dcsipo
Diamond
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Location
- Baldwin, MD/USA
The "pockets" are like 3 to 5 tenths deep. not much of anything collects in them
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Largest Manufacturing Technology Community on the Web
Stay Connected:
Handplanes: use, set up, preferences?
- Thread starter stephen thomas
- Start date
- Replies 28
- Views 2,165
Sounds like many of us took a similar route to machining. I had done some design and machining prior to getting involved in woodworking. With planes, you just can’t have one!
I had wonder about regrinding some of the old planes. Anyone try regrinding not only the sole but the frog as well. Then there is the question extension the frog sits on. It just seems like if you didn’t start at the top and work to the sole it could move all over. I don’t have many planes to try and figure out a process. I know a lot of people don’t like the new planes. I had purchased some of the reproduced planes, since at the time I dId not have a surface grinder.
I had wonder about regrinding some of the old planes. Anyone try regrinding not only the sole but the frog as well. Then there is the question extension the frog sits on. It just seems like if you didn’t start at the top and work to the sole it could move all over. I don’t have many planes to try and figure out a process. I know a lot of people don’t like the new planes. I had purchased some of the reproduced planes, since at the time I dId not have a surface grinder.
richard newman
Titanium
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Location
- rochester, ny
I started as a woodworker, still am, but after I got my B'port and figured out how to use it, it occurred to me that I could re-machine all the mating surfaces in my bench planes for better fit and rigidity. Did the frog faces, bottoms, and mating surface of the plane body. Had to do the frog sides also to hold it accurately in the vise. Did they work better? If you think they will, then it feels like they do.
Also trued up my block planes, especially the ones with adjustable throats. If those sliding surfaces are not parallel to the sole, adjusting it will affect the flatness of the sole.
Would I do it again? Probably not, but definitely would scrape or grind the soles flat, and sides square, that really does matter.
Oh, the other thing I did was strip the finish off the rosewood totes and knobs, and oil them. Feels much better to my hand, well worth the effort.
Also trued up my block planes, especially the ones with adjustable throats. If those sliding surfaces are not parallel to the sole, adjusting it will affect the flatness of the sole.
Would I do it again? Probably not, but definitely would scrape or grind the soles flat, and sides square, that really does matter.
Oh, the other thing I did was strip the finish off the rosewood totes and knobs, and oil them. Feels much better to my hand, well worth the effort.
Last edited:
barryvabeach
Plastic
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Location
- virginia
Stephen, turning back to your original question, while I mostly use infills, I read about the suggestion to move the chipbreaker close to the edge of the iron years ago, and found it led to too much choking in both my infills and stanley types, so I don't follow that approach. Here they suggest .005 Setting chip breaker jig So instead I just try to keep a narrow opening, a sharp blade, and a cabinet scraper handy. I find that the infills, set to a fine shaving, reduce the risk of tearout, at the expense of additonal passes.
stephen thomas
Diamond
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2001
My niche woodwhacking business built and installed custom millwork.
I've mentioned in the past that after a new hire showed he might be apt and stick around a while, he was issued a Stanley 60-1/2, or some preferred (asked for) the larger version, forget the #.
In the shop, there was very little smoothing unless it was by abrasives. In the field, there was all kinds of constant fitting, blending, and smoothing. Almost all done by the block planes with the throats set fine. (Or open when scribing long fits to walls, etc) . In the shop there was constant work leveling solid edge bands t & g'd onto plywood, or onto formica faces. The block planes were the fastest/most efficient tool to get things dead flush and smooth without tear-out, which even a little bit would ruin the part. On really difficult grain, things would be made close and finished with a few swipes of a scraper. But the close-mouthed, close-set block planes were pretty darn clean and efficient.
Since a lot of the work we made and installed was curved, i carried a 113 clone in the toolbox and used it constantly. Also, the longest Stanley plane that will fit in a standard carpenter toolbox is the #6, so that was the jointer and flattener for larger areas. Some rabbet planes, both iron and a few narrow wooden ones, and scrapers. I had a few flea market find Stanley bench planes, but almost never used them, certainly never carried the extra weight to jobs. I did have a few wood bottom transitionals that were used, some the bases were shaped including one for inside rounds of large staved/curved doors and such.
The close-set block planes did most of the work including smoothing of close installations. (Usually white oak, but also the range of domestic hardwoods). The iron & throat setting on the block planes could be adjusted to eliminate tearout, usually, even in very difficult grain, in positions where alternatives were difficult of inefficient. So that was what informed me when i started making planes. As others mention, infills are reputed to get a lot of their effect from a tight throat. Yet none had adjustable throats. So that was the important feature to add, when i made my first one. I've always included it since in any planes made here.
However, only a few years ago based on comments on OWWM, i started to explore using the cap-iron/chipbreaker as an alternate. I'm not settled that it is "better" than a close set throat, but it is certainly more maintainable for most people, long term. For smoothing, it seems it can work brilliantly, and would certainly be a necessary feature if one were making wooden body/sole planes.
I started trying the chipbreaker use more after making the adjustable bed angle plane. It has an adjustable throat, too, of course. But it was an opportunity to explore a little further.
In the late 80's early 90's once i started using bench planes in the shop for furniture & building infill planes, I always scrape fitted those parts, and scraped the soles. *It is faster than surface grinding. A long time ago, i posted some of the process, including showing how surface grinding is inadequate, and slower. Typical plane castings are too flimsy to support and grind easily. AFA grinding in the areas to fit them, scraping is more accessible, though one does have to make or modify a few masters.
*scraping to flat is easier and more predictable to a good surface, and generally faster than surface grinding. A plane sole also benefits from different densities of flatness: most dense at the front of the throat, similar but not as critical behind. The toe gets all the wear, so it should be reasonably dense. The back part of the plane can be a lot more open/less dense. These effects can't be attained by grinding. OTOH to get an appearance finish does take a little longer. Grinding will make it pretty, pretty fast, if you don't bother to inspect it. Due to heat effects, grinding can easily make planes go hollow - which is the typical factory defect one is usually trying to correct in the first place. I've planed soles on the shaper. But still ended up scraping. I might try that again, though at some point, or actually set one up on the planer.
smt
I've mentioned in the past that after a new hire showed he might be apt and stick around a while, he was issued a Stanley 60-1/2, or some preferred (asked for) the larger version, forget the #.
In the shop, there was very little smoothing unless it was by abrasives. In the field, there was all kinds of constant fitting, blending, and smoothing. Almost all done by the block planes with the throats set fine. (Or open when scribing long fits to walls, etc) . In the shop there was constant work leveling solid edge bands t & g'd onto plywood, or onto formica faces. The block planes were the fastest/most efficient tool to get things dead flush and smooth without tear-out, which even a little bit would ruin the part. On really difficult grain, things would be made close and finished with a few swipes of a scraper. But the close-mouthed, close-set block planes were pretty darn clean and efficient.
Since a lot of the work we made and installed was curved, i carried a 113 clone in the toolbox and used it constantly. Also, the longest Stanley plane that will fit in a standard carpenter toolbox is the #6, so that was the jointer and flattener for larger areas. Some rabbet planes, both iron and a few narrow wooden ones, and scrapers. I had a few flea market find Stanley bench planes, but almost never used them, certainly never carried the extra weight to jobs. I did have a few wood bottom transitionals that were used, some the bases were shaped including one for inside rounds of large staved/curved doors and such.
The close-set block planes did most of the work including smoothing of close installations. (Usually white oak, but also the range of domestic hardwoods). The iron & throat setting on the block planes could be adjusted to eliminate tearout, usually, even in very difficult grain, in positions where alternatives were difficult of inefficient. So that was what informed me when i started making planes. As others mention, infills are reputed to get a lot of their effect from a tight throat. Yet none had adjustable throats. So that was the important feature to add, when i made my first one. I've always included it since in any planes made here.
However, only a few years ago based on comments on OWWM, i started to explore using the cap-iron/chipbreaker as an alternate. I'm not settled that it is "better" than a close set throat, but it is certainly more maintainable for most people, long term. For smoothing, it seems it can work brilliantly, and would certainly be a necessary feature if one were making wooden body/sole planes.
I started trying the chipbreaker use more after making the adjustable bed angle plane. It has an adjustable throat, too, of course. But it was an opportunity to explore a little further.
In the late 80's early 90's once i started using bench planes in the shop for furniture & building infill planes, I always scrape fitted those parts, and scraped the soles. *It is faster than surface grinding. A long time ago, i posted some of the process, including showing how surface grinding is inadequate, and slower. Typical plane castings are too flimsy to support and grind easily. AFA grinding in the areas to fit them, scraping is more accessible, though one does have to make or modify a few masters.
*scraping to flat is easier and more predictable to a good surface, and generally faster than surface grinding. A plane sole also benefits from different densities of flatness: most dense at the front of the throat, similar but not as critical behind. The toe gets all the wear, so it should be reasonably dense. The back part of the plane can be a lot more open/less dense. These effects can't be attained by grinding. OTOH to get an appearance finish does take a little longer. Grinding will make it pretty, pretty fast, if you don't bother to inspect it. Due to heat effects, grinding can easily make planes go hollow - which is the typical factory defect one is usually trying to correct in the first place. I've planed soles on the shaper. But still ended up scraping. I might try that again, though at some point, or actually set one up on the planer.
smt
Last edited:
richard newman
Titanium
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Location
- rochester, ny
Don't remember, that was 40 years ago, but I doubt it. The Stanley bench planes have frogs that can be adjusted for throat opening, so no problem.
I agree with Stephen - the 60-1/2 and 65 (is that the one you're thinking of?) low angle block planes are great for all around use. The throat is adjusable, and with the bevel up irons, the rake angle is variable according to how you grind them.
That's another point - preventing tearout can easily be done by using a higher pitch angle (lower rake). I'm not sure but I think the 45° Stanley planes were designed for carpentry use. European cabinetmakers planes were available in 50, 55 and higher pitches.
richard newman
Titanium
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Location
- rochester, ny
Just in case these terms are not familiar...
Cutting angle, or pitch, is between the cutting face of the blade and the sole of the plane.
Rake angle is between the cutting face and a perpendicular to the sole.
On a regular bench plane with the bevel down, the cutting face is the back of the blade. On a low angle block plane with the bevel up, cutting face is the bevel.
Cutting angle, or pitch, is between the cutting face of the blade and the sole of the plane.
Rake angle is between the cutting face and a perpendicular to the sole.
On a regular bench plane with the bevel down, the cutting face is the back of the blade. On a low angle block plane with the bevel up, cutting face is the bevel.
stephen thomas
Diamond
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2001
Richard - must have been the 60-1/2, and the 65-1/2. I have a bunch of knuckle joint 65's but they were not selling them at jobbers anymore in the 70's and 80's to pass out to apprentices.
Perhaps it is interesting to note that Stanley used 50 deg for planes that had no other chip control such as the #45 & #55.
OTOH, the adjustable pitch plane has become one of my favorites since building it as a prototype. But rake alone, up into the 60 and even steeper range, is not as effective as a tight throat IME. However, with an adjustable, tight throat, it adds noticeably to the effect. Pretty much as you describe, the way we got such high performance when needed, out of our block planes. Face angle being steeper than a typical bench plane, and "tunable" as well.
FWIW, i used 47.5 on most loopies, just to make the point that a tight throat & good tuning is all you need. It crept up to 49 on some, since that gave more room in the closed tote. I was determined not to use 50 as a "crutch"
smt
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky