Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Re: You've been waiting for
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>2.5 years from the time when my plaintive pleadings were effective in convincing him to accept the commision, to delivery. Maybe a couple of more months until it is finally tweaked to the point where it can exceed its predecessor.
Another view of the dueling pair
Re: Another for William
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>
Re: And another
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>the adjuster
Ahhhh Lyn...I'm envious...
Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA
>That's one SWEET plane. What kind of tweaking do you think it needs? Looks like a solid performer out of the box so to speak. Your a lucky man...and you still suck! 2 loopies and all. Yes, I hear all the air rushing out of norther calif...
Scott going to cry over his Spires...feel like sharing?
That sole texture
Clay C in Miami
>Looks like my galvanized kitchen table!
Clay
Re: Oooo....Lucky Lucky guy!
Joe Rogers
>I have a little history on this...second hand...so I can understand his reluctance to rejoin :-( . I too miss his insight here.
Thanks much for passing the message along. JR
Re: Oooo....Lucky Lucky guy!
Ted Owen, Pittsburgh
>I definitely feel the same, : (
Maybe someday...
Best, Ted
Re: Is that one of Mr. Thomas's planes?
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Eric, I just realized I somehow missed responding to you. Yes, it was kind of like that in Stephen's mind.
Attached is an old photo, but in keeping with your comments
Re: That sole texture
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Yah, the first time I saw it on the original loopy I was kind of thrown. It does look like that. Soon you grow to really appreacited it as the indicator of the hand scraped sole.
Re: Ahhhh Lyn...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Keep in mind that the original has just been on a very gracious and generous extended loan from SMT and will eventually return to the road. It is SMT's wish that it eventually pass through many woodworkers hands. Sir William has shown similar graciousness and generous patience be waiting so very long as next in line (though it will almost surely return to SMT for refurbishment before moving on).
I'll be hanging on to both for a short while longer while the final tuning is done to bring the new one to maximal performance--one needs the ultimate benchmark for comparison. The new one has a superior adjuster and then there is the microadjust toe piece, but it also has changes in the cap iron and lever cap that will require some thoughtful tweaking to see what can be achieved.
These are very minor things though, and for most it is an astouding package as delivered. The final tweeks are things both SMT and I anticipated and are working together on. The original is stupendous but one needs to keep in mind that it too recieved tuning from several master plane users before even coming into my hands. So the new one will be receiving the same level of care, and perhaps break some new ground. As it is, the two are very nearly neck and neck, but there is also the matter that the new LV LA supersmoother has virtually closed the gap (though requiring a higher effective cutting angle to do so).
The old one, BTW, was bedded at 47.5, the new one is bedded at about 49 and is slightly heavier. One of the things that will eventually be explored is how the new one does with a back bevel that brings it into the 60 degree plus range. With the new LV LA smoother essentially equivalent when its 63 degree effective cutting angle is pitted against the 47-49 degree loopies, one wonders might happen when the Loopy configuration is brought to a similar effective cutting angle. Haven't had a chance to look into this scientifically yet, but eventually will. Based on some other infills, I'm not convinced the high angle will be an improvement, but if ts is, then some whole new ground is going to be broken. More on this---eventually.
For Doug and William and interested others
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Response to your questions about the toe adjuster, in Stephen's words as it was being worked out:
"This design is fairly simple, but took a lot of careful work and survived some dicy mishaps (broken taps in the finished toe piece, among others). The screw is hardened and thread lapped. The adjustable nut is aluminum bronze, as is the retaining nut for the adjuster screw head. Both can be adjusted to about as near nil freeplay as is possible without preloaded ballbearings. The adjuster screw is 64 tpi. So 1/8 turn (easily visualized) is a scant .002" (.00195"). It seemed "better" to use 64 tpi as being finer than 50 which perhaps is a more "obvious" number. It did not seem prudent to go finer, given the decreased thread depth."
Re: For Doug and William and interested others
Patrick Gibbons, Houston, TX
>As the inventor of the "Bob" points out, 12 and its' multiples are much better numbers and fractions for woodworking.
Two questions for Lyn.
Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida
>Lyn,
What sort of refurbishing does Loopie Mk. I need?
How was 49� selected for the new bedding angle?
Thanks,
Don
Re: Two questions for Lyn.
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>"What sort of refurbishing does Loopie Mk. I need?"
Really none, overall it's in better shape, both tuning wise and cosmetically than when I received it. But before going on to others, I think it is important that SMT reviews the plane, determines if he wants to rescrape the sole, assesses for wear, and decides if he wants to incorporate any upgrades such as the new adjuster and cap iron.
"How was 49� selected for the new bedding angle?" A combination of two things really, the biggest being to give just the slightest additional space for the new adjuster and secondarily that the overall trend with all planes is that increases in effective cutting angle result in better surface finish on troublesome woods. The change is very subtle, both visually and ergonomically, and I doubt it really will make much difference in terms of performance either. Still, the change was in a positive direction on all counts.
Thanks Lyn...
Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA
>Looking forward to hearing more about it as time goes on. What changed on the cap iron?
Thanks for yor reply.
Another question
Paul in NJ
>Lynn,
I am curious how you improved the tune of the first plane? I don't think you needed to flatten the sole or the bed. Did you sharpen the blade better, change the bevel angle, or back bevel? Did you work on the chip breaker or re-shape the mouth? Thanks for sharing the pictures with us.
Paul Dzioba
Re: Another question
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>You are correct in that the sole and bed came in impeccable tune (for both planes). Most of my refinement was to the blade and cap iron. I'm one of the remaining few that believe the entire blade back needs to be flat, and the front as well. I think this is important for both optimal bedding and optimal fit between the blade and cap iron. The last thing I want is any unintended distortion introduced into the blade. The cap iron was carefully fitted to the blade and then polished. The surfaces were brought to .5 micron on the bevel and back. There was likely some other very minor things that I've long ago forgotten I did, but basically the body of the plane itself was untouched from how it was delivered from SMT.