Building a wooden jointer

[David Weaver]

Prashun, here are pictures (apologies for my drawing skills). The critical measurements are length (obviously to scale the measurements), height, width, distance to the back of the mouth (bed at the bottom of the plane) and to the back of the handle where it terminates into the plane body. I listed the distance to the front of the handle, but it doesn't matter much. More critical is that the handle doesn't get in the way of the iron. You can lay that out by cutting a mortise first, and then making a handle and then locating the handle on the body last.

First a single iron 50 degree bed plane (could just as easily be double iron) from between 1820 and 1840 or so.

P1040071.jpg

And a later double iron jointer at 45 degrees.

P1040072.jpg

With these measurements, you can locate everything else.

Both of these planes are 2.5 inch irons (not surprisingly, though they're different makers they're almost the exact same finished width. Interesting that they are different to the back of the mouth by a fair bit (and backwards from what I would've guessed), but I never noticed it in use, they're both nice planes to use. The different distance between the fronts on the two coupled with the steeper bed means there's more space between the iron and the handle on the plane at the top, probably not a bad thing if you're making your own plane.

If you decide these look like a pain to build, that's OK, maybe someone else will want to build one.

[David Weaver]

I know prashun knows this, and so too would anyone who reads all of the comments - both jointers in the above pictures are 28 inches long. I neglected to label to the top jointer.

[Judson Green]

Just wondering out loud, David on the two drawings the mouth/iron seems to be ~⅓ the distance back from the front, but on Derek's super jointer and even his 28" one (same as yours) the mouth/iron seems to be ~ in the middle. Any reasoning? Just different style? Any performance difference?

[David Weaver]

I can't answer on derek's part, I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts.

I can answer from using some continental planes - they have the iron back from the end of the plane more than english and american planes. It's just a difference in feel that you get used to when you use them.

there may be other reasons, but I can get along with either. I prefer the english planes in long planes (there's no issue with needing more than 10 inches in front of the iron to get a cut started), and am indifferent about smoothers (continental smoothers are nice to use).

I'm not sure if prashun is going to build a plane like the ones I showed above, I am literally mooching his 16/4 beech as this topic goes along, but I'll be following the patterns above exactly for one specific reason - I've used those planes and they are nice to use. When I've freelanced in the past, I've always been disappointed with the tool if I'm honest about it, and in this case, I want to build a plane that I don't prefer another plane over.

[Prashun Patel]

I'm planning on following your plans exactly. However, the new confounded Veritas planes have me lusting for some metal!!!

I need to get some diagrams of the mouth. I'm also not sure whether to go single iron or double...

[David Weaver]

The basic difference in making a plane is that you have to be more particular about the size of the mouth on a single iron plane (you don't want to be too sloppy on a double), and your wedge in a single iron plane can go almost all the way to the mouth before it terminates and without causing any feed problems. There's less room between the iron and the wear (in front of the iron) because a big gap would allow the mouth of the plane to open quickly as the plane wears. I noticed on caleb's plan (which larry williams probably also does), the wear is fairly short. I didn't read their write ups, but I'd imagine that's because a shorter wear is a lot easier to get to feed.

On a double iron plane, you have more room between the bed and the wear because the bed angle will probably be shallower and the wear will be steeper. The cap iron pushes the shaving back toward the wear, so if the angle is too tight between the wear and the bed you'll just get a clog. The wedge terminates into the wear.

The cocobolo smoother thread had a pretty long discussion about angles with a double iron plane, but it might be more in depth than is easy to tolerate on a quick readthrough.

I can take the basic layout of my two vintage jointers if you'd like to see what they are (in terms of angles).

(I think I had originally said I'd get the dimensions off of three planes but the two double iron planes are literally identical in their measurements, so the numbers for the 45 degree double iron plane would be the same for both other than that one has a 2.75 inch iron and the other a 2.5)

[Chris Fournier]

Simple as pie and not complicated, this is a one day project at best for your first effort. Check out a Stanley #7 or #8 proportions, download them if you have to. Strike out on your own an modify otherwise to suite your needs. Why mortise a woodie except for the experience? Check out the way that Krenov built planes, super quick, super accurate and super effective - slab, four tablesaw cuts, glue - done. I make planes like this when I need a freak. So easy to do that I give them away. My client has paid for it and it really didn't cost that much.

Read Krenov, I know that he gets no props here from the regulars who espouse the black art but go wild and get results. One dedicated iron and you can make a plane in half a day!

[David Weaver]

There's nothing wrong with krenov planes as smoothers, but they are lacking as far as jointers go, especially if they are made with 2" irons or whatever most krenov planes are made with. There's no reason to waste 16/4 beech on a throwaway plane without a handle.

[Chris Fournier]

There's nothing wrong with krenov planes as smoothers, but they are lacking as far as jointers go, especially if they are made with 2" irons or whatever most krenov planes are made with. There's no reason to waste 16/4 beech on a throwaway plane without a handle.

One, I did not say a Krenov jointer. I said a Krenov build.

Two, what is the problem with a jointer, Krenov build or otherwise and then with a 2" iron? You David have introduced the 2" iron, not me.

Three, there is no need for 16/4 anything let alone beech. Perhaps you can let us know why you think that this is the required rough stock, size and species for a jointer? It certainly would not be when I was building this plane. Nor have I ever thrown a plane away, I mentioned that I gave some to others, a gift only as generous as the effort that it took to make them. Humble indeed and no where near magnanimous in scale. Effective? Yup. Every bit as useful as the pre-production LN 7 that I was waiting for at the time but couldn't wait for because a client had paid and was waiting for his commission.

KISS works in my shop and it can work in everyone else's.

[David Weaver]

One, I did not say a Krenov jointer. I said a Krenov build.

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.

[Derek Cohen]

Just wondering out loud, David on the two drawings the mouth/iron seems to be ~⅓ the distance back from the front, but on Derek's super jointer and even his 28" one (same as yours) the mouth/iron seems to be ~ in the middle. Any reasoning? Just different style? Any performance difference?

Hi Judson

There are a couple of reasons why I prefer the mouth further back on a jointer.

As a rule of thumb, the further forward the mouth, the more directional it is. This adds control. The further back the mouth, the less directional. Too far back and the plane becomes squirrely.

An advantage to moving the mouth further back is the greater the registration area and that the jointer is easier to start flat and work as if it were a longer plane (which makes it easier to create flat surfaces - not the only way, but more reliable and easier). If you compare a Stanley #7 with a LV BU Jointer, both are 22" long, but the LV has the mouth 2" further back. This gives it the registration of a longer #8 (which is 24" in length). I have these two planes. The LV is my preference by far - it just offers more feedback and feels more manoeuvrable at the same time.

These factors are also influenced by the angle of the handle: the more vertical the handle, the easier it will be to push on a higher bench. A mouth that is further back seems to benefit from a more vertical handle as this adds more control. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Comment...fortPart2.html

The link I added offers more discussion.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Matthews]

If the stock can only be found thinner, and lamination is necessary -
why not build it in mirror halves, as the defunct "Nice Planes" design by Rhett Fulkerson?

You could excavate both the left and right sides close to your desired dimensions
before gluing them together, and fettle once the glue dries.

If the grain lines or each side are regular, and set in oppostion
it would make for a very stable structure.

My biggest beef with woodies is their change in shape over the years.
That's likely to be more pronounced, the longer the sole.

[David Weaver]

A lamination is perfectly suitable if you can't find good wood. Unless Prashun sent all of his good wood to me, he's got just what one would want to have to make a quality plane, something I haven't seen in several years of just browsing. Anyone who doesn't have such a thing could take two quartered pieces and glue them, though, and make a nice plane.

I'm not sure when movement occurs in large planes, but it's definitely an issue in the long term at least. Every woodie that I have gotten has required some attention to getting a flat sole again, though the ones I do have (some for 7 years or so) have been good since setting them up the first time. I have a pretty stable (and relatively dry) basement and garage environment, though. I'm not sure when the movement occurred or if the planes were as out of shape when the last user used them. The JT brown jointer I pictured in another thread had hardly been used, and the iron was stuck hard in the plane cheeks. It was convex almost to an extreme (maybe an 8th of an inch), but otherwise with no sign of wear on the sole - no marks, no wear. I can't imagine the maker would've made it as far out of flat.

[Prashun Patel]

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.

I have so much scrap beech at 8/4 and 6/4, I'm definitely going to build a test first. All my projects ride that delicate line between KISS and WKISSWICHFMIC (Why Keep it Simple When I Can Have Fun Making it Complicated?)

[Chris Fournier]

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.

I read that this thread is about a wooden jointer and my recommended build will yield a wooden jointer. I still have my 22" wooden jointer, never thrown away, I use it for site work where it is easier to carry and not as precious to me as my LN 7.

I made the assumption that Prashun wants a tool for working not a museum quality replica and it seems that at this time and instance I am correct.