Hand Plane Result Expectations

[greatdaen]

I have been collecting a few handplanes and tuning them up. I don't have much experience, but have read a lot and think I am getting good results. Most of what I have are #4 and smaller. All are Stanley/Bailey with one Sears copy. My #4s create a very thin curl that is somewhat translucent.

I just recently picked up a Miller Falls Fore Plane that looks like someone used it once and put it away - very clean condition. I cleaned up the tarnish and worked over the edge on the iron. My approach on sharpening is a combination of the sandpaper on flat plate technique followed by some time on a Arkansas stone and finally a good stropping on some leather.

But when I put it all back together, I am not pleased with the results. The surface left by the plane is feathery/velvety (like saw cut or after sanding with 120-grit) instead of slick and burnished looking like after using one of my #4s (my test piece of wood is one of those little surveyor's stakes - fir?).

Logic says the finish should be the same if the blade is sharpened the same (which I believe it is). But I have no experience to tell me otherwise. What should my expectations be from a fore plane vs. a smoothing plane.

Incidentally, I notice that the backlash/slop in the blade depth adjustment wheel is substantially greater on the MF plane versus the Stanleys or even the Sears. Where do Miller Falls and/or Sargent fall into the "quality" pecking order of hand planes?

Thanks in advance for your time and insight.

dch

[merickson]

First, get The Handplane Book by Hack(?).

Second, is the cutting iron bedding firmly against the frog? Is the sole flat? Is the mouth OK?

www.geocities.com/wefnut

[TDHofstetter]

Welcome to the forum, Daen!

Another question - are you planing against the grain instead of with it? You can get a slightly feathery surface if you cut against the grain with an extremely sharp plane.

Um. What wood? Sometimes that can make a world if difference, too. Some woods simply won't give you a shine.

-- Tim --

Don't walk in front of me, I will not follow.
Don't walk behind me, I will not lead.
Walk beside me, and be my friend.

[greatdaen]

I do not have a copy of the book. I'll work on that.

I have not checked any of the conditions you suggest. Not sure what to look for in the mouth. Visually it is clean and square with out much casting flash.

Thanks for the input.

dch

[greatdaen]

I did consider the grain direction as well as the wood species. I planed in both directions and got the poor result for both - against the grain was a little worse as expected.

As for the species, I planed the same stick with my #4 as a comparison and got the great shine. So I know this particular stick is cooperating.

Thanks for the suggestions.

dch

[Limey]

Have you checked the mouth opening of the Millers Falls Could be that its a bit wider which could explain the coarser cut.
Sargents and Miller Falls were equally well regarded as quality planes.
Also check that the cap iron is the same distance back from the edge of the blade and is in close intimate contact with no gaps.
The only other thing to check is the flatness of the sole.
If it's slightly bowed you could be having to set the blade slightly deeper to get the blade to bite.
Let us know what you discover.

Limey

[greatdaen]

I have checked that the sole is flat. I compared to a Brown & Sharpe 12-inch machinists square. I checked lenghtways accross the full width of the sole as well as side-to-side the full length. No visible gaps.

I will have time this weekend to check the rest.

dch

[greatdaen]

Sorry for the delay in response.

I found a great step-by-step write up for tuning a hand plane - left it at home so cannot reference it now.

I completely dismantled the plane and followed all the steps. Here are some of the discrepancies I found.

Before disassembly, the mouth opening was on the order of 1/8" to 3/16".

The pads that the frog rests were not machined. The rear pads were still "as cast" and the front pads adjacent to the mouth were machined but had paint/japaning over the machining. The mating pads on the frog were not machined. I filed the frog pads and the rear pads until the frog sat solid. I could not file the front pads on the plane bed - factory machining done by an end mill with no way to get a file in there.

I also filed the top face of the frog where the plane iron rests. Although this appeared to be generally flat and true, the factory machining was a bit rough so I dressed it up.

I checked the mouth opening for roughness and squareness to the body. It was a clean opening, but slightly out of square. I filed the leading edge of the mouth - with great restraint - and took approximately 1/64th off one side to square it up.

I reassembled the plane and began working on laping the sole. My reference flat surface is the body of an 18" Starrett machinist's square. It is slightly larger than the plane sole, but not by much. I had checked the sole for flat against another machinist square previously and it looked to be true. Upon laping, the first points to "shine up" were approximately at the frog's front pads. The toe and heel were not being touched. It took a bit of working before the sole area in front of the mouth began to get touched. This plane could use some more lapping, there are some rough machine marks still visible in the sole. But I think it is generally flat.

I followed the suggestions of the paper and placed two pieces of masking tape on the back of the plane iron opposite the bevel. I adjusted the frog until the tape was just touching the leading edge of the mouth opening. This adjustment took some patience and trial and error since the Miller Falls does not have a frog adjustment screw. Very tricky to make small adjustments.

Once I had the frog in the correct position and secured down, I removed the tape and reassembled the plane. I had previously worked over the iron and even reworked it prior to assembly.

I began making test cuts and adjusting for a good cut.

The performance of the plane is much better than before, but still not quite on parr with the results of my #4 on the same piece of wood. I will continue to work it over a bit when I have a "lazy Saturday". I would like to get the sole lapped to no visible machine marks. I also need to get it waxed up.

Just wanted to give you an update. Thanks for all your suggestions. I think the approach for use will be to start with the MF Fore Plane and then finish out with the #4 smoothing plane for that "just right" surface.

-dch

[Sawduster]

Sounds like you're on your way to a well performing plane, eventually. Could be that the nearly unused condition in which you found the plane contributed to its needing a bit more work than the others you have. Because folks were a bit persnikkety about their planes, manufacturers generally did not do a bunch of close tolerance finishing on them even back in the "old days". I would think, however, that the surfaces on which the frog mated to the body should have been machined a bit better than you describe.

One thing not mentioned was the cap iron/chip breaker. It needs to be cleaned up so that the edge is tight against the iron. Also, the lapping of the sole should be done with the iron, et al tightened down in place but retracted. That extra stress on the body can create significant change to the sole when installed.

[greatdaen]

Jerry,

Forgot to mention about the cap iron. I did work it over and have it fitting tight to the plane iron. I have it set approximately 1/16" back.

Also, I have been performing the sole lapping with the plane assembled and tightened.

Thanks again for all the suggestions and the history.

Daen