Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: Building a wooden jointer

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,503
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    This thread is titled "build a wooden jointer", and all of the discussion has been consistent with that. 16/4 beech is preferable for large wooden planes if it's available, and it's available. I don't know why anyone who has access to it would want to build a throwaway plane.
    David, I think it's incorrect, and even offensive to nickname laminate planes "throwaway planes".


    I spent about 3 years building planes and tossing them, must have trashed over a dozen, I don't know if you remember my posts about it. in any case, the reason for tossing them had little to do with laminations and a lot to do with the fact that I was frestyling it, like you mention, and did not have a good design.


    My first jointer was laminated with a tote of Georges design. it was and still is a very nice (not perfect) plane, and I sold it to someone who loves it.


    So I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) why you would call them throwaway's, because a first time maker is likely to produce a dud until he has a well balanced plan and has gotten the little subtitles down, so I would not use good wood for that. BUT and good design and high level of build can and will produce fantastic tools, tools for life, not any more disposable than a solid wood plane, Case in point - aren't HNT planes laminated?

  2. #32
    I say that because most of them are completed in haste as a quick project, or sometimes even making all three at once. I figured some would be offended by the idea that I'm calling them a throw-away project, and frankly, for the folks who only smooth wood, it really doesn't matter much what the plane design is because there will never be that much demand on ergonomics. Shavings are light, the plane is not going to be used to affect the geometry of the wood any more than necessary, etc.

    I don't see them as a viable option for dimensioning a significant amount of wood efficiently vs. a classic plane design.

    HNT planes may be laminated, but they are, or at least were (there are so many iterations of them now) copies of a chinese/taiwanese plane design with some improved components. Most of those chinese planes are cut from a single billet and mortised. I had one gordon plane (it was laminated, which to me was a turn off for a fairly expensive plane - i know many don't care - there is an added realism that must occur and that is terry must run a business and he must make a good serviceable plane every time at a price people agree that the value is there), but I think a lot of the changes in planes have been improvements for the maker, and since I'm not that familiar with them, they may also improve performance or long term fitting issues.

    I made the throw-away comment also because sometimes there are posts about making some krenov planes...and then making more...and more, and more, and then using another plane to do work instead. I'm sure they are fun to make, and that's good.

    It's another thing entirely to get into the various carefully sculpted planes that are out there, and at the amount of time that would take, and the risk of making a dud shape, I'd prefer to spend that time making a proven design. The big unknown to make a double iron mortise plane (chinese or whatever) is the mortise, abutments, taper of the wedge, etc, and I started in the same category - I didn't want to have to understand that after making one plane and guessing at it and not getting a lucky guess. It takes looking at some planes and reading to make sure you're going to get a good plane that adjusts well and that is stable (bedded well) and that feeds well. If I can egg some people into making that type of plane so they love it in 2 years and 20 years (even if they use it for very heavy work, like dimensioning), and don't view it as just another shop made tool, that's my aim.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,468
    HNT Gordon planes are not laminated. They are solid wood.

    There are planes and there are planes. The construction choice does not decide whether a plane is worth keeping or not. What decides whether a plane is worth keeping is how well it works.

    Laminated construction looks easier and so many use it. Laminated planes are easier to get the bed angles right since they inevitably are cut on a tablesaw - but they are actually still complex to get right. The fact that there are so many around, and that a large proportion of these could only be loved by their owner/maker, does not invalidate the method ... only the builder. I doubt that Jim Krenov thought of his planes as throw aways, although he could make them quickly and gave many away.

    I prefer to build solid planes because I like the traditional method. I have made them both ways, however, and do not find a difference in performance.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  4. #34
    The HNT gordon jack plane that I had was laminated. I believe it was called the aussie jack plane or something.

    Derek, I agree with your comment that actually getting any plane dialed in is more than just cutting a few bits out with a TS, gluing them together, etc. That goes to my throw-away comment, that many of those planes probably come up subpar to planes that can be purchased. People either don't know how to get the bedding perfect, and the bits and pieces perfect, or spending the time to get them to be as good as anything you can buy is more than they bargained for.

    The comment I would make as far as aussie wood, is that the only thing that I really don't love the vintage (say 1825) double iron plane for is really hard wood, and if I were in australia, I wouldn't build the same things that I aim to build now. The only reason I didn't aim to build them before was that I didn't know enough to make them work really well (as in as well as anything I could buy that's similar).

    I haven't used a coffin smoother that is remotely the equal of the last cocobolo smoother that I built, but I have built others that were not so good and the culmination of that (studying the mortise area and really attempting to get it right, as well as using a heavier wood and a particular type of iron) was due to not doing such a good job on a few planes and not understanding why. Once you learn something like that, you either want to sit on it and profit off of it, or share it. I want to share it if anyone is receptive. The very first really good plane that I made was because ron brese shared some details about bedding an iron with me (and sold me parts). And the moulding planes, we are able to make really good and very attractive planes because larry shared information (i hope he profits off of it some, too).

    (and I have no clue what type of plane I'd make if I was trying to dimension aussie wood, because I can't imagine it would be very nice to try to dimension any quantity of it. Enough cocobolo to make a plane is bad enough)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,503
    Blog Entries
    1
    I agree, classic mortised planes are fantastic. I don't make planes larger than 9" in any other style. They do not have to be made from solid, or have abutments for that matter. I don't like the wooden pin for strength, but a notched 1\2" or even 5\8" (got the stock haven't tried it yet, think it might look too big on the side) brass pin is very strong for heavy work, and will not cause any feeding or wedge issues as time goes by, it's easy to get a perfect plane in that way. the pins take time to make by hand, but it's not hard and is worthwhile if your using a pin IMO.


    I suppose you must separate between construction method an design, because laminated to me doesn't mean "carelessly shaped". I aim for all my planes to be fully functional, for a 9" krenov that means it does everything a no.4 will do and does just as well. It took me 4 years to accomplish that in a krenov smoother, the biggest deal was ergonomics\mechanics of use, but small things like stiffness and wood choice, bedding and other little nicks and stuff all matter. I have found that a krenov smoother (I don't make the mouth ridiculously tight) is better at large stock removal than a no.4 which I don't like for medium - heavy shavings. the no.4 sets to a fluffy shaving more easily, the krenov can do it too. again, it took me a long time to get a plane that even remotely challenges a no.4, it's not easy.


    for Jack, Try and Jointer planes, I use only wood, I don't like big metal planes very much. I make them with a tote traditional style, but they are laminated and I'm ok with that as long as I make them to a very high standard. because if they are not made to a high standard I don't find myself wanting to keep them, I'm not sure I'd feel otherwise if it were solid, but I might.
    One day I probably will chop a plane, but wood like that is costly and I will only do so once I have a proven design on the laminated ones, again, like you said it's not worth the effort to be guessing at it.


    Bottom line, IMO, if you put proper effort into it, a laminated plane can be great and a real keeper, the plus is it's easy enough for people to do and get goo results fairly quickly, it's very practical.
    Last edited by Matthew N. Masail; 09-18-2014 at 12:13 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,503
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    HNT Gordon planes are not laminated. They are solid wood.

    There are planes and there are planes. The construction choice does not decide whether a plane is worth keeping or not. What decides whether a plane is worth keeping is how well it works.

    Laminated construction looks easier and so many use it. Laminated planes are easier to get the bed angles right since they inevitably are cut on a tablesaw - but they are actually still complex to get right. The fact that there are so many around, and that a large proportion of these could only be loved by their owner/maker, does not invalidate the method ... only the builder. I doubt that Jim Krenov thought of his planes as throw aways, although he could make them quickly and gave many away.

    I prefer to build solid planes because I like the traditional method. I have made them both ways, however, and do not find a difference in performance.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    well said.... that's what I am trying to say.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Enchanted land of beer, cheese & brats
    Posts
    1,314
    Hay another question.

    If you were to build a plane with a tote would/should it be off set slightly (further from user) from center? I thought I recalled reading this somewhere.

    Derek are your totes off set?
    Last edited by Judson Green; 09-18-2014 at 12:17 PM.
    I got cash in my pocket. I got desire in my heart....

  8. #38
    The costly wood is a real problem. The issue of it taking 4 years to come up with a design you really like does suggest that it's not quite as easy to make non-throwaway planes as is implied. You could have a pile of nice mortised planes (blade sets coming from europe are easy to find over where you are, but you'd have to find a source of european beech), and I guarantee you'd get some terminal keepers in the first year.

    I personally don't like pins that much, but I don't like them because I think the abutment setup is better. It has the ability to distribute direct pressure without any leverage, right on top of the iron all of the way down to where it terminates. It doesn't require any accurate drilling, either.

    What disgusts me, having made some of my own planes until we got to where we are now in really knowing what the mortise should be like, is that in all of these shop made planes that end up unsatisfactory, there is a fair amount of money in time and wood, hardware and irons. There is a little bit of a learning curve to make the mortise pretty and make the mouth of a plane pretty and get everything ok laterally with the abutments, but it's a matter of a few planes. For the true woodworker who doesn't want to make tools, once you have a single good one, you're done. I recall warren mentioning that he made his try plane some decades ago (30-40 years ago?) and has been using it heavily since. To have a plane that satisfactory is what I want.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,468
    The HNT gordon jack plane that I had was laminated. I believe it was called the aussie jack plane or something.
    Just for reference, that is the jack kit that Terry sells.



    All others are indeed solid ...



    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,503
    Blog Entries
    1
    Making satisfactory plane is not easy at all, I'm only saying laminated or not is not the issue. to be fair, making a plane was my first woodworking project ever that included more than a power drill and a orbital sander, it started to save money (the internet make your own plane scheme got me) but by now yes I could have bought a LN bronze 4 and more with the case spent. I must have made 25-30 planes or so and it was hard to learn what makes a good plane, the same exact thing as the abutments Imagine.


    Abutments might very well be better. the pin has superior practicality truth is it took a while to understand how to get a pin to hold perfectly too, and how to get the wedge so the blade adjusts according to your intention and not according to where it's hold firmest.

  11. #41
    No, it wasn't a kit. This was probably 6 years ago now, it was a laminated jack plane that came in a box that indicated a complete plane - it had been shaped professionally, and looked just like the completed kit there (I think he had manufactured some)

    Here is one that doesn't appear to be a kit, either, that is laminated (with handle). http://www.woodworkforums.com/attach...4&d=1366962103

    Maybe he could clear it up, not that it's worth his time to do so - but I'd imagine that he would tell you that he sold some finished planes that were laminated for a period of time at least, even if he no longer does.

    I sold it on ebay back then, so I have zero chance of scraping up the pictures (If I'd have sold it here, it would be in my attachments).

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew N. Masail View Post
    Making satisfactory plane is not easy at all, I'm only saying laminated or not is not the issue. to be fair, making a plane was my first woodworking project ever that included more than a power drill and a orbital sander, it started to save money (the internet make your own plane scheme got me) but by now yes I could have bought a LN bronze 4 and more with the case spent. I must have made 25-30 planes or so and it was hard to learn what makes a good plane, the same exact thing as the abutments Imagine.


    Abutments might very well be better. the pin has superior practicality truth is it took a while to understand how to get a pin to hold perfectly too, and how to get the wedge so the blade adjusts according to your intention and not according to where it's hold firmest.
    I think anyone with a year of woodworking experience would be able to make a plane with good abutments on their second or third try. There just aren't any variables there with the wedge and pin, etc, once you know how to mark the abutments and create a wedge that will feed well (and fit it to the side of the plane). I've got some books that show layout pictures of planes, but I was never able to grasp all of it until I bought a plane that was in good shape and that was expertly made. Then it was crystal clear. I think that this group of planes will be the first ones that I make (including the cocobolo smoother #2) that I could probably sell for what the parts cost me if I got in some extreme financial pinch.

    The bigger issue with a beginner in any plane (handled include) is going to be having the sense to get the aesthetics right, and having the good sense to take proportions from a plane that they already know works well. I will use floats on these beech planes for tidyness, but I could build the planes without them. I don't know that I could make that blanket statement with the cocobolo - I intended to use only chisels on it, but I wasn't happy with the finish left by the chisels going cross grain - it was too splintery.

    Handles can be shaped by a coarse half round metal file for someone really in financial straits.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, MI
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Judson Green View Post
    Hay another question.

    If you were to build a plane with a tote would/should it be off set slightly (further from user) from center? I thought I recalled reading this somewhere.

    Derek are your totes off set?
    You see 18th century American planes with offset totes. I made my "non-throwaway"30" maple jointer with an offset tote and I like it. I can't swear to what it does, ergonomics wise, but I imagine that the guys who were pushing them for large portions of their lives had a reason for it. I suppose it does provide an interesting balancing force to the force that one applies essentially to left side of the toe of the plane when pushing down with the left hand. This could rotate the plane slightly and perhaps the offset tote provides the opposite force to level out the sole in relation to the wood. This is something a skilled plane user does instinctively anyway, so who knows.
    Your endgrain is like your bellybutton. Yes, I know you have it. No, I don't want to see it.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Enchanted land of beer, cheese & brats
    Posts
    1,314
    Hi Zach

    About how much did you off set by?

    Would you do it again?
    I got cash in my pocket. I got desire in my heart....

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Dillinger View Post
    You see 18th century American planes with offset totes. I made my "non-throwaway"30" maple jointer with an offset tote and I like it. I can't swear to what it does, ergonomics wise, but I imagine that the guys who were pushing them for large portions of their lives had a reason for it. I suppose it does provide an interesting balancing force to the force that one applies essentially to left side of the toe of the plane when pushing down with the left hand. This could rotate the plane slightly and perhaps the offset tote provides the opposite force to level out the sole in relation to the wood. This is something a skilled plane user does instinctively anyway, so who knows.
    I think george has said it here, but I know talking to him offline that he's told me that it keeps you from closing a grip on the handle as easily, and thus less fatigue on the hands - especially over time.

    Do you let your hand go over the side of the plane (like pinkie and ring finger drape over)? I won't sink the mortise for the handle until the plane is almost done, but I haven't decided yet if it will be in the center or slightly offset.

    I had a continental plane (an older one) with the handle offset pretty far, but the plane itself was junk ahead of the handle, so I didn't get a chance to try it.

Posting Permissions

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