Thread: Hand planes

Originally Posted by RossM

Hi Derek,

It's interesting to see the progression we make in tool use. I recall quite a while back that you were a great advocate of the BU planes, particularly the BU jack (as was I). I still like the Veritable BU jack, but now much prefer the Bedrock pattern 5 1/2 as my go to plane.

Ross, your comment is a great introduction to a response to Ratbag, and expansion of that by Dan (Bueller).

I have indeed been a great advocate (indeed) of bevel up planes in the past. It was not just BU planes but also BD planes with high cutting angles. BU planes were valued for their ability to work with high cutting angles. Consequently, the Veritas/Lee Valley range and those by HNT Gordon were my main users.

The tide turned around 2012/13 when it became apparent that there were other ways to control tearout in our otherwise wonderful WA interlocked hardwoods. It was around that time that I learned to set the chipbreaker on double iron planes (such as Stanley/Bailey), and over the years I have become increasingly proficient at this. I have learned that a closed chipbreaker beats a high cutting angle, and it does this in two ways: a low cutting angle cuts cleaner than a high cutting angle, but then is vulnerable to tearout. The chipbreaker can keep the cutting angle low, and still prevent tearout.

A great test for the above is the intersection of grain running in opposite direction found in a book-matched panel.

Having noted the above, what I state (and stand behind) is that hand planing is always "horses for courses". It will always come down to the wood you work, and how you prefer to work. There are just so many ways to skin a cat that I am not going to tell someone how they should do it. Just because the chipbreaker rules does not automatically mean that anything without a chipbreaker is defunct. I still use BU planes with high cutting angles and I still use my HNT Gordon planes, and they all sing! The Gordon woodies are wonderful, not just for their performance, but for the experience. Great for the soul

So what of Stanley? I have and use Stanley planes as well ..... I have lots of planes, not because they are needed, but because they are a hobby. One of my favourites is a Stanley #3 of my late FIL, and it is tuned and ready to go with a PM-V11 blade and a LN chipbreaker (this combination works best on this plane). Is it in the same class as the LN #3 I have? That is not a relevant question.

I could talk about chipbreakers until the cows come home. Some do not use them at all ... Rob Cosman does not. David Charlesworth was converted to chipbreakers about the same time as myself, and before then only favoured high back bevels on his blades to increase the cutting angle (not the same as the Ruler Trick, which is to flatten the blade). The chipbreaker is unnecessary on straight-grained timber. It is only for cranky grain. However .... there are two chipbreakers I dislike: vintage Stanley chipbreakers, because they are flimsy and difficult to stay put when their screw it tightened. And that 'orrible two-piece chipbreaker on the SS Record (and Calvert Stevens and Clifton), which insists on dropping off the front and onto my toes! This chipbreaker could not have been designed to set close to the blade since that is a process that must be done at the time of replacing the blade in the plane. It was obviously designed to ease freehand honing (good) by clearing space for the bevel. Just a lazy woodworker's chipbreaker? No, I see it as relevant on a worksite where speed is needed and the work being done does not require a closed up chipbreaker. Someone who does not use the chipbreaker for tearout control would not see an issue with it. And which means, that I have no disagreement or argument with that individual.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Lots of great discussion here. Thinking about it I agree with Lance on picking a plane and getting comfortable with it. I started out with an Stanley #4 like a lot of people and it was my only properly set up plane for a long time. It took me a while but eventually I learned all it's quirks and now it's a rock solid user. I have better smoothers but I still reach for it a lot just because of that comfort level.

I can guarantee if I bought a LN to start with I wouldn't understand the planing process nearly as much, learning to set up the Stanley meant slowing down and lots of trial and error. I wouldn't have got that with a LN and I think I appreciate them a lot more than I would have otherwise.

Dan, it is not actually true that a new plane, whether Veritas or LN, does not require set up before first using it. There is a vital set of procedures to follow, otherwise you may as well use anything. This goes for a basic Stanley as well.

Firstly, the Veritas/LN should not need the sole being flattened, as a Stanley will. That is the only set up positive.

Secondly, with the exception of the Veritas, all these planes need to have the back of the blade lapped until it is flat. None of my LN blades were flat - not bad, but not flat.

Thirdly, the chipbreaker needs to be prepared in every case, Veritas/LN included. They all come with a 25 degree leading edge, and require a secondary bevel of 50 degrees. The underside (flat) of the chipbreaker needs to be lapped to ensure it mates with the back of the blade. Veritas are good, but all need to be worked on.

Fourthly. With the exception of the Veritas Custom planes, all frogs can be moved, and they need to be positioned, with the mouth size adjusted (note that you cannot use a closed up chipbreaker with a tight mouth. It needs to be opened).

Five .. now for an obvious one ... sharpen the blade. Planes do not work with dull blades, not even premium planes! Is there a specific bevel angle to aim for? Yep ... 30-32 degrees for bevel down planes. And now you need camber .. all different for the use of the plane, but this is more skill work than something given free with each premium plane.

For number six I could add blade extension, reading the grain and knowing how to push the plane, but you may say that all the planes need that .. and you would be correct. It is all about skill, not something built into the plane.

So what does a premium plane offer? I refer you back to your earlier, excellent post.

So, bottom line, you can learn an awful lot about hand planing with both premium and vintage planes. Vintage does not have a monopoly here.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Very good points Derek. I've been doing the ruler trick on all my new blades plus the usual sharpening process but hadn't thought about spending time on the modern chipbreakers. I'll have to revisit them all when I'm back on tools. Currently recovering from a double hernia surgery.

You do remind me of a pleasant surprise I got recently though. Bought a Woodriver #7 off Jim Davey just before my hernia and before shipping he gave the plane a full set up including flattening and sharpening the blade. When it arrived I just wiped off the grease, set the lever cap tension and away I went. Was very impressed at the level of work he put in especially for the price I paid, bought a few bits and pieces off him the last couple of years and he's always great to deal with but this was above and beyond.

If a chipbreaker must be set so carefully, why does it not have its own adjuster to set it so?

It would need to be cunning, but the fine Norris adjusters are very nice indeed.

One thing I personally REALLY hate is the screw-set method used on Stanley planes. Hideous, absolutely hideous.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

If a chipbreaker must be set so carefully, why does it not have its own adjuster to set it so?

It would need to be cunning, but the fine Norris adjusters are very nice indeed........

I'm confused by this statement/question WP!

Are you suggesting the chip-breaker have a separate adjuster so it can be adjusted 'on the go' in the plane? Apart from the challenge of designing & building one, I don't think it would be very practical because it would be hard to see where you've adjusted things to, down there in the mouth. Take a look at any of your bench planes & tell me if you can see the blade end well enough to judge tiny fractions of a mm exposure.

The Norris adjuster works on the same principle as the Bailey - it grabs the head of the cap-iron screw and shoves the whole cap-iron blade assembly forward or back, but uses an in-line screw thread to do it instead of a rotating cam.

Do you own or use a Norris regularly? I suspect you don't because most people who do tend to fall out of love with Tom's ingenious but somewhat flawed mechanism. There are a number of minor problems, which added together, make it inferior to Mr. Bailey's effort by a good margin, imo.

1. You really must back off the lever-cap pressure before trying to move the blade, or you will soon damage those fine screw threads on your adjuster. This means that dialling up a tad more or less cut as you plane is not feasible.

2. Even the 'improved' model with the absurdly fine threads (even more susceptible to damage) is coarser in its action than the Bailey - the long wishbone and short cam of the Bailey means very little movement of the cam for much turning of the thumbwheel. I haven't measured it precisely, but I can assure you it takes much more rotation of the adjuster to move the blade the same amount on my Bailey types as on my Norris. With the coarse Veritas versions, it's even more noticeable, you need the touch of a microvascular surgeon to operate the wretched things.

3. Tom Norris's all-in-one lateral & depth adjuster is clever but it doesn't work very well. If you have to move the shaft to left or right to square the blade with the sole (as you virtually always must), you are now pushing or pulling on the cap-iron screw at an angle when you adjust blade depth. This tends to slew the blade more, or un-slew it, depending on the direction you wish to move it very noticeable (& very annoying!) when adjusting for very fine shavings.

The Bailey mechanism suffers from none of the above, except when people foolishly "improve" it by putting a screw in the lever cap instead of a cam. A cam can easily be adjusted so that every time you press it home it puts sufficient pressure on the blade/cap-iron to hold it, but still allow easy adjustment. I guess you could learn to do that with screwed LCs, but I've never managed to do it reliably on any of the several planes I have with thumbscrew LCs & screw adjusters. The combined mechanical advantage of the screw thread and the assymetrical fulcrum point make it far too easy to over-tighten the LC with a thumbscrew.

The main whinge I hear wrt to the Bailey adjuster is the amount of backlash they have. A worn Norris also acquires considerable backlash, but the Baileys are definitely the worst offenders. There always has to be some backlash with the Baileys, because you have a cam rotating in a square slot, and it needs clearance for that, but because the slot has to allow for the blade being slewed left or right for lateral adjustment, the cam needs even more clearance. Given some generous manufacturing tolerances, the backlash can sometimes be considerable, multiple turns of the thumbwheel being necessary to change direction of blade travel. On most of my planes it's fewer than two, but the worst of my several Baileys has at least 2 1/2 turns of backlash, which is a bit of a pity, 'cos it's my ancient workhorse 5 1/2, & it's about the only plane I change settings on frequently between sharpenings. However, given that I use this for long sessions almost every day, I am so accustomed to the backlash it barely registers.

Getting back to the woes of setting cap-irons, apart from the difficulties we optically-challenged elders have seeing fractions of millimetres, the most frequent problem is the damned thing moving when you tighten the screw. In my experience, this is almost always due to irregularities in the bearing shoulders of the screw, or on the edges of the slot (or both!), causing the screw to catch on one side or the other. The former is hard to deal with if you don't have a lathe that you can mount it in to skim the shoulder clean, but it's quite possible to smooth it up reasonably well with a fine file. The blade slot edges are easily smoothed with some emery paper wrapped around a small, hard block. Attend to those points, put a light smear of oil on the back of your blades and the problem usually disappears...

Apologies, I seem to have gotten a bit carried away....
Cheers,

Frankly flattening a sole and blade, particularly on a large plane, is the one thing I'd really value. Cleaning and fettling everything else is do-able with things you're likely to have around. The chip breaker is very soft and relatively easy to fix. There is no real skill or insight developed from those steps just hard work. The worst part of the job is that the closer you get the slower it goes...

Well, that escalated quickly! I didn't just kick the hornets nest, but set it on fire!.... with molten aluminium!

I flailed around with two Stanley planes for years. I simply couldn't get them right. Yes they were old and one was quite possibly "cheap", but I had such a bugger of a time with them I gave up. Backlash, sharpen-ability, adjusting, shavings jamming the chip breaker, the works.

There are also a few Japanese kanna here.... set up beautifully for the 10 swipes I get out of them before having to frick around again....

When I acquired my first LV BUJ it was a revelation. The Norris was grand. The little side guide screw did the job perfectly. I was sold, hard.

I'll take a good look online at the Bailey mechanism. Such an impassioned response demands it!

Yep, that turned into an interesting discussion. I am following it with interest. However, I can not really contribute to the adjuster topics and so on.

But it is interesting what the question for favorite planes triggers. I can see that for me there would be three different categories of different planes. I was thinking as follows:

1. Planes I like to show to visitors to my garage



A number 8, which I restored and had 2" cut off from its heel. So I turned it into a #7 1/2 and even replicated a corresponding imprint on the plane heel.
Then a small smoother and the shoulder plane I got from Ian W. I like to show them, but also use them. And finally the side rebate planes I recently made. I count the set as one plane.

2. If my wife would put a knife to my chest and forces me to keep only 4.



I would still keep the #7 1/2, a #4 which I quite like, the small smoother again and a #45. I would keep these to cover most jobs, while I secretly devise a plan to sneak the other ones back in ;-)

3. Finally the planes which you would currently most often on my bench and being used



A #5, #4, small smoother and block plane. These once are constantly being grabbed.

Interesting, that there is only one plane which appears in all three categories. I guess that's currently my absolute favorite.
And in light of previous discussion has neither Bailey or Norris adjuster, and yet I got to set it easily by now and it works so well for me.

Surely if I come back in a while the choices would change.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Cklett

....Surely if I come back in a while the choices would change....

Yes, Ck, I think that is both inevitable & perfectly reasonable. We tend to think first of the planes we've most recently had occasion to use, but next week or the week after you may find yourself working on a project where your plane priorities will be radically different. That's one excuse you can give to significant others for having more planes than absolutely necessary.....

Cheers,

I thought I might reply with something anyone equally sad might find funny.

My "shop" space is shared with a laundry area.

So "voila" is my work space and regular customers - coincidentally in the middle of re-doing my bench vice:

IMG_20200808_201500 (1).jpg

But in the adjacent laundry area...

IMG_20200808_201507.jpg

I literally keep my "top drawer" planes: a HNT Gordon A55 trying plane (bought off the forum) and Veritas shooting plane...

IMG_20200808_201517.jpg

The thinking was I never want them shaken off a bench / covered in dust and crap etc.

I will have to stop as I've noticed moisture develops underneath the iron and getting rust spots on the shooting plane but for now the "treasure" location stays!

(I need a proper shed...)

Originally Posted by Ratbag

My most used planes are (in descending order) the English Stanley 60 1/2A Block, Tasmanian Stanley No. 3 smoother, a Record 06 Fore Plane & maybe an old Record 311 Shoulder/Rabbet plane, none of which would sell for anything over $100 on the used market. I'm sure others will disagree vehemently, but I'd contend that a sub $100 quality second-hand plane purchase will perform (once fettled) not just adequately but on occasion better than much more expensive new replicas can.

You could theoretically have a full and comprehensive used premium plane collection (a dozen or more) for the price of 4 new fancy replicas!

"none of which would sell for anything over $100 on the used market" hmmm.
I have been watching the market of late, one 311 example $335 from an Oz based outlet... wishful thinking maybe. just an observation

As for the later perspective re performance once fettled, hear, hear! Old planes have history, and charm, and function.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

If a chipbreaker must be set so carefully, why does it not have its own adjuster to set it so?

Adjusting the cap iron/chipbreaker is a synch ... if you can get that perfect camber for the timber at hand.
That is the challenging part.
1/
Realistically you need a pair of irons or planes to get along with things, one iron cambered so the cap iron can be a 32" away from the edge,
and the other so the cap iron can be a 64" away from the cutting edge.

You only use the plane/double iron with the tighter set cap iron when you need it.

The bottom line is that you couldn't set the cap iron closer to the edge if your camber is profiled for a 32" distance away from the edge.
The cap iron would overshoot the cutter on each side of the iron.

Did I say you need a perfect camber? ... I think I did, but will mention it again that it needs to be an absolutely perfect camber
for it to work on stock which is wider than the plane is.


On a side note...
Fettling the underside of the cap iron

If you've found that fettling the underside on a flat hone is producing a convex pattern (a gap on each side when paired with the cutter)
Then the answer to this is that you need to hone the middle out with either the corner of a hone or some abrasive strip shorter than the width of the cap iron.
A few passes on the hone afterwards with full contact, but making sure not to over do it, as honing on a flat surface will always be hungrier for the ends.

If you intend to use the cap iron to its full potential, the top side of the cap iron needs to be profiled at or past 50 degrees,
otherwise the distance when setting the cap iron is a bit more faffery.

P.s... Make sure your frog is not adjusted forward to tighten the mouth !
It will give the impression that the cap iron is set forward as much as it possibly can be, it will be horrible to use, and tearout will still be likely to happen.
Don't prevent the cap iron from doing its job.
No scraping needed afterwards.

All the best
Tom