Which smoothing plane

[Jerry Olexa]

I would reco a Bailey/stanley #4 0r #3 pre WWll....Just MHO

[Jeff Bartley]

As promised Attachment 329311Attachment 329312
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker

Thanks for sharing pics, awesome bench!

[Jeff Ranck]

... but how many smoothers can one use?

Regards from London

Derek

I'm not sure, but some of us here seem to be trying to find out.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I only have the "old" style LV #4 at this point, but the notion of something smaller is intriguing, particularly since I find myself using my block plane as a smoother more often than I thought I would.

Maybe I'll take a look around for a Stanley #3 to see how I like it.

[Mike Holbrook]

Rather than start a new thread asking about details concerning Smoothing planes, I thought I would post on this thread and try to keep the info. in a general thread about Smoothers.

There have been many threads about various styles & types of planes. I have been making a personal quest into bevel down planes, as in the past I have been more of a BU and wooden plane enthusiast. I hope in this thread to avoid all the frequent battles over what style plane is the best and take a harder look at BD planes, specifically BD smoothing planes. Our friend Derek has favored us with a good deal of information in this regard in his evaluations and testing of the new Veritas Custom planes. As a person who is relatively new to BD plane designs I find a dearth of information on certain aspects of these planes. I initially found this type plane hard to adjust to perform at the level I wanted. As others have posted BU planes, lacking the chip breaker and having the one blade adjuster are probably easier to get working for someone new to planes. But this isn't the point of this post. I am interested in the finer points of tuning a BD plane and which of the various frog designs, adjustment systems, types of blades & designs may be easier/harder/more accurate....

I am most interested in the often discussed advantage of being able to adjust blade depth, on the fly, using BD planes. Although this advantage is often mentioned I have had some difficulty in adjusting my old Stanley planes to work well this way. It seems that tuning a plane to do this is not as simple as saying it can be done. My experimenting so far seems to suggest that some combination of: adjusting the tension in the screws holding the frog in place, adjusting the cap iron, adjusting the top locking tension, adjusting mouth opening are all involved. Thus far I am not sure I am getting it all "right". In my efforts to accomplish this goal with older Stanley #4 & #3 planes I have also seemed to run into difficulties with small tight mouths. Adjusting some of these planes to work with more modern blades, which may be slightly thicker, has also presented a challenge, tending to sometimes cause me to forget that my original objective was to be able to adjust blade depth on the fly. Again I am not here to debate thick vs thin blades, Stanley vs Hock vs Veritas...I bought three Veritas PM-V11 blades and if possible I would like to use them.

It seems to me that this information would be essential to anyone thinking about fine tuning an old Stanley smoothing plane or buying one of the premium planes. I am pretty sure that even the premium planes can be "tuned" such that features like blade depth adjustment either work well or not at all.

[Jerry Olexa]

PS that bench is AMAZING...

[steven c newman]

May comeup to my shop sometime and try mine out? I can adjust the planes "on the fly" while in use. But, once I have a frog where I like it, I do not change that setting. Mine is more about the setting of the chipbreaker. I keep the frog tight enough so it won't move around. Adds too many complications that way. Lever cap screw is just tight enough so things will not move during the cut. The only thing I have found out about a "tight" mouth...it clogs up way too easily.

I do not go more the super thin shavings....takes too long to do any work that way. Nice to use as a show-off sort of thing, but I don't have the time to take the amount of shavings that would entail to finish a job. These are about right for me
SDC15354.jpg
maybe too thin for a jack plane?
IMAG0067.jpg
Millers Falls No.9....full width of the board being smoothed. Two swipes, and done. this is about the same as a Stanley #4.

[Adam Cruea]

I would just ask what size projects you're doing.

I have an old 603 I refurbed with the original Stanley blade that I love. I also have a 604 that I love using, too. For that matter, my LN 4 1/2 York pitch is great, too.

It all depends on the size of the project and the needs of the lumber, though. If I want a super-light, thin shaving I'll reach for my 603. If I want a super-light, medium shaving I'll reach for the 604. If I have a wide piece, or particularly annoying grain, I'll reach for the 4 1/2. I can tell you that trying to balance that 4 1/2 on thin stock is annoying, though.

IMHO, it's good to have a well rounded set. Some will disagree and say that you can get by with a 5, 4, and 7. I won't disagree, and I won't say it's a requirement to have 9,000 different planes, either. If you feel you want or need another size, get it. If not, be content and make some shavings.

[Jim Koepke]

I am most interested in the often discussed advantage of being able to adjust blade depth, on the fly, using BD planes. Although this advantage is often mentioned I have had some difficulty in adjusting my old Stanley planes to work well this way. It seems that tuning a plane to do this is not as simple as saying it can be done. My experimenting so far seems to suggest that some combination of: adjusting the tension in the screws holding the frog in place, adjusting the cap iron, adjusting the top locking tension, adjusting mouth opening are all involved. Thus far I am not sure I am getting it all "right". In my efforts to accomplish this goal with older Stanley #4 & #3 planes I have also seemed to run into difficulties with small tight mouths. Adjusting some of these planes to work with more modern blades, which may be slightly thicker, has also presented a challenge, tending to sometimes cause me to forget that my original objective was to be able to adjust blade depth on the fly. Again I am not here to debate thick vs thin blades, Stanley vs Hock vs Veritas...I bought three Veritas PM-V11 blades and if possible I would like to use them.

Mike,

It has been over 5 years since I posted this:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...th-Hand-Planes

It is archived in the Neanderthal Wisdom/FAQs.

As with so many things on the internet, new information has come to light. Especially about using the chip breaker.

The simplest way to set up a Stanley/Bailey style plane is to set the frog as suggested by Steven Newman and myself. Set it so the face of the frog is aligned with the back of the mouth. A steel rule slid down the face of the frog should not catch on the base. The frog should be as square to the mouth as the eye can see. Tighten the frog screws to hold it solid.

The lever cap screw (LCS) is the next thing to set. It needs to be loose enough that the lever doesn't "snap" to lock. If adjustment is difficult, then the LCS is likely too tight. If the plane can not hold its lateral adjustment, then it is likely too loose. When I am adjusting the LCS for the "sweet spot" it is moved in increments of 1/16 of a turn.

When a blade is fresh from sharpening and the chip breaker set and checked, the blade is backed off until it doesn't cut. Then with a piece of smooth scrap I will slowly adjust the blade until it starts taking a shaving. While doing this it is important to try both sides of the blade. It is often the blade is cutting on one side and not the other. This is where the lateral adjuster comes into play. Once there is a shaving from one side or the other the lateral lever is moved toward the side with the heavier shaving.

After awhile one will be able to judge the shavings by feeling them in the fingers. Cambered blades will have some effect on this.

To check the LCS, take shavings on just one side of the blade. If it holds the setting then the LCS is either over tightened or just right.

The same can be done with the depth adjuster if there is any backlash. Set the blade depth and then back the depth adjuster off a bit. The setting should hold for at least a few strokes.

Once all of this has been set, then you can worry about whether or not there is an advantage to adjusting the mouth.

Sometimes the best way to learn these things is from the experience gained by doing.

Super fine shavings are nice, they can be mesmerizing, in some cases they can solve some problems. Super fine shavings will indicate a sharp blade and can reveal any flaws or nicks in the edge. In most cases it just adds to the amount of work one has to do to get to a finished surface. Get the surface flat with a plane making reasonable shavings and then take the surface to super smooth with a few strokes of a fine set smoother.

Hope this helps,

jtk

[Glen Canaday]

Page 4 really sums up a lot. Good advice.

Per the first post, I prefer a 3 or even a 2 for smoothing. It might be more strokes to get across a board but the light weight makes it fun.

[mark kosse]

Lasse, I don't know your stature, but FWIW I find a #3 to be a tad to small for my hand. I wear a large glove, so not too big a hand.

[Chris Hachet]

Lasse, I don't know your stature, but FWIW I find a #3 to be a tad to small for my hand. I wear a large glove, so not too big a hand.

The #3 handle can be modified for a better fit. IIRC Derek Cohen modified his LN #3 with a #4 handle, but I could be wrong. Making your own ahndle could be done fairly simply also. But I agree, I have average sized hands and I prefer in some ways the feel of a #4.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I have had a no.4 for a while now and Im happy with that for the moment.

[Mike Holbrook]

Jim,

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of more specific information and trying to answer my specific dilemma of adjusting for blade depth on the fly. I have not been quite sure if tightening the frog down all the way might restrict the ability to adjust for depth, even though I can see the blade adjustment knob can move the blade via the tab in the blade. I also have a plane or two which have blades that seem to move during use. I suspect, as Jim suggests, that my main issue is the relative tightness of my LCS (lever cap screw) and the lever cap and side adjustment bar. To my mind these three parts on Stanley planes are the most common source of adjustment error. Some of the LCS's on some of my planes do not seem to fit well in the slots in the lever caps, some slip and slid around almost like they are on a sliding board. I probably need to search for some back up/repair screws as there is obviously no guarantee that the screws in my planes are original parts...There seems to be a fairly wide range of play/tension in the lever caps themselves which adds to the issue of getting the LCS adjusted correctly. The side adjustment levers can be: very hard to move at all, flap around all on their own, or anywhere between those extremes. I have a #6 with a side adjustment lever that sort of works but only stays in place as gravity dictates. I am not sure if there is a way to adjust these levers? I wound up buying a new frog for a Stanley 4 1/2 because the side adjustment was mangled beyond help.

I am going to read Jim's old posts again later and try to glean some more answers.

I think other questions above are directed to the OP but:
I have a wide variety of projects I am working on. Right now I am making a new toilet paper dispenser from a couple pieces of Cherry. I need to cover the holes in the sheet rock where the wife has continued to try to install depot paper dispensers with the plastic garbage that comes in the box. The wife and I are looking at mountain property in North GA. I plan to build rustic/traditional/colonial style furniture for that house: tables, cabinets, book shelves, chairs (older/Irish/Welsh windsor style)....I am working on a plan for an adjustable height work bench. I have chairs, sawbenches....in the works. So small all the way to very large projects.

Steve Newman mentions adjusting the LCS so that the blade does not move during use but is still adjustable "on the fly". That as they say is the rub. I agree about tight mouths not working for rough work too, the issue here being that I plan to use most of my Stanley planes for "rougher" work.

[Jim Koepke]

Steve Newman mentions adjusting the LCS so that the blade does not move during use but is still adjustable "on the fly". That as they say is the rub. I agree about tight mouths not working for rough work too, the issue here being that I plan to use most of my Stanley planes for "rougher" work.

A tight mouth comes into play more on a plane using a blade without a chip breaker. Especially when doing rough work the frog can be set for a wide open mouth.

The later lever caps (type 16 and later) have a "kidney" hole for the Lever Cap Screw. This was to prevent the lever from cap moving when the blade was adjusted to take a lighter shaving.

jtk

[steven c newman]

On how tight or loose I make the lever cap: I use the thunb and finger rule. If I can move the lever cap around with just the thumb and a finger, I'll tighten things down about a 1/4 turn. If I can't adust the depth with just the thumb and finger, I'll loosen the lever cap that same 1/4 turn. The goal being just a thumb OR a finger to adjust.

I really do not adjust a frog's setting on a plane. I set it once, coplanar with the ramp behind the mouth's opening. I then lock the frog in place.

Chipbreaker? On your computer keyboard, look at the letter "I". that black vertical line? That is usually the distance the two parts are spaced from each other. As long as I can see a silver line between the chipbreaker, and the edge of the iron. IF there is any camber involved, then the line is measured at just the corners.

Now, about the only time I will actually use a tight mouth?
IMAG0064.jpg
I have several adjustable mouth block planes. Both the 9-1/2 size, and this Millers Falls #56B low angle block. That is about it.