Thread: Plane making questions

As some one who has also been away for a few years (sick) I have recently started working on a plane from a hardwood fence post and to be honest the chiseling out wasn't as hard as I expected so I'd give it a go. As to needing it depends on what you make. Personally I would go the jack plane as I don't joint long boards that often.

mc, I've been fooling about more with metal-bodied planes rather than wood these last few years, and I don't rate myself as a wooden planemaker in anything like the class of our member "planemaker", but here's a couple of observations, fwiw.

First, if your 'ironwood' is the Cooktown variety (i.e. Erythrophloeum chlorostachys), then you are certainly going to end up with a bit of a monster if you build a 28" jointer! That stuff is up there for density. You could save weight by lopping off a few inches (24" is plenty enough length for a jointer for my purposes, but needs & tastes vary). Adopting the 'razee' shape (scooping out the rear) will shed some unnecessary weight. I've done a couple of solid-bodied planes in C.T ironwood (small, not jointer size) and chiselling out the mouth was a chore, the wood is rather brittle as well as bone-hard, so you have to be especially careful around the abutments. On this little coffin-smoother, a piece chipped off the top of the left abutment: Ironwood cf 4.jpg

There were some drying checks along that edge, which may have contributed, but it seems to be an easy wood to split in any case.

Laminating a body is not a bad idea for your first wooden-bodied plane. I'm not sure how well Cooktown ironwood glues, it's a bit greasy, so some experimentation might be in order. And it goes without saying that if you want your plane to last a generation or two, use a non-creep glue that can tolerate the Summer temperatures in your average Aussie shed. With a laminated body, it's far easier to make an accurate and smooth bed (possibly the most important feature of the tool). Try to find a diagram or an example of a good working plane to follow for escapement angles. The angle of the front of the mouth is fairly critical, not enough room here & you'll have a choker (I discovered these sorts of things the hard way ).

My first couple of woodies were a complete flop, due to my impatience & ignorance. I'm sure it doesn't have to be that way, if you follow a trustworthy design & not just make it up on the fly as I did (I was much younger, much more impatient, & always in a hurry back then ), however, I think I would still advise starting with a more modest size than a jointer, to get your eye in.

Be careful, I got a serious bite from the plane making bug after retirement & it can have serious consequences! infills b.jpg

'Tis a lot of fun, though....

Cheers

I can confirm what Ian said about glue creep and the hot shed conditions. I have only made 2 woodies and both have suffered due to the climate in my shed. One is ironbark and has developed end checking. Still performs as it should but getting a bit ugly. My other effort was leatherwood and has suffered creep and wood movement. Had to square it up twice in 2 years so not really a success. If I do venture into plane making again I will be looking for some beech. I have a few old beech planes and they tend to behave themselves. Can see why it was the go to wood.
Have never used Cooktown Ironwood so can offer no help there other than think about the weight of such a large plane. Would give you a good workout if that's what you are looking for. Plane making is enjoyable and those first shavings on a plane you have made makes things feel worthwhile.
Regards
John

Good Morning Mike

A lot of expereience and common sense imbedded in Ian's post.

I like James Krenov's approach to laminated planes - do some googling.

The shipwrights in Tasmania commonly used jointers around 36 inches long - known as yard planes or shooters - and sometimes longer. The Maritime Museum in Hobart has one that is 60" long (1,500 mm ! ) and I have heard of shooters up to six feet long, but have never seen one. These were used for spiling the planks on wooden ships and those planks could be up to 100 feet (30 m) long - and often 2 or 3 shippies worked on a single plank simultaneously.

As far as weight reduction is concerned, you might be able to do a "double razee" - cut away at both ends. The Japanese wood planes have much less body height than western ones and they can work superbly.

Personally, I am fascinated by this Roman handplane dug up in Yorkshire a few years ago.
http://www.handplane.com/906/the-anc...rkshire-wolds/


Fair Winds

Graeme

A large finished jointer of usable weight will generally be about 8-10 pounds, with most preference on the lower side of that. That's what most beech 28 inch jointers range in. Their cross section is left large, probably to attain the weight (they could've been made any size at the iron or fore and aft - after making several dozen planes, I've come to learn that varying too much up or down from their weight will yield a plane that is uncomfortable to use for one reason or another.

I'd choose 26 inches for a jointer, though I've never made one at that weight, or 24" (which is a more useful size for facing a board and jointing an edge).

Whether it's laminated or mortised, just make sure that the iron is where you want it (literally copying the proportions for iron location vs. length off of a 150 year old plane is likely to yield a better result than most of the newer different planes made now - again, learned the hard way on my part). If you do razee, try to keep the angle to the cutting edge similar (meaning the handle should be in closer to the back of the iron to the extent allowable). The relative angle/location of the the handle in relation to the cutting edge is important just like hang angle is important with a saw. You want the combination of forward and downward resulting force to be right.

I would use a wedge rather than a lever cap, sprung a little bit so that the pressure is down near the terminus of the wedge in the inside of the plane and then somewhere around the top of the bed. by a little, I mean very little is needed if the wood is hard. Double iron and common pitch (45 degrees) or close if you're intending to use it a lot. If you're just hoping to joint a few edges with it and not do much heavy work or panel flattening, then it doesn't matter so much - single iron and your preferred angle (something at least 50 or more).

Originally Posted by D.W.

......A large finished jointer of usable weight will generally be about 8-10 pounds, with most preference on the lower side of that. That's what most beech 28 inch jointers range in.....

Yep, E. chlorostachys has a SG almost exactly double that of Fagus grandifolia, so you can understand why I suggested going easy with the body on a jointer.

The little ironwood smoother above has a nice heft for its size, but it could rapidly become too much of a good thing on a larger plane, methinks. I tried making a medium-to-largish compass plane from Bull Oak (Allocasuarina leuhmanii), a while back. It has a S.G. about the same as the Ironwood. The plane was a total flop for several reasons, and excessive weight was certainly one of them, it made the thing awkwardly top-heavy. Even after years of making tools, I can still make duds quite easily when I decide to go off on a tangent & depart from designs & materials that centuries have shown to work! It's fun to push boundaries and test your own ideas, but it may be a bit discouraging if your first plane is a flop, so it makes sense to not stray too far from the norm til you have a few usable planes to your credit & can accept that some great ideas turn out to be not so great after all..

One application where weight is good on a larger plane would be in a dedicated shooting plane. In fact, I have a very nice chunk of Ironwood from a batch harvested more than 25 years ago (which should be just about equilibrated by now ). I also have a beast of a blade from one of those group blade-making episodes that came to me by a circuitous route - the two are ear-marked for a shooting plane a bit like the one D.W. made a while back, when I eventually find the necessary round tuit. However, I won't be looking for it for some time due to other distractions, so don't hold your breath.....

Cheers,

Yes on the shooting plane - there is one issue with wooden planes with wooden soles on shooting, and that's wear, but there's a million ways to deal with it. Once they get some mouth erosion, they don't work as well.

I do have one wide smoother that's cocobolo. I like it OK, but I don't know if I'd build it again. In general, I like smoothers that are 3 or 4 pounds, and the old infills tend to be close to 4 in a 2 1/8th plane (modern infills and their exorbitant weight is sort of a new thing in most cases). Beech coffin planes often don't get up to that, so if there is anywhere that old proportions and dense wood would make for a decent plane, it's in a smoother (but having only made a relatively wide fat one, I'd heed your advice on one that ended up being top heavy). Coffins are sort of a bump and go type of plane where you supply the inertia, I guess. They're the one thing that I use little that I've made. In harder wood, that can be jarring.

I am sort of a stiff attitude on some of these things because I started with freelancing things (if X is good, X+2 is better, and I can better the vintage tools). It never worked out and it started to be a bitter pill to swallow to make tools and then not want to use them. I went off the deep end on wooden planes buying gobs of them and really nutting down what makes a good one vs. mediocre vs. unusable just because of that - I got tired of making tools that I felt like were decent and then realized in use I would go back to old used ones. I still like the old used ones, but having made a bunch of them new has really made it easy to make the old ones work well. I never knew how poorly fitted a 150 year old wooden plane would become over time, but it's uncommon to find one with much use that hasn't gotten out of sorts. Once they're brought back, they all work great.

I also noticed that inside the mortise on a lot of these older planes, and their weight, their handle angle, etc, those things very little by maker. One maker might be a little neater than another, but the general proportions are all the same. Deviate from them on the plus material side if anything, you can eventually trim them down to vintage spec then. if you leave bits out entirely with no material to work with, the tools will end up on the shelf.

(my infill shooting plane found the floor over the weekend by the way. I didn't know it, but came back to see it on top of my bench with the iron out and evidence of a fall on the front corner. My wife went on a cleaning tirade and knocked it off onto concrete floor. about 3 1/2 feet of fall. Fortunately, it's very little worse for wear. I keep a messy shop, and my wife likes to store some things in it and she definitely has a cleaning disorder. When she starts slamming things around, my wares can end up flying. The skew infill shooter is definitely a plane I don't want to make again).

Originally Posted by D.W.

I never knew how poorly fitted a 150 year old wooden plane would become over time, but it's uncommon to find one with much use that hasn't gotten out of sorts. Once they're brought back, they all work great.

I would be interested to know what sort of work you do to the old woodies to bring them back?

* flatten the back of the iron (reasonably)
* clean up the cap iron (they're often rough or rusted) and re-mate the surface.
* True the sole of the plane (they're often badly worn, too), then wax it after truing it up to seal it
* examine the wedge fit with the newly adjusted iron and cap iron, adjust as needed if the wedge fit isn't tight (if the plane is really loud, the fit probably isn't good - you can see a gap somewhere between the iron/finger/abutments
* fix wedge fit as needed. If the wedge is too far gone, make a new wedge - with fingers square until it's fitted, then trace the pattern of the abutments onto the fingers once it's fitted well and trim away anything that sticks out of the abutments - they all taper to nearly nothing at the bottom of the iron to prevent a clog

That usually does it. Quite often, a plane not in use will have a tight feeling handle that works loose within a week or two. reglue as needed.

I've not sold planes (well, a couple, but on special conditions and at low cost), but figure that larry and steve voit's prices are about where you'd want to be if you wanted to make it worth the time. A refitted older plane works just as well as mine if the plane was good to start with.

If the plane is old and too light, I will block the mortise shut with a rag and fill the mortise with linseed oil - you can pretty easily add a pound. If you have an old try plane at 6 pounds and you generally prefer 7, it's strange to say, but you'll really notice a significant difference. Just as you would if you found a stanley that was a pound heavy or a pound light.

It's uncommon that I'd adjust the wear on an old plane unless it's got a non-original cap iron in it. If it does, and the cap is fat at the front edge, I will file it back first before increasing the wear angle (the closer the wear is to vertical, the faster the mouth of the plane opens - which is only solved by inserting a mouth block or - less preferably - adding a lamination to the sole).

Thankyou for the comments.

I'm narrowing the options down.
1. Jointer length 25" I've been commanded to make a coffee table and just happen to have a stash of Wenge with terrific cathedral grain so a long jointer will be useful.
2. Concern about glueing Ironwood noted so decided to move away from laminating, thanks for the advice Ian.
3. Style will be HNT Gordon with 60 deg bed. I have made a laminated smoother in the past out of an obscure central australian species that I picked up on a trip, weighs a ton very close grained unfortunately starting to check badly as the section was from the heart. Good news I can repurpose the blade and brass abutments for the next plane (probably Jack) already got 4 smoothers.

Anyway next question is mouth position, and again thanks DW I absolutely agree moving away from tried and tested dimensions is fraught with danger however I am confused after reading up loads of plane making threads and searching planemakers sites it appears mouth position is variable. Take Terry's design (I have one of his smoothers, great plane) the mouth appears to be around 30% of the length from the heel.
Early Jointers seem to position the mouth approx. central to the length then the mouth moves progressively forward as the length reduces depending on the type of plane of course the tote needs to be accommodated as well.
Baily planes different kettle of fish I know but the mouth is approx. 20% from the toe.
I'm thinking the position is not so critical but perhaps the consideration on the HNT Gordon is when pulling there is plenty of plane in front of the blade therefore small downward pressure is required but interested in the theory behind it.

So with design considerations out the way I decided I need some floats. I have a LN bed float and have found very useful over the years not just for plane making but my bench needs an edge and side float I'm sure.
Edge first to practice teeth cutting, man hack sawing O1 tool steel works up a sweat and drilling the rivet holes proved tricky without a drill press (mines currently in storage) but here it is still need to give it a final sharpen. Decided against hardening and tempering for the amount I'll use them a quick sharpen on each project is quick and easy.
IMG_0403.jpg

Two basic choices of proportions if you're going to use this plane for more than smoother shavings. Continental jointer type or english type. Continental is closer to the center of the plane, of course. You can't really tell what you'll like without trying both, but if you're used to stanley planes, it'll most likely be the English type.

That's the type I'd go with. Take the measurements off of an English plane (I can give you some if you need them), ignore Terry Gordon's stuff if you intend to use the plane for significant work. His planes are generally better suited for a power tool woodworker. You don't want steep single iron either unless you are only removing power tool marks.

Yes on the working of steel - just like wood, it's exercise to do it without power tools, but you'll get good at it. No worries.

On the floats, you'll want an edge float (which you can make) or two (if you make more planes). 1/8th is the first I'd make. The cheek float is nice, and the side float is OK (you can use the edge float on bench planes to do everything a side float does - larry came up with the long side float more or less for side escapement planes).

More useful would be a slightly longer cheek float and no side float. If you absolutely want the side float, it's the one I would buy instead of making - push or pull (I have both, but you don't need both, it's a convenience). I say that because it's a pain in the to make one. If you want to make one, I'd only tooth the first inch or two, and leave the rest alone.

You have the bed float, so no worries there, but if I were to make one of those, again, only the first two inches need teeth. The rest will get little use, and the wear will show it.

Many of the operations of a bed float are far better done with chisels and a specialty scraper (a radiused chisel with a 90 degree front edge). Larry's use of floats everywhere is probably good because he does most of his making with power tools, and his hands are compromised, but you'll find that you make a crisper plane with less float use rather than more (if you make more than one or two). Floats are a decent safe crutch at first, though, on areas that really should be done in one swipe with a specialty chisel.

Mike, I've never come across a good discourse on sole proportions with the whys & wherefores of blade position explored & explained. There may be rational reasons for particular proportions of toe to heel, but I suspect it's got as much to do with tradition as mechanics. I did make a small smoother with a very long toe section, once, in the hope that the longer toe would register better at the start of the stroke, and help avoid the small 'hill' that can form when planing short pieces with a short plane: Brass_ironwood laminated.jpg

Well, somehow theory & practice didn't seamlessly blend in this instance. I found with a fine set, the plane would stop cutting soon after the full sole length had engaged. I checked the 'usual suspects' - sole flat? (yep), blade held firmly & not slipping? (yep). After some thought, I decided it must be due to the long toe, so I gave it a radical noseectomy: Nose job.jpg

It was better after that, however, after a long career in research, I'm far from convinced by a single example of anything.. There may have been another reason altogether why it decided to work better, so I'll keep an open mind until I've repeated the experiment 10 times with the same result.

As to blade angle, if this is going to be your only jointer, I would plump for a boring, bog-standard 45 bed. If you use it a lot, your arm muscles will be much happier with the lower bed, and it will still do an excellent job on the majority of woods. Of course, if you want this tool only for cleaning up buzzer marks in Eucalypts and other stone-like woods, then by all means go with a high-angle, but if your diet includes plenty of more tractable woods, I think you'll appreciate the easier pushing and better edge retention offered by a 45 deg. bed. Sharpness and a fine set go a long way in dealing with all but the most recalcitrant woods, in my experience.

Much depends on what sort of surface you expect off a jointer. For my purposes, the jointer's job is to get things straight & level, so I usually work with a medium to coarse set with this tool. With a sharp blade, my #7 easily produces adequate glueing surfaces on just about any wood I've ever taken it to. Minor tear-out will not degrade a glue-joint significantly, all else being equal. Finessing what will be visible surfaces after the jointer is a job for other dedicated bench planes, and I happily trade increasingly less stock removal for increasing control of the surface quality.

However, it all depends on your working methods and the stock you work with, no one-size fits all, and no bed angle does everything equally well, so only you can weigh the pros & cons and choose the configuration that you think will best fit your needs.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by D.W.

..... ignore Terry Gordon's stuff if you intend to use the plane for significant work. His planes are generally better suited for a power tool woodworker. You don't want steep single iron either unless you are only removing power tool marks. .......

Good Morning DW

I am a little perplexed by these comments.

Why could Terry Gordon's planes be more suited to removing power tool marks than, say, a Bailey plane, or a ROS. I am sure the latter would be the go to tool for a "power tool woodworker", and that Terry's stuff appeals more to the hand tool adict. And Terry's jointers and smoothers are far sweeter to use than any Bailey pattern equivalent.

Secondly, why advocate lowering the pitch when one has to deal with hard, hardwoods with cantankerous grain. Standard pitch is fine for pines and softer hardwoods, but not for jarrah; it just invites tear out.



Fair Winds

Graeme