Forum Replies Created
8 June 2018 at 11:09 pm #548435
It is just a pair of timber rails, screwed to the underside of the bench top. The only considerations (other than obviously ensuring they were large enough) was to make sure they didn’t foul the wedges that secure the legs, and make slightly oversized holes for the screws – so that they’ll tolerate a little movement of the worktop.
The full extension drawer slides are then just screwed to the rails and drawer box, and then the drawer front was fitted to the drawer box.
It would of course be nice to use wooden runners for the drawer, but I find the full extension slides really useful for maximising accessibility to drawer contents.21 April 2018 at 12:24 am #530307
Apologies for the multiple posts; every time I submit with all the attached images the site times out and gives me an error. I’ll see if I can clean things up; though I don’t know why the images appear in the text as “” instead of actually showing the image.27 January 2016 at 1:48 pm #134249
You could split both the “good” and “bad” cap iron and iron pair and mix and match to see which part is the problem. You could also put two similar parts back to back to see if one of the problem pair is wildly different – i.e. perhaps the cap iron on the offending pair is badly misshapen (though if I understand the problem you’re having it still sounds to me like an iron with a badly skewed grind).25 January 2016 at 12:00 am #134166
You mention “The iron edge is square in each situation”; just confirming that means the leading (sharp) edge definitely hasn’t been ground with a large skew? I’ve picked up at least one old plane that was like that (and the previous user had messed with the frog to try to – unsuccessfully – counter it).
Are the toes (I don’t know the proper nomenclature) of the frog lined up with the rear of the mouth opening (i.e. pretty straight)?
Can you swap an iron + chipbreaker from a “good” plane and test that (a #4 1/2 or #5 1/2 should also be suitable for the #7 I think).
Unlikely, but is the sole casting way out of square (i.e. is the sole flat)?
Could you post some photos showing the problem?23 December 2015 at 10:43 pm #133386
Ah good. I see I can post replies now 🙂 (there was a problem earlier that Resi was looking into).
Matt – I’d been intending to reply to your post a few days ago (so this is the reply I was trying to post)…
Matt – thanks. Been there done that 🙂
That site was actually the reason for my original post. Until I first came across it I wasn’t aware of the differences, and whilst I know there’s negativity about the two-part pressed fork (got one on a #4 1/2, seems ok so far) I was wondering if some of the types are less desirable from a practical point of view. Your WWII comments make sense, and I’ve seen them mirrored elsewhere.
As far as I understand, you’re right about the lateral adjuster.23 December 2015 at 10:40 pm #133384
Thanks. That’s generally what I have done. The ones I’ve found tend to tick the boxes of a Type 19 (1948-1961) but they have the two piece pressed steel forked depth adjustment lever (allegedly a later change). I know that is generally seen as a negative, so I was wondering if there were model types that are considered “better”, or ones to avoid – from the point of view of a user rather than a collector.