"Wall-less" 13 inche Bailey #4

They stole my idea

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>I have thought for awhile that it would be a pretty easy job to refit a common #4 with a rabbet blade. The big problem with #10 is stiffness and they are often found broken. I thought about modifying a #4 just on one side. It would take two to make a pair of rabbets, but they would be stronger than the #10. Is there anyone else interested in a half rabbet plane like this? Should I move the project up on the list?

Pretty clever though.

SteveM

>

I don't think it would work...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond, CA

>As Jim said their weak in the cheaks, so to speak. If you look at the pic the cheeks are higher on the No. 10 than other planes. I think Jim has the right idea by only doing a modification to one side of a plane.

Re: They stole my idea

Rick in Oakville

>Actually the idea of cutting a hole in the side of a plane and shifting the blade over appeared as a tip in Fine Woodworking a few years ago. The plane used in that example was a Stanley 220 block plane (modified to imitate half of a Lie Nielsen rabbit block plane). I tried it and it worked. I've always meant to modify another 220 on the other side to have a "pair" of planes. I guess you could do the same thing to a No. 4 and use a blade from a No. 7 (or No. 5 1/2, 6 etc.) - more work to cut down the blade to size but it should work (you have to trim both sides of the No 7 blade to keep the adjuster hole in the middle, with the 220 you just make the adjuster slots a little longer and trim the one side of the blade above where it sticks out through the hole in the side).

Re: I don't think it would work...

paul womack

>The "real" #10 not only has larger cheeks, it's made from different material.

And they stil broke.

Weakness was a real issue here.

hmm. re-reading B&G it doesn't say anything about the material.

Perhaps only the Record version had that feature.

BugBear

Re: I don't think it would work...

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native, Presently Away

>Why use a #4? I'd think that a #5 would be the better choice.

Jim, give it a try, I'd like to hear the feedback on it.

Todd O.

Re: It did work...

George Allchin

>I took a low angle block plane and modified a blade to be .020" wider (.010"/side) than the body. It works great. The lack of nickers is a problem but it still works to clean up corners, tenons,etc.

Work Safe,

George in cold but sunny Michigan

Yes, but...

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>the #5 is indeed *cheekier* than the #4, but I wanted to keep in the size range of the #78. Actually the #3 would probably be a better choice, but they are almost too small to hold comfortably.

An unfinished attempt.....

Rob Brophy

>I started this a few years ago and never finished. The blade and other parts are around here somewhere :-)

The donor plane was a very late Stanley #5 with blue japanning so it was no great loss to the tool world. A 1/16" zip disk on an angle grinder did the rough cuts and a pneumatic die grinder cleaned it up.

There's not a lot of iron left in the cheek when the work is done, but it survived the 'tap it on the anvil' test. Picture below compares the cheek of a 10 1/2 (right) to the fake 10

This is a good project for a galoot that can't find a 10 in the wild. #5's are dirt cheap, everyone has a spare plane blade or two they can reshape, and the time commitment to cut the cheeks is minimal. If you don't have a die grinder, use drill bits and hand files.

Re: An unfinished attempt.....

woodburnbob

>I think you did a really nice job on that, Rob. I like seenig frugal modifications. I'm thinking now about trying the same with one of the WWII era, thick-bodied Baileys that I have on the wallflower shelf. Thanks for the great pictures.

Project done

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>See post above.

WOW , It can be done...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond, CA

>Well blow me down. Looks like it might hold up for a while also.

Between you and Jim, it makes me want to cut up some planes too!

Re: An unfinished attempt.....

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Hi Rob

That is beautiful work. I am most impressed.

As I mentioned to Jim (in regards to his attempt), did you calculate a size for the side opening, or were you simply thinking of mimicking the #10? I am wondering what is the minimum reasonable size so that one might maintain as much structural integrity as possible.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: An unfinished attempt.....

Rob Brophy

>Hi Derek,

Thanks for the kind words, but no, I didn't use any math at all. I traced the outline of one of my 10.5s and transferred it to a scribed line matching the frog angle. The full cutout looked a little large for the cheek so I reduced it slightly. I can hear most of my 'iron ring'ed family clucking at me for being flippant about such a critical stress point but to be honest I didn't think it would survive the first tap on the anvil! Jim has the right idea regarding a design that will survive use and abuse...Leonard Bailey introduced his #11 (with a blade opening on one side only)in 1877, a year after releasing the #9 and #9.5 bench rabbets...he probably saw the weakness/benefits as well.

Take care,

Rob

Gonzo plane builder in the 'Falls