A Great Woodie Build Off

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Chris -

I think the "Krenov" style planes usually use shorter blades because that's what Krenov used. His opinion, at least from his books, was that he preferred the low slung style, particularly because it it allowed a variety of grips in different situations, whereas a traditional style plane sort of forced you into a couple of simple grips. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the grips a traditional plane presents, but if being able to hold the plane in a variety of different ways is important to you, a shorter iron and a low slung body makes it easier to get there. Certainly, if for whatever reason you want the "low slung" style Krenov appeared to like, a longer iron could dig into your hand in certain grips.

Does anyone sell new tapered irons, or is the best source for those either making/tapering yourself or picking up a used vintage iron?

[David Weaver]

I would buy a vintage iron if you want a tapered iron. I think the most I've ever spent on one was $15, and I know i've gotten 3 for $10 on ebay before.

Having built a straight and short infill with a long iron, I agree on why the krenov irons are short - they'd be in the web of your hand on a lot of planes, and I guess he decided on comfort over longevity.

It might be nice to build the kind of smoother george mentioned a while ago - a one-piece coffin smoother with a metal sole in the front.

Who here really needs more smoothers, though?

[Jerome Hanby]

How about a visual glossary to kick things off. Define things like "abutments" in the context of plane making (with pictures of course).

[James Carmichael]

Having built a straight and short infill with a long iron, I agree on why the krenov irons are short - they'd be in the web of your hand on a lot of planes, and I guess he decided on comfort over longevity.

I can't speak to the infills, but my 2" Krenov iron only gives up about 1/2" of usable edge to a Bailey #7. I doubt that I will use up either in my lifetime. I also haven't handled any of the new BU planes, but their irons can't be very long, either.

Yes, Krenov designed the low slung style to allow a variety of grips. He started with the German style woodies and didn't like them. Even my stubby fingers can plane one-handed using a Krenov jack with 2" iron .

I'd rather build projects than planes, so I'll stick with the laminated. Mine won't win any beauty contests, but they work, and are less-expensive in time and money than restoring an old Bailey or Bedrock.

[David Weaver]

Most of the krenov style planes I've seen have less than an inch of iron exposed so that it can be tapped by a hammer and laterally adjusted (maybe that's the way a lot of people are building them, and not how they're supposed to be).

None of us will probably use up much of anything, we're "gentlemen woodworkers" and even at that, there are few professionals who use a hand plane for probably even an hour a day.

If I were in a boat where I'd rather build projects than planes, I would skip building any. A properly set bailey or bailey style plane will plane with just about anything in tough wood (it will certainly plane anything grown in the US easily) without giving up the finish that higher angle plane can't give (and I can buy - and have bought - everything except for the jointer for less than the price of a premium iron).

What I can't figure out is why all of the literature thrown at us does so little to describe how to properly set a bailey plane to eliminate tearout on anything regardless of the wood and regardless of planing direction.

[David Weaver]

Where is Rob Lee?

He owes us an ebony plane of some sort.

[Derek Cohen]

Nice plane David.

What about a tutorial from you on setting up a Bailey plane for interlocked grain?

I have not yet begun making my plane - still collecting the parts. When is the deadline?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek, I guess there is not much tutorial to be had. I've just taken what warren says to heart after seeing those study pictures about chipbreaker projection. I just couldn't quite decipher it the way warren put it, which was to plainly say that you just have to invest in the skill of setting the chipbreaker - i needed something a little more specific than that (like the specification that's provided in that study), and the study pictures provided it.

I was also too lazy to learn to quickly set the chipbreaker that precisely, and I had to suck it up and do it for a couple of weeks to get faster at it, it reminds me of shaving with a straight razor, which also was cumbersome for a few weeks but now has become very quick. I was wrong!

I am somewhat ashamed to say that the $11 millers falls plane that I'm using as a test subject will now smooth with anything in the shop (including a very heavy-ironed 55 degree infill that has an opening that is as small as practical - about 3 or 4 thousandths), as long as the chipbreaker projection is in the neighborhood of 4 thousandths of an inch. That seemed a tall order and a lot of fiddling at first, but after the last couple of weeks, setting it is quick and pretty easy, and I cannot create tearout with it no matter what - all the way until it stops cutting.

It is enough to make me completely rethink the need for high angle planes, after I admittedly championed them loudly (the infill is still a nice plane to use, but i haven't been able to find anything in my shop that it will smooth and that the millers falls plane will not).

Of course, as with any plane, the regular rules apply - the iron has to be bedded and stable, no loose screws, etc. and the chipbreaker needs to have the front edge cleaned up so that it is uniformly straight across and tidy. That's very little work given that they're not hardened.

I hope other people tight on dollars will think about trying the same thing if buying premium planes will hurt them financially.

What I have also found, unfortunately, is that most of the later wooden planes will not feed if you set the second iron correctly - they are poorly made, so something like a basic stanley 4 is probably a good target (cheap, available, and no blockage issues).

I guess I could sum the method as follows:
* get a basic stanley 3, 4 or 4 1/2 - whatever is already around, use the stock chipbreaker
* polish the back of the iron
* clean up the face of the chipbreaker so that it is uniformly straight and clean up the undercut on the bottom edge of the chipbreaker, preserving the undercut that ensures a good fit against the back of the iron (a ruler trick as charlesworth provides isn't even precluded, the undercut should be significantly steeper than the back bevel).
* open the mouth a little bit to provide feeding room
* set the chipbreaker so that you can barely see a glint of light from the edge, just the tiniest amount.

If the plane offers a little more resistance than usual in the cut (folding the shaving at the face of the chipbreaker does take some effort), but doesn't bull you and refuse to cut, then it's probably set just right.

It seems a lot of fidgeting to set the iron as close as I'm talking about at first, so that you can barely see the edge, and i'm sure a time or two the chipbreaker overshoots and mangles the edge of the iron a little bit, but like a shaving nick with a straight razor, once you get quick with it after a dozen or so times, you'll never overshoot the set again and wonk the edge.

The iron can be close to square without being dead perfect. My past habit was to set the chipbreaker so that the sides were parallel with the iron, but where it ends up is dictated by the squareness of the grind on the iron and not necessarily the perfect parallelism up its length with the iron sides. A little off is OK.

Maybe it's just another gentleman woodworker phase/fad! But it works. And it's almost free.

[David Weaver]

As far as the deadline on the woody, I'd say if SMC still exists and this thread still exists, then when you post your plane, you've still met the deadline!

[Zach Dillinger]

As far as the deadline on the woody, I'd say if SMC still exists and this thread still exists, then when you post your plane, you've still met the deadline!

Indeed. There's no judging, so whenever you get it done.

[Chris Griggs]

Maybe it's just another gentleman woodworker phase/fad! But it works. And it's almost free.

Dave and I have been doing some discussing (over PM) and testing on this over the last couple of days. I pulled the hock blade out of my old stanley no 4 yesterday, set the CB so I could just see a glimmer of the back and went to town on a piece of curly maple. No tearout, both with and against the grain, no chatter from the thin later model (type 18 I think) stock blade. It really did work, and I say that as someone who has been a naysayer of CBs from the first time I picked up a plane. Derek, keep in mind that Dave and I are speaking in regards to North American hardwoods. I have no idea how this would work on your gnarly aussie stuff, and I'm not about to generalize that this is a substitute for a HA plane or scraper in all cases. The bigger take home point here is that for those who are working mostly North American hardwoods, even those with figure, that setting the CB close is something that one can do and should consider trying, before running out and buying an extra plane, extra blade, extra frog. Of course, I will never try to talk someone out of buying any of those things if they want them and have the money. But for those who want to exaust their options before making another purchase a closely set CB is worth experimenting with (assuming your plane is otherwise well tuned and your blade is SHARP). A high angle can do a lot, a tight mouth works wonders, the CB things is just another option, and if all one has is an old Bailey style plane it may be the only option on hand.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I guess there is not much tutorial to be had. .....

Hi David

I disagree - that is a fine start you provide. I must spend some time practicing, and try and master this before I am prepared to comment about its place in hand planing (as on WC currently).

Here a pic of a little workpiece which was mitered on the donkey's ear at all 4 sides. The shavings are coming from this piece.

Hi Klaus

That is a wonderful piece of work. Beautiful .. form and function coming together in a striking package. It can only get better with the custom blade.

You have set the bar high for those that follow. I hope to start my plane this weekend.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

As you've probably noticed, warren has extended my version of the use thoughts to include discretion being needed to achieve the best surface, especially on softer woods. In my rush of fascination, I was using stuff at least as hard as cherry (not hard, but doesn't crush under a steep angle or a close set chipbreaker, either) to try to stump the plane on hardness and figure. He is, of course, right. I went back and found that on quartered white pine, the chipbreaker will crush the fibers some and you can see if it you know what to look for. Setting the second iron back a little bit mitigates that, though, it's not needed to prevent tearout on pine.

But my goal with smoothers has always been to build a plane that relatively competent user can't use to create anything more threatening than a fuzzy surface (i.e., no tearout regardless of use direction), and work backwards towards surface shine from there because tearout in a show surface is just unacceptable.

As Bill releases more of the documentation he has, maybe more people will be convinced to try using one smoother for everything.

[Derek Cohen]

maybe more people will be convinced to try using one smoother for everything.

David, now that is going a little too far!

God forbid that we should only own and use one plane!!!!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

maybe more people will be convinced to try using one smoother for everything.

David, now that is going a little too far!

God forbid that we should only own and use one plane!!!!

Regards from Perth

Derek

I count 12 smoothers right now (and I have sold off at least that many)...I can't exactly claim to be a minimalist. But the idea (one plane) is nice in a little house on the prairie "I could fit all of the tools I need into a single tool box) kind of way. Shiny finish on easy woods and tearout free finish on difficult woods just by moving a piece of metal around, no extra irons, no back bevels.