I love your compliments, keep posting.

k

Thanks for the comments. Looking forward to this review coming out at last!

k

First of all, it is looking great. Before I read your caption, I had chosen the same bun profile as you; don’t know what that says.

I have long suspected that the origin of chip breakers lies in the more accurate description – blade stiffeners, which I generally prefer – although this clearly does not apply in the case of your Norris style infill planes.

You may have noticed from the current issue that the 982 review is in the next issue of F&C.

Will ring you next week,

Jim

Sorry to be boring but I shall go back to the beginning. Whether the bevel is up or down is irrelevant as long as the common angle, or the angle of attack, is the same. This observation was quickly noticed by myself when demonstrating my planes in the earlier days, in Munich at Exempla 98. I found when doing the demonstrations on some very difficult tests that the plane performing the best was my improved pattern A11 mitre plane (bevel up). This plane has a bed angle of 20 deg, which is the norm for this plane. With a honing angle of 30 deg, it adds up to 50 deg. There you have it, that is a York pitch. Having impressed myself with this I couldn’t wait to get back to England to set to work on what was to become the No 98 plane also bevel up. This plane has proved to be a very good performer on all the nasty stuff. No doubt you have since noticed similarities of its design have appeared in other planes (not just mine!).

Yes, I think you are right about me being the first to make a bevel down plane without a chipbreaker (though I have not researched this). The principal of the working is still the same as the No 98 which ever way the bevel is. The most important factor here is the cutting angle and the angle of attack. Very basic really, isn’t it? I don’t know why chipbreakers appeared as they have done but I am interested to hear anyone argue their case.

The first bevel down plane I made was the 11-s, and since that appeared I have noticed bevel down planes appearing from other makers without chipbreakers. So it looks like it has appealed to others as well.

In conclusion there is no advantage to not having a chipbreaker, but there is no dis-advantage. No point in putting unneccesary costs into a plane. I feel that the technical geometry is going beyond the scope of this discussion.

Bevel down without a chipbreaker means I don’t require a nut, or a slot in the blade so no banjo required. In the blade I have three 1/4″ dia holes pitched at 5/16″. The travel of the spigot is 7/16″ to provide an overlap from one hole to another.

k

How much were you going to spend on that car?

The short answer is I still haven’t priced it. I will e-mail you over the weekend.

k

Think you answered your own question. Wooden planes are never going to be very stable but they are very nice to use. The plane will require care and attention from its user and it will probably become necessary for some flattening several times over the life of the plane. I have noticed one manufacturer of transitional planes had even made a special aid for the truing of the plane’s sole – this was merely a piece of cast iron with a machined surface and some wedges to put tension to a piece of sanding belt. Of course I can send a plane out and the moment it leaves me it is going to be pretty damn true, but the rest is up to nature and the care it receives.

k