Building a Traditional Wooden Plane (Lessons Learned)

[Dan Barr]

Hi Creekers,

I'd like this thread to be about all the lessons learned in building a traditional wooden plane. (not a Krenov style plane) I am soliciting all the knowledge and experience that anyone will offer.

Here is my first meager attempt at building just the body of a plane. I did'nt have any nice scraps of wood, so i took this small piece of qtr swn wt oak, marked it up and had a few hours of fun. I don't plan on doing anything else with this piece. I'll probably just do a few more practice pieces in the near future for now.

Things I learned:

-Start waste removal 1/16" in from the scribed lines

-Leave the top and bottom of the stock 1/16" (1/8" total) larger than final size (i plan on cheating by doing this. I use my mortice chisels and pry and leave marks. then i plane off the 1/16" on top and bottom. Also, It gives nice clean lines to the mouth

-Cut well inside your angles (I exceeded mine and the mouth is huge)

-My skewed combo Float is awesome!

-Skew chisels are invaluable

-Using my shoulder to run my chisel down the bed wasnt that hard. (this is a small plane though)

-Floats are better for getting a flat surface than paring chisels. However, I had to use both constantly because floats will cause the wood to lift up as with miter planing.

-Clean the corners out extra sharp with the skew and paring chisels.

-Touch up chisels at least once or twice with a strop, if not a few more times.


Let me know your experiences as well.

Thanks,

Dan

[george wilson]

Sorry to tell you that your geometry on the angled cheeks is backwards. There is no way to fit the wedge. The grain should be oriented so that if the plane were inside the tree,the sole would face the outside of the tree.

You need to get an old wooden plane and study how it is made.

[Dan Barr]

Yea,

I know. I was simply making this as an exercise in how to bang out the mortice, cheeks, abutments, etc.

Not that good of a plane body.

Cheers,

dan

[David Gendron]

In my opinion, when practicing, practice doing every thing a right as possible so you have a better understanding of the tasks and you have less chances of mistakes when ready for the real stuff!
Good luck

[Dan Barr]

George,

I don't see how the geometry is wrong. Please explain. I don't see how fitting the wedge is impossible.

I know the grain is wrong. I dont have any other pieces of wood available. Also, i'm not going to use a perfect piece when i know that im not capable of producing a perfect plane yet.

David,

Yes, that is the point of practice.

Does anyone have any "lessons learned" or do they just want to sharpshoot my attempt?

Cheers,

dan

[Matt Benton]

Seems to me that George's comment about the sole facing the outside of the tree is indicating that the sole should be face grain instead of edge grain. Is this correct? I thought the sole should be edge grain for both durability and stability...

[Dan Barr]

The sole should be the outer most grain. lumber can be cut at that point so that it could be either face or edge. In this instance, i would call it edge grain. edge and face could be ambiguous. i would consider the sole of the plane to be the edge of the wood. so, depending on the height and width, what would you call the edge?

the outer most grain has the straightest ring lines due a larger diameter.

This little block of wood is the only little scrap i could muster at the moment. so, i just squared it up and started. the growth rings in this piece are perpindicular to what they ought to be.

i need to go get a few larger scraps of wood. this one was too small for my first one. but it will probably make me a little better in the future.

cheers,

dan

[Matt Benton]

Seems like we're talking two different questions. I understand wanting stock closest to the outside of the tree (larger diameter, straighter rings, more stable).

But assuming you already have the stock, seems to me that you would want the grain running perpendicular to the sole. If the grain were running parallel to the sole, wouldn't any movement cause the sole to become concave or convex?

[Jim Koepke]

Dan,

I think people are offering the lessons they have learned.

George commented about studying old planes and the grain orientation. He also mentioned the angled cheeks. Take a look at other planes like these:

http://www.crownplane.com/catalog.html

and it may be clear. To me, it looks like the fat part goes to the back, not the front.

My thoughts on practice is everything is practice. All practice should be done as if it is for keeps.

As David said,

In my opinion, when practicing, practice doing every thing a right as possible so you have a better understanding of the tasks and you have less chances of mistakes when ready for the real stuff!

Practicing is also the developing of habits. If the habit is to always properly align the wood, it will lead to better results in the future and in all of one's endeavors.

My attempts at plane making were done years ago, not only before my experience with SMC, but before SMC was on the net. The lesson I learned is that it is not as simple of a project as it looks. Learned I needed to know more about making planes before I tried to make them. Soon, I think I will try again to make planes.

jim

[george wilson]

Dan,I am not trying to "sharpshoot" your efforts. neither is David. English is a second language to David. If you want advice,I'll be happy to give it,but if you aren't open to it,no progress will be accomplished. You may,or may not know that I have made hundreds of wooden planes.

I think the pictures that Jim has kindly posted show clearly that the angled cheeks on your plane need to go the other way. Otherwise,you cannot cut a groove to insert the wedge into.

Your escapement,which is the part of the throat in front of the opening,is also incorrect. If you can't find pictures,at least buy an old junker that you can study. The making of a proper plane involves quite a few angles,which can be confusing.

Your old junker plane doesn't even need to have an iron,and can be half rotted,but it will give you the throat to study. I strongly recommend that you get an old 19th.C. plane,as there are many improper deviations from the classic plane throat later on. Old English planes frequently have the best aesthetics.

I might point out that none of the planes shown in Jim's pictures have "eyes" cut into them,which greatly increases the aesthetic appearance of the wooden plane throat,and makes it easier to insert one's fingers to remove stuck shavings. This,to me,is one example of an improper deviation in throat making,which I do not consider as attractive as a decent original. Eyes are hard to describe.What they consist of is the top area of the angled cheeks are scooped away in a pleasing curve.

[Raney Nelson]

Dan,

I think I see what George is referring to, though I think it may just be that your escapement and bed angles look to be a bit reversed from standard. In most of your pictures, you're shooting looking down along the angle that the blade would sit at, correct? In that case, your geometry is not backwards, but it looks like the angles you've used are a bit different than would be common. It may well be the angles you're photographing at, but it looks to me like the bed angle is at about 60-70 degrees to the sole, while the escapement is closer to 45 degrees. That would be the exact opposite what one would normally use, though as I said it may just be the angle of the photography.

Also, it looks as though you've not got much of a wedging angle in here. Somewhere in the maybe 8-10 degree range above bed angle would be common for a non-tapered blade - describing the angle between the top of the wedge to the angle of the bed. If you're using a tapered blade, it would obviously be a couple of degrees less.

Also, don't take the comments on the block orientation as 'shooting you down' - they're absolutely critical for a plane that will last more than a couple of weeks without serious problems from movement. CHanges in the sole flatness are the least of the concerns because you can easily flatten a sole. However, a change in bed linearity, or in the wedge abutments can lead to a self-destructing plane, or one that requires a lot of work to adjust, and even then you may be left with a mouth that is unacceptably large.

I would strongly second George's recommendation to copy a quality old plane - or work from a good book (Both Whelan and Perch/Lee are good starting points). Perhaps you already are, and it's just not easy to see from your pictures. I can't be sure. A side view with the angles you've used, the terminus of the wedge abutments, the throat height - these are all things it's almost impossible to see accurately from the photos.

Here's a pretty good online article, from c. late 19th c. I believe, which spells out (though not quite as simply as some other sources) the critical basic geometry to laying a block out, just in case you haven't seen one yet. I should say, though, that I think this one lacks a LOT of important information...:

http://www.handplane.com/practical-plane-making-1

Also, here is one of Larry Williams' excellent articles, this one on some of the considerations for stock orientation:

http://planemaker.com/articles_tuning.html

[george wilson]

Raney,yes,the angles of the cheeks are indeed backwards. Take a closer look at Jim's pictures. The cheeks come inwards as they approach the wedge. Then,the grooves for the wedge are cut into the extra meat at the top of the plane body. As the wedge progresses down into the plane body,the cheeks get wider,until they are nearly the same width as the throat. This keeps the cheeks from blocking the chips coming from the throat.

[Raney Nelson]

Ah - I see what you mean (I think) - to me, though, it's just that the reduction in the wood hasn't been accomplished yet - the cheeks could still be reduced through paring or with a float for the necesary clearance. I don't think I'd have called the geometry backward, though - it's jsut that the cheeks have only been partly formed, with the front-back taper more or less in place, but the top-bottom taper not done yet.

Regardless, though, I still would strongly suggest Whelan's "making traditional wooden planes" as a really good primer on the geometry.

edit: I just looked through a couple of good online tutorials I know of (noresewoodsmith has a couple) but unfortunately I can't seem to find a good illustration of the cheek formation from that perspective. Most of the drawings and photos are very much top-down shots, and it's tough to see the taper on the cheeks at the abutments.

[Dan Barr]

George,

The cheeks taper slightly along the abutment to widen as they descend towards the mouth. Also, the cheeks widen towards the wear and towards the front as well. the thickest part being the abutment. However, there is not enough meat in the sides to allow me to pare out any more in order to make the abutments wider.

the pictures are taken looking down on the bed from the rear.

Yes, the angle for the wedge is not as sharp as it should be. the fact that i screwed up and made a larger mouth reduced the angle of the wedge abutment as related to the bed.

Also, the abutments are not as thick as i intended. i was too close to the edge when morticing.

Yes, i try to practice anything correctly each time. However, this is my first attempt. i don't think this could be called practice at this point.

Cheers,

dan

[george wilson]

I am tired,and creaky today. If I can get up to it,I could try to put up some pictures of proper plane throats. I have ones I made,and a nice old English coffin shape smoother that has beautiful eyes. The eyes flow right along with the curved sides of the coffin shaped smoother.

Unless I was having to copy an original plane,as I was paid to do as toolmaker,I am very particular about the exact form of my coffin smoothers. I like a somewhat narrow rear end,and a certail curve to the sides. When these things are just right,the plane is beautiful. If not,ho hum. Now,don't get the idea I am a particular guy.