| | |
| View Image It is several years since I last built a “Stanley infill”, my previous effort based on a #4. This time I decided to use the shell of a derelict #3 Stanley to create a small smoother – the final length is just 7 ½”. I also wanted to incorporate a few ideas. So what we have here is a bevel up configuration with a 25 degree bed. The reason for the high bed (the standard at present – from LN and LV – is 12 degrees, while Karl Holtey’s #98 is 22 ½ degrees) is to reduce the primary/secondary bevel angle. The bevel here comprises a 30 degree primary with a 35 degree micro, creating a 60 degree cutting angle. The blade is 1 ¾” wide and 5/32” (about 4mm) thick. It came out of a Danish Langeskov woodie. No cap iron is needed. Since a solid surface was needed, I filledthe blade slot with a piece of brass. This was filed fractionally too large, then left in the freezer to shrink, before force-fitting it (a big hammer!). After it thawed the brass expanded and the whole piece became one solid affair. The lever cap was carved (!) from a block of Phosphor Bronze or Beryllium copper (as I was informed) since I had nothing else to hand that was the desired thickness. This stuff is incredibly hard. It has a warm pink tone. I have used a combination of this and yellow brass throughout. I lack metal machining tools, unless you include a drill press and an angle grinder. So the task of building a lever cap screw would be well beyond me – if I did not cheat a little. What I do is raid the local Borg’s gardening section for solid brass hose fittings and weld these together. The cap cover was a copper (Australian) 2c piece, so as to match the colour of the lever cap. The infill is just scrap Jarrah, well seasoned but I did not have the desired thickness and had to laminate two pieces. This was shaped, then epoxied into place. For additional strength and a “a look”, brass screws were added, then filed flush. I must admit to having ambivalent feelings about the final shape. I much prefer round to straight sides, and the result here seemed to evolve as if it had a life of its own. The mouth was completed last of all, deliberately made too small, and opened up gradually with files. The end result is a very fine mouth. How well does it work? I hope this effort might inspire a few more Stanley infills! Regards from Perth Derek December 2006 |
Edited 12/29/2006 9:23 am ET by derekcohen
Replies
Derek,
Nice job! Very sporty -- it has a Ferrari sort of look to it. And it looks like it does a right fine job of skinning nice and thin shavings off some of those benign and friendly woods you chaps have there in OZ.... ;-)
You've well shown what can be done with a few odds and ends from around the shop and a little ingenuity.
Great plane! Thanks for sharing with us.
Beste Wünschen auf ein glückliches und wohlbehaltenes Neues Jahr!
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
You are quite resourceful in your methods, nice little plane.
Ron
Beautiful! And brains, too!
Rich
Derek
I always enjoy your posts. Thought provoking and entertaining, what a combo! It looks like it works very well, too.
Happy New Year!
Jeff
Very nice Derek. That's a good idea for filling the slot in the blade.
Are you looking for a Improved Mitre to round out your collection of Stanley infills? :-)
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?redirCnt=1
Seriously though I would like to bounce a few thing off of you if you don't mind. First of all, how comfortable is it to use? The bed angle on mine is 20 degrees (traditional mitre angle) which makes it impossible to push from behind. The only way to grab it is over the top. You obviously have a little more infill height at the back of the plane but is it enough to allow you to grab it there? I so wanted to use the brass lever cap and screw but decided to stay with the traditional Stanley L/C for the comfort aspect.
It would have been nice if Stanley had given us a little more height to the sides so we could get some rivets in there. If the bed of glue doesn't hold up I think I'll run a couple of screws up through the sole.
One more question if you will: how did you close up the mouth? Did you add material there, did you move the infill forward, or did you shim under the blade?
Thanks,
-Chuck
Hi Chuck
Are you looking for a Improved Mitre to round out your collection of Stanley infills? :-)
First off, it was your plane that gave me the kick in the backside to get moving again with this version. Thanks.
First of all, how comfortable is it to use? The bed angle on mine is 20 degrees (traditional mitre angle) which makes it impossible to push from behind.
This smoother is surprisingly comfortable to use. The extra area at the rear (created by the 25 degree bed) permits sufficient to grip and push with the palm. If I had needed to hold it from the top I would have made a wooden "cap iron" with in-built grip.
One more question if you will: how did you close up the mouth? Did you add material there, did you move the infill forward, or did you shim under the blade?
I ground out the entire frog, which made it easier to slide the bed back-and-forth. To close up the mouth, slide the bed forward until the blade edge is just below the surface of the sole. Make sure it is parallel (I did this by eye), then epoxy. Later, when all is done, file open the mouth by approx 1 mm.
I made a BD infill from a #4 several years ago in which I used a similar approach (and similar materials). I will post a few picturesof this later.
Regards fro Perth
Derek
Derek,
Thanks for the feedback and thanks for the kind words. It's always nice to hear that you've provided a little motivation from time to time. Lord knows I've received plenty of motivation from you and many others through this forum.
Regarding the mouth opening, I would probably considered moving the infill forward the next time, but the way the casting sloped from the back of the mouth up to the frog area it didn't appeal to me at the time. It left too much of a gap. So I filed the back of the mouth to match the bed angle and brought the infill up as close as possible to match up with it.
I kind of undersold my plane when I posted it. It works much better than I thought it would. It isn't a smoother, but it was never intended to be. It does work quite well on my shooting board.
Thanks again & happy new year,
-Chuck
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled