Thread: Insufficient bench planes ;)

Dom,

It wasn't that I didn't like the 8 so much. It was just kind of a turning point for me. I started off buying premium planes. Then one day I got a No. 3 for 5 bucks. I cleaned it up and quickly realized that it did the exact same thing - literally - as the planes I was spending hundreds of dollars each on. After that, I started seeking out vintage planes and eventually found a 7 for 30 bucks. I cleaned it up and started using it in lieu of the 8, and eventually found that the 8 wasn't being used at all, so it had to go. The 7 is just a better size for me with regard to weight and, frankly, I was more excited about using it because A: it had a story and B: I'd put some time into getting it working properly so it had "sentimental" value in that regard.

I didn't/haven't noticed a difference in the way it straightens boards. Straight enough for a 7 is straight enough for me. My furniture comes out looking fine.

I didn't notice any backlash, D.W. The 8 wasn't a great size for me, but otherwise it really was a great plane. I'd expect it's still working a treat in its new home.

Cheers,
Luke

Originally Posted by D.W.

......Somewhere around 60 degrees is really where the cut becomes different, and is probably similar to a cap iron in tearout reduction, but edge life is short, there's no ability to do much other than smoothing and the plane has little ability to stay in the cut due to geometric considerations beyond simple edge life. So sharpening has to occur much more often.......

In my experience, 60 degrees is the sweet spot, alright, where a cap-iron makes no discernible difference, all else being equal. It's probably not co-incidence that that's what HNT Gordon favours for his planes, made for our conditions. I'm not sure what you mean by "ability to stay in the cut due to geometric considerations", but am assuming you mean a dull blade at 60* needs more down-pressure to make it cut than a 45*? Can't say I've noticed that big a difference - a dull blade doesn't like to enter hard wood whatever the cutting angle! As for sharpening, I agree it's probably required a bit more often with high angles, but I wouldn't say "much more often". Perhaps I sharpen sooner than many, which would reduce the apparent difference.

Originally Posted by D.W.

...... If you have only a common pitch plane with a cap iron, you'll be able to do everything except in woods that just won't be planed (some ribboned woods with fragile dusty earlywood, there's nothing to do with them except sand), but those woods like that are rare (like quartered cocobolo) and not something you'd build much out of. ...

Unfortunately, "hard, ribboned, dusty" describes so many of our woodland species too well. I think you need to accept that there are woods that resist planing to perfection, with or without cap-irons, or extreme cutting angles. There is a danger in promoting a single cure, because the novice gets the idea that it is always their fault if they can't produce a finishable surface off-plane. I think experience eventually teaches one to take a realistic approach (like, try to choose workable material in the first place! ). But if you are determined to put a finishable surface on that gnarly but oh-so-beautiful bit of cast-iron masquerading as wood, there are several ways to get there other than planes alone. I see no loss of virtue in switching to scraping or even (shudder!) abrasives if it will get me where I want to be with less effort than wrestling with planes of whatever geometry.

I don't think it's all that bad for anyone to keep a high-angle plane or two on hand, in this country. At least you can get acceptable results with a Gordon plane, with minimal experience - steep learning curves are fine for the persistent or masochistic, but can turn a lot of folks away unnecessarily. Experience will teach you when & where each configuration might do the better job, and what suits your style of work & choice of materials best. There will be different conclusions, but there's only one way to get there......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Unfortunately, "hard, ribboned, dusty" describes so many of our woodland species too well. I think you need to accept that there are woods that resist planing to perfection, with or without cap-irons, or extreme cutting angles. There is a danger in promoting a single cure, because the novice gets the idea that it is always their fault if they can't produce a finishable surface off-plane. I think experience eventually teaches one to take a realistic approach (like, try to choose workable material in the first place! ). But if you are determined to put a finishable surface on that gnarly but oh-so-beautiful bit of cast-iron masquerading as wood, there are several ways to get there other than planes alone. I see no loss of virtue in switching to scraping or even (shudder!) abrasives if it will get me where I want to be with less effort than wrestling with planes of whatever geometry.

I don't think it's all that bad for anyone to keep a high-angle plane or two on hand, in this country. At least you can get acceptable results with a Gordon plane, with minimal experience - steep learning curves are fine for the persistent or masochistic, but can turn a lot of folks away unnecessarily. Experience will teach you when & where each configuration might do the better job, and what suits your style of work & choice of materials best. There will be different conclusions, but there's only one way to get there......

Cheers,

I agree with you on that more than you think. See my comment above. It's not that a double iron can plane everything, it's that it can plane everything that's reasonably planable. If you can't plane it with a double iron, you probably can't plane it with 60 degrees. If you can't plane it with 60 degrees, you probably can't plane it with a double iron. It's a wood structure thing. There's plenty of wood that doesn't finish that well here, too, but we don't use it. Most of it grows in the desert southwest, though some of it grows in the northeast where I live (locust, etc, which is often referred to as "not that hard", but it varies widely and can spark when you cut it with a chainsaw, or ruin an axe edge in two strikes if it's fully dry - we burn it. Even some milder stuff is just a pain - like hickory).

So, yes, it's not a solve all - it's just a solve all that can be planed. If you really want to make lots of things out of wood that can't be planed well, then spiral head planers and sanders. But, the advice to go from cap iron to 60 degree edge is the thing that I gripe about, because one is not better than the other, except for a beginner (who will always have more success with the high angle plane, but they'll be stunted if they try to do more than smooth with it).

Originally Posted by Luke Maddux

The 7 is just a better size for me with regard to weight and, frankly, I was more excited about using it because A: it had a story and B: I'd put some time into getting it working properly so it had "sentimental" value in that regard.

I found trouble in a ten pound plane in terms of fatigue and also preferred the 7. I found the same thing when I started to make wooden planes. A freshly made 28" jointer is about 10 pounds. It never seems to be nice to use once a plane 3/4ths as heavy is available.

In the case where wood is nasty enough to need a ten pound plane, then both the wood and the plane are wearing you out.

I wish the american manufacturers (including those importing) would stay true to the original stanley weights, but the extra weight is reassuring to beginners, and will always feel superior in the same piece of wood if you only make a couple of shavings.

Originally Posted by D.W.

...... the extra weight is reassuring to beginners, and will always feel superior in the same piece of wood if you only make a couple of shavings....

Or if you regularly work with a less-than-sharp blade. The extra mass gives you a bit of bite without your having to bear down on the plane as heavily, so it keeps cutting longer. I'm as guilty as anyone in that respect - if I'm trying to finish something, or in a hurry & don't want to stop & sharpen. And yes, I know it's false economy, the time saved using sharp tools usually more than makes up for the few moments spent at the stones, but haste usually trumps logic.

My love affair with infills is a recent thing, prior to that I had really only used Baileys and the few woodies (either factory or home-made), as bench planes. And I preferred the older Stanleys with their lighter castings & low front knobs, too. I still love the Baileys and they are still my primary workhorses. Being able to dial up whatever cut the situation demands 'on the go' is one of their strengths (something I cannot do with Veritas's 'Norris style' adjusters!). The lighter (but sufficient) weight of my 1918 era 5 1/2 can make a big difference by the end of a long day. The infills are mostly relegated to fine finishing, partly because they were made with that express use in mind, partly because they are (all bar one) set-&-forget-hammer-adjusters, & partly because they do feel so good in this role.

It's been a long road with many detours, & taken me more than 40 years to get to my curent complement of planes, and my choice would probably be considered idiosyncratic by many. There was a time when I was seduced by every new type of plane I encountered, & I had cupboards full of planes (lots of duplicates & triplicates). Then about 25 ears ago, I had a bit of an epiphany, and realised that much of what I had accumulated was rarely or never used & just took up precious cupboard space. So I had a big clear-out & started over with just a few core planes, then I slowly put together or made the lot I have now, making much better decisions on what I actually needed. A few of the planes I've made were 'just for fun', but most were added to the tool cupboard only after some thought, with specific uses in mind. I reckon everyone needs to go through a similar journey - most of us simply cannot predict what we'll end up using/liking when we begin. You can listen to & weigh the advice of the 'experienced', but in the end, there are so many ways to get the job done & you have to decide which way is best for you.

I'm glad I'm not starting out now, there are just soo many more bits of shiny metal to distract you, most of which you don't yet need (and probably never will), and none of it comes cheap. Back when I started out, there were still lots of good old tools around, so it didn't bankrupt me discovering I didn't really need most of 'em....

Cheers,

The following shows a wooden bodied smoothing plane that's bedded just shy of york pitch (50*) after working Australian Jarrah. There is nil tear-out. What can be seen within the following photo are patches of reverse grain that's being picked up by the camera's flash. Those that have worked with Aust. Jarrah will be familiar with what I am describing.



Its doubtful the cap iron effect had much to do with controlling the tear-out as the leading edge was set back an 1/8" from the cutting edge.



Its a fairly safe bet to suggest a tight mouth opening played no role in controlling the tear-out.

The following shows a wooden bodied smoothing plane that's bedded just shy of york pitch (50*) after working Australian Jarrah. There is nil tear-out. ...Its doubtful the cap iron effect had much to do with controlling the tear-out as the leading edge was set back an 1/8" from the cutting edge....
...Its a fairly safe bet to suggest a tight mouth opening played no role in controlling the tear-out.

Stewie, what are you saying? That a 50 degree smoother is sufficient to control tearout in a wood like Jarrah?

Note that the wood piece you have looks pretty straight-grained - there is minimal figure. More importantly, the fluffy shavings you show reveal that you planed only the lightest cuts. That is is a major way to avoid tear out.

What I would like to see is the wood surface after significantly (3x) thicker shavings.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hmm. I have had the wrong definition of tearout. I always lumped any areas of "matte" or non-glass reflective surface on the timber into the tear-out category. The only times (when I'm paying attention or not doing something silly) I have had issues with my definition of "tear-out" was in areas where the grain was going vertical eg. where there would have been a branch or when there was strong fiddle-back or quilting - then I would sometimes get areas that I couldn't get as shiny smooth off the plane - I associated this in the same category as tearout.

Eg. This bit of blackwood with reversing grain and fiddle-back I would get areas of slightly matte between glass smooth - no tearing. I thought I could improve on this by playing more with chip-breaker settings etc. But I now realise that that is unlikely. In fact I would assume a lower bed angle/ angle of attack would be better in the vertical grain areas - albeit at the expense of possible actual tear-out in other areas. Right? This was planed with my 50deg LN #4 with closed up chipbreaker. On the top surface. The plane also had no issues on the big block shown below (photo is before planing and just there to show figure) but did leave some less-shiny areas from some viewing angles around the knots.

20180322_181723.jpg
20180322_181822.jpg

20180310_165026.jpg

So maybe I don't have any issues that can be solved with further refinement of "settings".

Cheers, Dom

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.....Note that the wood piece you have looks pretty straight-grained - there is minimal figure. More importantly, the fluffy shavings you show reveal that you planed only the lightest cuts. That is is a major way to avoid tear out.

What I would like to see is the wood surface after significantly (3x) thicker shavings. ......

Hmm, those shavings look decent enough to me, Derek. I've been measuring shavings a lot, recently, out of curiosity when setting up my new planes & I'd reckon those shavings of Stewie's are probably 2 thou or so, which is the sort of thicknesss I'd start a smoother at. I do agree that the piece isn't really figured in the style of fiddleback or burl type wildness, but the rowed grain can cause problems aplenty. What I think has been amply demonstrated is that a solid blade at medium pitch does a pretty good job without a cap-iron when it's sharp....

Originally Posted by DomAU

Hmm. I have had the wrong definition of tearout. I always lumped any areas of "matte" or non-glass reflective surface on the timber into the tear-out category. The only times (when I'm paying attention or not doing something silly) I have had issues with my definition of "tear-out" was in areas where the grain was going vertical eg. where there would have been a branch or when there was strong fiddle-back or quilting - then I would sometimes get areas that I couldn't get as shiny smooth off the plane - I associated this in the same category as tearout.

Eg. This bit of blackwood with reversing grain and fiddle-back I would get areas of slightly matte between glass smooth - no tearing. I thought I could improve on this by playing more with chip-breaker settings etc. But I now realise that that is unlikely. In fact I would assume a lower bed angle/ angle of attack would be better in the vertical grain areas - albeit at the expense of possible actual tear-out in other areas. Right? This was planed with my 50deg LN #4 with closed up chipbreaker. On the top surface. The plane also had no issues on the big block shown below (photo is before planing and just there to show figure) but did leave some less-shiny areas from some viewing angles around the knots. ...

Dom, tear-out is pretty self-explanatory, I think - chips of wood being lifted out of the surface. This usually happens because the grain is going "downhill" wrt the way the plane is travelling, or the plane is going "uphill" against sloping grain, whichever way you like to think about it. Fiddleback, like you've got there has constantly reversing grain directions, and can give you a very bad time in some woods, but in softer woods, you can often plane it quite well with a blade at any pitch, as long as it's sharp. Blackwood is one of the more variable woods I've struck in this regard, sometimes it planes beautifully, other pieces will tear out like crazy if you aren't extremely careful. But you will always get lines of "matte" surface to some extent, because you are looking at the open pores on one side of each 'fold'. Try looking at the board from the other direction and you should see the effect switch to the other side of the fold-line, to some extent, at least.

In my experience, a low-bed-angle blade cutting 'uphill' is a recipe for disaster, if you have standard sharpeneing bevels on it - that's why everyone advocates upping the bevels to 35 plus degrees which, added to the bed-angle, gives you an effective cutting angle of 50 degrees plus (depending on actual bed angle). IMO, far and away the best approach to any type of grain is to start with a very sharp blade - that gets you 3/4 of the way, at least, on just about anything that's plane-able....

Cheers,

Dom, that "matte" is the start of tear out. Indeed, it would be acceptable to call it very fine tear out. If Stewie planed any deeper, it would likely tear out more noticeably. 50 degrees on that timber is too low to be safe. Ask Terry Gordon.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by IanW

In my experience, 60 degrees is the sweet spot, alright, where a cap-iron makes no discernible difference, all else being equal. It's probably not co-incidence that that's what HNT Gordon favours for his planes, made for our conditions.

Unfortunately, "hard, ribboned, dusty" describes so many of our woodland species too well. I think you need to accept that there are woods that resist planing to perfection, with or without cap-irons, or extreme cutting angles.

I don't think it's all that bad for anyone to keep a high-angle plane or two on hand, in this country. At least you can get acceptable results with a Gordon plane, with minimal experience - steep learning curves are fine for the persistent or masochistic, but can turn a lot of folks away unnecessarily.

Experience will teach you when & where each configuration might do the better job, and what suits your style of work & choice of materials best. There will be different conclusions, but there's only one way to get there......

very well put

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Stewie, what are you saying? That a 50 degree smoother is sufficient to control tearout in a wood like Jarrah?

Note that the wood piece you have looks pretty straight-grained - there is minimal figure. More importantly, the fluffy shavings you show reveal that you planed only the lightest cuts. That is is a major way to avoid tear out.

What I would like to see is the wood surface after significantly (3x) thicker shavings.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ditto to that.

Start with a piece of rough jarrah, or ten with each and let us know how it goes.

Originally Posted by IanW

What I think has been amply demonstrated is that a solid blade at medium pitch does a pretty good job without a cap-iron when it's sharp....

If we're only smoothing, the discussion is entirely different. The entire thing that sent me running to cap irons was this setup (when I first started dimensioning wood).
* a japanese jack plane without the cap used (still quite like the idea of this, especially for someone who doesn't plane often - you can go back and forth between push and pull)
* a vintage 50 degree jointer with a mouth probably somewhere between 1/32 and 1/64
* a panel plane at 47.5 degrees with a mouth of 1/100th
* a shop made infill plane at 55 degrees with a mouth of 4/1000ths

It was agonizing. At the time, some of the "experts" were saying that you can't get anything built with hand tools only, that ripping by hand is not possible, etc, you just get lost in never ending hand work and your work will never progress.

Instead, moving to double iron and doing work by hand was probably the fastest I ever progressed.

The oft repeated "sharpness solves everything" is somewhat bad advice. It will allow you to take a thin shaving, that's true, but that's about it. It'll also punish the poor beginner who accidentally sets the depth of cut just a little too deep for one swipe. Been there, done that.

(I did eventually fix the panel plane mentioned above so that the cap could be set close with it - it is a completely different plane with the cap iron set properly. Smoother to use, any direction, and can provide an almost finished surface with as deep of a shaving as you can get off of it. ).

The following shows the results after taking a 3x heavier depth of cut. (gauged by eye and feel as I don't use a vernier to measure shaving thickness). For final smoothing work, a much lighter depth of shaving would be considered normal practice.