Thread: Demise of the Foreplane

I remember the redoubtable Mr. Murray, leader of woodshop class from grades 7-9 inclusive (12/13 to 14/15 y.o.) didn't much care for fore-planes. He told us that #4's were smoothers, #5's were longer smoothers and #7's were jointers. He specifically referred to the #6 size plane as neither fish nor fowl and thus of little use. I have and use No. 6's and don't hold them in any contempt. Perhaps I just don't know enough to know better.

He did however counsel us to 'buy the right saw, the one with the wheat carving', he meant of course Disston No. 12's as they were 'the best'. On that point I've found he was correct, they truly are the best.

Coming to this all relatively late (last 10 or so years, previous childhood memories with my grandfather decades old) the world of handplanes is a mirky one.

Not knowing any better and vintage handplanes being pretty cheap if you are not talking collector pieces I ended up with a pretty good range of handplanes. This includes two #5's, two #7's, a #8 and a #6. I originally tried to get a #5 pretending to be a scrub plane and of course since learnt that it is still a #5 foreplane and not a scrub plane (which needs a narrower blade). Now I set up my #5's as vanilla #5 foreplanes (I have other planes for smoothers) and run them in tandem. I start dimensioning r/s lumber with the #5's and once things are coming along nicely move to the #6 and then to a #7. I love the #6 as it really makes the transition between foreplane and tryplane work easy and nice. The #6 is loved almost as much as SWMBO.

Obviously you can get along with as little as one bench plane assuming your work allows. But I have a static workshop so having multiple planes makes life easier. The #6 earns its keep as much as any other plane I have. I would say to anyone, give the #6 some love and it will love you back; like that mutt from the pound (lost dog home, RSPCA). Glad to hear that I am not alone in liking the #6.

I keep the #8 for edge jointing.

The two #7s are set up slightly differently. One is standard (45 degree pitch) and the other has a back bevel to give effectively a 58 degree pitch. So far I find this really works with Australian hardwoods. The higher pitch leaves far less tear out.

My saw nest has a mixed bunch of D8's and other similar makes. Not seen a D12 and I keep saying I am a user not a collector (honest ) but if I see one for a reasonable price you can bet it will be making its way into the nest. I found an EC Atkins in a junk shop, picked it up and felt it fit my hand. Asked the price ($5) and could not get my wallet out fast enough. Joy to use.

It takes relatively little force to use a handplane that's well set up on medium hardwoods. If you want to push it with shaving depth, you can push your heart rate up, but if you keep the planing to sectional work, camber the blade and back off the shaving, it's hardly more effort than walking. I suspect the average person who says they couldn't plane would benefit an awful lot from dimensioning from a half hour to an hour per day, and they'd build skill and coordination doing it (work done heavy planing refines smooth planing control, just as rough sawing refines skill to do fine sawing). If planing feels like you're hammering shoulders or joints, back off of the shaving depth a little bit.

Thickness planing was probably dead here in the states around the turn of the century. Heavy planing was long before that done by the thickness planer (and you can still find the really old ones here in the states if you look around - many have been converted from lineshaft to electrical - no dust collection, though.).

I find rough planing to be a lot like low impact exercise - it's engaging and a few minutes in when you heat up, it's enjoyable (a lot more so than pointless exercise).

Use of the double iron is essential if the wood is tearing out. A huge boon to rough planing and middle planing is had when the chip doesn't break and allow the plane to come out of the cut intermittently.

Not a trick question....why is it called a foreplane?

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Not a trick question....why is it called a foreplane?

I cannot resist ...

... because it come before ...in this case before a jointer plane ... but similar (in concept) to before another fun time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

That was my first thought, too. If you use it properly, great pleasure ensues in the following steps. If used poorly, subsequent action can involve false starts, poor quality experience and a need to return to the foreplane until the wood is properly prepared for subsequent .....work.

If the situation allows, it can sometimes be skipped or breezed through. Knowing when to use it and when not to is a matter of discretion and experience

Some materials are more difficult and use of the foreplane needs to proceed slowly and with greater care to avoid unnecessary resistance.

...and once in a while, the wood is just too difficult to proceed and not worth the effort.

fore- from fore (adv.), which was used as a prefix in Old English and other Germanic languages with a sense of "before in time, rank, position," etc., or designating the front part or earliest time.

(presume the older english language tendencies to string words together like the germans do probably has something to do with the name, though, given that it's generally the first plane to see wood)

(not that we can rely on a single definition that looks likely to make a definite case - that's how OWTs often start - the tales, not the teeth).

The word Jack is a good example of a word that is full of definitions. I wonder if other languages tie so many meanings to context:
Jack - money (recall from my grandfather that his favorite saying was a modified common saying "all work and no play makes jack". )
Jack - man/boy name, proper
Jack - name of a fellow, like "hey buddy"
Jack - small fixture used in a game with a rubber ball
Jack - playing card
Jack - device to lift things
Jack - another word for nothing
Jack - type of fish
Jack - to tease someone (jack them around)
Jack - to steal
Jack - electrical or phone connection

Even more confusing, you could say the same thing with different expressions to mean two different things:
He's got Jack (he has a bunch of money)
He's got Jack (he has nothing)

Of course, we use the term for a plane, but it has nothing to do with any of the above definitions (and google would probably describe where the word came from for the plane, but it's more fun to wonder sometimes)

Hmm, I think we better get this thread back on track...

To answer/comment on one of the OPs questions:

Originally Posted by RichardOfOz

.......Related but different how much muscle or fitness does a handplane need when used properly? Many of the members claim to be forced to use corded machines because they cannot do anything so physical as weld a handplane. I suspect they do not know how and this in part because many do not know how to sharpen anything but a pencil.......

It doesn't take all that much, imo, Richard. I'm well started on my 8th decade, and (hogging down large, iron-hard Spotted Gum workbench tops excepted!) don't find it too taxing yet. I'm possibly a bit fitter than average, but by no means a fitness freak, I have neither the ability nor the desire to run marathons. I think you're right-on that sharpness is the key, it wasn't until I learned to sharpen decently (which took much longer than it should have, stumbling along on my own!) that the full pleasures of hand tools revealed themselves. Before that they were sometimes just work.

I think it pays to experiment with different sizes & weights of planes to find what suits you. By all means listen to what others say they use for this or that operation and give it a try, but don't be alarmed if you don't get on so well with a particular size you've been recommended for a particular job & prefer a smaller or larger size. You're almost certainly still on the bell-curve! For example, there are those as swear by the #6 as the best workhorse in the shop, but they don't do a thing for me that a 5 1/2 doesn't do better. That's just personal preference & 'twas ever thus - the #7, which I like very much, is far more commonly seen than the 6. So woodies have never been into foreplay in a big way, it seems.

Oddly, as I've gotten older, I'm finding I often prefer heavier planes for many tasks, and my growing family of infills is testament to that. Hard to say exactly why, but they don't take much more overall effort to use on most tasks, particularly smoothing, where the heft feels more reassuring, or something like that. (I would emphatically except scrub planes here - light is fine for those characters!). Last year, I built myself a panel-plane, a 4-plus Kg beast which, surprisingly, is just as easy to use as my much-loved 5 1/2, at almost half its weight. At least for the few minutes at a time (on average) that one tends to use bench planes for. If I were to use it for heavy planing all day I think I'd whistle a different tune!

But whatever your poison in planes, I think most frequenters of this part of the Forum will heartily agree that competent use of hand tools is a liberating experience. Machines have their place in my shed, too - the thicknesser whines about feeding on Spotted gum, but I'm not convinced it feels pain the way I do, so I tell it to stop making such a fuss & just get on with the job......

Cheers,

Hi Richard,

If you don't mind, which men's shed are you a member of ?

Regards
Keith

Hi Keith,

Strathalbyn. Great group and lots of fun. Wonderfully diverse and eclectic in terms of experiences and skill. I love learning from others and hopefully helping others.

Cheers

Richard

Thanks Ian. Being a fellow Aussie it is nice to get a view of a person that knows how hard are timbers can be. Hopefully I can encourage others to look again at the handplane even if it is not for foreplane task.

One of the joys of the craft is the way different people use the different planes and other tools. I love my #6 as a foreplane but have a #5 1/2 as a panel plane. That was a lucky find - a Falcon still with milling marks on the sole which was flat; straight edge flat. I use that plane for finessing machine prepared components. As it works so well as a smoother I have not used it for any other purpose - do not want to stuff it up. I know, a bit silly as given a modicum of care handplanes are pretty bullet proof.

No sure I am ready for making infills. I have made a front handle for one. A very challenging aspect of the craft.

Cheers

Richard

Hi Chris,

By "foreplane" I mean planes that were used to take rough sawn timber and prepare it for furniture and like work. That is 4S or PAR or DAR the blank. This role is now generally done by machines: surface planers (jointers) and panel planers (thicknessers).

Being able to use handplanes for this allows me in my workshop to use planks that exceed the capacity of my machines (6").

The Stanley #5 and #6, with a heavily curved cutting edge, are examples of foreplanes. I believe that the #5 is the principal foreplane and the #6 an optional but nice secondary foreplane. These can hog off a lot of material quickly if used correctly and you have the fitness but leave a scalloped surface and probable tear out. Later planes cleaned things up.

I hasten to add everyone has their own preference and in some ways this can be dependant upon what is on hand (how many planes they have) and what they are doing. You can set a #4 or a #7 up as foreplane or a smoother. If you are making small stuff (jewellery boxes) you could use a #4 as a jointer. But in broad terms and furniture scale projects the sweet spot (and yes this is debatable) is a middle length handplane with a fairly narrow blade and heavy camber (3-10" radii, smaller for narrower blades and softer timbers).

I hope I have not offended but it has suddenly occurred to me that perhaps there is another term for "foreplane"? It is amazing how the same thing is called so many different names about the world. And also how human ingenuity solves the same problem in different ways.

Cheers

Richard

Originally Posted by RichardOfOz

... No sure I am ready for making infills. I have made a front handle for one. A very challenging aspect of the craft......

Well, you've done the hard part then, Richard! Fitting the darned stuffing can be just about the most difficult part of the job if it's a coffin-shaped type, & even a parallel-side can be a challenge if you are 'over-stuffing'. Although fabricating the chassis and peening it together seems to be the part that intimidates most people, it isn't as difficult as you may think. If you're sensible, & start with a simple, parallel side design - not a coffin shape like I did, it's pretty straightforward. I suppose it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but if you (or anyone else out there) has ever toyed with the idea of giving it a go one day, I say go for it. The materials don't cost all that much so you don't have a lot to lose, and if it turns out well, you'll have something to feel pretty pleased about....


Cheers,