I have never used an infill plane. Everyone who has seems to think that they work better than any metal bodied plane for smoothing. A wood plane does a nice job too. In my mind, the big difference between wooden planes and metal body planes is the longevity of sole, number of adjustments, and ease of adjustments. Between a metal body plane and a infill plane though? Nothing stands out. Admittedly, I am not familiar with an infill plane – I’ve only seen pictures of one.
Cost-wise, wooden planes probably cost the least and can be easily made by the user. Metal bodied planes are more expensive, and infill planes are even more expensive.
So what do you think? Which body type makes the best smoother? And why?
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
(soon to be www.flairwoodworks.com)
– Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. – Albert Schweitzer
Replies
Chris,
I have yet to find the piece of North American hardwood that I couldn't smooth with my #4, 4 1/2 yorkie, or LA Jackplane with a 60° effective cutting angle.
I once was dumb enough to buy a Norris smoother on ebay for $500.00. It was ancient, and worn out. However, it had a very tight mouth, and after a little work, it worked beautifully. For the money, though, I wasn't impressed, as it looked like a hand grenade (infill species was beech, and not very attractive). I felt lucky to sell it for $465.00 on ebay.
I have never had a really expensive infill in my hands, so I can't give a fair impression of their abilities, but if the tool I presently own gets the job done........anything beyond is just tool collecting. Oh, and not that I'm against collecting, it's just not going to improve the finish on the tabletop.
Jeff
"I have yet to find the piece of North American hardwood that I couldn't smooth with my #4, 4 1/2 yorkie, or LA Jackplane with a 60° effective cutting angle."Jeff,That's how I feel. And anything I can't plane without tearout, I can plane with very little tearout and scrape out the tearout without too much work (often).PS: Is "tearout" one word or two? My spell checker doesn't like it as one word, but it looks right to me.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Ron, I'd love to get your input on infill smoothers versus metal and wood bodied planes.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Is "tearout" one word or two?
I would say whatever! I understood what was said anyway. At least I 'think' I did? Yes, I used the question mark because it was a question to myself.
The English language is way to flexible, but then again, I believe it was a 'Traders' language used to barter for things with folks that were from almost anyplace.
Many different meanings for the same word. Gets me in trouble all the time.
I have three answers.
1) tearout.. A woodworkers word or 'Term'. As in wood fibers2) tear out.. As in I ripped out or removed some old cabinets or weeds.3) tear-out.. When I cannot think of anything better to use.
But then again I am hardly ever correct with my usage of my native language!
Try smoothing a bunch of elm. In a word it stinks. I dislike elm since my bad experience about a year ago where most all the boards ended up with significant tear out.
After flattening my doug fir workbench top, planing all wood stinks. Ok, I've been warned about elm. Now should I have a chance to work with elm, will I accept or declineChris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Flair--Go ahead and try it out. Elm's grain structure is cross-linked and that makes it a tough road to hoe. I have no plans to go head to head with elm anytime soon. Good luck .BB
As much as we talk maybe we should just move to the same neighbor hood and sit on the porch and talk.
Any way I say wooden planes make the best smoothers. That sounds totally contrary to all my endless typing about cast iron bevel ups. OK. this is where I am coming from.
Most cabinet wood is NOT bubinga or purple heart like I cut with the BUs.
The Japanese wood workers have the best blades. They make the best finish on wood possible. They use a wooden plane body.
The extremes they will go to include making a pass and sharpen the blade, make another pass and sharpen the blade and on and on.
They also wet the wood sometimes for the best finish on the last pass.
They tune their planes to make the sole perfect. The sole tuning is sophisticated. It is not flat it is sculpted. See this book which I have posted many times
http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Woodworking-Tools-Tradition-Spirit/dp/0941936465/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=booksqid=1235371834&sr=8-1
A whole different world !
The wood plane body is easy to tune by using a scraper plane. It is just a little square block with a vertical blade.
So since the sole is easier to tune one can get an even more accurate finish plane.
Yes we are talking ten thou here ( that is on the order of ~ .0001" not .010" ) whether there are those who scoff at such things or not.
For medium hard wood though or the softer woods. Their wood that they consider the ultimate is Hinoki Cypress.
Read the book then judge. Don't judge without reading the book.
roc
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Roc,I have not yet used a Japanese plane. Are they miles apart from a Krenovian plane? Now on my short list: Get a copy of Japanese Woodworking Tools and try a Japanese style plane. Do the Japanese make anything that isn't good?Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
They also wet the wood sometimes for the best finish on the last pass.
I will do that using my card scrapers. Not sure if it is the best thing to do, but works for me!
Chris,
Although some feel he is rather obsessive about plane quality (can that be all bad?) Karl Holtey has a lot of experience with infills and pure-metal planes - using and making. He has this to say on his website:
"Making infill planes based on traditional designs for over 20 years has made me very aware of their shortcomings, some of which I was able to address in my own modifications. It was inevitable though that I would take a long and serious look at planes in general, and in 2001 introduced my first all new design - the No98. Although the No98 was based on traditional design it was radical in that it dispensed entirely with infill. The infill would appear to be more of an object of sculpture than efficiency; I feel that much progress can be stifled by vanity. The No98 was very well received and similar planes have been produced by other makers".
http://www.holtey-planes.com/index.htm
Now, I know that many infill users and makers might beg to differ. There has been a previous Knots discussion in which it was opined that an infill gives no trouble from infill-wood shrinking or expansion unless the humidity varies a lot.
Bur Mr Holtey might have a point about "vanity". Does that infill impart some improved functionality or is it really to do with the image of the plane for marketing/aesthetic purposes? Not having ever used one, I don't know myself - but I could make a wild assumption. :-)
Lataxe
Lataxe,I had heard Holtey's name bounced around a bit here, but never visited his site before. I already spent a couple hours reading through Derek's tool making page on his site and will now spend some more time on Holtey's. The photography is superb, and I wouldn't expect any less.Perhaps less is more when it comes to infill?Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
First off, I do not own ANY 'fancy' planes. Just those common cheap things that work for me. The others I trash but save the blades.
"The infill would appear to be more of an object of sculpture than efficiency; I feel that much progress can be stifled by vanity"..
The perfect answer to any question I would have for using or making one.. But then again, I will not make one. Many other things to do!
object of sculpture .. I would say has ALOT to do with working your 'sticks'.. I for one just love my little junk hand planes. If they do not seem to work I have a BUNCH of card scrapers that will!
object of sculpture .. I would say it is like your new bride that was a size 7 when you married her and a size 12 after her four children. Perfect sculpture! She worked VERY hard to get to her 'perfect' size...
Just me though.
Consider that you typical woodie is functionally an infill plane. It does not matter whether the infill part is of different material than the 'shell' (wooden or metal) or whether there is a glue line between the two.
I made (pictures somewhere on the Knots) few woodies and one jack metal 'infill' (two metal smoothers are gestating right now - need time to finish them). My design simply call for an infill construction.
The woodies that I made (so far) gave me my first experience with wooden planes, and I like it. They are not, as you noticed, as dimensionally stable as the metal planes. They are light, which is sometimes desirable, but the metal planes have heft, which is desirable on other occasions. Each one can be made pretty in their own way.
I mean, if I wish to make a beautiful piece of furniture, why wouldn't I desire for a beautiful plane as well? Mr. Krenov (watch his video on this site) is rather 'unbalanced' in this respect. Of course, I share his 'dislike' for pistol grips/handles/totes <g>. At least, he realized that different woodworkers might favor different ergonomics - and created his own design, rather than merely aping traditional forms.
Best wishes,
Metod
Chris,
Even though I believe that there are some functional advantages to infill smoothing planes, especially infill planes made by contemporary plane makers. I believe that a great deal of the difference is in regards to issues concerning ease of use.
At a recent tool show that I attended this incident occurred and I think it says a lot about the difference in the planes that we're discussing.
A gentleman walked up to my bench and said "I understand that these planes don't plane a lot better than my Lie-Nielsen planes" to which I replied "that's is for the most part true, would you like to try one?"
Now I can usually tell the instant some one picks up a tool if they use hand planes a good bit and it was obvious that this gentleman knew his way around a plane.
He took two passes down a very figured curly maple board, looked up at me, smiled and said "that is different." He then proceeded to take about 5 more full width shavings off the board, stopped handed the plane back to me and said "I better stop or I'm gonna buy the damn thing."(grin)
You get the drift, it's just different and it has to be experienced to be fully appreciated.
Now what the gentleman experienced may have not made a lot of difference to the surface of the board but the feel of the tool made a lot of difference to him. Besides my opinion that a well made and tuned infill smoother can cover a wider work envelope without one having to do all kinds of special grinding of back bevels and the like, there are also some very distinctive ergonomic advantages as well.
When people try out my smoothing planes the first thing I notice them doing as they get ready to take a swipe down the board is to start putting their feet in position to dig in, so to speak, and push down firmly on the plane because this is what they do when using their standard bench planes. I don't usually say anything at first but when they go to get a second pass I instruct them to relax and apply just enough pressure to the front of the plane to index it on the board and then just relax and push forward. They are usually amazed that they can get the same result with half the effort.
The mass of most contemporary smoothing planes will do a lot of the work for you if you just allow it to do so. That mass is also some of the difference that I am referring to in regards to the tools made by contemporary plane makers as compared to older infill planes like the one Jeff had experience with. Newer planes made by reputable makers are more precisely crafted, have more mass, the parts work together more collectively than older planes and that is a great deal of the difference. In the right hands the older plane can be made to work well but sometimes what is necessary to achieve this is either more work than that person has the time to commit or they don't posses the expertise to do some of the work, which in many instances could involve new infills. A lot of the older infills that are available were also craftsman made which means they may not have been particularly good planes in their beginning. A poorly made infill won't function on parr with a well made, metal bodied bench plane.
The other consideration that is a distinctive difference between bench planes and even the older infills is bedding angles. Once again this is an area where the individuals making these planes today have a bit of a different attitude than the good folks that came before us. If you study the configuration of the historic tools you will find most bedded at angles no steeper than 47.5 degrees. I don't make a plane with less than York pitch (50 degrees) and offer planes bedded at 55 degrees. This is due to the fact that most woodworkers that use hand tools a great deal have a good compliment of bench planes, when they look to purchase an infill for smoothing they are typically looking for a tool that will be a final pass smoother. This becomes almost another category planes that might be called" Finishing Planes" and these tools are usually looked at as the tool that can accomplish difficult planing task more easily and with less tweaking than a tricked up bench plane.
When asked about which bedding angle I would suggest for a infill smoother, the first thing I want to know is what tools does the person already own. I always suggest that people start with a 50 degree infill plane (unless they own one already) and I've found that this tool, well tuned will plane 85% of all the woods that they will hope to encounter. For the other 15% they will probably need to go to a 55 degree plane, but to me that's a luxury tool, albeit one that I would want to own.
In summary a person that does a lot of woodworking would benefit from the improved ergonomics of these tools and the advantage of the mass that would certainly come into play for a person that does a lot of planning everyday. They would also benefit from the fact that these tools are capable of working a wide range of woods and figure without special tweaking. I have no doubt that Jeff can accomplish these same task with his top end bench planes with special grinding and tweaking, and he most likely has an assortment of irons for that plane each ground for a specific application, but it would very convenient if he had a tool that was made specifically with these task in mind. So like I said it comes down to ease of use.
As an analogy, I used to have a 16" band saw. I could coax that saw into doing the work that I needed to do including re-sawing wider stock, however doing this work taxed the limits of this saw and made me work quite hard to accomplish these task. I now have a larger, heavier framed saw with more power and the task that once involved intensive set up and effort on my part are now very easy to accomplish with a minimum of effort.
Let me make a distinction as to my comments. Most of my references were in comparison of infill planes to high quality Bailey pattern bench planes and I did not include many comments concerning wooden bodied planes. I don't have enough extensive experience with wooden bodies planes, especially in regards to the Japanese version to make an educated comparison. Therefore I refrained from doing so, considering that any comments that I made would have only been based in opinion and conjecture and not based on real world comparisons.
Ron Brese
Ron,
Great to read an unbiased sensible response , without other agendas or sweeping statements of condemnation.Philip Marcou
Philip,
I thought that infomercials...can have some bias.
On the other hand, Krenov style planes are popular with many woodworkers, even gooder ones <g>.
A particular geometry embodies a certain ergonomics. If one wants a different ergonomics, a different geometry is needed. It could be pretty obvious, though.Metod
Mr B,
As Philp says, a very illuminating and informative post, not to mention readable.
One question though - actually the original question I think: what difference does the infill itself make when comparing a high end all metal plane (say a Marcou or a Holtey) with an infill plane of the same configuration (length, weight, blade, bed & cutting geometry)? Does the presence of the wood infill provide some extra or different kind of function or significant user-feel?
As your post describes, heavy-duty materials, precision of manufacture and modern design all make a difference and an improvement over mas-produced planes, even ones as good as those from LN and LV. But does the presence of the wood in an infill plane contribute to that difference/improvement?
Lataxe, who often looks at posh, modern infills such as yours; and lusts.
Lataxe, As is obvious, a large part of the plane body cavity is filled with wood making the infill plane a unified mass. This unified mass is the key difference and I believe the reason the feel is different in use. Some say that the infill has a dampening effect. This tends to imply that the wooden infill has the ability to absorb and dissipate any shock or stress that may occur in the using of the plane. I'm not necessarily an advocate of that idea. I guess in theory it might have that effect, however I would much rather have the iron solidly bedded on the bed angle section of the metal sole in preference to the wooden infill in that area. Of course the goal is to be solidly bedded on both. If the iron is not bedded solidly to the sole, the infill and held fast by the lever cap, all the dampening ability in the world will not make the plane function to a high standard.I don't think that enough credit is given to the lever cap in these tools. A well designed lever cap in regards to it's shape, mass and position in the plane can have a great effect on the function of that tool. The lever cap coupled with the unified mass of these tools makes for a very solid feel in the cut. It is important however for the lever cap to be properly tuned to the back of the iron. Failure to ensure this connection can make the tool behave erratically in the cut and it will also make the tool difficult to adjust with predictable results. Once again, poor contact between these parts can be the culprit of poor performance in older planes. Tuned properly these lever caps can achieve great leverage which helps enormously in the endeavor to hold the iron firmly in place. In fact a proper lever cap does this job so well, that when a plane that was well adjusted starts to perform at less than optimum, it is most likely an indication of the iron needing a fresh edge rather than the need for further adjustment.I've had the privilege of using one of my 875 smoothers and a Marcou 50P side by side. They are both very fine tools if I say so myself. They both yielded wonderful results on the test timber. They felt distinctly different in their use and of course the presence of the wooden infill in one and the lack of a wooden infill in the other most assuredly was some of the difference. They both had decidedly different ergonomics especially in regards to the rear tote and that could account for the some of the difference as well. To have two tools of this quality at my disposal even for a short period of time was an envious position to find myself. The next week I shipped Philip's 50P off to Nate Meadows and the 875 to one of my customers and alas I was without again, save for a few not exactly prototypes left at my disposal. As you know the Cobblers children have no shoes and most plumbers have leaky pipes and dripping faucets. (grin)I hope I've helped to answer some questions and to somewhat de-mystify these planes. Ron BreseIf you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
Ron,Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the subject. I also found your prose very readable, descriptive and informative. Though I've never held an infill plane such as yours, I can somehow imagine the difference from a Veritas or LN.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
It must be that up and down time line somewhere in the Pacific,but I always seem to be the last to get to Knots!
I can only agree with your other respondants.I am not an experienced w/worker,nor as plane-savvy as those people,but to me,your writing is clear,reasoned,and without predjudice.
Thank you,you have added mightily to my knowledge.
Robin
Ron
You are a gentleman and altogether too modest about the qualities of your planes.
Even though I have not yet completed my small smoother kit, I know it will be superb. All I have to do is add the infill, and do so accurately. The shell is taut and hefty for its size, which makes for a great foundation.
Mine is an all-steel version of this ...
View Image
My description above could summarise the ingredients of a super smoother. However there are many exceptions to the rule, and trying to separate out what makes a great smoother, as Chris asked, is fraught with contradictions.
Mass can be a big factor. Planes such as Philip constructs. They are monsters in the mass department.
View Image
Yet I obtain fantastic performance from light woodies, such as the HNT Gordon ..
View Image
So I tend to discount mass, per se, as a big issue. More mass certainly can make a difference - witness those who use a #7 as a smoother. And then again, I am sure that Larry would state that his woodies are no slouch in smoothing difficult grain. And they do have a superb reputation in this department.
Is it the wood or wooden infill that makes such a difference? Well Karl Holtey does not think so. What one is not aware of, when looking at his infill planes, is that he rests the blades on steel or brass pillars, not on the wood infill itself. He does not trust the wood to be reliable.
View Image
One of the important features in my opinion is the cutting angle. As you noted, you do not build BD planes with beds under 50 degrees. I actually specified 60 degrees on my smoother kit. The fact is, the best set up smoother with an accompanying razor sharp blade and solid construction will under-perform in hard Australian Eucalypts with a cutting angle under 55 degrees. Greater is prefered.
In fact, I think that a higher cutting angle can help overcome deficiences in other areas. My little Stanley #3-based infill is one of the best performers I have used. No lie. The blade is 3/16" thick and the included angle is 60 degrees on a bed of 25 degrees.
View Image
Still, not all smoothers need or even benefit from a high cutting angle. It is horses for courses. For softer, straight grained woods I can get superb performance, such as from a simple Krenov smoother with a common pitch...
View Image
And Japanese smoothers tend to have a bed around 40-45 degrees. These designs then usher in the part played by the iron. Thicker is clearly better. But is this additive or a primary factor in performance?
Chris, you asked about vintage infills. I have a totally renovated Spier (I had to replace all the infill). It performs about as well as a LN #4 1/2. I prefer its balance - it is a lighter plane. But I would not use it for finishing work on difficult grain. I would not use any plane with a common pitch. But that reflects my conditions. Yours will differ, and a lower pitch may be very suitable for you.
View Image
Ron, your remark about the planing stance is insightful. Does it reflect the "expected" fight the planer is to have - as he fights with his own planes in his workshop?
Time to get back to work ..
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 2/24/2009 12:30 am ET by derekcohen
>totally renovated Spier<Derek,If you ever get tired of looking at this one you are welcome to park it in my shop for a decade or so. No problem. Free of charge !rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
It is late on a Monday evening in Juneau, I've been working away at the details for all the nuts and bolts stuff on the new shop for which we'll break ground as soon as it's thawed, and then I came across those pictures of yours -- all I can say is I'm already anxious and that didn't help. All those tools, all that wood, all those ideas, and here I sit in front of a damn computer!! argh!!Verne
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to cut it up and make something with it . . . what a waste!<!----><!----><!---->
>little Stanley #3-based infill is one of the best performers I have used. . . on a bed of 25 degrees.<Does this bear out what Larry was saying about clearance ?Do you have enough throat opening on this one to take a jack plane thickness cut ? How does it do ?You are making me want to start using my big Lie-Nielsen miter plane ( 20° bed ) for general jack planing on my bubinga until I can make a bevel up infill jack with a bed of 25°.So I can get more depth of cut for medium ( jack ) planing in the hard stuff and still have the superior edge support of a BU throat.Will LN be introducing the 25° BU jack next year as the revolutionary new addition to their 2010 product line ? What do you charge to make one of these for sale ?rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
>little Stanley #3-based infill is one of the best performers I have used. . . on a bed of 25 degrees.<
Does this bear out what Larry was saying about clearance ?
Do you have enough throat opening on this one to take a jack plane thickness cut ? How does it do ?
Hi Roc
I used a 25 degree bed on the little BU smoother for two reasons: firstly, I wanted to avoid the need for a secondary bevel. With a 25 degree bed I can still freehand a camber on a 35 degree hollow grind. Secondly, the 25 degree bed was aimed at reducing a wear bevel. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, I strop both the front and the back of my blades to maintain the edge, so I do not see the effects of a wear bevel.
The mouth on this plane is very tight. It was intended as a finish smoother, and it does this task very well.
For a jack-type shaving on a BU plane, you need to follow my method here.
Will LN be introducing the 25° BU jack next year as the revolutionary new addition to their 2010 product line ? What do you charge to make one of these for sale ?
I cannot see either LN or LV changing the format of their LA Jack from 12 degree to 20- or 25 degree beds. This plane is prized for its versatility. Similar reasons for keeping the LA Smoother as is. On the other hand, a dedicated smoother such as the LV BU Smoother would likely benefit from a higher bed. I have no idea if this is on the drawing board.
Why don't you make an infill smoother for yourself with a Stanley base. It is a really easy project.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek
I was interested to note that your opinion of your Spiers was about the same that I had of my Norris. It was a nice plane, but no better than my 4 1/2 from LN. That is why I sold it after a short stint in my plane rack. It wasn't as overly impressive a smoother as I'd read that they can be. I'm sure there are Norris infills out there in much better condition than mine that are better smoothers than the one I had, but I just haven't had the pleasure to meet one yet.
One of these days, after several of my empty Glen Morangie tins are filled to the brim with nickels, dimes, quarters, and hundred dollar bills, I'm going to get a bevel up from Philip, and a 55° infill from Ronny. Then, I'll be able to experience exactly what Ron stated in his very informative and thought provoking comment earlier in this thread.
Jeff waiting and waiting for his two yoots to graduate college
The beech infills were a cheaper alternative to the rosewood ones (which have a bit more mass to them). Some people don't even see them as "real" infills.
Handplane Central
The joys of ebay. When I bought it, the seller said it was a rosewood infill, and the pictures were lousy. I've learned quite a bit since then......don't trust sellers on ebay.
Jeff
Derek,OK tonight I settled in with a couple of bowls of soup and read many of your plane and saw Tool Reviews. I have not tested every tool that you have, obviously ( you are surprisingly prolific ), but the ones that I have carefully spent time evaluating I agree down the line.The only area that I got a little side ways on was the skate side ways sharpener and I did not read that review. Yet.To get to the point of my post . . . I want to know . . . what I want to know is . . . how the heck do we get one of lwilliam's planes into your Tool Reviews ? ? ?I get the idea that those in the know know that will never happen.Well in the words of Dirk Gently ( written by Douglas Adams ) ". . . let us go . . . let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."I want to read your review of the steep bed wooden plane by LW ! Not to discredit it. No way ! Just simply to know more about them.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Hi roc, you ol' stirrer you :)
Actually I would love to try one of Larry's planes. I hear wonderful things about his planes, and they look just right to me. Of course, I would need one that was bedded at least at 55 degrees.
It is unlikely to happen.
There is Larry-the-Planemaker and there is Larry-the-Forum-Member. Not many would believe that they are one and the same person.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Wow, Chris, are you ever going to ignite a debate with this topic. My perspective might be somewhat unique. I have very high-end contemporary infills made by Konrad Sauer, collectible quality antique infills by Norris, antique tuned Stanleys, Lie Nielsen planes, Lee Valley Planes, and wooden jacks, smoothers and jointers.
If you're primarily working well-behaved, not too hard wood, my thought is that you will never notice a difference between a well tuned wooden plane and an infill that costs thousands (antique or contemporary). The choice in this case is whether you wish to go to the trouble of "throating" a wooden smoother and tuning it, then maintaining that tuning through seasonal humidity changes, and using your body mass to press the plane down to the wood.
When you start to work highly figured woods, things turn out differently. While I use and like my Lie Nielsen planes, they do not perform as well as the infill planes on highly curled maple, regardless of whether I'm using the 55 degree HAF and a closed mouth. The wooden planes, even the ones with a very fine mouth opening, tear out curly maple with abandon.
The only way you can really decide this issue is probably to beg, borrow, or steal a good infill and make an assessment as to whether the cost is worth it to you. My only caution is to discard opinions that have a tone of "you have to be insane to spend over the $60 that an antique Stanley and a hock blade costs". These opinions tend to be colored with the progenator's opinions about spending money on anything, and have the world view of "the surface left behind by an inexpensive plane is certainly good enough, because it can be corrected with sandpaper or a scraper". While true, it misses the point entirely.
David,Good to hear from you. I always value your thoughts.You make a good point about wooden smoothers. On my wooden block I made and use only to chamfer edge, flatness of sole is practically a non-issue. Maintenance. Do you have a theory as to why infills do a better job than your metal body planes on difficult woods?My experiences are limited to metal bodied planes and wooden planes, however I have been invited by a fellow Knothead to try his infills. Can't wait. I have definitely gotten over spending a few hundred for a plane. Not quite ready for a couple thousand yet though...With an ever-changing perspective,Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com(soon to be http://www.flairwoodworks.com)
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
What exactly is the "point" entirely? I'm more of a spendthrift than a tightwad, and I'd very much like a lovely infill or ten, but don't imagine my woodworking would really be the better for it. Is the point that it's more pleasurable and satisfying to achieve a clean surface with the infill than achieve an indistinguishable (at least under any finish) surface from a scraper or sandpaper?
"What exactly is the "point" entirely? I'm more of a spendthrift than a tightwad, and I'd very much like a lovely infill or ten, but don't imagine my woodworking would really be the better for it. Is the point that it's more pleasurable and satisfying to achieve a clean surface with the infill than achieve an indistinguishable (at least under any finish) surface from a scraper or sandpaper?"
My point to Chris is that I've seen a great number of comments on Chris Schwarz' blog, comments here, and comments on other forums that decry the cost of just about anything over a beat up Stanley #5 at a flea market (and I have and use one of those, by the way). It's fairly rare that those opinions directed at Philip Marcou's planes, or antique British infills, or Korad Sauer's products are from people that have actually owned and used one of those.
From that perspective, there is no need for a handplane at all - you can easily achieve something that's quite close with a random orbit sander, and any board that won't fit your planer can be ripped into sections on a table saw.
But this misses the point that it's not purely about function. There is no need for any car that can take a curve at 80 mph or has 300 hp - plain brown 1980's Hondas with 80 hp will absolutely get you from point A to point B.
Carrying this analogy further, there is no need for chisels to come with anything other than polybutyrate handles - plastic is far tougher and more shock absorbent than wood.
Finally, it's not only the function vs. experience argument. You can most definitely tell the difference between a hand-planed surface and one that's been heavily sanded through a finish - unless said finish is heavy polyurethane (ee yuch).
I was not trying to be provocative. I really wanted to know: what are the benefits? What is the value in your eyes and to your hands?
Instead you've become defensive and made rather ridiculous points by taking things to extremes. We are comparing a LN to an high quality infill; we are not comparing infills to random orbit sanders. We could likewise compare vintage Stanleys to LNs.
My personal experience is that the higher quality planes do perform incrementally better, especially on tougher grains. No doubt my skill is lacking, but I have run in to boards where a plane was not the best alternative to achieving a flat smooth surface. You may hate scrapers, but they do very well on such grains. And again, I assume it's because I'm a hack, but I certainly can't tell the difference between a well scraped or well planed board under oil, varnish, or shellac.
I wonder if certain hobbiests don't afford themselves infill because they don't see their skills as warranting the expense. I golf sometimes (happy to break 100), but my game would be no better with the most expensive clubs in the world, and I might feel like kind of a twit carrying them around the clubhouse and the course. Better to put the money to lessons, for example.
Samson,"I wonder if certain hobbiests don't afford themselves infill because they don't see their skills as warranting the expense."You could look at it this way: For many of us hobbyists, the time in our shops is not money but leisure/fun. With lesser skills than those for quality woodworking, a bit of learning/experimenting, simple tools (see Handplane Central for excellent guidance and contagious encouragement), about $50 -$80 for the material (at internet retail prices), several hours of work (remember: leisure/fun) and you finish with a plane that my some $300 LNs (no experience with LV)could only wish to be. Just my experience. Select a woodie-like design (say, Krenov style lends to this nicely), where all the adjustments (lateral and depth) can be done by light tapping. I do prefer a lever cap to a wedge - less fuss during planing. I understand that adjuster mechanisms (beyond my skill) are available (which might nix the price point, though).
Best wishes,
"Instead you've become defensive and made rather ridiculous points by taking things to extremes."
No, Sean - You'll have to take my word for it, but I'm about as unemotional a person as you're ever likely to meet - many find that to be true to the point of irritation.
You should also know that making a point by considering the extremes is quite common in the engineering and scientific world - it's what we're trained to do. The intent here is to compare two extremes and draw conclusions based on the knowledge that those two extremes bracket the real case. It's a pretty effective way of estimating.
I had two very real points here - many, many that issue comments about infills not only don't own any (or have used any), but also have a world view that tends toward "function only - all other expenditures are superfluous", and they tend to lump anyone that would spend $1500 or more on a plane to be "silly" (and that's a kind paraphrasing). While I think that individuals with this viewpoint are a normal and acceptable part of society, I also think that attitude really misses the point of a lot of things - Ferraris, fine art, filet mignon, etc...
The point is that many people buy and love things that have a marginal qualifiable benefit over a thing of lesser quality/cost/difficulty of manufacture. The comment about a random orbit sander/planer combo is most definitely in this vien. There are many, many WWs out there that absolutely do not understand why anyone would bother with a handplane when a planer and a sander will get "close enough". If utterly "get 'er done" criteria is applied and judged on ultimate efficiency, it's hard to argue for handtools at all. There are, of course, arguments for handtools above and beyond efficiency, and in my opinion they're the most efficient tools in certain circumstances, but many, perhaps even the majority of WWs would not accept those arguments.
The second point is that I do not find any difference in quality of surface between woodies (re-throated to close the mouth, BTW), stanleys, Lie-Nielsens, or infills in well-behaved grain. However, I do find performance differences in difficult grain. I don't hate scrapers, but I do think it's worthwhile to spend the money on a handplane that I find I can plane with and produce no or very little tearout on figured grain because it's a lot more efficient than a scraper (and also a lot more comfortable).
Larry - I would note that, if I understand this correctly, you use a wooden smoother with a 55 degree iron set. I've little doubt that considerably improves a woodie's performance in tough situations (or any plane, for that matter). What I noted is simply that my re-throated and tuned woodies are really not suitable on really curly maple, and a couple of infills that I own with the same 45 degree bed do not tear out said maple anything like those planes. There are many possible attributions for this performance over and above the weight of the infill and any possible dampening effect of the infill wood. For example, while the mouth on these re-throated woodies are exceptionally fine compared to almost any plane on the used market (generally, about 5-10 thousandths of an inch), they are not as fine as the mouth on either the Norris smoother nor the Konrad Saers that I own - they are about 3 thousandths of an inch when set to take about a thousandths shaving.
Edited 2/26/2009 12:48 pm ET by dkellernc
Hello,
I just wanted to respond to your comment with agreement, I think, If I am understanding you correctly. Personally I use wooden planes that I make and find them to be absolutely wonderful to use. Part of that joy comes from the fact that I make them. But, I also droole over the custom made metal planes that I see and would in a heart beat buy one if I could afford it.
Not so much because I feel that they would necessarily do a better job, I will take your word that they will, but mostly because I am confident that I would truely enjoy using them. To experience that, whatever expense involved, would not be my concern, again if I could aford it.
I have a friend who is an avid fisherman and he uses some quite expensive gear. I told him once that the fish don't care what he uses; they don't know the difference between an "Ugly Stick" from KMart and a custom split bamboo rod and it won't make him a better fisherman; his response was that "he knows" and it makes it more enjoyable for him to use it.
I enjoy cooking as well as woodworking and I enjoy cooking with what might be considered by some to be unnecessary and too expensive cookware and cutlery because you can do the same thing with a $10.00 fry pan from Walmart. But again, it makes the journey so much more pleasurable for me and as a result I think I cook better eventhough no one could tell the difference if I did use a $10.00 pan from Walmart.
As another example; I have a affinity for very expensive neck ties and socks. People think I am nuts to spend $200.00 on a tie and $50.00 for a pair of socks because again, you can pick up a cheap tie and socks at Walmart that will do the job, the cheap ones would be just as functional. But there is such a difference in a $200.00 tie verses a $10.00 tie, but only those who can and do appreciate that differnce will understand.
Anyway, my "opinion" is that many of us will buy and use things that would be considered "silly" due to the cost of said item because we enjoy using them and in many cases we do do a better job because of that; it has little to do with function. At the same time I also believe that there is a significant difference in performance, feel and look of many items that would be looked upon as too expensive and a waste of money compared to their less expensive counterparts.
Try a $200.00 neck tie and you will know what I am talking about. LOL
joker,
I tell my wife that good hand planes are like love-making. It's the enjoyment, damned all the associated 'costs'. And then she's off to shopping...
best wishes,
Metod
Absolutely!!!
<g>
Metod
Same with Fine bicycles but there is a fair amount of dif in performance especially in the tires.Fine old lugged frame high end bicycles. Makes all the difference in the total experience ! Part of it is the old school look, hand pin striping around the lugs thinner nicer decals UNDER the clear coat rather than these stuck on sheets on the new stuff.BUT !A good part of the pleasure of old high end bikes is found when you take them apart to clean them ( or just take them apart and put back together like a puzzle or a fine gun ). Things just are so nice to work on !No body wants to work on their own stuff any more.The new modern unobtainium fat tubed bird $hit welded ( rather than silver brazed jewelry quality joints ) is just a pain in the rear to work on. Fight to get it apart, fight to get it together. The parts up close often are disappointing; lumpy welds or plastic with stickers rather than nice castings with all metal embellishments.And don't even get me started on the tires. Used to be Egyptian cotton and silk with hand vulcanized super thin treads aged in a cellar like wine. Not kidding, hardens the rubber tread and lets the solvents etc cure. Now it is OH MY GOD GIVE ME THE THICK UNRESPONSIVE STUFF BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX A FLAT OR CHANGE A TUBULAR. I lived where it might have gotten an award for being the thorn capital of the world. You learn where to ride and where not to ride on the surface. Haven't lived until you have ridden a silk tubular on a criterium coarse. Ever drift a skinny tire bike on pavement? Every day after school ! Around and around the park lap after lap. Silks were that predictable ! So thin and hard they hissed on the pavement the whole ride. God I miss 'em . . .BaaaahhhhhhrocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )Edited 2/26/2009 4:09 pm by rocEdited 2/26/2009 4:12 pm by roc
Edited 2/26/2009 4:16 pm by roc
Excellent example; There's all kinds of things in our lives that we do and buy and experience that go way beyond just function. Life would be incredibly boring if we didn't.
I would like to say that I built some beautiful piece of furniture with a spoon and a butter knife; but it would sure be alot more enjoyable to make it with some beautiful fine tools that make music when you use them.
Thanks again for the example
Joker,You are right. A few nice things here and there.
Why not enjoy tools as well as what one can produce with them.Also buying nice things now and then suports the builders of nice things. Raises us all up. Isn't that the dream of many of us ? Do a good job and have a market for what each of us makes or sells.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
You betcha! Now I'm not advocating that only the best most expensive anything is the only way to go and that one can't do great work, any kind of work, with modest, simple tools, because I think most of us know that we can.
But every once in a while, like you said here and there, we buy that special tool or whatever; maybe really expensive, but boy does it make the journey fun.
Have a great day
> I don't hate scrapers<OK I'll hate them for you. I been trying to "fettle" this thick Clifton and it is a piece of dirt. The sides are so wavy from being stamped out that the side is proud of the edge and I can't bring the area rubbed on the stone down to the edge with out a bunch of nonsense.There are sort of good ones out there but this isn't one of them.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
"My only caution is to discard opinions that have a tone of "you have to be insane to spend over the $60 that an antique Stanley and a hock blade costs". These opinions tend to be colored with the progenator's opinions about spending money on anything, and have the world view of "the surface left behind by an inexpensive plane is certainly good enough, because it can be corrected with sandpaper or a scraper". While true, it misses the point entirely."
That is very neat, especially the part about spending money on anything. Sadly, this type of person often has quite a lot of money, but no joy in life.A black Ford model T is right for him.Philip Marcou
Has this thread about run its course? I wish there had been more real information.
There's been some stuff that's just not accurate. For instance David wrote "...he wooden planes, even the ones with a very fine mouth opening, tear out curly maple with abandon..." Really? Were did all those 18th Century curly maple pieces come from? Are we being told the history of infills goes back further than has been documented?
David's comment also runs counter to my experience. We used to do tool collector shows and took a highly tuned Norris A-5 and a LN 164 for people to compare on curly hard maple and other difficult woods. We sold a lot of smooth planes doing that. The Norris was the most highly tuned Norris I've ever held in my hands. Once when demonstrating at the Williamsburg Conference we forgot to take any difficult woods and borrowed a piece of curly maple from Mack Headly but he only had curly soft maple. There was a lot of curl but the stuff was mild compared to curly hard maple. The Norris did okay with that and a guy who had an unresolved case of infill disorder offered me twice the going rate for that A-5. I took his money.
BTW, contrary to what you might read, there are a lot of skilled woodworkers who attend tool collector meets. It would be really stupid to try to compare your average A-5 to another plane. One of the more skilled and knowledgeable woodworker/tool collectors once picked up that Norris and said, "Hmmm, this is no slouch Norris."
Re-mouthing a wooden plane has been mentioned here. Yes, that can be necessary after a lifetime of hard use but it's easily done. What's never talked about is the wear to the mouth of a metal plane. My old user #4 is an example. When originally tuning that plane I spent a few days lapping its sole. I don't remember how long, it's been a while. I went through a lot of dollars worth of SC sand paper. I never quite got rid of all the wear but I got most of it. I used that plane quite a bit but still only about 1/2" of the lateral adjuster is showing above the original iron. That iron still has most of its life left. Here's the sole now:
View Image
It's impossible to set a tight mouth on a plane with even moderate wear at the mouth.
As you can see in the photo, most of that wear is back. Heat is a catalyst to wear in metal and there's a lot of heat generated at the mouth of a plane. That heat is what's responsible for the wear to the mouth of my #4. Heat has little effect on the wear properties of wood until you get the wood hot enough to char the sole. I've never seen any charring on of the sole of a wooden plane as a result of use but I have gotten them hot enough to scorch them.
I could re-mouth several lifetimes worth of wooden plane wear in less time than it would take to lap the wear from the mouth of my #4. I doubt many reading here have the surface grinders or milling machines in their shops that would make fixing the sole of my #4 relatively easy and quick but I'll bet nearly everyone has the tools needed to re-mouth a wooden planes should they obtain one that's seen a lifetime of use or considerable abuse.
I keep seeing it implied that weight and mass are an advantage in a plane.
There used to be a carpenter named Eric Coyle who posted here on Knots and in some other woodworking forums. After he moved from Montreal to Calgary he used the name "cowtown eric" or just "cowtown."
I think it was here that he posted about the time he needed to straighten and finish some large beams or timbers. He started out with a Stanley #8 but soon realized the plane was working him rather than the other way around. He went to his shop and tuned up a Stanley wood bottom plane. He found he could work all day with the lighter plane where he couldn't with the #8. Maybe that post is languishing in the archives but I don't have time to look for it.
Eric's experience doesn't appear to be unusual. Go look at US patents for metal planes. I was surprised how frequently the different patents contained a claimed improvement of a lighter plane. Most of those patents are from the last half of the 19th Century or the first half of the 20th Century when the target market for these tools made their living with them and were likely to do more than make a few shavings every now and then. They certainly weren't intended as vanity purchases or shelf jewelry.
It's been said in this thread that infill smooth planes are only for final finishing. I thought that is what a smooth plane does. That was the traditional use anyway. In his 1736 Builder's Dictionary Richard Neve said "The Smoothing-Plane, so called from its Use to smooth or finish the planeing Work, the Iron of which is set fine for that Purpose; it is about 6 or 7 Inches in Length."
I think Chris should have asked, "What properties or features should I look for in a smooth plane?" I think it would have been better to discuss things like cutting geometry, solid bedding of irons, adjustment methods, heat sinks, hammer refining of tool steel, ergonomics and other topics that seem to never enter these discussions. Maybe I should just go with the flow and post a photo of the little elm table I made for my daughter to do all her art work on when she was little. I didn't have any trouble handling pallet elm that came from 4 X 4 sleepers used to ship metal buildings. It certainly hadn't been cut or graded for furniture or finish work. I guess I didn't know better back then and thought I could work that wood without a smooth plane that cost multiple thousands of dollars.
i,
okay, i'd be delighted to hear what properties you look for in a smoother. a few months ago i spent considerable time tuning my three stanley planes and one wooden scrub. if i find that what you describe as a well tuned plane matches what i have, that would make my day.
so, thank you in advance for you observations.
eef
also, i gather that mouth opening in a wooden or a metal plane is a critical issue. how does one correct the problem in a wooden plane? can one correct a too great opening in a metal plane?
Edited 2/26/2009 4:21 pm ET by Eef
Let's start with the last question, "Can you close the mouth of a metal plane?" Yes, a thicker iron will close the mouth or you may be able to shim behind the iron.All the steps to tuning a plane would take a book-length post and it would be pretty redundant, it's mostly been covered frequently. Things often missing from that information are recreating a crisp arris at the leading edge of the mouth, clearance angles and improving the quality of the bedding of the iron. Improving the bedding of a Stanley frog is difficult because you have to work around the lateral adjustment lever or remove the lever. Removing the lever is dangerous because you need to pound out the rivet holding the lever in place and you have to reinstall it all on a brittle casting. Clearance angles are more in the realm of sharpening, and fixing the leading edge of the mouth involves lapping and some accurate file work. One of the reasons I sold the Norris I wrote about is that it was beginning to show wear at its mouth. I'd already lapped it once before when I tuned it up and lapping opens the mouth a little which would mean I'd have to make another new iron. While the wear on the mouth wasn't yet bad, it was growing and the plane had really seen relatively little use. It was getting obvious that if I wanted to continue using that plane at shows for demonstration I would have to completely re-tune it every couple of years. That just wasn't something I wanted to spend time doing.
i,
thanks for the response. when tuning my planes, i was able to flatten the frogs without removing the rivets. not easy, but i did it. is the arris the leading edge of the mouth? is the goal to file this straight, smooth,square?
eef
Larry,
Just a small point: you mention "pounding out the rivet" when removing the lateral lever from the delicate frog. I suggest it is easily , safely and quickly done by drilling it out, and the replacement can be in the form of what I know as a tinsmith's rivet which peens nicely.I have also use brass rivets which were used to rivet brake shoes-but I doubt if one gets those now in the States unless Grandpappy squirreled away a few in the Model T tool box.
I don't understand why you say that lapping the mouth of your Norris would open the mouth: the few Norris planes I have seen all had a small vertical before the front sloped forward,or the rear became the ramp, so one would have to remove a lot of metal before the mouth opening started to be affected.Philip Marcou
Philip,
"...I don't understand why you say that lapping the mouth of your Norris would open the mouth: the few Norris planes I have seen all had a small vertical before the front sloped forward,or the rear became the ramp, so one would have to remove a lot of metal before the mouth opening started to be affected."
Yes, there is a small vertical flat at the front of the mouth but the iron is angled at 47 1/2º. When trying to maintain a mouth opening of .004" or less, it doesn't take much coming off the sole to change the opening. The two surfaces form a kind of "V" shape with one leg vertical and the other angled at 47 1/2º you don't have to remove much from the bottom of that "V" to open the mouth quite a bit.
"...----I suggest to you that a)a cabinet maker allowing the sole of a smoothing plane to get into that state is abusing the tool/not using it for what it is meant to be used for and b)a fairly regular light maintenance session on a flat surface with an abrasive would maintain the sole of a cast iron smoother so that it does not have wear around the mouth.
By fairly regular I mean something like once every two years or so..."
In hindsight, Philip, I probably should have lapped the soles of my iron planes each time I ground the irons. But wear isn't supposed to be an issue with metal planes. If I had realized the extra maintenance involved in metal planes, I probably would have switched to wooden planes earlier.
When I first tuned that #4, I was just trying to teach myself about hand planes, following all the literature out there. I had started out lapping that sole to remove the pitting and during the process noticed the wear at the mouth. Removing that wear became the goal during the process. As you can see in the photo, even some of the pitting still remains along the side of the sole.
Over the years since, I've come to use the wear at the mouth as a sort of litmus test to see if those writing about tuning or using hand planes actually uses planes in their work or if they're only generating income writing articles. You know, this wear issue to absolutely the most critical part of the sole is almost never mentioned. The supposed wear issue of wooden planes is frequently mentioned but what is almost always attributed as wear to the sole of a wooden plane actually comes from overly aggressive and ham-fisted seasonal tuning. The infrequent seasonal tuning I do to my wooden planes takes about 30 seconds per plane. Lapping wear from the mouth of an iron plane each time the iron is ground would take considerably longer, be more frequent and make a mess that isn't an issue when tuning a wooden plane. It'd take me longer to just clean up the mess from lapping a metal plane than to do the whole job on a wooden plane.
Heat generated during use is a big issue in hand planes. It's the main cause of dulling and much of the maintenance. A friend who's a timber framer once told me about his re-mouthing of a wood bottom Bailey plane with a brass insert. He obviously didn't understand the horrible wear properties of brass but that wasn't the problem with his reworked plane. The brass was isolated and there was no other metal touching it to dissipate the heat. After even a little use, if he picked up that plane and touched his brass insert he would burn himself. That brass was well insulated by the wood and would retain heat for a relatively long time.
Larry,
You are an enigma.Here, this is what I don't understand:
You are talking of a #4 Stanley type which at 45 degrees cutting angle is a compromise and therefore that plane is a general purpose smoother used for all kinds of things: hardly something one would connect with 4thou mouth gaps and other specs appropriate to planes dedicated to making wisp shavings only for use on curly stuff. In fact the sole of that #4 you show makes my point-it has been used to hell and back to remove lots of material as quickly as possible. So all one needs to do in this case is maintain that sole flat and in good condition -easy to do for any cabinet making application,but irrelevant to carpenters. Certainly not the chore you try to make it out to be, and certainly hardly necessary to do when the plane is used by carpenters who are only interested in removing material as fast as possible. That is assuming that a normal carpenter has a good reason for not using a portable power planer-a really good reason.
Now you are saying that sole lapping and iron grinding are to be done at the same time? Why? What has one to do with the other? I would have thought that one does this whenever necessary but sole lapping would be done far less often-at least that is what is what I do or did and have seen to be the case over the years- but I am talking about cabinet making woodwork, not carpentry. Incidentally, to my mind the #4 is a pisswilly plane that has not a lot of use in furniture making, as the 41/2 and the 51/2 are the ones of first choice.
"Over the years since, I've come to use the wear at the mouth as a sort of litmus test to see if those writing about tuning or using hand planes actually uses planes in their work or if they're only generating income writing articles."
------That is going to be misleading but useful if you are biased towards one type of plane. It is misleading because for most cabinet makers these days, be they professional or the occasional shaving maker (which you seem to look down on), the question of sole wear on metal planes is a minor issue because the former use power tools to do the donkey work as do many of the latter-and they do less work anyway since they are hobbyists.I think it unfortunate that you keep coming across with that sort of demeaning remark and hope the impression is unintentional.
I can see that you have a bias towards wooden planes and I understand why . I wouldn't hold it against you either, but I think you need to make a better case.Philip Marcou
Philip,
Either I've failed to get across what I'm saying or your reading comprehension isn't what it could be. I'll reluctantly assume the first.
I got involved in this thread to address comments made, specifically:
"If you're primarily working well-behaved, not too hard wood, my thought is that you will never notice a difference between a well tuned wooden plane and an infill that costs thousands (antique or contemporary). The choice in this case is whether you wish to go to the trouble of "throating" a wooden smoother and tuning it, then maintaining that tuning through seasonal humidity changes, and using your body mass to press the plane down to the wood.
When you start to work highly figured woods, things turn out differently. While I use and like my Lie Nielsen planes, they do not perform as well as the infill planes on highly curled maple, regardless of whether I'm using the 55 degree HAF and a closed mouth. The wooden planes, even the ones with a very fine mouth opening, tear out curly maple with abandon."
It's not important who said this because it's the often repeated contemporary common wisdom people seem to readily accept without any thought at all.
I specifically mentioned two different planes, a Stanley #4 and a Norris A-5. I'm sure I never said anything about trying to get a .004" mouth on that Stanley and I seriously doubt I ever tried to measure the mouth opening, it would have been an exercise in futility given the wear to the mouth. It's not that I wouldn't have liked to set that #4 to have a fine mouth, I couldn't. That option wasn't there because of the wear issues to the most critical part of the sole of metal planes which everyone ignores or never seems to see.
This conventional wisdom assumes tuning a wooden plane is difficult yet any one who needs to do it has or should have the tools and skills to do it. I had access to a well equipped machine shop when I tuned that Norris. I needed and used a milling machine, surface grinder and heat treating furnace with all the associated fixtures, tooling and measuring equipment. I think it's unlikely the average woodworker has these in his shop and setting up would require at least a $4,000 investment if purchasing only the most basic bottom-of the line tools. The process involved skills and knowledge not commonly associated with woodworking. There seems to be a real disconnect in comparing tuning a wooden plane to getting a vintage infill functioning properly. There's a similar logical disconnect in comparing the wear of wooden planes to metal planes.
Tuning that Norris did require lapping the sole to restore the leading edge of the mouth even though it had seen little use. Before I tuned it I used it a little and immediately learned why it had seen so little use, the original Norris irons was too soft and folded when used in hard woods. After I'd tuned it I used it briefly, maybe a job or two before I noticed the mouth beginning to wear. That's when I set it aside for just demonstrations.
I have no problem with amateurs but I do have a problem with self-promoting arm-chair "experts" with no foundation in traditional practices. What I often see from them is elaborate jigs and inefficient clumsy work-arounds in lieu of very basic, direct and easy traditional techniques. These individuals may be the smartest woodworkers to ever come down the pike, but I seriously doubt they'll devise more efficient or effective techniques than those that evolved over 25 or more generations with countless skilled full-time woodworkers working on them. I think this is especially true when our self-proclaimed experts haven't even bothered to learn what the traditional techniques and methods are. How does one improve something when they don't have a clue as to what that something is?
I also don't have a problem with carpenters, I spent most of my life earning my living as a finish carpenter/cabinet maker. I suppose the proper term for what I did is architectural woodworking. I worked much like I think the majority of people on this forum do--making one-off things. While there may be a few factory workers around who work in places like High Point or even some who hammer out modular box kitchens and bathrooms, I doubt many would have any interest in or use for your planes or other hand tools.
Where hand tools and hand tool skills shine is in one-off work. Early in my career, thinking like those you think of as "professional," I expended way too much time and effort building one-time-use jigs and setting up machines to do things easily and quickly done with hand tools. One person who sometimes posts here called what you perceive as fact the "modern man paradigm," where the only use woodworkers have for a hand plane today is to replace their finish sander. How limiting! In our business we put a lot of effort into building people's self-confidence and teaching them what can be possible. That's made much more difficult and frustrating by some arm-chair "experts" out there who perpetuate fear and uncertainty.
"It's not important who said this because it's the often repeated contemporary common wisdom people seem to readily accept without any thought at all."
Larry - Just a note; while I agree with you that there's a fair amount of "oft-repeated common wisdom" that has little thought or analysis behind it (one example is the comment that today's homes are drier than the ones in the 18th century - just a little analysis would show that statement to be false), what I stated there is my direct experience. I do tune and use both metal and wooden planes, from expensive, multi-thousand dollar infills through bailey-designs to wooden planes.
I have not, however, had the pleasure of using one of your smoothers with a 55 degree bed. I rather suspect that I would find them to be excellent performers on hard figured woods, but I don't know either way. Nevertheless, I do find that a L-N bailey design with a 55 HAF does not perform the way I'd expect on highly curled maple. There is perhaps a reason for this that's integral to the Bailey design - the mouth can be closed by moving the frog, but in so doing, the back of the blade is unsupported. This may well be the chief (and in my opinion, the only) advantage to a modern BU design - the front of the plane is adjusted to close the mouth, the frog stays put and the back of the blade is fully supported. Neverheless, I don't like BU metal planes because I find it difficult to advance the iron during mid-stroke - it's for this reason that I sold my L-N and L-V bevel-up smoothers.
"Neverheless, I don't like BU metal planes because I find it difficult to advance the iron during mid-stroke - it's for this reason that I sold my L-N and L-V bevel-up smoothers."
In other words an adjuster is necessary? So what about those bevel down planes that require a tap here and there in order to adjust the cut?(Some of these are quite excellent-almost as much so a bevel up with equivalent cutting geometry). (;)Philip Marcou
Larry,
Cowtown's beams: what timber were they made of?Philip Marcou
I don't remember and don't know if he even said. He's a carpenter working in Calgary so I would guess it was probably douglas fir or Western cedar which both offer some planing challenges and would almost certainly have included knots. The cedar, for instance, is a very low density wood requiring a very sharp iron but has a high silica content which quickly dulls tools and the frequent knots are so hard and brittle they make ebony look positively mild.I can't recall seeing a photo of Eric either so I have no idea how much weight just his arms at rest would add to the effective weight of the plane. I can't even figure that for myself because I get different readings on a scale depending on bench height and distance from my body. I can't even figure out how much body weight I shift to a plane in use. I'm not a physicist and have difficulty calculating joules of work involved in both the cutting and return strokes of a plane and that's not even considering the resistance of the cut or velocity of the cutting stroke.I'm sure someone out there can calculate all this but I don't feel I have the time to go look in the archives for Eric's post. I'm sure we're going somewhere with this but I'm not sure where.
Thanks Larry.
I was asking for the type of wood because I think that the nature of the woods worked has an influence on the tool type .
Where I come from everybody had metal planes, as heavy as possible and those that favoured wooden traditional planes saved them for soft woods such as pines, Cedrella Toona, Cypress, Jacaranda sometimes, to mention a few.We wanted heavy planes for hard dense African woods, and I don't know what equivalents there would be of these in North America, although you get various imports such as Teak.The 51/2 and heavy version #6 were favoured. We used a lot of Burmese Teak and nobody wanted to work it with light planes.I never heard anyone complain about a plane being too heavy except for carpenters but that is understandable because they did a lot of clambering about on roofs etc i.e didn't work at a bench.
The other thing which is strange to me is the question of heat- quite foreign to me, and I don't see any evidence of it's effects on planes here in NZ either. I tried to warm up my Record 51/2 jack by planing some Huon Pine and some Kauri here (both softwoods) and got nowhere near even warm.All very interesting.Philip Marcou
>question of heat<The curl coming off my bubinga some times has some surprising heat for the split second it brushes my hand on the front knob as it comes out of the plane. Is just warm but must have been hot at the blade. I wouldn't think it would mean any thing to the iron casting as far as wear. Could take some temper out of the blades perhaps. If you think about how hot the cylinders in a cast iron engine block gets on the cylinder surface from the combustion/flame front. Doesn't cause the cylinders to break down very fast. There is some oil in there but there is some wax on the plane. Not a bath though.I don't know. My cast iron skillets aren't showing any wear and I am a real chow houn'. A couple of them are thirty plus years old with near daily use.There was some serious scratches on that plane bottom that had the wear. I'd say planing a bit too much gravel in the mix.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Larry,
"I could re-mouth several lifetimes worth of wooden plane wear in less time than it would take to lap the wear from the mouth of my #4."
----I suggest to you that a)a cabinet maker allowing the sole of a smoothing plane to get into that state is abusing the tool/not using it for what it is meant to be used for and b)a fairly regular light maintenance session on a flat surface with an abrasive would maintain the sole of a cast iron smoother so that it does not have wear around the mouth.
By fairly regular I mean something like once every two years or so-that is what I did according to my use of various timbers such as Iroko and Makore.
As a matter of interest here in NZ I have seen a few jack planes with a mouth in similar state to that you picture, if not worse, but they were not solely used for cabinet making purposes. Two of these are shown here , both requiring in excess of 12 thou to rectify- not practical to do by hand lapping, and if one did actually remove all that by hand I would bet the thinfg wouldn't be flat.
"Go look at US patents for metal planes. I was surprised how frequently the different patents contained a claimed improvement of a lighter plane"
-----With emphasis on the word CLAIMED , I might add.The makers were doing what a lot of makers still do today , which is to claim what suits their own agenda, be it an accountant driven (costand profit) or a salesman's agenda(boosting sales volume).
"I guess I didn't know better back then and thought I could work that wood without a smooth plane that cost multiple thousands of dollars."
----I think a comment like that is just inappropriate even though it is clear that you are bound to promote your own product, and allowing for a dollop of bias.
Of those subjects you mention, saying they are not discussed , the only one I have not seen discussed in this forum is that of "hammer refining of tool steel"-which sounds like something one should avoid. Where did you find it and what do you know about it?
Philip,
"only one I have not seen discussed"...
Sharp arris at the front of the mouth - that Larry mentions seems to be a rather effective complement to a tight mouth. A tight 50* mouth with a sharp arris might be as effective as a tight 55* mouth with a dull arris (but easier on the iron).
Probably not as functional for wider mouth openings. It would be interesting to run and have some test results (to influence plane designs). An acute arris angle should cut down on choking which is a downside of a tight mouth. Give it some thought - will you. I forgotten that this was one of the reasons for my version of the adjustable mouth - a design that would lend (by honing) to maintaining a sharp edged mouth. Best wishes,
Metod
>adjustable mouth - a design that would lend (by honing) to maintaining a sharp edged mouth.<Oops ! Another vote for the dreaded bevel up.Guess I won't throw all of mine away after all.: )rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
roc,
The only difference between BU and BV is a wide range of effective pitches possible with a BU planes. Do what I mentioned in one of my posts a while ago: draw (in your mind or on paper) a 1/8" radius circle centered on the edge of a plane iron. The circle would include the mouth's front edge. Can you tell whether it is BU or BD? Nope, and neither can wood.
Derek mentioned in one of his posts, that he finds a higher pitched (50* or 55*, can't remember) BU easier to push. I mentioned that the 'sweet spot' of his BU must be better located than on his BD. His BU is ergonomically more efficient. I haven't heard, curiously, more about it.
Ron Brese, now that I am on the topic, has a sharp eye (study one of his posts from a few days go) for ergonomics. I bet that his planes (I mean the lucky ones who use them, :-)) are thankful for it.
If you are familiar with force diagrams (just some high school physics to recall) you can see for yourself. Not that hard evidence is fair match for some WW hype. Anyway, sharp (and so maintained) arris in combination with a close mouth should (in theory) cause less tearout. I will definitely experiment when I get around to it. The front 'walls' of the mouth on my LNs are at 90* to the sole. I believe that the effect of a sharp arris would be more pronounced , were the wall at, say, 70*. The only other (f)actual difference between BU and BD planes is that BU planes have lower center of gravity. This creates some difference in ergonomics. Given a choice, I'd give a nod to BU for edge planing. Sort of like color: dark brown for chocolate, ivory for vanilla ice cream.
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod,
I gave it thought long ago when making my first bevel downs and tried out some variations. More recently with those minis, which because of their construction design made it easy to experiment. I think you are reading too much into the question of a sharp arris: what needs to be sharp or defined is the part where the sole touches the wood and then rises to the ramp or the front relief.
Looking at the front or leading edge: if there is a slight vertical step of say 1/2mm or a bit less (15 to 20 thou) rather than a chisel edge then I don't think there is any choking effect on the shaving at all and you a)have a less delicate edge and b) should you need to remove material from the sole for whatever reason then there is no widening of the mouth, the last not relevant if there is an adjustable mouth.
And I believe hardly relevant if a metal dedicated smoother is used for what it is meant for-smoothing.Philip Marcou
Philip,
Thanks for your thoughts on the roughing mill. It seems that my 1/32' 'estimate' for a typical cut was a bit on American 'six-incher-side' , and is closer (judging by the number of passes needed) to 1/64".Also: Give (alternate method) a 'lowly' jig saw a try (with metal cutting blade - and an occasional drop of cutting fluid - gets hot). Cut a 'comb' and break off the teeth for a rough clearing. Even in your hands, it might be faster..."the part where the sole touches the wood and then rises to the ramp or the front relief"
I thought that that's an arris (an edge formed by two planes?). Is there a different definition? I still believe (will eventually find out) that it is worth keeping it sharp when working with complicated lumber.Best wishes,
Metod
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled