?

what I have done on all the planes is to set the chipbreaker as close to the edge as possible, I shine a bright light and move it forward until I can just barely see the blade reflect past the chipbreaker edge. I mean barely.

if I do that how should I set the mouth?


The position of the chipbreaker changes with the use of the plane as well as the material to be planed.

Adjust the mouth large enough so it doesn't clog. Then get on with the work.

[Jim Koepke]

wait, I need to understand - are you telling me that I need to chose between the mouth opening and the set of the chipbreaker? that its an either or situation?
could someone please elaborate?

what I have done on all the planes is to set the chipbreaker as close to the edge as possible, I shine a bright light and move it forward until I can just barely see the blade reflect past the chipbreaker edge. I mean barely.

if I do that how should I set the mouth?

With the chip breaker set as you describe the mouth doesn't factor in to the equation. The best would be to set it so the back of the mouth is inline with the frog's face to add support for the blade.

If the frog is too far forward, the cap iron action against the shaving will cause it to clog the mouth.

Rob Lee mentioned the cost of manufacturing various features into a plane. It would likely be beyond reason to design and make a chip breaker with an adjustment feature to be done without disassembly.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

wait, I need to understand - are you telling me that I need to chose between the mouth opening and the set of the chipbreaker? that its an either or situation?
could someone please elaborate? what I have done on all the planes is to set the chipbreaker as close to the edge as possible

The closer the chipbreaker to the edge, the thinner the shaving needs to be. Under this condition you'll be taking your finishing shavings and not introduce any tear out. If you are still planing to dimension, you'll need to back up the chipbraker so you can take thicker shavings, you will need to figure out how much based on the type of wood you're working. I'm not sure if you gain anything by closing the mouth when using the chipbreaker to control tearout, I don't adjust the mouth of my metal planes. Get yourself comfortable with the chipbreaker setup. Once you have practiced with that for a while, see if closing the mouth is of any advantage for you.

[Tom Trees]

Aye Assaf
I think you've got the jist of it now.
Yet another reason to own a cheap old plane, as one might be reluctant to hone a steep profile on an expensive plane.

Sounds like all your planes have the cap iron set very close.
If the angle of the cap iron was honed about 50 degrees then you would have your answer..
Steeper cap iron, the further it can be set away from the edge, allowing for more camber of the cutting iron if one wished, like for a panel/fine set jack or try plane.

All my frogs are back flush with the casting, as I work tropicals with interlocked/reversing grain
I couldn't get away with anything else, not that I have wanted for a tight mouth for anything.

I do have one of the plastic handled Stanleys with a huge mouth, which will work well for nearly everything, but use that for hogging off material like a scrub.
I suppose care might be needed if using it for bevels, about the only reason I could see to not select that particular plane for the job...
but I'd sooner be careful and rely on the cap iron, than risk ruining the very end of a project with tearout, even if I had only that plane to work with (and a bunch of irons)

The rest of my planes have average mouths, so a small adjustment could mean a lot more resistance to the cut.

I reckon if you're new to woodwork, that would be some time, if ever,
before you would come across a good reason for having a tight mouth for anything.


Tom

[Rob Lee]

wait, I need to understand - are you telling me that I need to chose between the mouth opening and the set of the chipbreaker? that its an either or situation?
could someone please elaborate?

what I have done on all the planes is to set the chipbreaker as close to the edge as possible, I shine a bright light and move it forward until I can just barely see the blade reflect past the chipbreaker edge. I mean barely.

if I do that how should I set the mouth?

Hi Assaf -

I was just answering your question about manufacturing - not dealing with use....

You have lots of good advice here - there are many choices for adjusting cut.... chipbreaker, mouth opening, effective cut angle. What most important is for you to to choose what best fits what you are doing.

Cheers -

Robin

[Warren Mickley]

With the chip breaker set as you describe the mouth doesn't factor in to the equation. The best would be to set it so the back of the mouth is inline with the frog's face to add support for the blade.

If the frog is too far forward, the cap iron action against the shaving will cause it to clog the mouth.

Rob Lee mentioned the cost of manufacturing various features into a plane. It would likely be beyond reason to design and make a chip breaker with an adjustment feature to be done without disassembly.

jtk

There have been planes manufactured that could have the cap iron adjusted without disassembly. The French Goldenberg planes were wooden planes with a cap iron that could be adjusted with a screw. There was a 19th century American patent iron plane that had such a feature. And the Japanese double iron planes have the cap iron adjusted with the wedge in place. Here is the Goldenberg iron assembly:

458086

In practice we change the cap iron setting so seldom that these features are only helpful for beginners. An experienced user knows the qualities of the timber at hand and knows where to place the cap iron for a given situation. If you are a beginner, take some time, experiment, and get to know your plane. A lot of bloggers have not done that.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I've said it before, becoming a creek member was probably the best ($5?) I ever spent.

Thank you all for the information, it has been invaluable!

Like I said I am new to this - the high end planes I have (LN no.4 and no. 8) have worked great until I reached this hard maple board that seemed to be made by someone who resents me. nothing but tearout - looks horrible. I made some headway with a LA Jack with a 50 degree bevel on the blade (cutting angle set to 62 degrees) but that only got rid of 80% of it.

CS in his book handplane essentials mentioned closing the mouth as well and lowering the cap iron as two viable options. I tried on this 4-1/2 I'm trying to rehab (still need to flatten the sole) but the shavings I got were wrinkled up - I think they were too compressed by the opening.

I have taken to heart what you all suggest - the blade is now backed to the rear edge of the mouth. if I ever get the sole flat I will order a new blade and chip breaker from LV to compliment it.

Thanks everyone!

[glenn bradley]

I mean, I'm no expert, but once I've set a frog on a bevel down plane I've never adjusted it again.

+1. If I change irons, maybe. I take advantage of the quick changing of irons / angles on my bevel up planes. Bevel down planes pretty much stay as they are in use.

[J. Greg Jones]

CS in his book handplane essentials mentioned closing the mouth as well and lowering the cap iron as two viable options. I tried on this 4-1/2 I'm trying to rehab (still need to flatten the sole) but the shavings I got were wrinkled up - I think they were too compressed by the opening…
I believe CS also said use one option or the other, not both at the same time. I assume your vintage 4-1/2 is a Bailey design? If so, if you want to continue to explore the closed mouth option, consider using your LN #4 as the test subject. Adjusting the mouth opening of a Bedrock pattern plane is child’s play, while doing same on a Bailey pattern is frustrating at best.

[Warren Mickley]

I've said it before, becoming a creek member was probably the best ($5?) I ever spent.

Thank you all for the information, it has been invaluable!

Like I said I am new to this - the high end planes I have (LN no.4 and no. 8) have worked great until I reached this hard maple board that seemed to be made by someone who resents me. nothing but tearout - looks horrible. I made some headway with a LA Jack with a 50 degree bevel on the blade (cutting angle set to 62 degrees) but that only got rid of 80% of it.

CS in his book handplane essentials mentioned closing the mouth as well and lowering the cap iron as two viable options. I tried on this 4-1/2 I'm trying to rehab (still need to flatten the sole) but the shavings I got were wrinkled up - I think they were too compressed by the opening.

I have taken to heart what you all suggest - the blade is now backed to the rear edge of the mouth. if I ever get the sole flat I will order a new blade and chip breaker from LV to compliment it.

Thanks everyone!

The cap irons on the Lie Nielsen planes and the Lee Valley planes have been deliberately made ineffective. Instead of a rounded bevel ending in a steep intersection with the plane iron, they have a low flat bevel which does not work well at all. We have used rounded bevels for more than two centuries.

A double iron plane with a working cap iron will yield a better surface than high angle alternatives, and do so with less effort.

If your 4 1/2 plane was giving wrinkled shavings it was not well adjusted. Chris Schwarz is not a good source for information about planes.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

so you are saying that if I upgrade the cap iron I will have to play with the throat to get a decent cut?

[Warren Mickley]

so you are saying that if I upgrade the cap iron I will have to play with the throat to get a decent cut?

Not quite. I am saying if you buy a cap iron from these companies it is not as good as the one you already have. You can improve the crappy cap iron up to a point by altering the bevel. I would not call it an upgrade.

Compared to the double iron, a tight mouth is a clumsy way to control tear out.

[Tom Trees]

I agree with Warren, but have to mention that the Goldberg comment although interesting might have confused matters, as it has a tight mouth.
Look at that Kato and Kawai 'influence of the cap iron' study to see that nothing in front of the cutter is needed,
i.e ...like a tight mouth of a plane pressing down on the fibres.

(as well as David Weaver's... 'setting a cap iron' article which I think references it.

Graham Blackburn is worth a mention.

I presume Derek Cohen has some other articles also, as he likes to do good write ups.
(If you are still wondering, whether or not to choose to listen to Warren instead of Mr Schwarz.
Unfortunately you won't find this information from any other mainstream guru.:confused:

It's not difficult, it's just the ever present conflicting advice from them all, is more than likely present to keep you coming back for more, or folks just a bit sore about it all.

This is old news now, since near the last decade, David has made this widely known, thanks to Warren there.
And Graham done some work to make this publicized around the same time.

Many old folks say I was taught this when I was 15 or 16, Warren is one of the only ones I've came across that I'd actually believe.
Old news to him, but not for most.

Warren is suggesting the leading edge angle is what's likely missing out of the equation, as it sounds like your cap irons are close.
The steeper it is the more influence it will have, so the further it can be set back.
I like many others seem to think once its got to at least the 50 degrees mark or just over, that it works nicely, Warren prefers steeper I believe.
Seems a bit less forgiving when I went to about 70, but I didn't give it a proper go to be honest.
I wouldn't be shy about going steeper if I thought the cap was just too close.

All the best
Tom

[Jim Koepke]

the shavings I got were wrinkled up

This is often a sign of the cap iron being set too close to the edge of the blade for the thickness of shaving and the wood being worked. If possible take a thinner shaving. The other option is to back the cap iron away from the edge a few thousandths of an inch and try again. Repeat as necessary.


so you are saying that if I upgrade the cap iron I will have to play with the throat to get a decent cut?

Many folks will refine the front edge profile of the cap iron. For my Stanley cap irons they are often polished on my stones, buffed, then a very light coat of wax is applied and wiped with a clean cloth.

For modern cap irons like a Hock or others a small bevel at one's preferred angle does the trick.

Work with the cap iron not the mouth opening.

People often give me flack for suggesting very thin shavings. A thin shaving is less likely to cause tear out.

458124

The micrometer was not "squashed down" on this. It indicates the shaving is greater than 2/10,000" but less than 3/10,000". A shaving that thin isn't going to cause a lot of tear out.

It does require a very sharp edge on a blade.

jtk

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I have gone and sharpened the cap iron bottom edge and lightly rounded over the top so that it better slopes towards the edge. I also brought the blade back.
you guys were right - wrinkles disappeared. I Think next I will polish the cap iron a bit more and flatten the sole - I haven't been able to get float glass for some reason it isn't well known in Israel.

so far I am improving! thank you all.

[Tom Trees]

Yes the angle at which the cap iron is honed at.
Sounds like you have it already.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I figure if I keep at it a few more years, ill be an experienced woodworker...

Thanks again, I saw the video - very informative.

brings the thread back to the mention of the Union X plane - seems like micro adjustment in depth of cut is a good thing for a smoother

[Tom Trees]

I don't know if the Bailey style can be bettered.
Have you watched David Charlesworth's planing videos on technique?
Of the older stuff I've seen, although there were some bits missing like the use of the cap iron, regardless, nothing I've watched
since holds a candle to the demonstrations of his demos.
If one wants to gain a really good understanding on technique I don't think you will find more comprehensive info regarding accurate planing.

[David Bassett]

... Chris Schwarz is not a good source for information about planes.

I believe he honestly presents his best understanding at the time, and he has improved his advice over the years, but his understanding of the chip breaker / cap iron still doesn't express the importance and the nuances that tame difficult woods the way Warren, and others, preach. (David Weaver especially has been a prolific evangelist in reviving this lost knowledge in online circles, though he admits he is long winded and rambles.)



I figure if I keep at it a few more years, ill be an experienced woodworker....

What was a traditional apprenticeship? 5 years full time? That's when you'd be considered competent. ;) Just enjoy the journey!

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

What was a traditional apprenticeship? 5 years full time? That's when you'd be considered competent. ;) Just enjoy the journey!


I said I would become experienced, I never claimed I would one day become competent... ;)

[Derek Cohen]

The cap irons on the Lie Nielsen planes and the Lee Valley planes have been deliberately made ineffective...

Intriguing comment, Warren. Are you saying that LN and LV conspired to reduce the effectiveness of their chipbreakers?

This has a different meaning to LN and LV chipbreakers not being designed optimally. I would have said that. Simple modifications do improve them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tom Trees]

Set to seemingly work for perfect aspen it would seem. :)

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Derek, I would love to hear how you suggest modifying them - would you put a 50-80 degree bevel on the chipbreaker?

[Warren Mickley]

Intriguing comment, Warren. Are you saying that LN and LV conspired to reduce the effectiveness of their chipbreakers?

This has a different meaning to LN and LV chipbreakers not being designed optimally. I would have said that. Simple modifications do improve them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

No, I think they redesigned them out of ignorance. There were some bloggers at the time who suggested that cap irons were only used as blade stiffeners and who flattened out cap iron bevels on their planes. Hence the heavy cap irons and the flat bevels.

That was fifteen years ago or so. Do I think it has occurred to them in the meantime that the old cap irons might be better designed? Do I think that it has occurred to them that the use of the cap iron would put a good dent in their sales of "low angle" planes and "high frog" planes? Yes I do. They have a vested interest in ignorance that promotes tight mouth and high angle.

[Derek Cohen]

No, I think they redesigned them out of ignorance. There were some bloggers at the time who suggested that cap irons were only used as blade stiffeners and who flattened out cap iron bevels on their planes. Hence the heavy cap irons and the flat bevels.

That was fifteen years ago or so. Do I think it has occurred to them in the meantime that the old cap irons might be better designed? Do I think that it has occurred to them that the use of the cap iron would put a good dent in their sales of "low angle" planes and "high frog" planes? Yes I do. They have a vested interest in ignorance that promotes tight mouth and high angle.

Warren, that last sentence is pure opinion, not fact. Certainly from the side of Veritas. I cannot speak for LN.

Both companies had been making both BU and BD planes long before the forums began discussing, experimenting and supporting the use of a chipbreaker to control tearout. This began around 2012. Around this time, Veritas (Lee Valley) began the development of a new BD plane, which became the Custom plane set. I was privy to the discussion and progress in the early stages, and got to play with an early prototype in Ottawa in January 2013. As you know, Rob Lee participates in several woodworking fori, and he was certainly present when the fori discussions were taking place.

Of particular relevance is the fact that the Custon plane design went through a redesign in response to the recognised importance of the chipbreaker: originally, the plane was to have been a single blade, bevel down design with a choice of frog angles. It developed into a double iron design, with the chipbreaker mounting inspired by the Record Stay-Set, which was no longer with us. The leading edge angle on the chipbreaker is exactly the same as every other modern chipbreaker, such as those from LN, Hock, etc., at 25 degrees. The take away is that Veritas became part of the “revolution”, and definitely not against it.

Like many others, I would prefer a steeper leader edge, but another fact is that there are many opinions here as to the “correct” angle. Some view this as 45 degrees, others 80 degrees. I use 50 degrees. Consequently, I imagine (as I have not bothered to ask Rob), Veritas view this aspect as a user-managed issue. It really is a simply matter to hone a high secondary bevel at the leading edge. That is all it takes - the effect is primarily due to the angle at the leading edge in association with the closeness of the edge to the back of the blade. There are further refinements possible, but this is enough to do the job.

It needs to be mentioned that there are many ways to skin a cat. In addition to BD planes with closed chipbreakers, high angle planes continue to work very well. They did so pre-2012, and this state has not changed. High angle BD planes, such as those from HNT Gordon, are wonderful to use - both ergonomically and in their results. BU planes with high secondary bevels excel as well in. this regard, and I argue are many times less effort to push that BD equivalents. This is in no way to be construed as a preference, just a comment.

There is no conspiracy here. You have opinions based on your readings and experiences (and criticism of LN at wood shows). Rather than constantly sounding like a raving zealot and putting so many down - which is a big turn off - just say what can be done to improve the existing equipment.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I would love to hear how you suggest modifying them - would you put a 50-80 degree bevel on the chipbreaker?

Hi Assaf

In my opinion, the best design for a chipbreaker is similar to those used in some woodies for the past few hundred years. Look at the planes made by Steve Voigt. These would make a very excellent model.

Here is my set up for a LN #3. Actually, it is the same for all my BD planes, including Stanley and the Veritas

https://i.postimg.cc/pLjnyfQf/LN2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/65yZxJy1/LN3.jpg

There are three mods in all:

1. The leading edge is rounded rather than bevelled. The adds to the flow of the shaving. I do not see it as a major effect, but there does appear to be a positive one.

2. A secondary microbevel of 50 degrees is added. The choice is open: a higher angle seems to make the effect more on-off, while a lower setting needs to be closer to the back edge.

3. The forward third of the body is given a little bend to add more spring. This enables a firmer positioning with less movement when tightening the chipbreaker screw. My bugbear with the Stanley chipbreakers I have experienced is that they are floppy rather than stiff, and will creep over the back edge if the blade when tightened down. Some swear by them. I swear at them :)

A fourth item could be added, this being the chipbreaker screw. The Veritas ones have a thicker head, and are easier to grip (than LN). This makes it easier to set the chipbreaker.

Obviously, ensure that the underside of the chipbreaker is flush and tight to the back of the blade. This is a fundamental tuning that everyone knows to do, so I do not include it as a mod.

https://i.postimg.cc/8P961Kvk/LN4.jpg

Experimentation and practice are the main teachers. These mods might get you started.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[William Fretwell]

Modifying the chip breaker does need a lot of care. Keeping the edge flush with the back of the blade all the way across is not easy. Old Bailey planes chip breakers are easier to tune in my experience.
Sometimes the chip breaker needs a little curve put back in like one of my Clifton’s.

458194

This simple fix cured the gap causing wood jamming between the blade and breaker. Tried to explain it to the manufacturer with no luck. The cause of this is partly due to breaker design.

Simply put: The breaker to blade edge gap determines the shaving thickness at very close settings. Once a certain gap is reached that relationship ends. Softer woods maintain the relationship longer than hard woods.

You need a gap large enough to actually do something or you will make very slow progress. A minuscule gap may be required for the hardest wood on the planet but that is not an every day occurrence. Experience will tell you what gap is efficient for different woods. The mouth opening influences the quality of the shaving, also up to a point. Changing the breaker gap does change the mouth opening influence.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Thank you all,

I took your advise as far as I could (I don't have a grinder)
added a 53-ish degree bevel on the LN plane chipbreakers (I was limited by the angle of the honing guide)
can't round the bevel or buff it out yet so that will wait until next year or so (when I get a grinder)
I do think there was less tear out so I'm calling it a win
I'm also going to buy to new blades for the LA jack (one to put a decent camber on for rough work, the other a 90 degree bevel for scraping)

this has been very helpful.

[Tom Trees]

Less tear out? there should be NO tearout, if you say your cap iron is close.
Have you tried eyeballing what measurement you have it set to?

Something is either wrong, or you literally just gave the timber only one or two passes, not enough to get down to the pits
that you torn out previously.


Sounds to me like you still have a tight mouth, and as a result of that is giving you the impression
that the cap is as close as it can be adjusted to.

If this is not the case, and the mouth is indeed open, then
If it is honed to 53 degrees, and as close as what Derek shows, then it's either not close enough, closer adjustment still available on that iron profile
or you haven't honed the cap to the very tip.

Have you got burnished polished straight shavings which don't curl?, that's what I would be expecting if it is indeed at the settings you describe.

Tom

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

you tell me

458231

took a few tries to take a picture of it - the light band is the reflection of the cutting edge, the dark on is from the new bevel on the chip breaker.

I have a few tiny patches of tearout that wont go away.
its dark out so I can load a picture tomorrow

[Oskar Sedell]

its easy to make that rounded profile free hand on the stone. Take a reference measurement, so that you know how steep say 50 degrees is, then just pull the cap iron towards you, with trailing edge, starting at the primary angle and ending the rolling motion at about 50. plus minus a couple of degrees does not matter. Continue this until the rounded part is big enough. In my experience that last part does not have to be big at all, 1 - 1.5 mm should be enough.

Good luck!

[Warren Mickley]

I talked to Ron Hock about the cap irons he makes at the WIA conference in 2009. When I told him they were a bit flat for optimum effectiveness he said that you could put the very end of the iron in a vise and bend it to suit. Apparently they were made of rather soft steel.

The problem with a shallow cap iron, even with a small steep bevel, is that there is a very narrow range of settings for which it is effective. Just a little too far away and the effect is lost, and just a little too close and you might as well have a high angle plane because the surface is not that good.

With a higher rounded cap iron, terminating at 75 or 80 degrees, there is a much larger sweet spot, and the cap iron can be much farther back and still have some effect. And the 80 degrees is really helpful for very troublesome woods.

[Jim Matthews]

458231



I have a few tiny patches of tearout that wont go away.
its dark out so I can load a picture tomorrow

I was taught to "relieve" the corners of the cutting iron so that there are not square corners.

A cambered iron will also avoid "tracking" where a sharp edge leaves a distinct mark in the planed surface.

From your excellent photo it also *appears* that the cap iron and blade do not meet at the outside edges.

If you have a fine cigarette paper or feeler gauge, this can be tested for a gap, which can lead to captured shavings and/or uneven performance.

You are far ahead in your development: I was easily 5 years into our hobby before I even grasped the nature of the problem you will soon solve.

Around 4:00 in the following video, Richard illustrates the concepts discussed at length, above.

https://youtu.be/fVfJxDFNinc

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I was taught to "relieve" the corners of the cutting iron so that there are not square corners.

A cambered iron will also avoid "tracking" where a sharp edge leaves a distinct mark in the planed surface.

From your excellent photo it also *appears* that the cap iron and blade do not meet at the outside edges.


I did put a camber on it - I can see what yo mean but I think the image is slightly distorted. it looks like the bevel of the cap iron is concaved at the edges down to the corners. I am still considering further rounding of the corners though. I have the faintest of track marks if the blade leaves square. The main issue is its a no.4 and I don't have a wide blade to begin with (I kind of wish I went with the 4-1/2). I would rather avoid further narrowing the width of my shavings at smoothing depth. what do you think?




If you have a fine cigarette paper or feeler gauge, this can be tested for a gap, which can lead to captured shavings and/or uneven performance.

the plane works amazingly - and better the more I learn about tuning it. I actually managed to get shavings thin enough to use a barcode app to read through





You are far ahead in your development: I was easily 5 years into our hobby before I even grasped the nature of the problem you will soon solve.
Thank you so much, largely thanks to resources like the creek! this is an old dream of mine - even though I just started collecting tools and building my bench I have been reading and watching anything I could for the last 10+ years


Around 4:00 in the following video, Richard illustrates the concepts discussed at length, above.

https://youtu.be/fVfJxDFNinc

I think I can do the rounding over technique freehand with my Stanley cap iron. not sure if I have the dexterity to manage it with the LN's
Thanks though!

[Derek Cohen]

I did put a camber on it - I can see what yo mean but I think the image is slightly distorted. it looks like the bevel of the cap iron is concaved at the edges down to the corners. I am still considering further rounding of the corners though. I have the faintest of track marks if the blade leaves square. The main issue is its a no.4 and I don't have a wide blade to begin with (I kind of wish I went with the 4-1/2). I would rather avoid further narrowing the width of my shavings at smoothing depth. what do you think?

Assaf, the problem with the track may be that you are not overlapping the runs enough. It is tempting with narrower planes on wider boards to try and run the plane close to, or just over, the previous line. This will have too little depth of cut to remove the track. Try overlapping more, about 50%.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

My blades are not purposely cambered. Using my planes with overlapping runs as Derek describes tends to eliminate any tracks.

Here is something from a decade ago about blade cambering > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373

jtk

[Nathan Johnson]

My blades are not purposely cambered. Using my planes with overlapping runs as Derek describes tends to eliminate any tracks.

Here is something from a decade ago about blade cambering > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373

jtk

Are you easing the corners, if not specifically cambering?

[Jim Koepke]

Are you easing the corners, if not specifically cambering?

No, as much as possible my blades are sharpened square. On water stones they may develop a camber if the stones haven't been flattened. Most of the time now my blades are honed on Arkansas stones. They are better at staying flat to make a square blade.

A squared blade, without camber, works fine for me.

When taking very light shavings it takes very little difference at the edge of the blade to create a cambered effect. The post linked earlier > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373 < demonstrates how just a few strokes on a stone can create a diminishing edge to a shaving, remediating tracks. The blade in that post may have been reground to use in the same plane as a scrub plane. If for some reason my current method of avoiding plane blade tracks stops working there are a few extra blades around that can be cambered and put in service.

With a square blade, thin shavings and a little care tracks do not appear on my work following final smoothing.

The cap iron screw was loose on one of my smoothing planes for a while. The lateral adjustment would shift in use. This caused me to learn about using overlapping paths when smoothing. Riding over a track left by a previous stroke with a very light setting will usually remove the high point at the edge of the track but not shave the low area of the previous cut.

Having the lateral adjustment set with the blade out of square can leave tracks that could possibly be adjusted out.

Imagine a right handed worker smoothing a board. Starting on the work piece at the far side working toward the closest side with the lateral set to cut deeper on the far side of the plane. This will leave tracks on each pass even with overlapping passes. Imagine a bit more and how the lateral adjustment to the other side would change this.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

wouldn't the second pass leave its own tracks behind? The last pass would leave a track, wouldn't it?

[Tom Trees]

For me honing at just over 50 degrees,
Efficient planing of stock what won't plane well without use of the cap iron, is at least a 2 plane or two iron profile deal, jack and smoother.

No tracks when using either plane, the profile dictates the cut for me, if I have to work the toughest examples I have, then the iron would be honed like Derek's, and the cut be lighter than on a less dense batch where one could camber their smoother iron only a thin hair more.
Not that one would want to be going in-between profiles often, but not that much/any work, if you plan ahead.

The 5 1/2 jack is the same scenario, and the cap is set for a batch of dense material below, that distance might even be enough for the smoother sometimes.
But if needing the jack set that close, then likely the cap iron in the smoother will need to be around half(ish) the distance somewhere.
458277 458282

I'm sure David W will have some panel work somewhere on youtube.

[Jim Koepke]

wouldn't the second pass leave its own tracks behind? The last pass would leave a track, wouldn't it?

There seems to be some confusion here.

For smoothing my planes are usually set to take a shaving of ~0.001" give or take a few ten thousandths. This usually doesn't leave a track.

If the plane is leaving tracks start the first pass with the blade slightly beyond the edge of the piece being worked. With the lateral set to take an even shaving a little overlap on the first pass should remove the track without leaving a new one on that side. Repeat this until the edge of the work piece is slightly overlapped by the blade on the close side.

This is only for tracks left at the edge of the blade. A nick in the blade will leave a track that is best removed by sharpening the blade to remove any nicks.

To sum up:

One can camber a blade to eliminate tracks. The cambering can be extremely light for light shavings. For thicker shavings more cambering is needed.

One can overlap passes to remove a track left on the previous pass. (kind of like covering your tracks?)

For some reason that probably isn't a phenomena occurring only in my shop, a square edge, sharp blade and a light shaving seems to work fine at avoiding tracks.

jtk

[Eric Rathhaus]

Warren - how far back do you hone the high angle? 1/16"? I have some older wooden planes with a slight cure on the cap and certainly under 70 degrees at the intersection with the iron. It would easy to add a small section of 80 degrees at the point of contact but then the angle would fall off quickly to under 30 degrees.

[Warren Mickley]

Warren - how far back do you hone the high angle? 1/16"? I have some older wooden planes with a slight cure on the cap and certainly under 70 degrees at the intersection with the iron. It would easy to add a small section of 80 degrees at the point of contact but then the angle would fall off quickly to under 30 degrees.

When I was trying to learn this method 45 years ago, I had one sample which was giving me trouble. I honed a tiny flat at 75 or 80 degrees and that made the difference. You could not really see the flat without a lens; I think it was about 1/100 of an inch high. Now I just have a rounded bevel that ends up about 80 degrees, but there is no flat wall at a given angle. Peter Nicholson, writing in 1812 says the bevel on the cap iron must be rounded and not flat.

I'll say a few words about the camber on the cutting iron. It is nice to have an even radius. If you just round the corners, you can still see the tracks, (though they are less noticeable), and you will really notice it if the iron is even slightly crooked. I think the ideal is for the shaving thickness feathers to nothing at the very edge. If you find that the plane only cuts at the center of the iron, there is too much camber. If you find that the shaving goes all the way to the edges, maybe not enough camber. We make the adjustment when we sharpen.