Thread: Shooting for a plane

For mental exercise I’d often thought about how I would go about constructing shooting planes. For a woody I came up with the same concept as your laminated Mk I and I too considered a metal bodied one constructed from 3” angle iron; although I was thinking of 12mm thickness! I started to put in some serious thoughts about making an infill using steel channel... but then bought a Luban LAJ which put all my ideas to bed...

So I will be watching this build very carefully to see how you do this; already I'm impressed with your shark fin idea. I highly doubt that would have occurred to me even if I’d had the sense to knock up a wooden prototype like you did; my thoughts tended to follow either the angled tote designs of the Stanley 51 or a supplementary vertical handle like the Record T5.

Hi Ck. R + D is well underway in your shed! I have found that my grip has changed with use, most of the time. If you remember, I have a full sized traditional style handle but most of the time i use it as you would the shark fin, the webbing between my thumb and 1st finger resting against the base of the handle and my fingers on the wedge. However, using it only yesterday to clean up the ends of some moulding planes (32mm thick) I had to use the full handle to get the oomph required to slice off the end. Maybe the weight of your steel angle design will help push it through but maybe not.

Will be watching with interest, I have thought about a shooting plane and have seen some nice wooden builds but not with a 12 degree bed. Have also run the mental exercise of a build along the lines of what you are undertaking with a piece of angle iron.
A question here for our regular plane makers. I understand that a fine gap between the blade and mouth reduces tear out on a regular plane but is it as important on a shooting plane?

Great stuff, CK. As you know, I too have been thinking along similar lines, but like the side-rebates, I'm still just "thinking", & you've beaten me to the start-line again. So I'll happily sit back & watch progress; it will be much easier & far less stressful to learn from someone else's mistakes rather than my own!

But I have every confidence you'll solve any problems that try to block your way.

I now officially annoint you as the go-to bloke for plane R&D on our forum....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Cklett

I decided I want to make a shooting plane. I use the shooting board quite a bit. .....The plane will have to be made with metal sole as wood would not be able to support a 12 degree bed angle. …….

There is another way to make this shooting plane with a "12 degree bed". Actually, what you are after is a low cutting angle. 12 degree bed + 25 degree bevel = 37 degree cutting angle.

Just make a BD plane in wood with a 37 degree angle bed. This will provide all the thickness needed under the sole. It leaves enough clearance that you could even up the bevel angle to about 28 degrees.

I did this, but without the skewed mouth (which is a good idea). My plane is used on a ramped shooting board to compensate.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...lockPlane.html








For reference, I started building a Stanley #51 type plane using a steel angle beam, but is ended up too much work (I do not have metal working tools). Ended up purchasing a Stanley #51/52!

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, while I have no doubt a 37* BD plane can work as a shooter if built well & solidly like yours, there is a definite difference in the action of a BU blade coming at the work at a 12 degree axis, in my experience. Ck is an engineer so he should be able to do the maths & compare the transmission of the vector forces from cutting edge into the body of he plane, but going by empirical evidence, there is quite a difference in the feel of a BU plane cutting end-grain compared with a BD model of equivalent weight & size.

Whether the difference in feel really matters to the operation of the plane is moot, but one of the reasons I've never gotten around to making a dedicated shooting plane myself was working out a satisfactory way of building a low-angle job. The most challenging aspect of using a piece of angle for the body is broaching that ultra-low bed, unless you have access to a decent milling machine, & even then there are problems. Ck & I have had a few private discussions about the best way to go about it & I think it was me who suggested cutting out an over-large mouth so you could get hacksaws & files in, but maybe not, can't remember exactly, but we certainly discussed that problem.

I don't see it as being too difficult to fill in the gap with an adjustable mouth along the lines of the Veritas version, but in any case a fixed mouth would serve perfectly well, I think. In answer to Tony's question "is a fine mouth really necessary on a shooting plane?", I'd say not essential, but somewhat desirable. Over-large mouths tend to catch on the corner of the workpiece, which can be annoying as well as damaging to what you are trying to put a nice, clean face on. To get a file in at e required angle will need a hole of the order of 20mm beyond the end of the bed, so it would be a very large gob if you didn't back-fill! If you are going to use the plane for shooting side grain, a fine mouth would be an advantage on a single-iron machine...

Since I have only used shooting boards sporadically these last 25 years or so, let me stress my opinions are not based on regular, current experience, so feel free to shoot any holes in my arguments...

Oh, & let me assure you, Derek - the only dedicated metalworking tools you need for making metal planes are a hacksaw, a ball-peen hammer, and some files, so I won't let you get away with that feeble excuse....

Cheers,

Hi Ian .. and Ck

My intention was/is to offer Ck (and anyone else following this thread with a similar interest) an alternative to a low cutting angle shooter. The thread began with a woodie, and moved to a steel construction as the 12 degree bed became an obstacle. My eyes glazed over around this time ... too many words!

BU versus BD ... has been a strong interest of mine for yonks. I have done the comparisons, not just subjectively, but empirically ....

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...eirBlades.html

I have a Stanley #51/52. The weakness of the #51 is in the design and construction of the frog. This was fixed/corrected in the design of the LN #51, which I purchased when it was made. I love the looks of this plane. However, the plane that lives on the #52 shooting board is the Veritas Shooting Plane because it is the better user. A significant factor here is the lowered vector from the low bed.

There is no doubt in my mind that a low cutting angle is better for end grain. All I am saying is that there are other ways to achieve this, and BD (with a lowered vector) can be done if one wants a woodie.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for all the comments. I really appreciate that.

I would like to clarify, that my intent is not to show people how to make a shooting plane or what shooting plane is best. As Derek has shown, there are many different ways and designs. And most probably easier to achieve, than what I am trying to do. I have also read many of Derek's articles and appreciate them as invaluable source.

I also wish IanW would not have talked me up as being an engineer, who knows stuff. I have to further qualify, that I am a process engineer or as my physics professor back in the fatherland used to call us "Berufsdiletanten". Means "professional amateurs", we know something of everything, but nothing really well!

And you can probably see that, when I tell you that until about 2 years ago I haven't even held a plane in my hand ever. Now I am trying make something like this! Some might say I should start with something more standard. I just have the problem, that I read and see things and then I get ideas. And then I go and give it crack and see where it takes me. So in that light this project is really just me trying something out and going for a challenge.

WHen I set out for this also my plan was always to make a metal / infill plane. So even the first prototype, which looks like a woodie was thought to become an infill in the end. And that is not that I think they are better or so. The only reason for that is because I like the looks and as my 7 year old son would say "Because I want to." Pure emotion

Now in regard to BU vs BD with same cutting angle, I have a question. I had some discussion with IanW, as he stated, and helps a lot in further advancing my plans. In that we also talked about the low angle. I think we are not quite sure if it only comes down to the cutting angle, but also the angle of the blade in terms how the force is dissipated and translated into the cutting edge. I tried to find if people did some more detailed comparison of BD vs BU with same cutting angle and ease of planing end grain. My engineering brain would spontaneously think it would be interesting to do an FEA (Finite Element Analysis) of the planes to see how the forces are distributed. Only thing is I have read, that some say the low angle is also easier, because the forward force is more inline with the blade. BUt i have not found a proper comparison, where the cutting angles are the same. However, I have the daunting feeling (/hope) that a link will suddenly show up in this thread.

Further I find the use of a slanted shooting board as alternative to a skewed blade interesting. I do understand that this also achieve some kind of slicing effect of the blade in the wood, but also here the forces are in my mind a bit different. Isn't the slanted board nothing else that skewing the workpiece to the plane, than skewing the plane to the workpiece? One might think it is the same, but in the first the forward force is still perpendicular to the blade, whereas in the the latter the force is angle by let's say 20* out of the right angle. I can't hundred percent put my finger on it, but I do think these things are not exactly the same. I think when you go down to the single wood fibre it should not matter whether the workpiece is skewed or not, but if the blade comes to it in an angle relative to the direction of travel.

Anyway these are just some thoughts chasing each other in my mind. I do appreciate the experience out there and do not deny them. In the end theory can only get you so far.

Originally Posted by Cklett

....

Now in regard to BU vs BD with same cutting angle, I have a question. I had some discussion with IanW, as he stated, and helps a lot in further advancing my plans. In that we also talked about the low angle. I think we are not quite sure if it only comes down to the cutting angle, but also the angle of the blade in terms how the force is dissipated and translated into the cutting edge. I tried to find if people did some more detailed comparison of BD vs BU with same cutting angle and ease of planing end grain. My engineering brain would spontaneously think it would be interesting to do an FEA (Finite Element Analysis) of the planes to see how the forces are distributed. Only thing is I have read, that some say the low angle is also easier, because the forward force is more inline with the blade. BUt i have not found a proper comparison, where the cutting angles are the same. However, I have the daunting feeling (/hope) that a link will suddenly show up in this thread.

Further I find the use of a slanted shooting board as alternative to a skewed blade interesting. I do understand that this also achieve some kind of slicing effect of the blade in the wood, but also here the forces are in my mind a bit different. Isn't the slanted board nothing else that skewing the workpiece to the plane, than skewing the plane to the workpiece? One might think it is the same, but in the first the forward force is still perpendicular to the blade, whereas in the the latter the force is angle by let's say 20* out of the right angle. I can't hundred percent put my finger on it, but I do think these things are not exactly the same. I think when you go down to the single wood fibre it should not matter whether the workpiece is skewed or not, but if the blade comes to it in an angle relative to the direction of travel.

Anyway these are just some thoughts chasing each other in my mind. I do appreciate the experience out there and do not deny them. In the end theory can only get you so far.

Ck, when I completed the comparison of BU vs BD, using the Veritas and LN planes, bevel angles were retained as much as possible. These were 25 degrees on the BU and both 25 and 30 degrees on the BD. This maintained one set of variables. Another was maintained by using both planes on the #52 shooting board. What this comparison cannot do is also control for cutting angle. It is one or the other. I stayed with the natural presentation, since no one is going to alter that. In this situation, BU rules for edge longevity, which translates to performance in cutting.

The second issue you raise is the ramped board vs skewed blade. They are not equivalent. The skew blade imparts a skew cut, which is preferred. The 5-degree ramped board is not imparting a skewed, slicing cut. All it does is prevent a square blade entering the wood all at once. The more gradual entry reduces impact shock. The skewed blade does this as well. My recommendation for those using a plane with a square blade is ideally to use a ramped board (which is why the woodie I built does so). I use a plane with a skewed blade, and this lives on a flat board.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

....... The skew blade imparts a skew cut, which is preferred. The 5-degree ramped board is not imparting a skewed, slicing cut. All it does is prevent a square blade entering the wood all at once.....

To my simple brain, it's quite the opposite, Derek!

Ramping or skewing will both "ease the entry" into the work, for sure. But the skewed blade (on a flat board) travels parallel to the axis of whatever you're shooting, and any given point on the cutting edge is proceeding in a straight line relative to the wood: there is no "slicing" happening, as far as I can see. OTH, with a ramped board, any given point on the blade is continuously moving up relative to the axis of the wood as the plane proceeds down the ramp. In this case, there is indeed some "slicing" occurring (i.e, the blade is moving across the wood fibres).

Skewed blades on a shooting plane have always been something of a paradox to me. When using a bench plane, skewing the blade reduces the effective width of the cutting edge and so the effort required to push it through the work is reduced. In the case of shooting boards, where the blade is wider than the workpiece, you are actually presenting more cutting edge to the wood than a 'straight' blade, once the blade is fully engaged. Doesn't seem entirely logical, captain....

Cheers,

Ck, apologies if I've embarrassed you, but I'd still take a large bet that your maths would be about a thousand times better than mine! For starters, you would have done it to a much higher level than I (one of the attractions of veterinary science was there was very little maths involved! ), and you are a good deal younger and can probably remember a lot more of what you did learn!

And I love your prof's term "Berufsdiletanten" (sounds better in German!) - we had some lectures in physiology from medicos who referred to us as "Horse doctors". Well, that was one of the more printable terms.....

Cheers,

Hi Ian. In use, a skewed shooting plane does start with a very small section of blade hitting timber first allowing the slice to start a little easier. But once begun the blade is fully engaged (at least for the final cut) you're spot on.... it is even wider!

Originally Posted by IanW

To my simple brain, it's quite the opposite, Derek!

Ramping or skewing will both "ease the entry" into the work, for sure. But the skewed blade (on a flat board) travels parallel to the axis of whatever you're shooting, and any given point on the cutting edge is proceeding in a straight line relative to the wood: there is no "slicing" happening, as far as I can see. OTH, with a ramped board, any given point on the blade is continuously moving up relative to the axis of the wood as the plane proceeds down the ramp. In this case, there is indeed some "slicing" occurring (i.e, the blade is moving across the wood fibres).

Skewed blades on a shooting plane have always been something of a paradox to me. When using a bench plane, skewing the blade reduces the effective width of the cutting edge and so the effort required to push it through the work is reduced. In the case of shooting boards, where the blade is wider than the workpiece, you are actually presenting more cutting edge to the wood than a 'straight' blade, once the blade is fully engaged. Doesn't seem entirely logical, captain....

Cheers,

On reflection, Ian, I agree with your point about the slicing action of a skewed blade. However there is definitely a progressive entry into the wood, compared with a square blade. This does make quite a different. There is also a difference in the skewed-blade-on-a-flat-board compared with a square-blade-on-a-ramped-board. In my experience, the greater the skew, the less blade area presented, and the less impact felt.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by IanW

Ck, apologies if I've embarrassed you, but I'd still take a large bet that your maths would be about a thousand times better than mine! For starters, you would have done it to a much higher level than I (one of the attractions of veterinary science was there was very little maths involved! ), and you are a good deal younger and can probably remember a lot more of what you did learn!

And I love your prof's term "Berufsdiletanten" (sounds better in German!) - we had some lectures in physiology from medicos who referred to us as "Horse doctors". Well, that was one of the more printable terms.....

Cheers,

Ian, you cannot really embarrass me. I am too good in doing that already myself most of the times 😉

And to proof that here my thoughts on that with some diagrams….

As far as I see it a slanted shooting board does not cause a slicing action. For me a slicing action is when the cutting edge does have an action perpendicular to it as well as a portion along side the edge.

Slanted Board.jpg


On the slanted board the workpiece is merely skewed towards the cutting edge. But the cutting edge experiences the pushing force in a 90* angle. I do not believe the individual fibre knows about how the workpiece is shaped and presented to the plane. It will only know the attack of the blade. So in this case the blade comes in a perfect right angle and keeps travelling that way.

Slanted Board Fibre.jpg


If one wants to have a true slicing action, I believe one would need a set-up like this.

Ramped Plane Board.jpg

Where the plane is travelling on a ramp but kept in a horizontal orientation. Now the blade stays 90* upright and at same time moves downwards.

Ramped Plane Fibre.jpg

For the individual fibre the cutting edge is being pushes perpendicular to the edge but moved to the side at the same time with a resulting direction of attack on an angle to the cutting edge.


Now I am looking at a set-up, where the shooting board is completely flat but the blade is skewed in the plane.

Flat Board Skewed Plane.jpg


Here the pushing force is angled towards the cutting edge and one could argue, that this can be split into a force direction at a 90* angle towards the cutting edge and a portion alongside it, which represents an equivalent to a slicing action.

Skewed Blade Fibre.jpg


At least this is as far as my theory goes and my twisted brain explains the world to me….