Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 97

Thread: Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    410

    Tapered vs Krenov/Hock vs Japansese Style irons

    At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

    I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

    In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

    much appreciated.

    /p

  2. #2
    Double iron beech planes have at least a 250 year history. By 1790 or so double iron planes were the standard. At that time parallel or gaged irons were available at a premium. They were obviously more expensive to manufacture. I personally made my first double iron plane in 1975. They work well.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Steve Voigt built my mini-smoother that way.

    It's a breeze to adjust, a bear to disassemble
    because the fit between the cap iron and blade
    create a vacuum seal.

    Steve is a regular on the forum, and makes excellent planes in the traditional
    style you and I admire.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Posts
    577
    I make traditional style planes, and I have used both the Veritas tapered single iron and the Hock 4 1/2" double iron. In my personal opinion, the planes perform equally well with either iron. It's a personal preference between single iron or double iron. With a tapered iron, as you tap the iron forward to advance it, you also loosen the wedge, so you have to remember to tap the wedge also with your plane hammer. If you set the iron for a thick shaving, and want to back it out, it's best to just loosen it, pull it out, and start over by advancing the iron and the wedge until satisfied with your depth set.

    I'm making a strike block plane for use a shooting plane, and I'm using the Veritas tapered iron for it.
    Jeff

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    N. Idaho
    Posts
    1,621
    Hello Jeff,

    Would love to see progress or at least completion pics of your strike block plane (pardon the highjack--perhaps you could do a build thread?).

    Thanks!
    C

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    410
    Thanks all for your feedback, quite valuable.

    /p

  7. #7
    Jim, thanks for the kind words.
    Pedro, I have made double iron planes with both Hock irons and vintage tapered irons, the latter usually purchased on ebay. They both work very well. The lack of taper on the Hocks is not really an issue, for two reasons. First, even an untapered single iron can work fine in a traditional plane; tapered irons just work a little better. But more importantly, in a double iron, the "sandwich" of iron + chipbreaker is tapered, because of the bend in the chipbreaker. So you get the mechanical advantage of a taper even though the iron itself is not tapered.
    I use the Hock 3 1/2" irons on small planes, like Jim's, that are intended for one-handed use. I radius the top, so that the blade nestles in the palm of the hand. But I wouldn't use one on a full size plane. The 4 1/2" should work on a full size plane, but it doesn't leave you with a ton of extra blade.
    For the full size planes I've built, I've used vintage tapered irons. The upside is that they can often be had for super cheap. The downside is they can take a lot of labor to flatten, remove pits, and get the chipbreaker and iron to mate properly. If you go this route, try to get one in as good condition as possible. There's an outfit on ebay called "gandmtools" that sells NOS vintage irons. Even with shipping from England, it's still less than you'd pay for a Hock, and the irons are almost twice as long. But I've also done fine refurbishing used irons that I bought for $10 or less; it just takes more work.
    It is harder to make a high-functioning double iron plane than it is to make a single iron plane. The main issue is getting the plane to feed properly. I advise keeping the wear bevel small. But, the rewards are greater. A well made double iron will outperform a single iron every time.
    I have a blog, The Black Dog's Woodshop, with several plane builds on it. You may find it useful.

    - Steve

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro Reyes View Post
    At some point I would like to make a plane out of Beech, not a Krenov lamination but a traditional one.

    I know Lee Valley sells some nice tapered irons, and that most (if not all) traditional planes had this style, using wedge mortises (sides) . The Krenov style, has straight blade/cap iron assemblies wedged using the cross pin, and honestly I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.

    In any case, Hock now offers longer blade/cap assemblies, so I thought, why not build a traditional plane using a double iron? Has anyone done this? Does anyone think it would not work because the blade/cap assembly is not really tapered? Can anyone provide insight as to what might change from what Whelan (or Perch & Lee) state in their books? Or any tips?

    much appreciated.

    /p
    Find an NOS double iron set on ebay (from a beech wooden plane) and build your plane using it instead of a modern iron that looks tacky and amateurish in that style of plane.

    I think I've used these sellers:
    gandmtoolsales
    sigee6t4

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wild Wild West USA
    Posts
    1,542
    I ignore how the Japanese do it, I even think I heard once their irons are tapered fat at the top, thin at the business end.
    Why ignore the Japanese style ?
    Since you listed it and brought it up and all.


    Check out what this guy says.


    http://video.pbs.org/video/2365001106/


    Who needs a chip breaker ?


    Can get some killer good blades.
    http://www.japanwoodworker.com/categ...ne-blades.aspx


    This style if made right works great.
    Mine is not exactly the same as Mr. Fox's and it has that plate on there but I can't resist showing it off.
    Still wouldn't plane bubinga but if put in a di with a steeper angle it would.
    No I didn't make the plane but in the words of Bogart in the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
    "I coulda but I don't wanta. See?" ( actually it was more like : I-coulda-buh-ah-doe-wana-see!)








    Last edited by Winton Applegate; 04-08-2014 at 1:47 AM.
    Sharpening is Facetating.
    Good enough is good enough
    But
    Better is Better.

  10. #10
    If I would make a traditional style wooden plane, I would want to stick the original style iron into it. A laminated iron with a nice taper and a capiron, crowned with one of these nice old logo's stamped at the top. You can buthcer an old woodie (plenty around) or buy one from the sources David mentioned.


    But a parallel iron will work too. Maybe not as perfectly as the tapered one, but the difference wouldn't be huge.

  11. #11
    To reiterate what steve said about the pitting, I have recovered irons that should've been thrown away, but in the balance of things, I think buying a fresh and clean iron from someone like the sellers I mentioned is far better on the value side. Plus, if you're making a fresh and new plane, you don't necessarily want to have a beater looking iron that may be wider on the left or right due to removal of pitting, or even compromised a little in thickness.

    An excellent clean vintage iron and cap iron setup should be about $35 with shipping from the UK, where they (NOS older carbon steel irons) seem to still be in plentiful supply.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Hi Pedro

    I've made many planes with a variety of blades. The blades range from parallel Hock and Veritas (I've not yet tried the tapered ones) to vintage tapered and parallel. The reliability of the Hock and Veritas steel is one factor to consider. The vintage blades have been variable and unpredictable in terms of heat treatment, and this includes both used and NOS vintage blades.

    There are pro and cons with parallel and tapered blades. Both are used by foremost plane manufacturers: HNT Gordon use shortish 1/4" thick parallel blades, which are held securely with a wooden wedge. Old Street use 3/16" (I think) tapered blades, and these are also held securely with a wedge. My logic says that a tapered blade will be more securely held than a parallel blade, and they would be the preference for a plane that takes a deep cut, such as a jack ... but then my jack has a parallel blade, and it does fine. The disadvantage of the tapered blade is that the mouth will open progressively as the blade wears. This is going to be more of an issue with smoothers that rely on a small mouth to control tearout. The other disadvantage of the tapered blade is that it is less easy to adjust. As Jeff pointed out, you have to drive the blade down and out, then start again if you wish to reduce the projection. A parallel iron can be adjusted for a reduced projection by a rap on the rear of the plane's body.

    I cannot say that I find a strong enough reason to go with tapered blades in the future. Perhaps someone can convince me to continue using tapered irons?

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  13. #13
    I've never found much favor in straight (parallel) irons in a wedge plane, whether it's a bench plane or (especially) a moulding plane.

    If one is processing wood (starting with rough) it's likely that you'll start at a setting, decide to go deeper (as deep as you can comfortably plane) and then keep that setting until the plane is dull. The exception may be a smoother, but a smoother is the easiest plane to set (vs. trying to tap the back of a jointer).

    The bonus is that you can take the iron out of any of the planes by just holding the wedge and bumping the plane on a bench above the leg.

    I haven't seen a need for a small mouth in a smoother for a couple of years now. Use of the double iron illuminates why a lot of the older infills don't have super tight mouths. Same thing on the coarser wood planes. A wider mouth on a plane that isn't super quality is likely to cause less trouble.

    While I have had variable experience with the vintage irons, the only one that I have had that wasn't any good was a thistle brand (was that prison labor?) cheaply made plane - the iron was chippy. The rest have been harder or softer than each other, but their hardness has been in proportion with their sharpening ease, a trade I'm more than willing to make. The last plane I got that had an iron that I thought was too soft, well actually two of them - first was a continental smoother with a pugeot freres iron, and the second is one of the cheap try planes I mentioned in a thread a month or so ago that had a dwight and french iron. In both cases, the irons seemed to yield unreasonably easily to oilstones, but in both cases, they hold up just fine in actual use.
    Last edited by David Weaver; 04-08-2014 at 9:12 AM.

  14. #14
    The effect of a tight mouth on tearout is marginal at best when the sole is absolutely flat, and non existent as soon as the sole wears a bit in front of the mouth. Japanese wooden planes solve this with their particular shape of the sole, but even then, the effect on tearout is still marginal.

    All my wooden planes behave a bit different when setting the iron. The most predictable are the ones with a tapered iron. They need a more decisive tap with the adjusting hammer. The iron can also easilly be retracted a bit with a rap on the back or just in front of the mortice. My Ulmia and my infill with parallel irons both need very light taps. My Krenov type can't be set precisely when tapping the iron downwards, and can only be set precisely when you retract the blade with taps on the back.

    You just learn to live with the differences. Best is not to have too many planes....

  15. #15
    In all my fiddling and cuddling with wooden planes I came to a conclusion about the shape of the mouth area. Double iron planes don't have a very tight mouth, not even in a smoother. 1 mm in front of the edge is fine. The wear (the face in front of the iron) has an angle between 80 and 90 degrees. This is confirmed in the Seaton chest planes, these have a wear of 87 degrees. Of course this means that the mouth widens when you repeatably flatten the sole, but luckilly that doesn't matter at all. Best is to limit the amount of material you remove when reflattening the sole. take it easy, usually you don't need to remove much.

    Single iron planes have a wear which is much closer to the iron, usually 60 to 70 degrees.

    The wedge in a double iron plane should end on top of the bulge of the capiron. In a single iron it should be deeper. Make sure the tips of the wedge are slightly pressing outwards to the sides of the abutments. The points of the wedge are tapered. Make the abutments the same shape. Insert the wedge and iron and tap them tight as in normal use. Then mark the abutments from the wedge tips and remove material as neccessary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •