Thread: Another plane?

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Now I do have a quibble about the front section ... not sure what to call it. Ordinarily it would be the knob ... front hand hold. There!

It is too square for my liking (not in keeping with the great curves you have at the tote end), and projects a little too far (which makes it look even larger. Does it offer important extra grip?).

Hi Derek - I think the name most peole are using for the front infill is "bun", which seems as good a name as any.

Hmm, that bun gave me more trouble than you realise! Because I was building this plane out of my head, I had to make a few things up as I went along. The high angle blade meant I had to pitch the slope of the bun forward to maintin a decent escapment angle between it & the lever cap (it's only just adequate as it is). That meant I had little wood on top to get the flat-topped area I like. I prefer something I can place my palm on, flat, & hate the bun on my Norris, which has a sharp rear edge, & is most uncomfortable for the way I like to plane. I can't for the life of me figure out why most manufactured planes have that sharp rear edge to the bun - are they subjugating function to looks?? How are people supposed to hang onto these things?

Anyway, the reason my bun sticks out the front is because I wanted as much wood on top as I could get. I had it sticking out more, but that looked wrong, so cut it back to where it is now. It's only projecting 3 mm, which I suppose adds little to the surface area of the top, so maybe I should bring it back level with the sides. In view of your strong reaction I will take a long hard look at it & decide if I can improve it without sacrificing comfort.

The shape of the rear handle is a bit of an amalgam of the one on my Norris (a late model with cast body), and my favouritest tote of all, which came (broken!) on an old 5 1/2. Not entirely successful, because the she-oak board I cut it from was about 2mm thinner than it should be - you wouldn't think 2mm could make much difference to the feel of a handle, but it certainly does.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

And please ... change the lever cap side screws.

Discussion. We must have discussion.

The screws are temporary, don't worry. I will replace with counter-sunk screws soon. I want to silver-solder a couple of spacers each side of the lever cap to neaten it up (or maybe even remake it) so I will revisit the screws then.

As I said in my last post, I learnt quite a bit from my mistakes on this one, & reckon I could do it a lot better next time, but I don't think I will ever get around to another one!

Always ready for discussion & debate, 'ol buddy.....

Cheers,

Ian

I think the Bun protruding out front spoils the look, but I can understand why you have done this. Judging from the photo's the bun looks a bit high & If you sliced the top off the bun this would give you greater surface area on the top & allow you to shave back the front.
I find a good way to judge the effect of a cut is to wrap tape along the line of the cut, covering what would be removed, then you can then clearly see what it will look like before making the irreversible cut.

I agree with removing the phillips head screws, & think the others spoil the look as well, square drive would look much better. Alternatively, perhaps putting in larger gauge screws would allow you to file off the heads flush with the sides.

Regards

Very well gentlemen, I guess I haven't won anyone over with my hand-friendly bun! Can't say I'm all that fond of the shape of it myself, despite spending too much time already, fiddling with it. There may well be a remake coming up, though I had better finish a couple of 'useful' jobs first, or LOML is likely to put serious restrictions on future shed-hours.

Basil - the bun is actually only a smidgin higher than the Norris, after which it is loosely modelled. I think the shape makes it look taller than it really is (see pics 1 & 2). Where I got myself into trouble was not observing the way the Norris bun is fitted. I 'remembered' it as coming up straight from the mouth, as I fitted mine, but if you peer into the escapements (pic 3), you can see that it actually starts a few mm in front of the mouth on the Norris. This caused some conflict with the line between it & the upsweep of the sides, and I had to do some filing & sanding to blend them in. So it's no wonder to me you are all picking up on this part of the job as beeing a bit off the mark. I will definitely have a go at some more shaping - as long as I don't reduce the area of the top by more than 25% or so, it will still suit me, I think, & I can't make the shape any worse.

On a cheerier note, I had time to put it through its paces a bit more tonight. It planed a chunk of Cooktown Ironwood VERY nicely. The surface is shiny-smooth & could be finished as-is (on the left in the pic). I then tried a very curly bit of Camphor (centre). This planed ok, but the surface left on the softer wood is a bit like what you expect off a scraper, slightly dull rather than shiny-smooth. That's ok, as I learnt a long time back that some softer woods respond better to very sharp blades & lower rather than higher cutting angles.

Then for the acid test. I have some bits of Blue Gum that defy any plane I've yet thrown at them. They are rowy & brittle and pick out no matter how sharp the blade or what the cutting angle. Well, the new 55 degree did a fairly good job, but by no means perfect. However, it is probably as good as you can get with a cutting tool, even my Lee Valey scraper plane struggles to get this stuff under control.

All in all, I'm resonably happy that I have a decent user. Have to revisit the blade bed, as I'm having a bit of trouble with setting the blade. It jumps from too fine to a roughly 2 thou shaving no matter how gently I coax it, so there is an irregularity there somewhere that I need to get rid of. But I reckon it will be functioning well enough that I can put the old Norris up for sale, shortly.

Cheers,

Sell the Norris

Ian the plane may not win a beauty comp, but it seems like it is a very workable tool, and worthy of a bit of fine tuning. Then move on to Mkll, Mklll, etc

Enjoy the journey

OK, I reshaped the bun, & checked the blade bed with layout dye on the back of the blade & there were a couple of small high spots that needed levelling out. The bun is now close to the shape of the one on the Spiers in Derek's post, but perhaps a little flatter-topped, which I want to preserve. It works well, and will do what I want of it reasonably well, I think, so that's that. I'll replace the lever cap screws when I get the ones I want.

Whether or not it will enhance productivity down in the shed, who knows, but that's what I told LOML to justify my time spent on "non-essential" projects.......
Trouble is, they remember these things, so now I will have to deliver.

Cheers & thanks for your frank appraisals,

Hi Ian,

Comparing the before and after shots I have to say it does now look much better. The bun curves compliment the other curves of the plane very well and am sure it will still feel quite comfortable to hold and use. (You can give us some feedback after it has had a real workout on the next project).

Well done Ian. P.S. I was only joking about placing an order for one, but I do covert it.

Cheers
Pops

Ian

That looks much better. I agree with keeping a flat top, I try to keep flat areas when I make a wooden bodied plane as I find it assists in gauging if the plane is cutting true.

Good luck with maintaining shed access. You could try, the doctor prescribed it as a good form of Physical and Mental activity which helps prolong life & ease stress.

Regards

Hi Ian

Of course it is more important how the plane works - which it seems to do very, very well (no surprises there). One might argue that looks are irrelevant, so why the fuss about how the bun (there, I got it!) is shaped. But when one spends the time to build something that is not only for performance but also for looks, then it is worth the effort to get it right. And I think you have (except for that bloody screw!). The bun now fits in with the rear of the plane, bringing a sense of uniformity to the whole.

Bloody well done, mate!

Regards from Perth

Derek

I have a Speyrs non-adjustable infill that was re-stuffed in Australia.

The front bun is very much like your Norris there. Being quite/very new, the rear sloping edge is not eased at all with use so is quite hard on the meat of the palm quite quickly.

So that is what I like about yours Ian - the rear of the front bun looks very comfortable for using.

Cheers,
Paul McGee

Thanks folks - it seems we are all happier, now. (I certainly am ).

I'm glad I didn't persist with my original idea of having the top of the bun sticking out about 12mm and rounded into a sort of 'snout'. Don't know what I was thinking, just wanted my plane to be different from the pack. But by degrees, I've crept back to pretty much a standard bun & ended my flirtation with radicalism.

My only real disappointment in the job is those too-obvious fixings for the stuffing. I wanted to use brass so it would not be as distracting as steel rivets, but what I have ended up with is even more distracting. Mild steel is so much more malleable than the brass, so it's easier to end up with very neat, clean rivet heads, as I found when making my little 'hybrid':
https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/a...hybrid-109854/
This was a bit of a practice run for the full dovetail job, and I should have stuck with what I learnt!

Derek, I WILL change the screws. I'm now leaning to plain, countersunk slotted brass as they will at least match the others.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I have a Speyrs non-adjustable infill that was re-stuffed in Australia.

The front bun is very much like your Norris there. Being quite/very new, the rear sloping edge is not eased at all with use so is quite hard on the meat of the palm quite quickly.

So that is what I like about yours Ian - the rear of the front bun looks very comfortable for using.

Paul - I can't for the life of me figure out why they make them with that sharp back edge. My Norris is well-used and the edge is slightly worn, but still hopelessly uncomfortable for the hand position I prefer. I would cheerfully take a rasp to the darn thing, but I seriously do want to sell it on, so curbed my vandalistic impulse.

I can only think the shape was meant to actively discourage putting your palm on top and to force users to hold the front of the plane in that awkward, bent-wristed hold that you see folks using on woodies. I don't LIKE being forced into holding a tool in a particulaar way just because some 'authority' decrees "this is how it's done"............

Cheers,
I'm off to the shed before the heat drives me back in the house

Originally Posted by IanW

Thanks folks - it seems we are all happier, now. (I certainly am ).

I'm glad I didn't persist with my original idea of having the top of the bun sticking out about 12mm and rounded into a sort of 'snout'. Don't know what I was thinking, just wanted my plane to be different from the pack. But by degrees, I've crept back to pretty much a standard bun & ended my flirtation with radicalism.

.....................

I don't LIKE being forced into holding a tool in a particulaar way just because some 'authority' decrees "this is how it's done"............

Cheers,
I'm off to the shed before the heat drives me back in the house

Ian,
Great to see the plane is pretty much done. Well done!

One of the things I love about collecting many old tools, especially planes, is that you often see and FEEL the hand print left by a lifetime of use by a previous user.
It's pretty obvious some would try and make a really uncomfortable grip better, and some would just alter the grip to what must have been a contortion to use a tool.
I have small hands but I have a couple of closed handles on named infill planes that just can't even fit my hand without pushing a knuckle into the front of the handle opening.
I love to see tools with so much use that the tool handle has accommodated the hand through wear alone, or patches of corrosion from contact with fingers.
The tools from my dad's workshop, and those that came to me through him that belonged to my grandfather, especially evoke a special feeling when placing the hand where those before me held and used it.


Regards,
Peter

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I have a Speirs non-adjustable infill that was re-stuffed in Australia.

The front bun is very much like your Norris there. Being quite/very new, the rear sloping edge is not eased at all with use so is quite hard on the meat of the palm quite quickly.

So that is what I like about yours Ian - the rear of the front bun looks very comfortable for using.

Cheers,
Paul McGee

I mis-spoke (-wrote?) ... how unusual.

For a start, "So that is what I like about yours Ian" should have been "So that is *One* of the things I like about yours" ... the plane is excellent.
And I **really** like the look of your hybrid plane.

I compared my Spiers infill bun to your Norris, but I was wrong. If you check the photo you will see it was built for a hand of steel.

The second photo of a Preston I have is the nicest bun I have ever had my hands on.
... OK ...
yes ...
I don't get out much.

I really like the shape of your bun ... and there are very few men I have said that to!

Cheers,
Paul

PS - I note with jealous eyes the difference in the bedding angles between these two and yours.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

.....
I compared my Spiers infill bun to your Norris, but I was wrong. If you check the photo you will see it was built for a hand of steel.

The second photo of a Preston I have is the nicest bun I have ever had my hands on.

Paul, I reckon the Spiers could be greatly improved by taking a rasp & files & some sandpaper to that sharp back angle. Since it is already a replacement of the original woodwork, I would't think twice about modifying it to my own taste if it were mine. You could easily turn it into something quite like the one on your Preston, judging by the pics. Interesting to me that the Preston bun is very like my Norris, the difference being the back edge has ben eased off instead of being left sharp. I wonder if that is original, or if some owner has taken to it?

Originally Posted by pmcgee

.....
PS - I note with jealous eyes the difference in the bedding angles between these two and yours.

Ah well, that's the advantage of rolling your own! But take it from me that while high cutting angles work very well in some situations, they are not the answer to every prayer. As has been noted by others, a higher cutting angle does mean a bit more effort pushing, though it isn't all that big a deal in most situations, and you gain on some woods because you reach a good surface with fewer strokes. (And my little monster weighs in at 2.2Kg, which is considerably more than the similar-sized Norris, so it keeps moving once started).

But on softer woods, it doesn't leave that glassy surface that a sharp blade & lower cutting angle can achieve. That's partly due to blade sharpness and partly cutting angle. I'm running an 'Acadamy' blade in it, and it's a bear of a thing to sharpen to a really fine edge. I can get it shaving-sharp easily enough, but the edge seems to have a very fine 'roughness' to it. I use a white Arkansas stone for final polishing, which does a great job on all my other blades, but maybe I need something finer for this one??

So it's horses for courses - I'm lucky to have a choice of 4 cutting angles, now, from 45* to 60*. It's interesting to me that sometimes a few degrees change makes a big difference and sometimes little or no difference to the quality of the surface.

All good fun, but for the next month or two, I am going to just enjoy using tools while I churn out some 'orders'. I have maybe two more planes planned, and then I'm retiring from the plane-making business completely, forever, read my lips & all that. (Please no-one remind me I said that about saws about 30 examples ago, I want to believe I mean it......)

Originally Posted by pmcgee

.....
I really like the shape of your bun ... and there are very few men I have said that to!

I think you're the first man who's said that to me! I guess it was inevitable that I'd draw a quip or two like that......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Paul, I reckon the Spiers could be greatly improved by taking a rasp & files & some sandpaper to that sharp back angle. Since it is already a replacement of the original woodwork, I would't think twice about modifying it to my own taste if it were mine.
Cheers,

Not I, said the fly!
Not in the forseeable future. Someone - I should know but would have to search back for the info - did a beautifully professional job in stuffing that plane, and I don't have anything like the experience to feel competent in adjusting the bun. I'm sure I could *stuff* it ... just not in a good way
Maybe much later, but not soon.

Originally Posted by IanW

Interesting to me that the Preston bun is very like my Norris, the difference being the back edge has ben eased off instead of being left sharp. I wonder if that is original, or if some owner has taken to it?
Cheers,

I'm sure it hasn't been actively adjusted ... I think it is that great "handrail effect" that makes it so nice in the hand. Worn by use like Peter said. The two profiles are quite different, (see photos) but it occurs to me that the wood and finish might play a big part. The rosewood of the Preston feels like the lignum vitae on the base of my Primus planes ... a liquid-like feel. The beech of the A5 and the walnut of the Spiers have a very dry feeling.

I'd love to feel what a Norris in rosewood feels like.

Now ... not to barrage you with questions but ...

What did you finish the wood with?
Do you miss the Norris adjuster?
Did you consider a button on the bun?
Does anyone tap a handled infill on the back of the handle?
What sort of hammer do you like for adjustments?
And how often do you think you would be re-sharpening the blade if you were using it on a project?



Paul.