My new "T5"

Re: My new "T5"

paul womack

>Here's an image of Record's recommended hand position (from "Planecraft").

(click on the "Stop Press" thumbnail) (*)

BugBear

* I can't direct link to the image; Geocities want you to see their adverts.

Re: Doh! *LINK*

paul womack

>This time with a link.

BugBear


http://www.geocities.com/plybench/

Sooooooo...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Ya took the plunge eh.

Did it take long to square it up?

Love to see a pic of it.

Re: My new "T5"

Skip in Falls Church

>I have a copy of Planecraft - but thanks for the link. :) I tried the grip the way shown there and with a straight up grip on the handle - both were far more comfortable than any grip I've been able to get on the plane alone. I also felt like I had better control and could get more energy into the cut. Over all I'm really happy with the alteration.

BTW, one thing I noticed about the Record I have, it seems that the only cap iron that works with it is the one it came with. I've tried both Stanleys and a Clifton cap iron and the depth adjuster won't allow the blade to adjust low enough to come out of the mouth of the plane. I did a side by side comparison this morning and the opening for the depth adjuster in the Record is defintely different than that of a Stanley. Did Record do this on purpose?

Skip

Re: Sooooooo...

Skip in Falls Church

>Yep - took the plunge and dont' regret it at all. :) It did take a while to square the cheek up though. I used a file to do most of the work and finished it off with sandpaper on glass. Oddly enough the *other* cheek appears to be pretty darn close to being square. I'll probably drill and tap that one as well - only a little higher off the sole.

Hmmm, a picture..... well, if you don't mind the relatively poor picture I can get with my web cam. Although I did realize after the last set of pictures I posted here using it that the little raised ring around the lens was more than decorative - it's for focusing. :)

Skip

Yes, a picture please...

Doug Littlejohn

>I would like to see just what it is you're talking about completely.

Thanks!

Sherwood

Re: My new "T5"

John Horobin

>Lever caps have varied somewhat over the years and I think from memory (without measuring as it is dark outside) that the Record lever caps are longer. Certainly longer than the current Stanley's I think.

Joh

Re: How could Record have gone so wrong?

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>Hasn't anyone noticed the finely curved surface that Mr. Bailey forged into the back of the frog, on each side of the adjuster? It is for your thumb, for pushing a bench plane on its side in a shooting board. That grip is also the reason he cut the corners off of the top end of his irons (an ergonomic subtlety Ron Hock never appreciated).

Re: How could Record have gone so wrong?

paul womack

>It is for your thumb, for pushing a bench plane on its side in a shooting board.

And using makkes the tip of my thumb painfully numb after around 4 minutes.

However, despite the discomfort, I find a Bailey pattern #6 a more effective shooting plane than my Record #T5. The greater inertia of the larger plane is helpful.

BugBear

Re: nothing new under the sun...  *LINK*

paul womack

>


http://nika.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archiv

Re: How could Record have gone so wrong?

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>I'm not debating that the side knob is a better solution, of course. I think it must be, even though I have not used one.

I think we've already discussed the dangers in making the fence too tall, which would become readily and painfully apparent to anyone using the grip shown in their right photo.

And, who can afford a Stanley #52 chute board or even just the #51 chute board plane with a canted tote, allowing force to be comfortably applied both downward into the chute, and sideways against the stock being trimmed.

For those interested in the etymology of the malaprop "shooting board," here is a link to the definition of chute.

Re: How could Record have gone so wrong?

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>Hmmmm..... After reading your link to the OldTools discussion, I got to thinking--Probably dangerous business, especially without a plane in my hand--Maybe one of those little knobs like on Lee Valley's large shoulder plane, maybe with a receptacle tapped into a specially machined lever cap? That would reduce some of the pressure on the thumb. Naw, probably wouldn't work, as it would tend to push the blade out of square.

Re: nothing new under the sun...

Skip in Falls Church

>Having made this alteration - I have to wonder why more people haven't done it. After I got over the distaste of drilling a hole in a perfectly good plane (Well, it is a newer Record - maybe not *perfectly* good.) it was obvious that the change really improved, IMO, the usefulness of the plane for shooting.

The same alteration could be made to any size plane. It's simple enough to do and doesn't keep the plane from being used in the normal manner because the handle can simply be removed. It's not something I'd do to a Bedrock or any really good plane but it seems there are enough planes out there that you'd see more of this type of alteration.

Skip

Re: Yes, a picture please...

Skip in Falls Church

>Well, the pictures I get are pretty crappy - but here they are. This is a view with the handle on - as I've said, I got it a bit close to the sole.

Skip

Re: Yes, a picture please...

Skip in Falls Church

>While a bit hard to see, this is a picture with the handle off showing the placement (or misplacement as the case may be) of the hole.

Skip