I realize I am walking into a minefield with this, but I've been
puzzling over and researching this for a while now. I should also
point out I'm in no way qualified to speak about any of this, as my
very first bench plane only just arrived (#4 type 17). Rest assured I
shall be learning how to tune it up and use it properly for some time,
this is just stuff that I wondered about as I did my research before
getting my feet wet. And now that I actually have one to look at in
person I don't feel quite as much of a schmuck for asking about it.
I've done a lot of google searching on this ng, and the old tools
archive. From what I gather, the planes with thicker castings are
considered better. It's not entirely clear to me how much of this is
due to the increased rigidity this provides, and how much is due just
to the increased mass. So I wondered if there was any discussion
about adding weight to these guys, and I couldn't find any. I find
this a bit odd as you would think there'd be at least somebody popping
up once in a while wondering about it. My conclusion is that given
the hundred years these planes have been around, the easyness is
testing it out, and the lack of mention of it in how to tune them up
is that it wouldn't do any good.
This also leads into the question of infill planes, and I did see some
mention of weight in talking about them. Most people seem to think
that what makes an infill work better is a combination of rigidity yet
the ability to absorb vibration in the infill, the blade, the size and
tuning of the mouth, and the way the blade is clamped. The mass of it
factors in, but to what degree is debatable.
I looked at the prices on infills, and I wondered at why they were
like that as they seemed pretty much like a Bailey with wood in the
middle to my untrained eye. And given the abundance of #4s and #5s I
thought there must be some people who've tried to turn them into
infills. I couldn't find anything on this ng, and then I turned up
this from the old tools archives back in '99, and some talk about
doing it.
http://www.geocities.com/PicketFence/3212/galoot/stinfill.html
What I find confusing about this is that although the adjusters have
been removed the frog is still in there, so the infill behind it would
not appear to be doing a whole lot in terms of affecting what the
blade is doing. It's difficult to tell just exactly how tight it is
to the back of the frog from these pictures, so perhaps there is some
damping occuring, but certainly this is not the same as you would get
with a true infill. So this begs the question, is this modification
actually doing anything at all besides adding weight and looking
pretty? And if it does improve performance and all it's doing is
adding weight, then I am back where I started but with the opposite
conclusion. The owner does speak of it performing well, and not just
with the beefier blade, but in comparison to a #4 bedrock, not another
#4 1/2.
If you were going to make an infill there's two main tricky bits:
making the U frame, and securing the blade. The actual infill part is
easy, or at least should be for anyone who'd want to be using an
infill. Starting with a Bailey gets you past the first tricky bit.
It may not be ideal, but it gets you past it. I would assume though
to get any real improvement you'd have to ditch the frog and go
towards a Norris style, and then I see that one and I go, huh?
I'm hoping someone out there with more of a clue than I can sort
through this.
-Leuf
"Leuf" <[email protected]> wrote
: I've done a lot of google searching on this ng, and the old tools
: archive. From what I gather, the planes with thicker castings are
: considered better. It's not entirely clear to me how much of this is
: due to the increased rigidity this provides, and how much is due just
: to the increased mass.
Leuf raises some interesting points. Herewith something I wrote some time
ago (a summary of a posting made during what some people in the OldTools
group decided to call 'The Plane War':
'My wartime-quality Stanley 2in smoother weighs 3 lbs 8oz and my Norris
2-1/8in infill smoother weighs 3 lbs 12oz. Using a pair of bathroom scales,
I estimate that when working fairly hard I apply about 50lbs of my weight to
the plane, so the change of 4oz makes a difference of about 0.52%. At a
light 25lbs pressure the difference is 1%. Against this very small advantage
must be set the energy involved in overcoming the greater inertia and
lifting (or partially lifting) the plane at the end of the stroke. The
momentum might be useful at the end of a long stroke when one can lift the
forward hand and let the plane carry on and it can be very useful on a
shooting board where the weight is taken by the board.'
: This also leads into the question of infill planes, and I did see some
: mention of weight in talking about them. Most people seem to think
: that what makes an infill work better is a combination of rigidity yet
: the ability to absorb vibration in the infill, the blade, the size and
: tuning of the mouth, and the way the blade is clamped. The mass of it
: factors in, but to what degree is debatable.
I fear that there is a great deal of folklore about these planes, elegant
thought they might be.
:
: I looked at the prices on infills, and I wondered at why they were
: like that as they seemed pretty much like a Bailey with wood in the
: middle to my untrained eye.
Folklore and scarcity contributes to the high price, but a Bailey type can
be tuned to plane as well as the best of the infills (some with large
shaving apertures ain't much good for use as smoothers) and they have an
adjuster of ill-conceived design and less mechanically efficient than the
Bailey.
On my web site - Planing Notes - Fettling a Cast Iron Plane are some notes
that should demonstrate the validity of the claim about sheer planing
ability.
: .......................So this begs the question, is this modification
: actually doing anything at all besides adding weight and looking
: pretty?
In view of the above, the latter perhaps?
: ................................................ And if it does improve
performance and all it's doing is
: adding weight,
Possibly the principal aspect might be the morale of the user - a potent
factor?
Incidentally the said Norris lies on the shelf, unused (no it is not for
sale). I prefer my Stanley smoother or a newish tuned-up cheapest Record,
the SP (Special Production) 4.
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email: username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net
>If you were going to make an infill there's two main tricky bits:
>making the U frame, and securing the blade. The actual infill part is
>easy, or at least should be for anyone who'd want to be using an
>infill. Starting with a Bailey gets you past the first tricky bit.
>It may not be ideal, but it gets you past it. I would assume though
>to get any real improvement you'd have to ditch the frog and go
>towards a Norris style, and then I see that one and I go, huh?
let see if I can help a little bit.mass does make a difference. I can make a
woodie that weigh's 5# and it does cut better (well atleast a higher angle) then
without the weight. a 60 degree plane is pretty stiff but with 2.5# added too it
it is easier to push.
I think what makes an infill work so well is the mass but more important is
the infill. the wood dampens the iron vibrations. plus it gives so the iron can
bed tighter then if it was steel. then there is a solid unit. infills are really
solid if built right.
you asked what the difference was in the body? well a good infill has the sides
dovetailed to the body. this makes the body more stable and there is no work
hardening or stress in the material that may move over time. So the plane can
stay very accurate.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.