Thread: Iron vs timber hand planes?

Hi Adrian

There are wooden block planes on the market. HNT Gordon make an excellent one.

Compared with iron block planes they are limited in their cutting angle range. Wood is simply not durable enough to be used for a low angle bed. Consequently, a wooden bock plane ends up closer to a small common pitch smoother. The low angle iron block plane is easier to use on end grain. For trimming long grain, the higher angle is preferred.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Compared with iron block planes they are limited in their cutting angle range. Wood is simply not durable enough to be used for a low angle bed...

Challenge accepted, Derek

I'll be back in Oz soon and a low angle wooden block plane is now on the to-do list.

I never really liked the two Stanleys I have.

How low should my bed angle descend? 15 degrees? And what is the max length? 180mm?

Adrian, you might guess which side of the debate I'm on but I do have metal block planes . The woodies do look nice though. I particularly like the ECE block plane.

Cheers
Matt

I'd like to see that Matt

I did build, and use, a Jarrah chamfer plane, which has a 15 degree bed. However this does get careful use, and this way has lasted several years, and should last several more.

Here is the HNT Gordon ...



Link: The HNT Gordon Block Plane

Gary Blum (Blum Tool Company) builds this one ...



Link: © Blum Tool Company - Unique Designs for Quality Tools

Regards from Perth

Derek

Is it just me or do timber block planes always look like Noddy's car?

I reckon if I'm going to do it I should be as extreme as an iron low angle block, say 12 degrees and no more than 150mm.

I'll keep you posted.

Cheers,
Matt

Thanks Matt and Derek. There was I thinking things had become quiet on the forum.

First, lets' get back on-topic. The OP is asking for guidance on plane choice, wood or metal?

My answer is that the material the plane is constructed from is relatively unimportant, with some exceptions, as far as function goes. From an aesthetis point of view, well, that's another matter, entirely, and since the aesthetics of an object is a purely subjective matter, that is best left to individual choice! I have both metal, and wood-bodied planes, & enjoy using them all, & I'm pretty sure Derek & many others would be in the same camp. Some folks are passionate about having only one type or the other, & will argue furiously about the benefits of their personal choice. Most of the arguments I find spurious. If a plane is well made and fit for purpose, it should do the job well, but if you dislike the feel or look of a tool, you quite likely won't get on with it - it may not be entirely logical, but that's the way we human creatures are, so go for what appeals to you. Simple fact is, there are way more metal-bodied planess kicking around, both new & used, so they are more likely to find their way into your toolbox. Metal-bodied planes have things like lateral position & depth adjustors, so they at least seem easier to master by a novice, (even though, as any regular user of a woodie will asure you, they ain't.. ).

There ARE valid reasons why metal is sometimes a better choice than wood, at least for part of a plane, and that is when the material is subjected to intense wear (the 'skate' of a plough plane, for e.g.), or where it requires superior structural strength, which brings me to Matt's post: I think there are sound reasons why low & ultra-low angl planes didn't exist before metal bodies became common. What Derek is getting at, I think, is that wood just doesn't have the structuraal properties to support a low-angle blade. That long, thin wedge under the cutting edge of a low-angle plane is subjected to considerable static load from the wedge or lever-cap, and is also going to cop some dynamic loading in use. Hitting a knot in full stroke could be the last straw for your elegant little woodie, but in any case, the extra elasticity of a wooden blade-support won't be conducive to good action, I fear. I suggest this from a little bit of experience - my brass shoulder-plane. I used a brass sole rather than steel, and the brass is barely adequate. I made the lever cap too long, at first, which not only fouled shavings, but flexed the sole measurably if I was over-enthusiastic in tightening down the lever cap. The solution for both effects was to shorten the lever, & it's been ok in my hands (so far!), because I'm pretty careful with it, but I fear for its life when it falls into the hands of someone less careful, after I move on (I better will it to you, especially if you can make a wooden LA work.... ).

Anyways, that's my take..
Cheers,

Thanks guys,
After reading your comments I've decided that I should go for a low angle iron plane and just get a wooden plane later on down the track (maybe then I'll build one).
Once again thanks for the all the info, it was a lot more than I expected.

Regards,
Adrian.

That's probably the sensible conclusion even I would reluctantly have to admit Anyway, planes are like Cheesels, even if you don't want another one you keep picking them up.

Ian, I realised the rashness of my proposal straight away but it's got to make for better reading if I'm almost certainly doomed to fail.

My first thoughts: a piece of steel just behind the mouth... but that's cheating, or, a very thick japanese blade/wedge to make the body as ridgid as possible, or a BD at 30 degrees to get the same effect as a 15 degree BU.

What are people's thoughts?

Just musings at this point seeing that I am litterally half a world away from my gear.

Ian, I will treat your plane like a glass baby holding eggs if you ever get tired of it

Cheers
Matt

I saw something on the interwebby thing while looking for plane ideas. The guy built a lowish angle miter plane in wood. Trouble is I cant seem to find the thing again now I am looking for it. However pondering the idea a bed angle of say 33* for a bevel down should be doable in a good strong timber. Should work with a blade bevel of no more than 30*. To go lower then the bevel needs to be less to clear but then may not be up to the hardships of planeing aussie timbers.
Regards
John

Good point, John. I'd forgotten to consider the relief angle behind the blade.

Hmm. I was thinking of making it a skew as well to make the piece under the blade a more complex and hopefully more rigid form, rather than just a flat wedge.

Matt - you need to think this though very carefully, I reckon. For starters, just what are you wanting to achieve? If it's the lowest possible cutting angle you're after, then you have to go very low to achieve that, even with a bevel-up design. For simplicity, let's assume you stick with a 'standard' 25 degree grind/30 degree honing angle blade. With a 25 degree bed, your cutting angle is 55 degrees, & with a 12 degree bed, it's 42 - not a huge gain over a standard Bailey BD! In fact, I don't think the advantage of BD designs is in the cutting angle, it's having the blade supported right up to the cutting ege. So the emphasis is on support, and that's why I think metal is probably the only material suitable for supporting a very low angle blade. I could be quite wrong, I really have no idea how low you can go with wood, just going on intuiition, so it would be interesting to read if someone has tried it, & what happened in the medium to long term.

I don't thing loweing the bed angle to 33* for a BD plane is a terribly good idea - you will have virtually no clearance - just 3* for the standard 25/30 combo. I reckon an absloute minimum of 5* clearance is necessary, and even then, you won't get away with it in some (most?) woods - 10* is a much safer bet. Five degrees is the recommended clearance for metal, and wood is a much more elastic material, & really needs more clearance than 5*.

I don't want to be discouraging, just making sure you know what you are up against. As you say, it makes much more interesting reading when a project doesn't go exactly to plan!

Cheers,

I agree with all Ian writes.

What is possible, however, is a BD at 35 degrees with a 25 degree primary and secondary bevel (most of my plane blades are hollow ground at 25 degree and honed at the same angle). 10 degrees of clearance should be sufficient for most tasks. That would give you roughly the same configuration as a BU block plane with a 12 degree bed and a 25 degree bevelled blade.

To make this even smarter, if you reverse the blade so that it is BU, then you will end up with a 60 degree mini smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

OK there are some plane makers using low angles.
Miter Plane
And this one is lower still but the angle is not stated
Wooden Planes - Bill Carter Plane Maker Leicester
Something to think on.
Regards
John

Thanks, Ian and Derek.

I big mouthed my way in to this but I really think it's worth a crack, even if it is to provide a cautionary tale.

Derek, I like those ideas. What I might do is make a few plane bodies of different styles and abuse them until a winner or general failure can be established. The hollow grind is a great thought, it hadn't occurred to me.

Ian, I was thinking about the blade edge support advantages of the bevel up design and the problem with flex in the sole and wondered if a sort of 'under cap iron' that forms part of the sole might address the two issues. A bit hard to explain without a model, but I just want to assure you I'm thinking about the problems.

I've got a feeling I'm building up to an I-told-you-so outcome, but hey, at worst I'm wasting a foot or so of the old tallow wood fence post I'll be using.

Cheers
Matt