I feel bereft.
Managed to dash off a brief round-up of the making and burn it to a cd to go with it, so I've been chained to the 'puter instead of further playing with the planes. However, here's a pic of the 39 and the absence of right angle twixt sole and side in the hopes that Mike will make a suitable pronouncement on it in the comments box! Looks like the sole is convex from side to side too.
Not that I'm either upset or unduly surprised. I expected it to need work and I'm not crossing any bridges with it until I've taken it to bits and had a proper look to see what might need to be done. There's no reason why it can't work, given some effort on my part. Heck, if I can get a Groz block pane to take a whispy shaving...
But a more cheering sight of the unhoned, unadjusted smoother taking a - thickish - shaving. I think I could get to really like this plane, especially once it's properly sharpened and adjusted...
Oh, there's the addition of a manual for the Lewin Universal plane on the Boat Anchor page, btw. A proper page on it is up next - I hope.
Pity about the 39, Al. Smoother looks good, though. What angle is the iron bedded at?
ReplyDeletePhilly
Mike? Mike who?
ReplyDeleteYours is similar, though a little worse, than my Stanley #39 1/2. My #39 7/8 is pretty good. I suspect it is due to the casting being wider.
Mine has a slight twist as well as being not square. Worse at the area where the blade clamps than at either end.
I don't know if it is a trick of photography or not, but it appears your is like mine: the bottom is slightly convex and so the measurement may mean different things depending on how the square is perched on the bottom.
I use mine as is. Works fine. I did give it thought as to correction. The side of mine is mostly flat one end to the other. So I decided to use it as the reference face. I was going to clamp a good square 2" thick piece of wood on top of my granite surface plate with sandpaper sandwiched between. Then holding the plane's side against the wood, remove the convexity--or most of it--from the bottom. Might change the relationship to the iron's bed, maybe not. But like I said, I just left it as is. It's a coarse tool, not one for really fine work.
Those smoothers are really pretty good. I keep trying to get people in handplane classes to try them, they look at the price and decide they must be junk. The irons are pretty decent as well. Sometimes they show up on eBay and the auction plus shipping can make them a really good buy--if for no other reason than as a source of good steel to make a smoother.
Take care, Mike
Alf, perhaps if you got yourself a new (cheap) square to match ...
ReplyDeleteCoat fetched.
Ah, the hilarity... :~P
ReplyDeletePhil, bedding angle appears to be 61.5° - I've seen them mentioned as anywhere from 60-63°.
Mike, I've given it a bit of a go and will blog about it later - stay tuned! The Mujingfangs are just plain incredible, even at UK prices. I'd have dismissed them as cheap junk too, if I hadn't read all the Aussies raving about them again and again.
Nick, it's only my "pimped" Axminster adjustable square - it's already inacurate enough ;~)