A Galoot's Infill Smoother

**derekcohen** · 30th December 2006, 12:28 AM

It is several years since I last built a “Stanley infill”, my previous effort based on a #4. This time I decided to use the shell of a derelict #3 Stanley to create a small smoother – the final length is just 7 ½”. I also wanted to incorporate a few ideas. So what we have here is a bevel up configuration with a 25 degree bed.

The reason for the high bed (the standard at present – from LN and LV – is 12 degrees, while Karl Holtey’s #98 is 22 ½ degrees) is to reduce the primary/secondary bevel angle. The bevel here comprises a 30 degree primary with a 35 degree micro, creating a 60 degree cutting angle.

The blade is 1 ¾” wide and 5/32” (about 4mm) thick. It came out of a Danish Langeskov woodie. No cap iron is needed. Since a solid surface was needed, I filledthe blade slot with a piece of brass. This was filed fractionally too large, then left in the freezer to shrink, before force-fitting it (a big hammer!). After it thawed the brass expanded and the whole piece became one solid affair.

The lever cap was carved (!) from a block of Phosphor Bronze or Beryllium copper (as I was informed) since I had nothing else to hand that was the desired thickness. This stuff is incredibly hard. It has a warm pink tone. I have used a combination of this and yellow brass throughout.

I lack metal machining tools, unless you include a drill press and an angle grinder. So the task of building a lever cap screw would be well beyond me – if I did not cheat a little. What I do is raid the local Borg’s gardening section for solid brass hose fittings and weld these together. The cap cover was a copper (Australian) 2c piece, so as to match the colour of the lever cap.

The infill is just scrap Jarrah, well seasoned but I did not have the desired thickness and had to laminate two pieces. This was shaped, then epoxied into place. For additional strength and a “a look”, brass screws were added, then filed flush.

I must admit to having ambivalent feelings about the final shape. I much prefer round to straight sides, and the result here seemed to evolve as if it had a life of its own.

The mouth was completed last of all, deliberately made too small, and opened up gradually with files. The end result is a very fine mouth.

How well does it work?

I hope this effort might inspire a few more Stanley infills!

Regards from Perth

Derek

December 2006

**Mirboo** · 30th December 2006, 12:42 AM

Very nice work Derek. Thanks for showing it to us.

**Farm boy** · 30th December 2006, 01:12 AM

thats nice derek

**E. maculata** · 30th December 2006, 11:28 AM

Very nice Derek, am glad you came up with this one.................................. before I even started to imitate the last one you built

guess I may just plagiarise this design instead

**MikeW** · 30th December 2006, 06:39 PM

Proper job, Derek!

Heck, I might even have a go. I have a nice little #3 which would make a good donor.

Thanks! Mike

**Harry72** · 30th December 2006, 07:42 PM

Nice work Derek, the copper stuff sets it off nicely.

**JDarvall** · 30th December 2006, 08:22 PM

Wow Derek. When you try something, you put your heart into it. I think thats great.

**derekcohen** · 30th December 2006, 11:26 PM

Heck, I might even have a go. I have a nice little #3 which would make a good donor.

No, you can't do that Mike. Not if your toolchest is to now comprise only wooden planes!

Incidentally, does that include your 5 1/4 scrub? If you are getting rid of that too, I am interested.

Regards from Perth

Derek

**Schtoo** · 31st December 2006, 12:02 AM

Oh.

I uncovered a derelict Turner #4 that's missing a cap iron and lever cap.

Guess I just found out what's going to happen to it.

**MikeW** · 31st December 2006, 05:56 AM

Hey Derek--you are correct. Hmm. What to do? I originally tried to sell off the remainder of my metal bench planes. The #3 with a LN blade is still left.

I am keeping my metal plow planes too. Bit of a hypocrisy there. Maybe I can justify that by not keeping them in the chest

<G>.

I hadn't thought about the scrub, actually. Let me think about it. I will need to get rid of it. Heck, consider it sent off to you, gratis.

I think that will bug you. So if after receiving it--if you really want it--and your conscious bothers you [it shouldn't] maybe we can plan on some sort of swap.

This plane does have an ever so small crack in it. An old crack, too small to photograph. In fact, I'll probably have to remember where it is to even try. Just say the word and it's yours.

I also have an old Scottish, heavy as heck infill I need to finish refurbing. Lucky for me, it is nearly as old as the period I am going for. In its case, I'll make an exception and keep it...

Take care, Mike

**derekcohen** · 31st December 2006, 08:44 PM

Mike

If you are serious about the #5 1/4, I will take it off your hands with much delight.

Now I will have to rack my brains to come up with something fit for a 19th century toolbox! That should be fun!

My best regards for New Year

Derek

**MikeW** · 1st January 2007, 03:40 AM

Of course I'm serious! Now if this had been April 1st...Nah. Even then it could be construed as cruel!

It'll go off on either Tuesday or Wednesday.

No exchange is necessary, ya know. Appreciated though. If for no other reason as to see what you come up with!

Our best to you and yours.

Take care, Mike

**derekcohen** · 1st January 2007, 05:04 PM

No exchange is necessary, ya know. Appreciated though. If for no other reason as to see what you come up with!

No exchange - indeed!

You want to spoil my fun? Just wait till you see what I have come up with.

I am now making one for each of us.

Warm regards to the family

Derek

**Ironwood** · 3rd January 2007, 09:32 PM

Derek,
I've been toying with the idea of building a bevel-up plane (#5 size), mainly for use on a shooting board, for a while now, so your 2nd stanley infill has given me food for thought .

My initial train of thought was that a low bed angle, would need a blade adjuster to prevent the blade moving up, if a heavy cut was taken.

So do you think you could give me your thoughts (and/or anyone else with an opinion on this), that a blade adjuster would be anything more than a luxury.

Ironwood.

**derekcohen** · 3rd January 2007, 10:08 PM

Ironwood

A low angle (12 degree bed) bevel up version would make a great plane for the shooting board. Length is not important for this purpose (think LV LA Smoother), and a #4 would be adequate (the plane registers against the side fence not the board being planed, unlike a jointer plane). A #5 would be great as well - I love using my Stanley #62.

The reason I did not add a tote (ala my Spiers infill smoother) was because there would not be room to use a hammer to adjust the blade. Using a hammer is all that one really needs - in fact it can be more accurate that an adjuster. Adjusters are overrated, to quote a well-known plane maker. That said, I did design a $5 Norris-type adjuster and, should you be interested, I can demonstrate this.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thread: A Galoot's Infill Smoother

Thread Tools

Search Thread

A Galoot's Infill Smoother

Similar Threads

The Marcou S15/BU Smoother - Reviewed

Renovation of Spiers infill smoother - completed

LV Bevel Up Smoother - a review

Free Infill Planes

My Stanley #4 Infill plane

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions