Which smoothing plane

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

How about a picture of that bench Lasse! Per your original question, I'd spend some time with the 4 1/2 and the 4 that you have, use them, learn to set the chip breaker, sharpen the blades a few times. Those planes will do great work!

I will post some pictures of it when I can make time for it

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

As promised 20160114_105301.jpg20160114_105315.jpg
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker

[Jebediah Eckert]

Nice bench, your more then halfway there with that. I know when starting out it became near impossible to do much handwork (especially a plane) without a solid bench with a way to secure the work properly. It looks like you have a nice stash of boards hiding behind the bench.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Nice bench, your more then halfway there with that. I know when starting out it became near impossible to do much handwork (especially a plane) without a solid bench with a way to secure the work properly. It looks like you have a nice stash of boards hiding behind the bench.

It is reclaimed and resawed oak from an old timerframe house. about 200 years old. I guess it has cured by now

[Chris Hachet]

Seems like you are off to a good start...and nice bench...I am jealous....

[Stewie Simpson]

Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

Lasse. A little word of advise for you.

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.

Being a Neanderthal based discussion; its not always openly mentioned.

All the best with your future endeavours into woodworking.

regards Stewie;

[Chris Hachet]

Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

Lasse. A little word of advise for you.

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.

Being a Neanderthal based discussion; its not always openly mentioned.

All the best with your future endeavours into woodworking.

regards Stewie;

Considering that I am in the process of ripping a larger quantity of hard maple, yes, I would echo this sentiment.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.

A very true statement. If you rely on the cheery voices you sometimes hear on the Internet about how easy it is to prepare rough lumber by hand, you will become a little aggravated. It is harder than some people make it sound (both in terms of skill needed, and the actual work involved). An old friend who knows a lot about hand tools (but largely uses power tools as a commercial contractor), told me when I started out that I needed to remember that the old timers who made their living with hand tools did build wonderful furniture, but they also spent a lifetime acquiring the skills to do that. As a hobbyist I have no illusions that I will approach the level of skill needed to make things I see in museums purely with hand tools.

I do use hand tools only, because I simply do not have space for power tools (my motley collection of Stanley and Sargent tools also cost me much less than a tablesaw as well; you will not find this to be true if you spend much time looking at the Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen catalogs, as the cost of those tools adds up very quickly). I also like my children to be able to be around me when I work in the shop, and the quiet, lack of dust, and much lower risk of somebody losing an important part of their anatomy makes that possible with hand tools. None of the stuff I make is going to be in any museum, but my wife and children claim to like them, and I have yet to build something I am ashamed of. I look at the imperfections as a record of things I have learned.

If you want to do things completely by hand, I recommend a full sized rip saw as well as a crosscut saw, at least one good saw bench (you look like you have the space to probably make two, which would be better), a scrub plane, and a regular jack plane set up to do relatively coarse work. Your number seven makes a nice jointer or trying plane, and your number five can be set up to work well as a jack. You can get by without the scrub plane, but I find that when I need to remove a lot of stock quickly there is simply nothing like it.

If you want to build a good, cheap saw bench, Chris Schwarz published free plans a while ago that work well, and you can make the whole thing from a single 2 x 8. You obviously will need chisels and other tools as well to do the actual joinery, but what I have listed will allow you to take a rough board, and turn it into parts for whatever you want to build.

You will want to use the "coarse, intermediate, fine" approach if you are preparing rough lumber. Use the saws to break the stock down to size (I think you will find it is much easier to flatten and square multiple small boards cut from a large board than it is to flatten and square the large board and then cut it up into the smaller boards). Then use the scrub plane or jack plane to remove twist and wind, and to get close to your final thickness. Then switch over to the try or jointer to get your final dimensions. The smoother should be taking very little, simply to clean up the surface.

The two tools that made it possible for me to go from using mostly s4s lumber (and largely living with any twist, etc., that may have developed in it) to using rough boards (which are cheaper, and allow me more choice in species and dimensions) were the saw bench and the scrub plane. My sawing is much more efficient and accurate with the board held at the proper height and the saw at the proper angle, and instead of spending hours removing material with a plane set for finer cuts, the scrub plane will remove 90% of a problem areas in a matter of minutes.

[Brian Holcombe]

As promised 20160114_105301.jpg20160114_105315.jpg
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker

That's awesome!

[David Eisenhauer]

I like that bench and all of the light in the shop. You have a very good starting place and I hope you continue to enjoy the work.

[Chris Hachet]

A very true statement. If you rely on the cheery voices you sometimes hear on the Internet about how easy it is to prepare rough lumber by hand, you will become a little aggravated. It is harder than some people make it sound (both in terms of skill needed, and the actual work involved). An old friend who knows a lot about hand tools (but largely uses power tools as a commercial contractor), told me when I started out that I needed to remember that the old timers who made their living with hand tools did build wonderful furniture, but they also spent a lifetime acquiring the skills to do that. As a hobbyist I have no illusions that I will approach the level of skill needed to make things I see in museums purely with hand tools.

I do use hand tools only, because I simply do not have space for power tools (my motley collection of Stanley and Sargent tools also cost me much less than a tablesaw as well; you will not find this to be true if you spend much time looking at the Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen catalogs, as the cost of those tools adds up very quickly). I also like my children to be able to be around me when I work in the shop, and the quiet, lack of dust, and much lower risk of somebody losing an important part of their anatomy makes that possible with hand tools. None of the stuff I make is going to be in any museum, but my wife and children claim to like them, and I have yet to build something I am ashamed of. I look at the imperfections as a record of things I have learned.

If you want to do things completely by hand, I recommend a full sized rip saw as well as a crosscut saw, at least one good saw bench (you look like you have the space to probably make two, which would be better), a scrub plane, and a regular jack plane set up to do relatively coarse work. Your number seven makes a nice jointer or trying plane, and your number five can be set up to work well as a jack. You can get by without the scrub plane, but I find that when I need to remove a lot of stock quickly there is simply nothing like it.

If you want to build a good, cheap saw bench, Chris Schwarz published free plans a while ago that work well, and you can make the whole thing from a single 2 x 8. You obviously will need chisels and other tools as well to do the actual joinery, but what I have listed will allow you to take a rough board, and turn it into parts for whatever you want to build.

You will want to use the "coarse, intermediate, fine" approach if you are preparing rough lumber. Use the saws to break the stock down to size (I think you will find it is much easier to flatten and square multiple small boards cut from a large board than it is to flatten and square the large board and then cut it up into the smaller boards). Then use the scrub plane or jack plane to remove twist and wind, and to get close to your final thickness. Then switch over to the try or jointer to get your final dimensions. The smoother should be taking very little, simply to clean up the surface.

The two tools that made it possible for me to go from using mostly s4s lumber (and largely living with any twist, etc., that may have developed in it) to using rough boards (which are cheaper, and allow me more choice in species and dimensions) were the saw bench and the scrub plane. My sawing is much more efficient and accurate with the board held at the proper height and the saw at the proper angle, and instead of spending hours removing material with a plane set for finer cuts, the scrub plane will remove 90% of a problem areas in a matter of minutes.

Having the skill to do both can come in handy. I live in a very quiet neighborhood where all of my neighbors are very respectful-if it is after nine in the evening, it will pretty much be hand tools.

[Niels Cosman]

LN no.3
I worked with an Iron LN 4-1/2 with a high angle frog for years and it is a wonderful plane that could handle just about everything I threw at it. Then 5-6 years ago I tuned up a Stanley 603 and found that that I really liked the size and agility of the No.3 format. It offers more control and ability to deal with subtle surface variations left from milling boards by hand. Also the lower pitch is requires much less effort. The robustness and mass of a 603 however I think leaves something to be desired... So... I just recently bought a bronze LN #3 with a standard pitch frog which I think is best of both worlds (high mass+ low force).
I may experiment with a higher pitch frog, but I'll wait for 6-12 months and see if I have any trouble at standard pitch with a tightly set chipbreaker.

[Jeff Ranck]

... My preference is the smaller #3. ...

On a train to London

Derek

Hi Derek, I didn't know you had a #3. I've been thinking about a smaller smoother (#3 or #2), but the options are limited - old Stanley or LN it seems to me.

Jeff.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Thankyou for a thorough reply

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Derek, I didn't know you had a #3. I've been thinking about a smaller smoother (#3 or #2), but the options are limited - old Stanley or LN it seems to me.

Jeff.

Hi Jeff

I like small and short smoothers. They remove the least surface area. A blade 1 3/4" - 2" is so much easier to push and so much nimbler than a wide plane, such as a #4 1/2. Even on wide panels I prefer a small plane. A #2, however, is not going to be comfortable to hold. Even the #3 is barely passable in this regard.

If you prefer a BU plane, the LV SBUS is a terrific plane. Currently, my go-to smoothers are a LN#3 with a 45 degree frog (and a #4 handle), and a LV Custom #4 with a 42 degree frog. I also have a Stanley #3, which will do anything these two will do ... but how many smoothers can one use?

Regards from London

Derek