Handplanes: use, set up, preferences?

I must be bored.
Who is using them, how do you optimize yours.

Someone linked me to a recent Paul Sellers Blog and asked for my opinion.
I posted some rather innocuous responses including history, but he keeps taking them down.
(there are a couple remaining to other's posts, but he took down the historical content & technical reference posts i made)
Probably to research so he can later use as material for his own future blogs.

Nonetheless, it did get me thinking about plane dynamics again.

smt

Well, you asked....
I have a good number of planes that now only see occasional use, but in my past wood wacker life I was a bit of a plane nurd. I had a collection of Stanley and other planes and tried to "tune" them.
Optimization was really just flattening the bottom ( not scraped though), careful attention to fit and alignment of the frog, careful fit of the cap iron to the blade and of course sharpening the blade razor sharp.
All really basic stuff to a knowledgeable hand woodworker.
Nothing beats the "chirp" of a well tuned and sharpened plane on a straight grained piece of wood!

Now speaking of scraping the bottoms; I was asked by a couple of young enthusiasts to teach them how to scrape plane bottoms. On Thursday past we spent a pleasant afternoon with the basics of scraping and we worked on a Record 8" rabbet plane. As original it was pretty flat to begin with, and we scraped it to 20points or so. after we finished that we put it back together and tightened the cap and blued it again. The sole distorted enough to only show marking at the nose, the tail and the back of the mouth. I tried to measure the distortion, but could not get a 0.0015" feeler gage under the sole.
I really couldn't see any difference in the performance of the plane. It looked nice though!

I really believe that the "optimization" is in the hands and eyes of the tool user. The right tool for he particular job, used with skill and care will get you much further than feckin about trying to get the last "nanowhatever" out of what is basically a crude tool.
Peter

I have to agree with shapeaholic. Although my planes are in decent shape they are not "supertuned" and I've never felt the need to do so. I have mostly old Stanley and Bailey models that have been tweaked a bit but not tuned to the ultimate. I also have a Record jointer plane bought new in the 70s but I must admit I more often reach for a Bailey jack plane due to the less cumbersome size and weight.

Oh, and I also have an older DeWalt power plane that has had nothing done except for waxing the sole.

I bought three plane kits from here. Rough castings that have to be machined. That's something I've seen on films but a casting factory in my place.
I can visualize myself pouring molten metal into a mold. Then it;s like building a plane from scratch. Of course you can do this after you get bored
with all the Bailey, Record, and Stanley planes.


Upgrade to a Hock blade.

I use Bester ceramic stones to sharpen blades using a Veritas Precision Honing Guide. But I don't bother with that second bevel business.
Because: I don't want the business...

The flat sole versus the fluted bottom planes is something that concerned me, the flutes were better. I don't know about that, may just a little better.

Yesterday I just finished teaching a scraping class here in my Minnesota home shop to 4 fellows. The one who drove here from Vermont was talking to the fellow from New Mexico who flew here about the souls of wood planes. The NM student was talking about a plane he has and it has square squares cut into it and it sounded like it resembled a lapping plate? I am no expert of wood planes and told him about a student who I taught down in Georgia who scraped the souls of his planes after the class and how smooth they cut. Stephan is an expert at both, have you ever scraped one? I see you mentioned it on post 1.

I'm interested to understand users various approaches to reducing (eliminating?) tear out when the work gets critical or the wood is demanding.

Also, the deep and rich historical approach to same especially since the advent of (somewhat) mass produced metal planes in the 1820's

Do you consider handplanes essential to woodwork you produce, or mostly just "sort of fun to use if the app is not too demanding and i want to spend time in the shop?

I'm not trying to be disengenuous - many know i used to make high end handplanes and have developed a lot of theory & practice on the subject. But though i continue to use handplanes as essential to some of the work i still do, i have not thought about it much in recent years until someone asked me out of the blue about my opinion. I've also occasionally explored methods that in the past i did not consider for tear-out elimination. The limits of fettling a chip breaker (cap iron), pitch, bevel up in bevel down planes & vice versa. etc.

It all only matters when you need it.
So, does anyone else ever care/need to explore the subject?

smt

shapeaholic said:

... After we finished that we put it back together and tightened the cap and blued it again. The sole distorted...

Click to expand...

Peter, I have never done much in the way of fine-tuning my planes. However, the best articles I have read say that in order to avoid this problem one should keep the plane fully assembled and tensioned, withdrawing the blade just enough to give clearance.

George

I have a maybe 40 year old Record I tuned up after reading about it in Fine Woodworking. Got it to plane hardwoods no matter the grain. Cool. Have drawers full of old planes that I plan on..............................looking at from time to time. 42" 3 head wide belt sander in my "hobby" shop that just does not give a hoot about grain direction. Stuff it in one end, nice nice comes out other end. Last summer I made some book cases for wifey. Arched bottom rail. Took a piece of plastic and bent it to the points needed and penciled the line. Bandsaw to cut exactly half out and flip to see if symmetrical. Finished it with a curved bottom spoke shave. Behind me was a 60 x 144 inch travel big ass CNC router. I needed the Pilgrim feeling of being one with the wood. Just for a little bit.

As far as reducing tearout I often skew the plane so it's more of a slicing cut. I must confess that I use hand planes sporadically these days as power tools are SO addicting.

FWIW I even bought one of those old die cast planes off ebay that use single edge razors as a blade. After trying it on wood I decided it was best for skiving leather and similar jobs as the blade flexes way too much in wood.

And speaking of planes with razor blades, I also have a "run razor" which is a very small tool that uses a single edge razor blade at a very low angle to shave hardened drips or runs in a paint job, which sometimes occur if you spray an automotive finish a little too much in one pass.

One of my favorite planes is the old Stanley rabbet plane I inherited from my grandfather. It also works as a bullnose plane if you move the blade to the front position.

It seems probable that up until maybe the 1950's or so, woodworking planes were designed for professionals and presumably included features or attributes that a professional would appreciate and maybe pay more for. Or at least buy your brand as opposed to the competitions.

Before production metal planes, wooden plane makers came to understand at least 3 methods to regulate the chip (promote smoother cutting), perhaps the earliest going back to Roman infills being the pitch at which the cutter is set.

Another for which evidence exists is the throat aperture, but this was difficult to maintain in a wooden sole plane. Evidence that it mattered is extant in all the repaired old planes with patches of hardwood at the throat in front of the iron. Also, when iron casting for commodity items started to become common in the early 19th c, adjustable iron toe pieces for wooden soled smoothing planes were an early aftermarket "performance" mod described by patents &/or offered by several makers in both the US and slightly later in GB.

Sometime apparently in the mid/late 18th c, the double iron was invented and soon after, almost all "flattening type" (as opposed to moulding or joinery) planes incorporated them. The only reason to add the expense (at the time) of a cap iron, was because it offered a dramatic improvement in chip control when properly shaped & set.

Iron (& other metal body) planes offered a platform that could be optimized to include any or all of those 3 parameters. Historically "good" metal planes evolved to include a double iron, and most over the years from the 1820's through the late 1920's included a more or less convenient method to adjust the throat aperture.

Stanley bench planes, for example, give the user the option to apply either method. Geometry forces the conclusion that they are mutually exclusive, however. Make the throat so tight that it is effective (for smoothing) and the chipbreaker needs to be backed up the cutting iron so the cutting edge will fit. Alternately, create the perfect edge & geometry on the chipbreaker (cap iron) and adjust it to be most effective with a whisper of sharp edge showing, & the double iron won't fit in a tight throat nor the throat edge be near to the cutting edge.

I'm curious about proponents of the opposing systems - do you use primarily one, or the other?
Certainly having the option to use either is useful. But does anyone actually pay attention to optimizing either, and for what operations?

smt

I haven't touched a piece of wood in decades but still have my collection of Stanley and some other planes. I don't go crazy tuning them but focus on getting them razor blade sharp. Use a rolling fixture and Japanese water stones. I think my favorite is a Stanley #5 with a Hoch thick blade. Long enough to keep things flat but narrow and light enough to make the work go fast. Never found a Stanley #1 I could afford and they seem to have only gone up. Saw a Stanley #74 floor plane once; didn't look like any fun at all.

I have and use hand planes, but own more than I use. The primary users are a scrub plane which I use from time to time just because it feels and sounds good. It leaves a great “hewn” finish if you want. Kind of a work out but not just dumb work. Helps to get rough stock less rough before it sees the power jointer/planer.

Next up is a skew rabbet block plane. Its got a removable side to let it cut a rabbet, but I mostly use it for tricky wood.

I also really like my hinge mortise plane. Hanging a new door slab in an old frame is fun and moderately exacting. The mortise plane is great to have for clean precise hinge and latch mortises.

Finally, and the one I could not do without is an old Stanley block plane that gets lots of use for fine fitting or anything else because its right there at hand.

My tuning for all of them was to true up the caps to have good contact with the iron and keeping the irons sharp as possible.

stephen thomas said:

I must be bored.
Who is using them, how do you optimize yours.

Someone linked me to a recent Paul Sellers Blog and asked for my opinion.
I posted some rather innocuous responses including history, but he keeps taking them down.
(there are a couple remaining to other's posts, but he took down the historical content & technical reference posts i made)
Probably to research so he can later use as material for his own future blogs.

Nonetheless, it did get me thinking about plane dynamics again.

smt

Click to expand...

Could you post a link to Sellers blog? I’d like to read it and try to figure out where he edited your comments. I looked at one of his videos and found his presentation rather pretentious. My shelf-o-planes are sharp and rust free but only get used sporadically now that years of swinging wrenches have destroyed my shoulders. Best,Joe

Joe, Paul S does seem a little pretentious in the sense that his posts are about establishing his expert-ness, rather than actually sharing information. I saw some of his blogs years ago. Not denying that many contain useful information, yet i would never have wasted my time responding to one if someone else had not asked me to look and comment. The blog is not bad as far as it goes, it just needs more rounded information, and a little less didacticism about the presumed results.

I did not point out errors & inconsistencies in his main blog, and my posts were respectful, merely adding historical perspective with examples of planes incorporating features he mentioned, either pro or con.
He did not "edit" my posts with content, he removed them.
The 2 left standing are short posts to other replies + an additional correction to my own error in one of those responses

I hate to build traffic for his site, not least because without accepting input he is over-complicating simple issues, & spreading disinformation. But here it is:

From the tone of his article and the information presented there and to the follow up questions, I suspect he does not know much about the history or technology of planes and is probably saving posts like mine to extend his library and field of research so he can blog about that subject later.

Will dig up my removed responses and post them here later.

but only get used sporadically now that years of swinging wrenches have destroyed my shoulders

Click to expand...

Very sorry to hear that.
I never planned to retire, so did not plan the retirement well....
Still use the planes, but less these days because, like you, my wrists and shoulders pay for a week, for a short days work with many forms of hand tools.

smt

Here's the original response to P. Sellers blog that got me thinking about plane dynamics again:

The statement WTTE of making a Stanley type perform as well as any other resonates with me because it is one i have often made myself. Mr Seller's post is a useful plea for common sense.
Nonetheless, regarding throat apertures his post disclaims a lot of history.

If you are a carpenter (Stanley bench planes et al as he describes were directed toward carpenters, though certainly to include high end joiners) and use softwoods, or typical mild joinery woods, throat aperture is nearly irrelevant.

I cannot substantiate pre-industrial efforts to narrow throats in planes, though many wooden soles are seen with repairs there including a piece of dense hardwood. One might imagine that was an occasional useful improvement going back to perhaps just after the days of Roman infills. However, since the advent of mass produced cast body (ca 1820's) and later fabricated metal plate planes, most of the good ones at some point in their design included a more or less quick option to adjust the throat aperture. This was true from approximately the late 1820's through the late 1920's.

A case can be made that before 1830 the Knowles patent and Savage planes included the option to close the throat by means of a back wedge. On clear factual grounds, Shelabarger's patent (1848) & Hopper's patent (1855) are early examples of user-makers who believed it worth the effort and that a need existed within the trade. From the 1850's on, the patents and manufactured examples of throat adjusters came thick and fast. In England, Stewart Spiers, and Norris among others, offered adjustable iron toe pieces for wooden sole planes. Perhaps based upon earlier examples from the former colonies, perhaps independent development by people of like minds. (Need) English makers of smoothing planes seem to have made a virtue of tight throats, though none was adjustable other than with shims or by means of iron thickness. OTOH, these were all double iron planes, so there was a conflict (see cap iron paragraph, further down).

There is a clear advantage for the use of a well tuned finely fit throat-to-iron gap in many situations. As a professional i can relate that when necessary, it saves time (by a large factor) and reduces risk (by a large factor). Even if you are a person who uses primarily abrasives for the semi-finish through finish stages, there are constructions and situations where the reduced risk to tear-out of a tight aperture throat might still be useful during the fitting, leveling, fettling stages of a construction.

All that said, a parallel viewpoint & practice concentrates on the cap-iron/iron fitting and dimensional relationship. Few ever really get good, or perhaps the better word is "rigorous" with attention to that detail. If that is a user/practitioner preference, the throat aperture (so long as the sole is flat and stable & iron rigidly bedded) almost does not matter. A tight throat and a perfectly set cap iron are mutually exclusive at the performance limit for either.

Personally, i prefer the option to have both, and build it into all my planes. Years ago i even included both in my adjustable pitch smoother.

Per your passing note re iron hardness: An iron need only be hard enough to resist folding the sharp edge at the preferred sharpness angle, in use. It should not be so hard as to be *chippy. Hardness and wear resistance are not directly related. Most wear on a plane iron is heat enhanced chemical erosion, not abrasion. These factors can be juggled (optimized) by choice of steel, and by the hardening schedule for each choice. Some steels allow a greater range of manipulation through hardening schedule, than do others.

*NB: IOW charpy values ("toughness") generally decline with increased hardness. However, for some steels, there is an inflection point by means of hardening schedule, where "you can (nearly) have it all." OTOH, since the choice of such steel is often for enhanced wear properties despite being softer, the ease of sharpening is often low.

smt

The primary alternate method to a tight throat for chip control was the development of the cap iron in the late 1700's, and it was a good enough improvement that it quickly became ubiquitous on flat-work planes. Several posters on the blog mentioned Sargent Autoset planes, and the descriptions confused how an autoset was intended to be optimized for chip control. IOW, an autoset throat cannot be adjusted, but it has the most fully realized mechanism for cap iron (chipbreaker) control and finesse in any manufactured plane to that time. This was based on predeeding Gage patents. Stanley eventually bought Gage, and developed a competing (less well known) line of case iron *Gage model planes. They did not include the fine cap iron adjuster of the Sargent versions.

This was the response to posts about Sargent planes, that PS removed:

[I wish i had bought some autosets 50 years ago when they were fairly inexpensive, mostly for study. What is interesting to the discussion, if Paul will allow it, is the means to optimize an alternate approach vs adjustable throat, to creating a platform for reducing tear-out. Someone will correct me if i am wrong, but i don’t believe the throat is adjustable in any way in an autoset. I do have a Gage somewhere, again as a study option. (predecessor to Sargent’s development of the system, and to Stanley buying the Gage system to use in their iron Gage planes.)

To cut to the chase, all 3 versions of the original Gage system are predilected to optimize the chipbreaker as a means of tear-out control. The ones i’ve seen have rather large throats. Since they incorporate a cross pin to bear the works against, there is little option to move it. But Sargent goes one step further than others with a screw-adjustable cap iron.

I made a longish post describing 2 conflicting options for chip control: perfect, tight throat; or perfect, close chipbreaker. Optimised systems of which are mutually exclusive. (Stanley provides both options, the user decides when setting up his plane which to favor). Paul is either considering it, or thought it muddled the focus too much.]

Undfortunately, i did not make a copy of the long post, cap iron/chipbreaker vs throat aperature, before Paul removed it. But it is the one that got me curious about how the typical hand plane user generall chooses to optimize chip control when the wood gets challenging and the technical demands rigorous. A use for hand planes in my work, that i do not have an efficient alternative for, is often to level hardwood borders next to veneers. Sometimes patches and inserts in the veneer itself. There's little room for error.

smt

*Gage model planes: most studies focus on the design as a system of iron (cutter) adjustment. A closer study of the mechanisms show optimized means of cap-iron (chip breaker) configuration and control.

A optimization method for blade sharpening is the double bevel method made with a Veritas sharpening jig.
Something I tried just once and went back to a straight bevel.

Georgineer said:

Peter, I have never done much in the way of fine-tuning my planes. However, the best articles I have read say that in order to avoid this problem one should keep the plane fully assembled and tensioned, withdrawing the blade just enough to give clearance.

George

Click to expand...

That is really no different than the practice of putting a torque plate on to a cylinder (think Harley) prior to boring it out, so it sits in essentially 'usage' condition.

Which is all well and good if you are capable of hitting the exact torque setting on the system, time and again.

Sadly, I grew up in an area where hardwood is not really a thing (Western Canada) and so it was mostly Douglas Fir, Cedar, and pine that were available to me. Not exactly demanding stuff.

Richard King said:

Yesterday I just finished teaching a scraping class here in my Minnesota home shop to 4 fellows. The one who drove here from Vermont was talking to the fellow from New Mexico who flew here about the souls of wood planes. The NM student was talking about a plane he has and it has square squares cut into it and it sounded like it resembled a lapping plate? I am no expert of wood planes and told him about a student who I taught down in Georgia who scraped the souls of his planes after the class and how smooth they cut. Stephan is an expert at both, have you ever scraped one? I see you mentioned it on post 1.

Click to expand...

I scrape plane soles, just for fun, it gets them flatter and better than sandpaper on jointer beds or plate glass...

Is it a better plane after scraping? Not sure, but sure as hell purdy . Stephen scraped the loopy too , and that is a better plane fer sure...

Looks nice. Don't the pockets collect dust and have to be brushed off?