Thread: Luban plane blade adjustment

Ian wrote: I got confused too, when Derek started talking about the lateral adjuster slot, which is highly unlikely to impinge on depth adjustment travel, it's also in the cutting iron, not the cap-iron.

Just to be clear, the pictures I posted and the description I presented was not the lateral adjuster slot (which I did name) but the depth adjustment slot .... clearly having a senior moment. Nevertheless, the pictures emphasised that the LN slot was about 6mm higher than the other chipbreakers'. In other words, the slot needs to be lowered, not raised. David (DW) appears to be in agreement with me.

There is a simple check here: if the #5 assembly works as desired (with a closed chipbreaker and sufficient blade extension), then try it in the #4 (as they are the same size). If all is good, file the slot lower.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Looking at the pic of the plane, the depth adjustment slot can be anywhere you like, but that chip breaker isn’t going any lower until you file it where I’ve circled. If, after that, it still won’t travel far enough, then by all means start filling in and making new slots, but I suspect it may not be needed. Either way, it’s not the first step.

I think it needs to be further from the edge if I'm thinking correctly. As alluded to above, a small change will make a huge difference (and too big of one is potentially dangerous) since the radius that the adjuster nub travels in is very short. It's probably no more than the size of the slot already (so if the slot is doubled in length to where it's approximately a square, and then material is peined in leaving the newly filed area open and the old area closed, that's probably about right.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Just to be clear, the pictures I posted and the description I presented was not the lateral adjuster slot (which I did name) but the depth adjustment slot .... clearly having a senior moment. .......

As I replied at the time, Derek, I guessed your typing finger went a bit feral, since your pic was clearly of the front of the CBs showing the depth adj. slot.

The picture Colin re-posted (post #33) is the one I keep alluding to & the one Kuffy referred to, showing the immediate cause of the lack of further blade movement. However, the pic. also clearly shows the adjuster wheel wound well back toward the tote. That's why I started rabbiting on about checking where the depth adjuster slot is in relation to the cam when the wheel is centred. I'm concerned that extending the screw slot will allow the blade to move down, but the adjuster wheel will be even further back, near the limit of the stud. This is not good, as I've pointed out on other occasions, because quite apart from the wheel getting in the way of your fingers (or falling off!), the cam becomes so angled in its slot that it binds and doesn't push the CB smoothly. I learnt that lesson very forcefully on the first CB I tried to make. As D.W. pointed out, this problem may have arisen from the manufacturer copying their 'inspiration' too faithfully - I remember a thread where Luke Maddux had similar issues with the CB on a LN. Iirc, in his case he'd ground a little off his CB to form a 'proper' curve, only to find he couldn't set it close without running out of travel.

So I wouldn't be surprised if a replacement CB suffers from the same shortcomings - hopefully not, but prepare for the worst! If push comes to shove, it isn't all that hard to make a new CB, I would probably have done that long before now if it were my plane - they aren't all that difficult to make, but as well-demonstrated here, you do need to get them 'oles in the right places.....

Cheers,

I would say "Ian wins" but Derek did have the right picture and it would be annoying. Still, the rarity of your imperfections do make them somewhat noteworthy Derek.

I see what you mean about the possible issue with the depth adjustment Ian. Would doing what Colin62 suggested create other problems? It would change the relationship between the two without lowering the depth slot. Logic would say that lowering the top or raising the bottom will help but I don't have the plane knowledge. I'm learning a lot from this thread though.

mary

Originally Posted by Mnb

..... I see what you mean about the possible issue with the depth adjustment Ian. Would doing what Colin62 suggested create other problems? It would change the relationship between the two without lowering the depth slot. Logic would say that lowering the top or raising the bottom will help but I don't have the plane knowledge. I'm learning a lot from this thread though....

Hi Mary, the position of the slot for the depth-adjuster cam is probably the more critical dimension on a cap-iron/chipbreaker. It has to be in the right place to engage the cam of the adjuster yoke, and be the right size so that the slightly rounded point of the cam can rotate within it as it pushes the blade up or down. If the slot id too narrow, or too far north or south of the optimum position, you'll have trouble. If the slot is too elongated you'll get truckloads of backlash, i,e,. you'll have to make many turns of the adjuster wheel to take up the slack when advancing or backing-off the blade. A little bit of backlash is a necessary result of the way it works & not to be fussed about as some like to do. You cannot eliminate it completely without going to extremes & making the parts to absurd tolerances.

The big 'ole for the lever-cap screw to pass through is less critical - it has to be more or less in the right place, of course, but it doesn't have to be precise, just large enough to allow plenty of room for blade travel.

Explaining the Bailey frog without a diagram or a model is difficult! The best way to understand it all & how it works is to pull one apart & take a good look at how everything functions. It's a beautifully simple thing really, & works amazingly well - I guess that's why it has stood the test of time!

Cheers,

Edit: The position of the screw that holds the CB to the blade is also important on a Bailey frog. The head of the screw has to fit in a depresison cast in the frog, just above the lever-cap screw. There's not a huge amount of spare room in that depression, and it varies with models, so if you are making a CB, or 'borrowing' one from a different year/model of plane, pay attention to that, too.

Good Morning Stevo

You have received advice from people whose opinion I highly respect, but in this case I suggest that you may have received sub-optimal advice. Under no circumstances should you consider such drastic surgery on a new plane.

The issue is not one of warranty. It is about very basic consumer law; the product does not work - it is not fit for purpose. It is the vendors responsibility to fix the problem. Period. Any correspondence between him and the manufacturer is irrelevant from your viewpoint. Your contract of purchase was with the vendor; it is his responsibility to fix it.

In your posts you repeatedly imply that it is a new No 5 plane, but in your first post you confusingly state "..... i have a Luban #5 hand plane, that i pulled out of storage to use....". I presume that this means that you bought the plane, never used it, put it into storage, retrieved it and then discovered that it did not work. Correct me if I am wrong. [However, if it did work before you put it into storage then there must be another explanation.]

You pointedly do not mention the supplier's name, but I presume it is Jason. I have bought several products from him - Luban and others - and have always had excellent support, although occasionally tardy. He runs a very small family business, others do routine work such as receving orders and mailing boxes of goods, but virtually everything else is does by Jason personally. If he is travelling or gets swamped then delays occur, but issues are usually sorted quite quickly once he is available.

I suggest that you persevere firmly with Jason. He does not wish his business reputation to be denigrated on this Forum and he certainly does not want the hassles, time and costs of dealing with Consumer Affairs in Melbourne.


Fair Winds

Graeme

Jason: If you are reading this, then it might be appropriate to respond.

Graeme - what if the poster likes this plane save the cap iron issue. Sometimes we have to make tools work the way we want them to, even when they are expensive. In this case, the tool is not that expensive, but the evidence points to there being no remedy (because of what the planes were copied from). There may be minor variation in examples from luban, but it will be measured in tiny fractions of an inch, and the solution in this case is a matter of a revised pattern, so there's little hope.

The pein fix offers two things:
1) a usable plane at relatively little or no cost
2) a skill that is ultra useful elsewhere

If the files needed would be considerable expense, and the poster wants to look elsehwere, pushing the issue as you suggest is the way to go.

There is another solution. Replace the chipbreaker.

A few years ago I had a similar experience with a Stanley #3. It turned out that I must have replaced the wrong chipbreaker at some stage. I found one that fitted more appropriately from among a few spares. Since then that plane has received a Veritas blade and chipbreaker, which works perfectly.

Now it was not that simple for my LN #3. Only the LN chipbreaker enables the correct blade extension with the chipbreaker closed up.

The OP needs to determine which chipbreaker will fit his plane as I suspect that a replacement Luban may not make a difference if manufacturing is consistent and the plane is a direct copy of the earlier LN chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by D.W.

Graeme - what if the poster likes this plane save the cap iron issue. Sometimes we have to make tools work the way we want them to, even when they are expensive. In this case, the tool is not that expensive, but the evidence points to there being no remedy (because of what the planes were copied from). There may be minor variation in examples from luban, but it will be measured in tiny fractions of an inch, and the solution in this case is a matter of a revised pattern, so there's little hope.

The pein fix offers two things:
1) a usable plane at relatively little or no cost
2) a skill that is ultra useful elsewhere

If the files needed would be considerable expense, and the poster wants to look elsehwere, pushing the issue as you suggest is the way to go.

Hi DW

But why would anyone like a new plane that does not work? The solution is simple; the vendor replaces it with one that is fit for purpose.


Cheers

Graeme

Originally Posted by derekcohen

as I suspect that a replacement Luban may not make a difference if manufacturing is consistent and the plane is a direct copy of the earlier LN chipbreaker.

It has been established within this thread that a single measurement on Stevos #5 Luban cap iron is greatly different to my own #5 Luban cap iron. 3mm difference in this case which is exactly equal to a country mile

Kuffy is right. Plus surely they wouldn't be a successful selling plane if it was a problem with the basic pattern. The number of times I have seen them mentioned in the forum indicates that many work.

Yes a product needs to be fit for it's intended use and a replacement or refund given regardless of warranty. If the product was bought a while ago though it can get difficult with some sellers because the questions of whether it was bought as it is now and if it's been used or not can come up. Sometimes you don't want the hassle or the time it takes to return something. And sometimes it becomes a challenge where you just want to make the bloody thing work.

Ian, thanks for the explanation. I have taken a plane apart a few times but I think you learn how to look at things to an extent. I did Humanities and journalism at Uni and find I can't help but see subtexts and symbolism etc when reading or watching stuff but every time I look at a tool I see things that I didn't before. I hadn't thought of the effect of where the slots etc are - I will look with fresh eyes next time

Mnb wrote: surely they wouldn't be a successful selling plane if it was a problem with the basic pattern. The number of times I have seen them mentioned in the forum indicates that many work.

It depends on one's definition of "works". I wonder how many have an interest in setting a close chipbreaker? If you do not work this way, then you will never be aware that there is an issue in this department. How many are satisfied to simply sharpen the blade and set the chipbreaker up about 3mm back (out of the way) and use the plane that way? I suspect that the percentage is very high. I visit a number of forums, and my impression is that very few users have any knowledge of how a chipbreaker can be set up.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ian, I had a quick look at my planes today though I didn't take them apart. I see better what you mean.

Filing the hole for the screw so it reaches higher means the depth adjustment slot is probably going to be in the wrong spot. Doing as Derek suggested means the whole thing starts higher and will go further before hitting the screw. (Just tell me if I'm wrong and I will have another look) The possible issue is the one you mentioned.