Has anyone here used a coping plane on rails ?

[Jake Darvall]

Got an interesting book from Mike in front of me on old wooden planes and techniques.

Reading a chapter on coping planes, where they used a plane to cut away a negitive on the end of the rail to take style profiles.

Looks hard going, since the plane goes straight into the end grain. Thinking of making one myself, and wondering what it be like. Anybody ?

I've never coped these joints...I've only ever mitred them. Mitres can open up a bit though eh, so maybe I should cope instead.

The book says that the coping plane was replaced with the scribing gouge and a sash template....I'm pretty shore the scribing gourge is a gourge thats ground with the bevel on the inside. I've got one that I've used for cutting starts for curved hardware uno. but nothing else.

....But wondering about the details behind this scribing gourge/sash template process.

How do you do it ? any ideas.

Ta.

[Ian Smith]

Sorry Jake, can't help you. I can sort of imagine what a coping plane might look like based on your question, but I don't think I've never seen one. Are you able to post a picture?

[Ian Gillis]

Jake

The cope and stick method certainly works well with tailed routers and shapers. I don't know this, but I suspect that gouges were preferred over planes because there was only a short stub to be coped. That is to say, only the end of the moulding detail would be coped and not the entire rail as is seen in modern production work.

Old sash and rail & stile doors use mortise and tenon for their structure. That being said, with modern adhesives, there's no reason that you can't mimic what the tailed router does and turn cope and stick into a structural joint.

I know that you're a real "doer", Jake and I look forward to seeing how you attack this challenge. My only advice is that you should remember to take into account the bedding angle of the plane iron when grinding your profile.

Cheers

[Ian Gillis]

Jake

* I don't know this, but I suspect that gouges were preferred over planes because there was only a short stub to be coped. That is to say, only the end of the moulding detail would be coped and not the entire rail as is seen in modern production work.*


Upon further reflection, I realise this is BS. The coping on old sash runs the width of the joint along the base of the tenon.

IG

[Jake Darvall]

Sorry Jake, can't help you. I can sort of imagine what a coping plane might look like based on your question, but I don't think I've never seen one. Are you able to post a picture?
Hello Ian,

I didn't know anything of them either until reading this book.

I took some photos of the diagrams from the book. (shouldn't get into trouble for that should I ?)

first picture - the arrows shows the cut the plane makes.

2nd picture - all the coping plane designs. Very inventive time eh.

3rd picture - The one that seems most favoured, according to the book, was the one labelled C, cause its sprung( ie. leans over...generally easier to use that way, and clears shavings better they say).

Which makes sense. The book says they would often cope this profile to all the rails at once....uno just clamp them up, with the rails laid flat on the tabletop......Be awkward trying to grip the plane without it sprung I can imagine....fingers running foul of the tennon .....having to push in sideways as well would be tricky I'd imagine. don't know.

[Jake Darvall]

Jake

The cope and stick method certainly works well with tailed routers and shapers. I don't know this, but I suspect that gouges were preferred over planes because there was only a short stub to be coped. That is to say, only the end of the moulding detail would be coped and not the entire rail as is seen in modern production work.

Old sash and rail & stile doors use mortise and tenon for their structure. That being said, with modern adhesives, there's no reason that you can't mimic what the tailed router does and turn cope and stick into a structural joint.

I know that you're a real "doer", Jake and I look forward to seeing how you attack this challenge. My only advice is that you should remember to take into account the bedding angle of the plane iron when grinding your profile.

Cheers
Hello Ian. Ta for responding.

I'd say this definetly be one place where router cope and stick bits rule the roost.....I worked in a joinery shop making frames this way for a short period and the process seemed very efficient to me.

I can see how just the ends would matter for appearences when using scribing gourge....so imagine it wouldn't matter if it was a bit messy in between....and the strength being in the M&T anyway.

Glad you mentioned the bedding angle. I think thats the most important thing too. If it leaves a clean cut I've found then its generally easier to use. But, I think a reqular square bed should still work.

I did an experiment some time back. I'll try and explain it.

Got an idea of planing panels. (picture 1). But instead of the regular way with the timber sitting flat on the bench, I played with the idea of clamping it vertical, thinking that I'd be able to keep the thing quite stable with all that extra fence support (with a wider fence on the wide portion of the board rather than just a thin edge).

Cut a long story short, It worked. Only just...the fence had slip problems, but the cut was clean....and I think the cut would be similar with these coping planes. Feel it be more stable too.

This experiment had a couple of end grain cuts (not cross grain like normally). Drop straight into the end grain (picture 2)

It was hard going as you expect from end grain cuts, but it was a clean cut...good news.....means just need a regular square bedded plane. The profile naturally extends out such that it slices over the fibres. Don't need a nicker too. (that last picture)

Playing with the idea of using an old rebate plane on its side.....an attached plate.....that way (hopefully) It'll be able to take a few types of blades.

See, I want to be able to cope elaborate looking profiles....more fillets and detail than you get with regular cope and stick router bits.

Still an early days idea. I'll probably change my mind a few times over before I come up with anything....if at all. It may just be too much effort to be practical anyway.

[Ian Gillis]

Interesting stuff, Jake

I should have been clearer when mentioning the bedding angle. Yes, I agree that the blade should meet the work square on. I also imagine that a "normal" bedding angle of about 45* is the right place to start.

Maybe this is something you're well aware of, but what I was referring to was matching the profile of your coping plane to the profile of your sticking. Because the cutting iron is angled at 45 deg to the work, the profile must be ground to reflect the same angle. In other words, you can't simply transfer the sticking profile off the piece at 90*. You need to make a section through the sticking at 45* to make sure you get a tight match. In practice, I would suggest cutting a wafer of the sticking profile at 45* and tracing the grinding profile from that. The more complex the profile, the more important this becomes. And if you skew the blade, you'll need to do this in 2 different planes ! :eek:

The whole exercise can be done using geometry, but that's way over my head. The process is known as projecting the profile onto the cutting iron.

I apologise if you know about this already, but I see it as a possible pitfall if you don't take it into account.

Regards,
IG

[Jake Darvall]

Interesting stuff, Jake

I should have been clearer when mentioning the bedding angle. Yes, I agree that the blade should meet the work square on. I also imagine that a "normal" bedding angle of about 45* is the right place to start.

Maybe this is something you're well aware of, but what I was referring to was matching the profile of your coping plane to the profile of your sticking. Because the cutting iron is angled at 45 deg to the work, the profile must be ground to reflect the same angle. In other words, you can't simply transfer the sticking profile off the piece at 90*. You need to make a section through the sticking at 45* to make sure you get a tight match. In practice, I would suggest cutting a wafer of the sticking profile at 45* and tracing the grinding profile from that. The more complex the profile, the more important this becomes. And if you skew the blade, you'll need to do this in 2 different planes ! :eek:

The whole exercise can be done using geometry, but that's way over my head. The process is known as projecting the profile onto the cutting iron.

I apologise if you know about this already, but I see it as a possible pitfall if you don't take it into account.

Regards,
IG

:D oh, my mistake...... no need to apologise. Good chance I've missed something important anyway. For me its often the obvious stuff for some reason.

I've given the sharpening of the blade some thought. What I'm planning (when the wife gets back, so I can stop being a baby sitter :rolleyes: :D ) ....to ensure the style profile matches the negitive in the rail is first work out the style profile. uno, male profile...the one you'll see in the completed work.

Will just grind this blade up ruffly by eye.....buff sharp.....and stick it in my 55......thats the beauty of the 55, don't have to sharpen the blades profile exactly to the sole as you get with a wooden moulding plane. The 55 can be adjusted to the blade. ......or use an old sash plane

This will be my style profile....to work out the negitive for it (the hard bit), I'll cut the style profile in some scrap (from the 55 or sash or whatever).....put a mitre in the end of the scrap.....which is the same as the bed (should be anyway)....I can now use that to make a negitive for coping by directly transfering it off the scrap onto the coping blade.

Be just a matter of lining up ensuring everythings square with the blades back lying flat on the mitre and transfer it with a pencil or whatever.

Then just grind the profile to this line and buff sharp.....Then make a test, and see how well the scraps line up. No doubt I'll stuff it up the first time.

Think direct transfer of lines, like many woodworking processes is one of the most accurate things. And simple thankfully, cause I failed geometry in school ;)

I hope that made sense....hope it works too. fingers crossed :D

Still a matter of working out the plane to use to take this blade.....

[Ian Gillis]

Sounds like you've got everthing figured. I guessed as much :)

As you're using the sole of the plane as a stop (or so I gather from your diagram) I guess you'll need to use a wood as your plane body. I think a narrow-ish dado plane fitted with a wedge shaped fence is the answer. Glad it's you doing the work :)

Best of luck,
IG

[Jake Darvall]

Thanks Ian. Its good to talk ideas through. So many options.

Your dado plane may work. I'm not sure if I should use a fence though. I want the shavings to clear easily, and the fence may get in the way.

But, I think your right on the depth being governed by the sole.

Got a few ideas floating around. Thinking a full soled woodie, like your suggestings the go. Was considering a combination type plane, which would simplify things....but they only work if the planes dropping into the profile in a stable fashion.......if the planes running off a deep tennon like in doors then it be probably ok, but that may not always be the case. I like the smaller stuff more. A full sole be able to handle less support. End grain would make it harder for a combination plane too. (had some experience with that)

Thinking now an easy way to create a full soled coping plane maybe to make it from an old rebate or dado plane, like your saying. Just plane its sole afresh using the actual sash plane its meant to match......then sharpen the coping planes blade to its new sole............that be even more accurate I reakon.

End up having a pair of planes that complement one another....a sash and its matching negitive coping plane......sit them on the shelf together. ;)

Only fear left is wear I suppose......end grains gonna wear the sole pretty bad at the pointy parts of the profile.....no boxing in these old rebate planes......I'll give it a go anyway I think.

[Ian Gillis]

End up having a pair of planes that complement one another....a sash and its matching negitive coping plane......sit them on the shelf together. ;)
Sounds pretty sweet !



Only fear left is wear I suppose......end grains gonna wear the sole pretty bad at the pointy parts of the profile.....no boxing in these old rebate planes......I'll give it a go anyway I think.
True enough, but you can always touch up the sole by planing it with its mate.

I'm really looking forward to the results.

Regards

[Jake Darvall]

hoping..... still worried about takling end grain.

I'll post here when done. Bit of fun at least.

Have a good week Ian.

[Jake Darvall]

Managed to work out one way. Quite happy with it I think. surprisingly practical. Using a small plough and 55. I'll try and start a new thread on next chance I get.