New wooden double iron plane maker

[D.W.]

I know they are different planes. I just wanted to show what you can get for $385.

They are that good are they? Maybe I should get a couple of them.

They are (not talking about the smoothers, you can really smooth with just about anything, rather the double iron trying plane) brutes when it comes to actually getting a volume of work done per a certain amount of effort. No clue what steve would like to get for a trying plane, I'm sure it wouldn't be $385, but you can buy a VERY good vintage trying plane and then refit it, possibly might have to make a wedge and inevitably reglue the handle when the hundreds of years old glue lets go (no worries, it will be hide glue or fish glue and is repairable easily).

I have paid (for very good vintage planes) from $25 to $85. Mathiesen and Griffiths of Norwich are two excellent makers with fantastically made planes and good iron sets. Paying little and tuning up is a good option unless you have monster sized hands (if your hand web is 4 1/2 inches across at the knuckles, there's a good chance you won't fit vintage planes).

Not saying that Terry Gordon's planes don't work as they should, they absolutely do. Just that a single iron 55 degree plane cannot keep up with a common pitch double iron plane for rate of work done in anything other than smoothing.

I don't carry water for coffin smoothers in general, I still use a stanley 4 after an early 19th century style jack and try plane.

[planemaker]

My apologies Steve. I should have acknowledged you as a new member to this forum. Welcome.

regards Stewie;

[DaveTTC]

Yes


Welcome aboard.

Taken a bit of catch up reading to get back up todate

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

[derekcohen]

So, let me see if I understand this, what Stewie said was correct, the cutting iron does in fact flex, but that flex is required for the iron to bed at the top and bottom.

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

If he can make a plane using a pocket knife and a pair of tweezers then it is good for him. He is free to charge whatever he wants.

Personally I am not interested because AUD $385 should get me something like this

http://www.hntgordon.com.au/gidgee-b...-of-stock.html

Hi Ray

The comments made above reflect a misunderstanding about the nature of the planes offered by Steve. Stewie has made several posts that find fault with any plane design that is not a high bed one. This reflects a basic lack of understanding of the issues involved on his part, along with a reluctance to look beyond what he is familiar with. Wongo points to a very valid alternative design in the HNT Gordon (nothing but the best comes from Terry Gordon), but it is an alternative design. It is not either-or. It is an alternative. The alternatives have a different design basis, and end in a different usage - still they remain viable choices either way.

I had an interesting experience this past weekend at the Perth Wood Show. I spent some time demonstrating sharpening and planing for Lie-Nielsen. During the course of this I had the opportunity to do some comparisons with the various setups possible with my LN #3.

When I first bought the #3 about 4 years ago, it was with the 55 degree frog. At that time I only used high angle beds (I have the HNT Gordon Small and Large Smoother, as well as the Trying plane from Terry). The 55 degree frog was as high as they came, and even this was not really high enough to prevent tearout in the woods I worked. The #3 was chosen since I believe shorter is better in a smoother, but a narrower blade also is easier to put in a high cutting angle. Anyway, the plane was put aside for a year as it did not perform well enough.

When the chipbreaker began to become evident as a means of controlling tearout, the #3 was revisited and formed a part of the tests I completed around that time. I found that I could improve the performance with the chipbreaker. Still, the high angle was unpleasant to use, and eventually I swapped it out for a 50 degree (which was the lowest frog I could use as I had the larger #4 handle on the plane, and comfort was important). Performance with the chipbreaker remained excellent and the plane was easier to push.

At the Show I was able to use identical planes alongside one another, just swapping over my blade/chipbreaker. The 45 degree frog really was significantly easier to push. Unlike the original 55-degree frog, it was also possible to take thicker shavings and still avoid tearout. In the end I got one, and I shall modify the handle to accommodate it.

I should point out that I have one of the new Custom Veritas (a #4) which has a 42 degree frog (i.e. lower still). With this I have no difficulty planning the most complex grains/figured woods. The difference with the HNT Gordon planes, which continue to perform superbly (nothing has changed in this regard), is that they are best suited for fine shavings. That is OK with me, especially the Trying Plane, which is used as a precision jointer. However it would be limiting for those wanting to take thicker shavings and speed up the work. The danger is not so much tearout, but that the plane would be significantly harder to push through the wood.

A similar observation may be made about BU planes. Set for a high cutting angle, their performance is second-to-none when taking finer shavings. I love my LV/Veritas bevel up planes, and they will remain and be used in my workshop. My comment must not be viewed as a negative criticism of these planes, but rather a notation about the differences in the way they work when the shavings get thicker.

The thing about Steve's planes - about which I can only infer since I have not used one - is that the principle design elements are up-to-date (if one can say that of 18th design! ) in regard woodies using the double iron (or chipbreaker) to control tearout. They are capable of taking thick shavings ... if that is your desire. If not, then there are other planes that will work as well as needed - just differently.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Corneel]

This whole thing, double iron versus high beding angle plane, I investigated a bit in 2013. The experiment was in two parts. First I planed with normal handplanes on the bench a variety of wood types to compare the tearout reducing capabilities of double iron planes and high cutting angles. I got to the conclusion that, roughly, a 0.2 mm distance of the chipbreaker to the edge equates to a 55 degree bedding angle and 0.1 mm equates to 60 degrees.

Then I made a planing machine on the bed of our metal working lathe with force transducers, so I could watch what happened. I meassured two forces, the horizontal one, which is the force you feel when pushing the plane forwards, and the vertical one which tries to bend the edge into or out of the wood.

Some conclusions.

A plane with a higher cutting ange is harder to push then a similar doube iron plane.
A double iron plane has a significantly larger negative vertical force pulling the blade into the wood then the plane with high cutting angle.
The edge wears at about the same rate in both types of planes but in the double iron plane the vertical force remained negative over 100 meters, while it went very positive in the plane with high cutting angle, resulting in a skittery feel when planing.

These things made me conclude that the double iron plane was a technological step forward in the 18th century.

Another interesting aspect was how the experiment illustrated how the two types of planes prevent tearout. In the plane with the high cutting angle the vertical force exerted a lot less uplifting force on the woodfibres. The double iron plane still has the strong uplifting force, so the chipbreaker must support the woodfibres somehow.

I humbly admit that this was a very limited test with a pretty rackety measuring setup on just a few pieces of wood. But it was all I could do in my spare time.

The two articles:

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/h...s_van_der.html

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/h...pbreakers.html

[D.W.]

This whole thing, double iron versus high beding angle plane, I investigated a bit in 2013. The experiment was in two parts. First I planed with normal handplanes on the bench a variety of wood types to compare the tearout reducing capabilities of double iron planes and high cutting angles. I got to the conclusion that, roughly, a 0.2 mm distance of the chipbreaker to the edge equates to a 55 degree bedding angle and 0.1 mm equates to 60 degrees.

Then I made a planing machine on the bed of our metal working lathe with force transducers, so I could watch what happened. I meassured two forces, the horizontal one, which is the force you feel when pushing the plane forwards, and the vertical one which tries to bend the edge into or out of the wood.

Some conclusions.

A plane with a higher cutting ange is harder to push then a similar doube iron plane.
A double iron plane has a significantly larger negative vertical force pulling the blade into the wood then the plane with high cutting angle.
The edge wears at about the same rate in both types of planes but in the double iron plane the vertical force remained negative over 100 meters, while it went very positive in the plane with high cutting angle, resulting in a skittery feel when planing.

These things made me conclude that the double iron plane was a technological step forward in the 18th century.

Another interesting aspect was how the experiment illustrated how the two types of planes prevent tearout. In the plane with the high cutting angle the vertical force exerted a lot less uplifting force on the woodfibres. The double iron plane still has the strong uplifting force, so the chipbreaker must support the woodfibres somehow.

I humbly admit that this was a very limited test with a pretty rackety measuring setup on just a few pieces of wood. But it was all I could do in my spare time.

The two articles:

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/h...s_van_der.html

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/h...pbreakers.html

I'd imagine the productivity rate increase with them pretty much spelled the end for single irons. As hard as it was to make a living, a plane that gets more work done in the same time period is going to be the one chosen for use, and I'm sure that the economics of the situation dictated more than any feel good stuff - faster is faster, and faster makes more money which is a valuable thing when you live a hard life. I'm glad you did those tests, because without them, a lot of folks won't believe what their own hands and eyes tell them.

I've got a 2 1/2" wide butcher ironed single-iron jointer bedded at 50, and I've had various double iron planes, but now have a 24" try plane with a 2 1/2" wide butcher double iron. Butcher irons are not soft, per se, but they're not particularly hard, and in a single iron plane - for a user used to modern stuff, they don't wear too long. It's a shame, because the plane that has the single iron is a beautifully made plane from the early 1800s and someone sold it on ebay (unused) as a door stop for $25.

I never have much thought about the iron hardness in the double iron try plane. It can take a thicker shaving without tearout, which means it can work further into the wear profile. I would imagine that the volume of work that can be done before sharpening is about 3 to 1. That wouldn't be the case if I were using both planes to take only thin shavings, but that's not what a try plane is for.

Irons the hardness of the butcher irons sharpen beautifully and quickly on natural stones, and they resist chipping well. The whole work flow just seems better, and not long after going to the double iron, I took all of the hard wearing irons out of regular use. The balance of time spent working tips back toward the older irons, and with the heavier shavings, it becomes evident why they didn't make them harder (they certainly could have if they wanted to).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4_5gpdyH6E

(somewhere around 6:00 in the video is probably the place to start - past my bloviating about learning to feel vertical with a plane. Pardon my camera breaking looks, too!)

[planemaker]

Two kids are arguing over whose father is the wimpiest.

The first one says, "My dad is so scared of lightning that when it strikes, he slides underneath our bed."

The second kid says, "That's nothing. My dad is so scared of the dark that when my mother works night shift, he sleeps with the woman next door."

[Bushmiller]

Two kids are arguing over whose father is the wimpiest.

The first one says, "My dad is so scared of lightning that when it strikes, he slides underneath our bed."

The second kid says, "That's nothing. My dad is so scared of the dark that when my mother works night shift, he sleeps with the woman next door."

Regards
Paul

[Wongo]

Two kids are arguing over whose father is the wimpiest.

The first one says, "My dad is so scared of lightning that when it strikes, he slides underneath our bed."

The second kid says, "That's nothing. My dad is so scared of the dark that when my mother works night shift, he sleeps with the woman next door."

Trying to hijack the plane are we?

[D.W.]

What's next a nut joke?

Plane irons are like nuts..... one will do the job, but two will do it better?

When you set a double iron, one is always a little lower than the other?

I could probably come up with a hundred of these, but I'm sure I could offend uptight people with one.