Thread: 5 or 5 1/2

Hi Andy

if you're thinking #5 or #5½, also consider a #6
anyone of the three can be used as a scrub plane, a jointer, a panel plane (long smother), on a shooting board
if you're carrying the plane across town by public transport go for the #5, if not the extra width and mass of the #5½ and #6 is useful

Originally Posted by ian

anyone of the three can be used as a scrub plane,

So the 5 converts into a handy scrub plane?

TT

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

So the 5 converts into a handy scrub plane?

TT

I suggest "converts" is the wrong verb

the #5 (mine's a LN) has a moveable frog
moving the frog right back open the mouth wide and with a highly cambered blade you have a scrub
move the frog right forward and the mouth closes up and with a very very slightly cambered blade you have a smoother
at frog settings in between you have a jointer, a plane that can take thick or thin shavings,

what we tend to overlook is that cabinet makers are trained to do almost all planing tasks -- from dimensioning to smoothing to shoot board work to champhering -- with just one plane. In Australian practice this plane is typically a #6, but the #5 and #5½ are acceptable alternatives
I know people who have four or five #5s or #6s set up specifically for each of the different tasks a bench plane is used for.

when it comes to dimensioning flat boards or glued up panels, the #5 and #6 are a much better length than the #40

Thanks Ian
I asked because I have an old No 5 base that has been repaired so wonder if it could be put to some good use.

I forget about the frog moving. I had this theory that the frog should be set so that the plane iron sits hard against it and as close to the back of the opening so that there is no chatter. I've just realised from your post were I am going wrong with some of my stuff.

Does the LN have an adjustable mouth like the block planes?

TT

The LN #5 has a fixed mouth opening but you can effectively adjust it by moving the frog back and forth (this plane is very similar to a Stanley 605 "Bedrock" however there are several small but significant improvements to the blade, chipbreaker, casting and metallurgy).

In terms of plane size selection it really comes down to a matter of personal preference at least partially determined by circumstance.

Some would say to go with the 5 1/2 because the 2 3/8" blade width is then more universally applicable up the size range to a number 7. That way you can use the same blades for a 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7. This has significant advantages when using blades with different cambers. All you need do is swap your blades about. It is certainly a persuasive argument.

On the other hand if you are using your #5 as a more universal tool in and of itself then the 2" blade is easier to push when the plane is being used as a scrub and you lose very little effectiveness in smoothing and other work through the reduction of 3/8" in width.

It really depends on what your eventual goal is. If you were starting out from scratch in establishing a set of planes, especially if you were a larger framed or stronger person, I'd suggest starting with the 5 1/2. If you already had a number 4 and a couple of spare blades then the 5 is going to do a fine job.

I started out with a number 5 and a number 4, added a 7 and then later was lucky to pick up a lovely #8 before things really started to grow.

best of luck

Horaldic

I guess I could go either way. I have a 4 1/2 and a 7. I have a 604 and now a 5. I like the weight of a 4 1/2 and I have a spare blade that I could round out.
Pity because I thought that I could put the old No5 base to good use.

TT

This is from the perspective of a "L"earner who has raided 'The-bay' for well-priced planes to learn from ...

(1) if you want to suss out a type of plane without breaking the bank, I have picked up #4-1/2, #2, #62, #605 - all with brazings and/or edge breaks - all at excellent prices - that have all fettled up beautifully - at least to the limits of my skill and experience.

If you like what you see you might then feel more confident in getting a more perfect example, or a LN or a LV.

(2) if you have 3 or 4 planes already ... you might consider an infill plane. I love these and there are well-worked examples around that - in my limited experience - can do an outstanding job with a bit of attention. Looking on 'the-bay' now at infill panel planes, you can spend $900 in the US ... or (auctions still current) $18 in the UK or $61 in Qld.

Heavy parallel- and taper-irons kick the hell out of the standard Stanley blade, and they are available *cheap*. I think they are breeding in my garage.

My 2 cents,

Paul McGee

PS: Derek Cohen (and others) have posted on the net re adding infill to stanley iron plane bodies ... and Derek has an extensive post on revamping an existing infill plane ... that #5 body could become an infill project.

5 1/2 all the way....the extra heft is the greatest advantage I found over a #5 in bevel down planes (Falcon Pope brand).

David Charlesworth's favourite size is the 5 1/2 too, now who could argue with David ?

Sam

Thanks for the replies.

Ian - does the LN 4 1/2, 5 1/2 and 7 share the same blade? I know their frogs are interchangeable...

As the other Ian (& others) have said, plane sizes are matters of personal preference, dictated as much by your physical size & strength (or lack thereof!) and what you do.

Thirty years go, you could still find a lot of used planes in all sorts of places for reasonable sums, and I suffered from the typical misconception that I needed at least one of every plane size & type produced. I gradually acquired a collection of all sorts & sizes, with lots of doubles & triples in the more common sizes. As the years rolled by, I found a number of disadvntages to this system, not the least being where to store the bleeding things! The second was that I found I would naturlly gravitate to a small number of planes for everydy use - the remainder sat there until the 'prime' planes were dull, then they'd come out for a run. That meant I would be working some of the time with tools I didn't like as much, and eventually have a pile of dull blades that took all day to resharpen & reset!

So one day, I went for a big cull, and reduced my bench plane herd to just 3 really good planes - a 4, 5, and 7, plus a very old #4 converted to a scrub. With this lot, I was very happy - when one got dull, I just stopped & sharpened it, so I was nearly always working with sharp, well-fettled tools.

Of course, over the last 15 years or so, the damn things must have got up to mischief in that dark tool cupboard and bred, so that I now have two "good" #4s, one set for superfine finishing, the other with a slightly larger mouth so that I can take heavier shavings. I also inherited my father's old 5.5, which apart from it's nostalgic value is a nice tool - almost knocked my #5 out of 'most favoured' position, but it's had a very hard life & can't be fettled as finely as the 5, so like the 4's, one is set up for finer work. The #7, a Record, is a good example of how they 'usta' be made, and with it's Hock blade, as good a jointer as I could ever wish for.

I do have a few other planes I use regularly, like my little LV 'apron' plane, a BU Veritas for the shooting board & similar jobs, a 78, plus a few home-builts like my shoulder plane, dovetail plane & so on, but in the event of fire, I would be saving those bench planes first!

The point of this long-winded ramble is just to re-enforce how personal tool choice is - like sharpening methods, everyone has his/her prefernces. Part of the fun in the woodworking journey is finding out what suits your methods & products best, so if you think a particular size or type of plane will be good, try & give it a go. There are enough planes still circulating that the common sizes are readily available at not too stratospheric prices, and one good thing about an old tool, is that unless you damage it, you ought to be able to on-sell for much the same as you paid, in the event you decide something else would suit you better.

Oh, and why not try giving your old #5 body a new life as a scrub? You might find it suits you better than a shorter-bodied plane. When you set the frog back, you will notice that the (proper) Bailey setup has a machined ledge along the back of the mouth, which mates with the toe of the frog. When you slide the frog back to the full extent of its travel, the sole usually protrudes a bit past the toe of the frog. This is of no concern, because the bevel on the blade should clear the sole (just ensure it does). You should get an adequately wide mouth, & it will not affect blade function. The business end of a bevel-down blade cantilevers from where the bevel begins, i.e., none of the last 3mm (or more, depending on blade thickness) in in contact with the frog bed.

Cheers,

Nice post Ian!

I agree that it's a personal preference, much like BU and BD planes.

I'd like to eventually have a 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 7, LA smoother/jack in my collection. But I might find that I only use 2 or 3 of these planes for most tasks! Only one way to find out..

I am an inveterate collector so I have been collecting planes because I could, and these have been taking up my energy. Maybe like Ian W did, I realised that I only needed a few planes so have been ruthless and stopped collecting. I am going to keep the 604, the#5 & the #7. Plus the block planes.

I have read on this forum and elsewhere that adding a Hock or an IBC blade to a Stanley will return a superior result for the investment so I am going to do this. I have decided instead of further purchases to invest my money in wood (timber), and learn how to make some big bits smaller

Re the conversion of Stanley's to an infill. Is this cosmetic or is there some improvement for the tool from this process?

TT

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

......Re the conversion of Stanley's to an infill. Is this cosmetic or is there some improvement for the tool from this process?

Depends what you start with, TT. I think the conversion Derek made was to increase cutter angle, which is obviously an 'improvement', in circumstances where a high angle is needed. In simplistic terms, the principle advantage of a good infill over a 'froggged' plane is a fixed, solid blade bed (some also laud the extra mass, which can be a plus or a minus to me, depending on circumstances). A major feature is the heavy 'anti-chatter' block attached to the sole, which supports the pointy end of the cutter. The large mass of wood against which the upper end of the blade is pressed doesn't do any harm, either, as it is a goood dampener. So long as your makeover includes a solid blade bed that supports the blade to the edge of the bevel, and well-fitted cap iron & retaining mechanism, it should be better than a poor to so-so Bailey. Whether it would be 'better' than a well-fettled, good quality example of the genre is a moot point.

However, there is nothing like making a plane or two to help you understand what makes these things tick, IMO. Making or modifying at least one plane is worth it for that reason alone, I reckon.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

I have read on this forum and elsewhere that adding a Hock or an IBC blade to a Stanley will return a superior result for the investment so I am going to do this. I have decided instead of further purchases to invest my money in wood (timber), and learn how to make some big bits smaller

Re the conversion of Stanley's to an infill. Is this cosmetic or is there some improvement for the tool from this process?

TT

I bought a *secondhand* Hock blade a year ago (2-3/8") - so they may have changed the product - but it went into the plane without any fuss and was a nice enough blade.

I recently bought several sizes of Ray Iles D2 and O1 blades (2", 2-3/8", 2-5/8") and they are thicker and excellent but you need to file open the mouth.

I believe it would be the same story with an IBC blade.

Re Infill planes - personal bias warning: I just love them.

I have attached a picture of a #3 that Derek re-purposed as an infill plane. And a link to his infill-plane renovation ... see bottom of page for shavings.

Cheers,
Paul McGee

Renovating an Infill Smoother