# Norris #61



## richarddownunder (27 May 2021)

Hi

I was wondering if the Norris experts on here would be able to advise whether the handle on this looks original please. It looks OK in other respects to me.





Trade Me







www.trademe.co.nz






Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (28 May 2021)

I'm not an expert, but it looks original to me.


----------



## JobandKnock (28 May 2021)

Having owned one in the past, I'd say yes, too. They were a bit of a bargain basement tool, possibly produced during WWI (1914 to 1918), and in fact mine was marked with a War Office arrow. It had a walnut front bun and handle as opposed to rosewood and others I have seen were the same


----------



## richarddownunder (28 May 2021)

JobandKnock said:


> Having owned one in the past, I'd say yes, too. They were a bit of a bargain basement tool, possibly produced during WWI (1914 to 1918), and in fact mine was marked with a War Office arrow. It had a walnut front bun and handle as opposed to rosewood and others I have seen were the same


So possibly not up to the specification of a Preston or Spiers of a little earlier? I have a post-war Norris which is pretty rubbish and I wondered about 'upgrading' to an older one, but if it is only a marginal upgrade I might not bother. 

Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (28 May 2021)

I wouldn't be surprised if that plane was a better plane than an A5, but the later norris irons are robt sorby and not a match for the earlier irons (at least every single one I've had would be accurately described by that comment). 

It *looks* a little like it's rosewood for the rear handle, but the design is obviously made to eliminate the need to fit a handle/infill bed - if the handle is slid in within a reasonable range, the plane will work well. 

(the irons aren't that bad, of course, but if you're used to a good crisp W&P iron, or a nice mathieson iron, they'll be soft comparatively.)


----------



## JobandKnock (28 May 2021)

The biggest problem with any pre-WWII Norris is that it'll be at least 75 years old (in the case of the #61 probably 20 more years older), and whilst the first owner may have taken care of it, subsequent owners are progressively less likely to have done so. The result is that I've seen some truly horrible examples sold as "users" when they were literally just expensive scrap. 

As I said, I used to have one of these #61 planes. It was the second Norris I ever bought, after a post war A5, but TBH my A5 was a nicer plane to use than the earlier plane, although I admit it was little used when purchased (in the early 1980s).


----------



## richarddownunder (29 May 2021)

As mentioned, I have a post war Norris. The reason I bought it was it was unused. Still in the box but a bit rusty. I have de-rusted and sharpened it and it works OK. So the one above may be or have been a better made plane but its a gamble whether it will work as well or better than the one I have. It does look nicer though . Agreed, the irons aren't anything special.


----------



## IWW (30 May 2021)

Yes, you need to know your way around in the Norris world, it seems! I bought a post WW2 A5 about 25 years ago because I wanted to experience this magical Infill bliss folks were talking about in the various magazines & books where I'd seen them eulogised extensively. Instead of doing a little more homework, I just bought one from a dealer, thinking a Norris is a Norris, right? I was a little nonplussed when it arrived & I saw the two-tone woodwork - Beech front bun & Mahogany rear handle with Beech side-cheeks - where's the Rosewood?! To be fair, it was advertised as a "good user", so I should have been a little cautious.



Someone had tried to "fix" The scabrous original 'blending' coating on the wood & made it even worse, so I just took some alcohol & fine steel wool & cleaned the mess off. Fortunately, the shellac-based original finish (at least I assume it was original) prevented the varnish they'd applied from soaking in & the mess cleaned off easily. I just rubbed in another couple of thin coats & left it like that; at least it's honest!

So is it a "good user"? It's quite a good plane, but I didn't get the expected rush when I honed up the blade & put it to work. The cap-iron needed a bit of fettling, which improved matters a little, but the iron is a trifle soft compared with some of the current after-market blades (it's perfectly ok for 'sensible' woods like Walnut & Cherry, but it does get a bit sniffy about some of the less refined "colonial" timbers..  And as I've moaned about in other threads, the adjuster is very clever, but flawed, imo.

About a dozen years or a bit more ago, I got into making my own infills. My first effort was usable, which encouraged me to go on & make more. After a few planes, I started to get the hang of things & I've managed to produce a couple of infills which I think are better "users" than the A5 ( if nought else, the infill is a bit more attractive). 


Note the _lack _of a Norris stytle adjuster. I have made adjusters & fitted them to a few of my 'user-mades', but I've long since become accustomed to the tippy-tap method of blade adjustment & can do it more quickly & with fewer expletives than using the screw-adjusters.

And btw, I've had the Norris up for sale for 1/2 what I paid for it, but no takers - I'll have to wait for a new generation of woodworkers to come along & get enthused about this infill business, it seems...

Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (31 May 2021)

Well, it went for the princely sum of $359 or about 170 quid. Which is pretty cheap, but I convinced myself I didn't need another unless it was something special, which this one probably isn't. It does mean the post-war one I thought might be a collectable investment when I got it probably isn't either. Can't win 'em all.

I know what you mean about not getting the rush of excitement. The infills, including a turn-of-the-century Mathieson or my nice Preston I have don't really perform better than my 'regular' planes, but they are nice to get out occasionally and fiddle with. 

I'm also embarking on making a infill panel plane from scratch, based on a Spiers - I might have enough infills after that ! That will undoubtedly take quite a while to get done as it'll be a spare time project I think. 

Cheers
Richard


----------



## Adam W. (31 May 2021)

Call me a heretic, but they just don't float my boat.

Are they really that much better ?


----------



## D_W (31 May 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Call me a heretic, but they just don't float my boat.
> 
> Are they really that much better ?



The early norris planes are probably better for an inexperienced user than a mid-aged stanley. A mid-aged stanley 4 is a better plane for an experienced user (tearout control is at least as good and adjuster is better than any norris adjuster - maybe not as interesting looking, but more practical and more productive). 

Of course, a poorly made stanley or one with physical problems isn't that great, either, and Norris never made an iron as bad as a round top stanley iron.


----------



## JobandKnock (31 May 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Are they really that much better ?


Frankly, no. I'd say that good ones were only marginally better than equivalent sized but good Stanley, Record, Millers Falls, Marples or (post war) Woden planes from the 1930s and 1950s when used on hardwoods but to my mind confer no advantage at all on most softwoods. BTW forget the war years production, say 1942 to 1946, when standards plummeted, and after the late 1950s when standards started to decline rapidly as well

One of the problems, though, is that any genuine Norris is now at least 70 years old and in many cases that quirky adjuster is going to be worn and sloppy. There's also the weight to consider - an A5 smoother is a nice chunky little plane with a bit of heft to it. To get that in a Bailey type plane you need to go to a #4-1/2 smoother. In jack plane size, a 14-1/2in A1 is nice and heavy, more like a Bailey #5-1/2 in weight, but as they get bigger, Norris A1s increase progressively in weight, meaning that a 22-1/2in A1 (and I've had both pre war and post war 22-1/2in models) is just too heavy for use for prolonged periods whereas a Bailey type #7 or #8 is far less tiring to use

At one time I was convinced that Norris planes were the dogs danglies, especially when compared to Stanley and Record offerings in the 1970s and later, but what persuaded me otherwise was using my first Lie-Nielsen bench plane in the 1990s (a #62) followed by various Veritas planes and more recently by a couple of Quangsheng/Luban planes.

All those made me realise that whilst Norris planes look good, and there's a certain cachet to owning them, they really aren't that much better at all. Is that heresy, I wonder?


----------



## IWW (31 May 2021)

Nope, J&K, not heresy in my book, just the plain facts. I think you've touched on the nub of the matter when you mentioned the superiority of (some) infills over the Bailey types produced after WW2. Almost anything had to be better than some of the garbage that was foisted on a public whose knowledge & collective memory of hand tools was rapidly waning as things with long tails that substituted brute force for finesse took over.

There is something about the heft & solidity of a good infill that's hard to beat & hard to describe objectively, which indicates to me that a good deal of it all is in one's imagination. As I think DW will agree, as long as the blade is properly bedded & firmly restrained, the ability of a plane to handle wild woods rests primarily in a well set-up cap-iron, & of course a very sharp blade. I have some very nice infills that work extremely well, but I confess I use a trio of Baileys (a #7, #5 1/2 & a# 4) as my primary workhorses. You just can't beat the convenience and finesse of a Bailey adjuster even with a good dash of backlash, no backing-off of the lever cap required & no slewing of the cutting edge. I also appreciate the lesser weights as my body goes into decline & muscular strength isn't what it uster-be. I don't think I could manage a 22 inch infill jointe & though I've toyed with the idea of making one just for fun, it's waaay down my priority list & unlikely to happen in this lifetime! My infills are set up for the final finish work, where the extra weight feels right, and doesn't worry me at all for the short bursts for which they're deployed.

I once had the rather smug idea that I could make a 'modern' Bailey work as well as any pre-WW2 model. For many years I used a post WW2 (1960's?) #4 English Stanly as my everyday workhorse smoother. After much fiddling & fettling I had it working extremely well, but then I got hold of an old type 11 and tidied that up a bit and there is no doubt in my mind that even a beginner would feel the difference. I presume it's the more extensive frog mounting that gives it a feeling of everything being absolutely all together as it sails over knots & the gnarliest of woods. The newer plane has found a new home..

But there is so much subjectivity in what makes us like a particular tool - one of my favourites is the old 5 1/2 I inherited from my father. It had a very hard life and the sole has some damage on one side of the mouth, but the frog is solid and I've got the the blade & chipbreaker as good as I'm capable of getting them. It does a very good job, but even better, every time I pick it up it makes me think of the old pot & the times we shared & puts a silly grin on my mug. None of my infills can do that! 
Cheers,
Ian


----------



## D_W (1 Jun 2021)

Once the basic elements of a plane are working properly, the rest is just details. What makes a stanley better than a norris for actual work aside from the adjuster is that they can plane anything with the cap set, from cedar to cocobolo and they wear out a user less than a norris. 

The early norris planes without an adjuster are really nice, though - very nicely made. But not more capable or more productive than a decent stanley plane.


----------



## Adam W. (1 Jun 2021)

That's fine by me, I've never seen the attraction of the things.

I had a rheumy eyed old joiner lovingly show me his Norris panel plane and all I could do was shrug. I guess it must have bought back some memory of the good old wood planing days for him.

Days in his rose coloured memory banks before he got the Wadkin and the plane was retired to live the rest of it's life as a paperweight on the filing cabinet.


----------



## IWW (1 Jun 2021)

To each his own, Adam. I think if you ever got to use a nice infill in the right circumstances, you'd get a small thrill, even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool power tool junkie. However, there's little doubt in my mind that part of the pleasure comes from having something that's not your ordinary, everyday what-everyone-else-has sort of tool. It's an attitude that's not restricted to tools or we'd all drive Hyundais. 

It all goes back to the first bloke who tarted up his spear or club - he probably killed no more mammoths than he did with a plain spear, but it made him happy & his mates envious, & started the whole silly show.....

Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (2 Jun 2021)

Personally, its about craftsmanship. Whether or not they work better, I do like the fact that they are so beautifully made - at least the early ones are - and made by someone rather than stamped out by a machine. Using hand-made tools to hand-make something - perhaps it's a romantic notion of a past age - it's one reason I rather like Ashley Iles as they are hand-ground chisels. But in the end, when I actually want to achieve something, I reach first for my trusty Record or Cliftons (which are also nicely made) as they are so easy to use, sharpen and adjust...and I guess I'm just used to them. The infills take a bit of getting used to as they sit differently on the wood, so I probably haven't really mastered them. 

Cheers
Richard


----------



## Adam W. (2 Jun 2021)

It's a design thing.

I think they've got the proportions completely wrong, with that great big fugly bun and clunky handle they look like door stops.


----------



## IWW (2 Jun 2021)

Adam W. said:


> It's a design thing.
> 
> I think they've got the proportions completely wrong, with that great big fugly bun and clunky handle they look like door stops.



Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, me lad, I thought infills looked very spiffy at first sight, & have not changed my mind in the 40 years since. If you want fugly, take a gander at a few Bridge City tools! No accounting for taste, is there? 

You could argue all day about whether or not infil planes do anything better than an equivalent Stanley or Record or Clifton or Lie-Nielsen. For starters, the performance of _any plane_ is dependent on how well it was made, how well it's been cared for, how sharp its blade and how well it's set up for the task in hand. Then there's a very strong "placebo effect" when it comes to any hand tool; if you find a particular tool feels/looks/works well, then it will be so & your work is likely to be better for it. Someone else, with a different set of experiences & prejudices, will find your favourite tool detestable. C'est la vie.

The first infill I ever got to use was handed to me by it's owner saying "Here, try a _real _plane". The blade was dull, the cap-iron set too coarse and the well-fettled #5 Stanley l had been using did a much better job. I was so underwhelmed & disappointed, I decided the people who lauded the things had no idea of what a plane should be. However, subsequent experience with a well set-up Norris revived the love.

Cheers,
Ian (who has just spent the day making yet another infill plane......  )


----------



## Adam W. (2 Jun 2021)

I do confess to owning infill planes, but they are shoulder planes by Holland.

The other is mahogany, brass and has a horn.


----------



## IWW (2 Jun 2021)

There you go then, Adam, they are essentially 'infills', so you've fallen for the story-line too! 

One of those planes was also in my lust-bucket way back, & I would dearly have loved to get my hands on one, but where I live they are almost as rare as feathered frogs, & out of my price range in any case. So I made my own, using a Record blade (& a design heavily influenced by the 073) which I was pleased with at the time, but which looks rather fugly down the retrospectoscope!




That was around 1980, & one of my earliest plane-making efforts, so I plead ignorance, m'lord. It worked quite well (surprisingly, considering my near-complete lack of experience in the art!), but I have learnt a little bit more in the near-40 years since, so I recently replaced it with a new model.


The profile of this one is shamelessly plagiarised from G. Miller of London - I like his flowing side profile much better than Spiers' & Norris's. I also dispensed with the adjustable toe that I (laboriously) fitted on #1, as I found it an unnecessary complication once I'd figured out how to reliably make fine mouths... 
Cheers,
Ian


----------



## Adam W. (4 Jun 2021)

Ian, I'm going to have to fess up.

I do indeed have a soft spot for these particular planes and have a bit of a small collection going. They do get to taste wood now and then and the one I like using the most is the mahogany one.






I consider it my own little bit of London, which I can visit at any time whilst living in the hand tool deserts of The North.

And I can do the Lambeth walk at any time I like.


----------



## JobandKnock (4 Jun 2021)

Hand tool deserts of the North???


----------



## Adam W. (4 Jun 2021)

JobandKnock said:


> Hand tool deserts of the North???



Jutland, Denmark. It's north east of you and a handtool desert.


----------



## JobandKnock (4 Jun 2021)

Ah. I just live in the North (of England). Hence the query. Still, at least where you live it's flat enough to cycle, isn't it?


----------



## Adam W. (4 Jun 2021)

JobandKnock said:


> Ah. I just live in the North (of England). Hence the query. Still, at least where you live it's flat enough to cycle, isn't it?


I stopped cycling in Denmark about 5 years ago when I was deliberately rammed by an irate motorist and ended up going headfirst through the van window, but yes it's flat but windy.


----------



## IWW (4 Jun 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Ian, I'm going to have to fess up......



Struth! Three of 'em - no wonder I could never find one....! 

Since we're into confessions, I'll fess up too, I've got 3 as well, but all different sizes:



These are built around blades for various different makes, the 1 1/4" has a Lie-Nielsen blade, the 3/4" & 1/2" have Chinese-make blades. Of the 3, the largest & smallest get the most wood-time. (The smallest is particularly handy when preparing the stuffing for infill planes......  )
Cheers,
Ian


----------



## Adam W. (4 Jun 2021)

Nice wood that Ian, what is it?


----------



## richarddownunder (5 Jun 2021)

Well, this thread has had me out in the shed fiddling with a Mathieson smoother I got some months ago but never really felt worked terribly well - although rather spiffy looking IMHO. So, having flattened the sole a bit more (it had been polished rather aggressively by the looks of it to tart it up for sale and was a bit rounded) and practicing setting it with a very small hammer and tickling up the iron a bit more, I tested it against a Stanley #4. I think I am beginning to get it. For a start, the Mathieson leaves a very nice surface on Sapele (with less tear-out than the Stanley), or Maple. But it also has a different feel. It seems to slice through the wood in a way that the Stanley doesn't - sort of a level up in the planing experience. I hadn't really noticed it before as I probably hadn't put too much time into practicing and fettling them. I have 3 infills, a post-war Norris which I don't really use (as mentioned, I thought it might be a collectable) and it is fairly horrible, a nice Preston, which is a lovely plane but the iron isn't so good, and this Mathieson with an original iron. So, I'm going to persevere and you never know, may end up using the Mathieson quite a bit more. Here is a pic - how can you say that looks like a door stop


----------



## IWW (5 Jun 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Nice wood that Ian, what is it?



Hi Adam, it's "Ringed Gidgee", or _Acacia cambagei._ One of our (many) dry-country acacias. Hard (Janka hardness ~19,000N) and dense (SG 1.1-1.2) and the wild grain makes it a beast to work with, but when you do manage to bully it into shape, it's magnificent, at least the equal of the Dalbergia rosewoods for stuffing infills, imo.

It's more typically a plain, straight-grained, deep brown wood, but a proportion (exactly what, I don't know), has this fine fiddleback figure. It's available from a few merchants, usually in small pieces for knife handles, but you can get hold of larger bits occasionally...

I infilled this little rear-bun smoother with a block I got my hands on for next to nothing because it had a largish loose knot, but I buried that inside against the sole & it's unlikely anyone'll ever know about it. 


It's a lovely little thing, one of my best performing products to date, I take any excuse to use it! 
Cheers,
Ian


----------



## IWW (5 Jun 2021)

Richard, I agree, when a good infill is working at its best, it's a hard tool to beat, and if you are inclined that way (as I am!), they also look very spiffy compared with the more industrial-looking cast-iron things everyone has on their benches. The infills certainly have a 'feel' that is very different from any Bailey, be it good, bad or indifferent. As I said above, I have & use both types - Baileys for more general preparation, largely because of their convenience & versatility, and the infills for the final phase. My old type 11 #4 is quite capable of matching any of my infills for a fine finish should I choose to use it, but I just enjoy the feel of the infills, & keep them set up for the fine stuff, while the poor old Bailey sometimes gets a bit of a rough deal (which it takes in its stride).

Cheers,
Ian


----------



## Adam W. (5 Jun 2021)

Very nice Ian, I like that one too.

It's got that old fashioned racing car shape. How long does something like that take to make ?


----------



## D_W (5 Jun 2021)

IWW said:


> The infills certainly have a 'feel' that is very different from any Bailey, be it good, bad or indifferent.



It's a feel like you're planing with a solid billet of something. At least that's what I get from it with the ones I've made, as well as from the few older ones that I have that are really heavy. 

But there's a workman preference for normal work for something like an older spiers or Norris 2 or similar plane (where the weight is much less) if doing a lot. 

I can't make any functional defense for any infill I've ever had over a stanley because when I went nuts the first time (2011 and 2012), I compared LN, older planes and infills and found no difference in the prepared surface, BUT, there are little bits of tearout that you will feel in a stanley and not in an infill or lie nielsen, and I guess people have to pick whether they'd like to feel that or not. Much like a 1980s cadillac in the US where the suspension, noise reduction and steering were set so that you didn't feel anything on the road - you vaguely heard expansion joints on the highway, but that's it. I guess that's out of style now, but it was considered to be tops at the time (to be able to go on the highway and feel like you were in a vault).


----------



## D_W (5 Jun 2021)

IWW said:


> View attachment 111790
> 
> It's a lovely little thing, one of my best performing products to date, I take any excuse to use it!
> Cheers,
> Ian



Separately, on the rosewood, I'd bet it was used because it was available, dries well and works easily for a relatively hard wood. And it's dimensionally stable. Gidgee looks pretty close (in terms of volumetric shrinkage, etc, and obviously higher in hardness).


----------



## richarddownunder (5 Jun 2021)

IWW said:


> Hi Adam, it's "Ringed Gidgee", or _Acacia cambagei._ One of our (many) dry-country acacias. Hard (Janka hardness ~19,000N) and dense (SG 1.1-1.2) and the wild grain makes it a beast to work with, but when you do manage to bully it into shape, it's magnificent, at least the equal of the Dalbergia rosewoods for stuffing infills, imo.
> 
> It's more typically a plain, straight-grained, deep brown wood, but a proportion (exactly what, I don't know), has this fine fiddleback figure. It's available from a few merchants, usually in small pieces for knife handles, but you can get hold of larger bits occasionally...
> 
> ...


Hi Ian

I'm just starting a panel plane as mentioned based on a Spiers. Normally, on the few planes I have made, I have rivetted the lever cap...um, pivot or whatever it's called, so the lever cap isn't removable. I see you use a screw system so it is removable, which seems a sensible approach. What sort of screw system did you use? I guess it still has a solid rod which is tapped and acts as the bearing surface. Is that right? 

Thanks
Richard


----------



## richarddownunder (5 Jun 2021)

D_W said:


> It's a feel like you're planing with a solid billet of something. At least that's what I get from it with the ones I've made, as well as from the few older ones that I have that are really heavy.
> 
> But there's a workman preference for normal work for something like an older spiers or Norris 2 or similar plane (where the weight is much less) if doing a lot.
> 
> I can't make any functional defense for any infill I've ever had over a stanley because when I went nuts the first time (2011 and 2012), I compared LN, older planes and infills and found no difference in the prepared surface, BUT, there are little bits of tearout that you will feel in a stanley and not in an infill or lie nielsen, and I guess people have to pick whether they'd like to feel that or not. Much like a 1980s cadillac in the US where the suspension, noise reduction and steering were set so that you didn't feel anything on the road - you vaguely heard expansion joints on the highway, but that's it. I guess that's out of style now, but it was considered to be tops at the time (to be able to go on the highway and feel like you were in a vault).


OK, that makes sense. I suppose, why should it prepare a surface differently if the iron angle is the same and the iron is sharpened the same - unless it is to do with support, iron thickness/quality etc which I'm sure has been covered rather fully in threads I have read - maybe that is more to do with the dampening feel than actually cutting the wood. 
Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (5 Jun 2021)

richarddownunder said:


> OK, that makes sense. I suppose, why should it prepare a surface differently if the iron angle is the same and the iron is sharpened the same - unless it is to do with support, iron thickness/quality etc which I'm sure has been covered rather fully in threads I have read - maybe that is more to do with the dampening feel than actually cutting the wood.
> Cheers
> Richard



Yes, feel, though if one isn't going to set up a plane properly, the fine mouth infills are still decent and a Stanley can be a bear.

But when a Stanley is set up right, it should pretty much stop anyone in their tracks before it chatters.


----------



## JobandKnock (5 Jun 2021)

This may be opening a can of worms here, but in the real world just how much of an issue is blade chatter. I've only experienced it a few times in my life but then 75% of what I deal with is sodtwood, however some of the oak, ash, walnut and maple I've dealt with have been awful, but still very little blade chatter


----------



## IWW (6 Jun 2021)

Adam W. said:


> ...It's got that old fashioned racing car shape. How long does something like that take to make ?



Adam, I suppose if I was working to a tested pattern/design and had my templates and peening block ready & went at it seriously, I could do a plane that size in a few days fairly comfortably. However, so far all but a couple of the planes I've made have been one-offs of my own design, which means a slow start, making templates, cross-checking all dimensions, making up a peening block, & so forth. So realistically, and especially if it's your first attempt, I'd allocate many weekends! My very first infill stretched into years, but that was due to circumstances beyond my control, in total, I would not have spent more than a couple of weeks at most, including the disasters that required re-making several parts.

The shoulder planes have laminated bodies riveted together (a technique I 'borrowed' from another plane maker more skilled & more imaginative than I), and I could easily make one of those in a weekend (provided all went according to plan!). But I reckon I have made something north of 40 infills over the last 12 years or so, so I'm starting to get the hang of it. (I only set out to make a couple of planes for myself, the others just sorta happened...  )

Richard, the lever-cap "axles" are indeed 'cheese-head' or machine screws (depending on your country of origin). They are available in a good range of sizes from specialist suppliers, but I have a small metal lathe & make my own, with the 'heads' a half mm (small planes) or a mm (larger planes) more than the nominal thread diameter. The smooth 'head' of the screw forms the axle. I discovered the stainless steel shafts they use in ink-jet printers are a great source of raw material for such things, the stuff turns & threads beautifully and given the ubiquity & short life of printers, there is an inexhaustible supply!

Making the LC easily removable was a no-brainer for me, I knew I would have it in & out a few times before I got everything sorted and a proper fit (& for once my prognosis was absolutely correct). I suppose riveting them in is quick & neat in a production situation where you have everything well-organised & you know your LC is going to mate nicely with the cap-iron or blade before you clench the rivet off. 

Apart from the fact that the screws show, I can't see any downsides to this method for mounting LCs, my #1 plane is still going fine after a dozen or more years of use, but perhaps there is something I've overlooked that I'll discover eventually.....

Cheers,
Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (6 Jun 2021)

Thanks for that. So the axles screw directly into the lever cap then, rather than drilling all the way through. Seems an easy solution although the moving bearing surface is just the axle and the brass sides rather than the moving bearing being distributed across the width of the lever cap - I doubt that matters much though given it doesn't move much!

Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (6 Jun 2021)

I've made a couple of planes screws like that, too, and no issues. I have no machine tools, and for a person who is just using an optical center punch and doing everything else just made to fit, you can drill and tap a hole on each side of the lever cap a little off and still end up with a good plane. 

I've made through-plates peined (on a wedged infill), too, and that worked fine, but only did that because the wedge was skewed and the screws would've been a no-go.


----------



## IWW (6 Jun 2021)

richarddownunder said:


> ....... although the moving bearing surface is just the axle and the brass sides rather than the moving bearing being distributed across the width of the lever cap - I doubt that matters much though given it doesn't move much....



Richard, I gave the matter some thought before going that route on my first plane. At that stage, my experience of peening metal was very limited and I was worried about how I'd do it without locking the LC up (the solution, is, of course quite simple, but it only occurred to me later!), but it was mostly the desire to have the thing easy to dis-assemble that drove the decision to use screws. Indeed, not only does the LC move through a very limited arc, it does so raher slowly & infrequently in machinery terms, so there is negligible benefit in having a full width bearing surface. The clamping force is transmitted to the sides via the 'stub axles' or a full length pin exactly the same, so that part is no different. 

As DW says, for the backyard/basement constructor with nothing more sophisticated than a drill press (& with luck, a decent DP vise), the problem is to get either the screw holes or the axle hole in the LC accurately. Indeed it doesn't matter too much other than to your pride if the screw holes aren't _exactly _co-axial, but check very carefully that the toe of the LC is sitting squarely on the cap-iron (or blade if it's a single-iron job) when the thumbscrew is tightened down. In fact, on my very first plane, I did get the screws "off" by a smidgin (I hadn't yet discovered centre-drills for starting holes more accurately), and so I knew I was in for some 'adjustment' of the toe of the LC. It wasn't off by much & not too hard to get it right, but it did mean having the LC in & out a few times. You could get away with the toe being a bit canted because a well-sprung lever cap will compress & absorb the difference to a limited extent, but pride & mechanical soundness dictate you try very hard to get it as close to perfect as you can...

David also alluded to the difficulty of using screws if the LC is skewed (deliberately skewed, that is, by 20 degrees or so). Here the through-pin may be the better solution. On the brutish skewed panel plane I made, I wrestled with what to do as I approached the job of fitting the LC. There are two ways to do the job. One way is to keep the LC square to the sides and 'twist' the nose to match the skew. I did this for a small 'badgered' smoother and it's in some ways the easier route, the axle remains square to the long axis, so set-up & drilling is straightforward: 




However, to do that for a large, wide LC requires a huge block of brass and a LOT of cutting & filing (& a lot of waste!), so I went with a skewed mount.



It's actually easier insofar as making the LC itself is concerned, but thinking about how to drill that axle-hole accurately gave me several sleepless nights! Eventually, I figured out a very crude way, & got it very close but it could've gone either way! I have since picked up an idea from someone with more smarts than I have which will make it far easier to do if ever there's a next time. 

But to the nub of the matter; I again opted for screws, although I was concerned that angled screw heads would be obvious & make it look a bit naff. In the event, by setting the screws a teeny bit deeper in the (4mm) sides, they blend in fine & you just don't notice the slight angle of the heads:



However, if I ever make another skewed infill (highly unlikely!), I think I finally have the clues about how to do a full axle & the courage to give it a try.....

Cheers,
Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (9 Jun 2021)

Thanks Ian - that's helpful. I'll use that approach when I get to that stage. Which might be a while away the rate things are going!

Cheers
Richard


----------



## richarddownunder (11 Jun 2021)

Hi Ian et al.

a couple of other things I have been wondering about before I get stuck in, that you have probably thought through...

how essential is the throat plate? I know these were added to many infills but doesn't the wood infill provide sufficient support? After all, wooden planes also work well. Do you bother with this?

There seems to be various ideas about filing the secondary dovetail bevel. Is it necessary to file that equally from the bottom of the dovetail to the top, or taper it so the angle is correct 15 degrees on the sole but it tapers to nothing at the top of the dovetail. That changes the angle of the visible outside of the tails though. Have you made a jig for that so it is consistent?

How much extra steel do you allow for peining? 1.5 mm seem about right? I think that is what I allowed in the past but it has been a few years!

I'm sure there was something else...the most important thing... but, in a senior moment, its just gone for the now. Hate it when that happens !

...ah - yes, how do you cut your sides out. I have used a hacksaw in the past. This plane is twice the size so not sure if that'll work. I do have a jig saw with a metal blade which I could try. 

thanks

Richard


----------



## IWW (12 Jun 2021)

Ok Richard, lotta questions so settle in for a long answer!

First the "throat plate" aka "blade block" aka "chatter block". How essential? Blowed if I know. I think the _purpose _of the blade block is to ensure the back of the blade has a _stable _surface to rest against. Whenever you mate wood & metal you've got a potential problem because one moves with humidity changes, the other doesn't. With the thick blades used in the original infills, the blade bevel extends further up than the top surface of the sole, so if you want the blade to rest on metal, you need to thicken the sole, if your blade is thinner & sole thick enough, you shouldn't need a blade block on this basis. This diagram comparing the contact areas of a thick & thin blade should explain better than words:


For most of the "full size" planes I've made it was nip & tuck whether there'd be a decent amount of blade back sitting on metal if I didn't add a block (I've used 5mm thick soles in the main), so I added one anyway. It seemed a bit intimidating at first, but it turns out to be relatively easy, it just adds to the tedium of filing a thicker bevel and slightly complicates fitting the stuffing, but only slightly. If you take a bit of care with the riveting & make sure you beat those suckers down well, all external evidence of the block should disappear entirely. This is a partly-lapped sole and the rivets have already disappeared:



I don't bother with blade blocks on my 'mini' planes (<100mm body length), I reckon the proportionally thicker blades and the small size make the things stiff enough, The backs of 1/8" thick blades just barely meet the metal of the thinner (3.2mm) soles, but so far (through 6 or 7 seasonal cycles) I've had no problems & the planes are very good little performers.



Dovetails: There are a couple of schools of thought here. I don't know about Norris, but Spiers didn't put much of a bevel on the sides of the tails, but he put a very pronounced notch in the corners. It really doesn't matter if the notches & bevels aren't precise & even, with an all-steel body it all disappears after clean-up, but if you use brass sides with a steel sole, you need to be reasonably consistent or your dovetails might look a bit wonkey from the sides. In fact, you don't even need a bevel with brass, the steel will deform it quite enough when you beat it over along the sides of the tails to form a distinct angle on the brass. I do add a small bevel, just 3 or 4 file strokes, mainly to make sure the sides are straight & even:



When hammered up, you see a distinct dovetail from the sole side. Peter McBride does a nice explanation of the process - worth a look at his site for the inspiration alone.

I allow about 1.5mm for peening. The amount is fairly critical, too much & you tend to beat the steel over too easily without filling the gaps properly, & greatly increase the amout of work filing flush. Too little & you'll struggle to move enough metal over to fill the gaps. And the better the fit of sockets & tails, the easier it is to peen perfect joins. I strongly recommend doing a couple of practice dovetails with some scrap pieces & experimenting with the amount of extra because a beginner usually needs a bit more than an experienced peener.

For cutting out, I use various weapons, a 1mm cutoff wheel in an angle grinder, with a straight piece of steel clamped at the line as a fence for straight cuts; a hacksaw for some straight cuts & slight curves; and a jewellers saw for tight curves & cutting out tails & sockets. You can do it all with a hacksaw, in fact that's how I did #1, cutting out the sockets by making multiple cuts down to the line & breaking out the slivers with a screwdriver or small cold-chisel. For long sides where my saw can't reach, I have to do it this way: The hacksaw cuts:



And after breaking the slivers out:



This leaves a much rougher surface as you can see, with more filing compared with the saw-cut sockets either side. However, it gets the job done & I notice it's how Bill Carter does his...

I think you would find a jigsaw exceedingly clumsy & liable to make a big mess in this situation, people use metal-cutting bandsaws and scrollsaws, for sure, but once you get used to them a jewellers saw is safe and relatively quick. Use premium-quality blades _only_, like Grobet, Pike or Eberle for e.g., and get the coarser blades (anything from #5 up is ok, be careful not to order anything with "0" in the number, these are the fine ones, not robust enough for this sort of work).

Standard saws of reasonable quality cost around $25 here - one of those very expensive ladder-back saws would be nice, but overkill unless you intend making a lot of planes. The smaller 75mm throat models are easier to drive, but a 125mm throat gives you much more reach. With a little practice, you can cut very close to your lines, leaving much less work cleaning up. With a #7 or #8 blade, I can cut out a good-sized 1/2" thick lever cap blank in about 10 minutes or less:


(Sculpting it with files & cloth-backed paper takes a good hour or more though!)

So hope that helps a bit. My best advice would be, just hop in & start. I recommend making a smaller plane like a rear-bun smoother to start with, but I think you said you've already done something like that, so you should be well on your way...

Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (12 Jun 2021)

Thanks Ian - that helps a lot. I have a friend with a mill so I'm doing the dovetails the easy way. Using a mill. The cutting out question was regarding the external shape. I think, having just had a brief try, a metal cutting jig saw will be good enough then I'll sand to the edge with a linisher, drum sander and files. Useful tips on secondary bevel and throat plate. I guess I can include that without too much extra effort although if I use/make a 3 mm thick blade, then maybe it isn't necessary with a 5 mm thick sole. I'll have to think about that as I haven't really decided what blade thickness to use. If the 4 mm thick iron doesn't really provide much advantage (going back to the discussion earlier in the thread that really, a Stanley will leave a surface as good as an infill with a blade more like 2.5 mm thick) then there seems little point making it that thick. On the other hand, if I use a second hand old iron, then it will be thick anyway...but getting a good old parallel iron is not a trivial task.

1.5 mm extra for peining... sounds like I'm on the right track.

Thanks again for the detailed answer. I'll check that link out when I have a minute.

Cheers
Richard


----------



## IWW (13 Jun 2021)

Whatever works, Richard. I've never had good relations with jigsaws under any circumstances so the thought of trying to cut out fairly tight curves in metal with one doesn't appeal to me at all. Yes, the initial cuts don't have to be perfect, if you are using brass for your sides, you can be a bit more wild with the cuts, it's _much_ easier to file & sand to the layout lines than steel. I try very hard to keep the filing to a minimum with any steel. The only machine I use in my plane-making is a drill press, so my advice is always influenced by the thought of minimising the drudge work, hence my fetish for cutting out as accurately as I can. Had I realised I was going to end up making as many planes as I haveover the last 10 years, I think I'd have invested in a decent linisher long ago! 



( Those are my 'keepers', I've made at least as many more, & yes, I'll admit it, I do have a problem!)

Milling the sockets should get you a very nice fit, making the joints easy to close solidly so you should find 1.5mm a very comfortable peening allowance as long as you don't go wild with the side chamfers & give yourself way too much to fill. If you are using machinery to remove most of the excess metal after peening, it won't be as painful as having to file it off, so as long as you are careful with those side gaps & fill them rather than just curl the edges over, having a little excess metal won't bother you anywhere near as much as it does me! 

The major part of the work in making these things is in cleaning up after peening & lapping the sole, so if you can take most of it off by machine & just tidy up with files & a minimum of lapping it will both speed things up & eliminate much of the drudgery. I'm pretty slick at whacking out tails & sockets after doing so many, & I reckon I could probably prepare the sides & sole for a medium sized plane in the time you'd take to set up the milling machine for a one-off, but I certainly wouldn't have said that for the first couple! Where I think the mill will really help is in machining the blade bed, that's a tedious job by hand, particularly as it demands a high standard of accuracy if you want a really good plane at the end of it all.

I suppose one of the reasons I've stuck so doggedly to hand tools is because I want to encourage others who are thinking of giving it a try, & part of my message is always stressing that you don't need a workshop full of machine tools to make a good plane. However, if you do have access to them, I think it very sensible to take advantage of any extra help you can get!

Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (13 Jun 2021)

Yes, I see you have a bit of a problem . I have done something similar with guitars and I cant even play!! Actually, I think I have guitars out of my system and they take up space if you house them in a nice solid case, rarely to be played by someone. So, perhaps a plane-making problem isn't so bad. I have no idea why I'm making a panel plane actually as I don't really use that size of plane much and have a good 51/2 ... just thought they looked nice I guess. Maybe a small low angle block plane would be a better bet next - the block planes I have made (I think I posted pics before of these, although they are a bit amateur really) are the same size as my Clifton one which I find a bit hefty for general stuff (although they all work well). 

Anyway, I gratefully accept the milling help (especially the mouth/blade bed) and will minimise the secondary angle filing by tapering them top to bottom. I have made knives in the past (one pic below) so using my home-made linisher is a handy way to tidy things up quickly.

What blades/thickness do you use - do you make your own? I was thinking I could get some 3mm thick O1 and either get it professionally hardened or find someone with a big blow torch.

Must say, you are lucky to have access to such nice figured wood. Its pretty hard to find over here.

Cheers
Richard


----------



## IWW (14 Jun 2021)

richarddownunder said:


> .....Yes, I see you have a bit of a problem . ...


It's ok Richard, I'm in therapy & expected to make a full recovery in about 15 years (by which time I won't be able to hobble down to my shed any more  )




richarddownunder said:


> .... What blades/thickness do you use - do you make your own? I was thinking I could get some 3mm thick O1 and either get it professionally hardened or find someone with a big blow torch.....



I've used a variety of blades,. Up until last year they were all bought new or recycled. Many smaller blades were cut off lengths of HSS tool steel, which is readily obtainable in a variety of dimensions up to about 1/8 x 1", good for my minis & things like this dovetail plane: 


I've used quite a few Chinese made blades, most not branded but made by Mujingfang, I suspect, which are usually fairly thick & (I think) A2. Whatever they are, I've found them all to be excellent blades, they cost half as much or less than the big name brands, come nicely ground & take little preparation to be ready to fly. They also have milled slots that are amenable to a simple screw adjuster, should you wish to add one . This "chariot" plane has such a blade, it's a full 3.2mm thick & nicely solid:



Last year, I bought some steel from a knife-parts supplier (1 1/2 x 1/8"). It's an economical way to acquire blade material, but I had a few hiccups getting it hardened & tempered. Heating was no problem, I used a MAPP gas torch & a "coffee can" furnace (if you google that you'll find plenty of info); it was getting a good quench that took a while. I've hardened O1 steel before by quenching in old sump oil, but this stuff (1080) refused to harden when dunked in sump oil. So I had to resort to the unusual ploy of following the instructions that came with the bar. About $10 worth of the cheapest vegetable oil Woolies stocks did the trick. Tempering can be done in a regular cooking oven (Hint: clean the oil off thoroughly & wait until your significant other is out for the day before trying this at home.  )

Anyway, I eventually got a couple of very nice blades, one is as close to perfect as I think I'll ever get. It lives in this little "thumb" plane which is (very) loosely modelled after the Norris 31. 


Bears a family resemblance to your plane but as you can see, mine is smaller, about the same size as a Veritas 'apron' plane. I really like this little thing, by good luck at least as much as good management, it's turned out one of my better efforts to date, so the poor old apron plane which served me faithfully to the best of its ability for 25 years or more now sits neglected in a dark cupboard.

T'other blade I made I thought was still a little over-hard & needed to be brought back a touch more, but I recently gave it a good workout on some really "bad" wood and it took it in its stride with no evident chipping, so I'll leave it as-is for now, it can always have another session in the oven if I deem it necessary (& LOML is out for the day).
So although I was very dubious about my ability to make a decent blade, it does seem quite do-able. All you need is a reasonably good torch, the "furnace" costs virtually nothing to make, so it's something you may want to consider having a go at sometime. There are quite a few contributors on this forum who've successfully made their own blades, so you won't go short of advice if you need it. My blades worked out at roughly $10 each, which is a bit better than coughing up $80 & more for "name" brands!



richarddownunder said:


> .... Must say, you are lucky to have access to such nice figured wood. Its pretty hard to find over here....



Yairs, I have heard some of your compatriots moaning about the lack of choice over your side of the ditch. There are a few suppliers of choice woods over here who'll post to NZ, so if you produce a body that really cries out for some super fancy infill, you should be able to find something that won't bankrupt you. It's fortunate we do have a goodly number & variety of suitable "local" woods available at tolerable prices, the exotics cost an arm & a leg here, too! I suppose that's to be expected, given the ever-increasing use of resources, and I don't like the idea of using anything that is suffering from over-exploitation, so yes, I am indeed lucky! 
Cheers,
Ian

PS. I must apologise to the OP, we seem to have thoroughly hacked his thread! Should have started a new one for the last half-dozen posts....


----------



## JobandKnock (14 Jun 2021)

Only half a dozen?


----------



## Adam W. (14 Jun 2021)

JobandKnock said:


> Only half a dozen?




I know, I know....... I got embarrassed when Ian pointed out that I had more than one shoulder plane.

I don't feel so bad now, just inadequate that I don't have more.........Oh the shame!


----------



## JobandKnock (14 Jun 2021)

And I thought my Record and Preston passion was out of control...


----------



## richarddownunder (14 Jun 2021)

Yairs, I have heard some of your compatriots moaning about the lack of choice over your side of the ditch. There are a few suppliers of choice woods over here who'll post to NZ, so if you produce a body that really cries out for some super fancy infill, you should be able to find something that won't bankrupt you. It's fortunate we do have a goodly number & variety of suitable "local" woods available at tolerable prices, the exotics cost an arm & a leg here, too! I suppose that's to be expected, given the ever-increasing use of resources, and I don't like the idea of using anything that is suffering from over-exploitation, so yes, I am indeed lucky! 
Cheers,
Ian

PS. I must apologise to the OP, we seem to have thoroughly hacked his thread! Should have started a new one for the last half-dozen posts....
[/QUOTE]

I think I was the OP - it just morphed...as things do  - do you have any companies selling figured hardwood that you'd recommend? I have bought guitar wood from Australia. Usually turns out OK and is probably cheaper than buying exotic native species in NZ. I think the best I can do here is Bubinga and getting nice examples of that is a bit of a gamble.

Cheers
Richard


----------



## IWW (15 Jun 2021)

OK, I don't feel so bad now, I guess an OP is entitled to steer his own thread where he chooses..  

There are a few timber merchants scattered round the country who carry the sort of wood you might be interested in, but the only one I have had any dealings with is this bloke. As you'll see on the page I linked to, his main emphasis is supplying knife-makers, but if you contact him with a special request, he will tell you if he can supply anything suitable & quote you a price. He has always been generous with the pieces I got, typically giving me a bit extra all round. He kiln-dries the wood so it's ready to use when you get it, though I'd leave it to acclimatise to your climate for a good while, for safety.

I should warn you that even straight-grained gidgee is a very tough wood to work (& bull-oak is a bit harder still), but the fiddlebacked or "ringed" stuff adds another dimension - cutting out the edges for the over-stuffing can be a very fraught process, with those wriggly little bits wanting to flake out just where you don't want 'em to!

Just sayin' - I don't want to receive any NZ-postmarked parcels that tick....... 

Ian


----------



## IWW (15 Jun 2021)

Adam W. said:


> I know, I know....... I got embarrassed when Ian pointed out that I had more than one shoulder plane.
> 
> I don't feel so bad now, just inadequate that I don't have more.........Oh the shame!



 Yairs, ok Adam, I've acknowledged my problem (isn't that the first step to recovery?), but I also need to be taken to task for hypocrisy, regularly telling beginners they can make very acceptable stuff with just a few essentials & don't need a whole cupboardfull of tools!

In my defense, m'lord I plead extenuating circumstances. I've long since fully retired from the workforce, we don't need another stick of furniture in the house (in fact we need to get rid of some!), my children aren't interested in the sort of stuff I like to make (Ikea standard seems to be their preference), & all live a long way from me, so what can an old bloke do to while away the hours? The irony is, I have far better & more tools than I had in my most active furniture-making days (I've even got tools specially for making tools!), but less work for the 'real' tools to do...... 

I don't expect any sympathy from anyone struggling to find a few hours a week to themselves to spend in their sheds, I do remember what it's like.... 
Cheers,
Ian


----------



## D_W (15 Jun 2021)

IWW said:


> OK, I don't feel so bad now, I guess an OP is entitled to steer his own thread where he chooses..
> 
> There are a few timber merchants scattered round the country who carry the sort of wood you might be interested in, but the only one I have had any dealings with is this bloke. As you'll see on the page I linked to, his main emphasis is supplying knife-makers, but if you contact him with a special request, he will tell you if he can supply anything suitable & quote you a price. He has always been generous with the pieces I got, typically giving me a bit extra all round. He kiln-dries the wood so it's ready to use when you get it, though I'd leave it to acclimatise to your climate for a good while, for safety.
> 
> ...



I kid you not that a high speed belt grinder may be the ticket for all but the final shaping on woods like that. I've made chisel handles with mine, but no exotic plane parts at this point. The dust load is incredible, though, and you will be the color of the dust except where your mask was.


----------



## richarddownunder (15 Jun 2021)

Thanks for the link Ian. I'll bear in mind what you say - maybe bubinga is a good bet after all - it is pretty easy to shape, hard and stable. I understand what you are saying about furniture making. I really don't need any more either and the offspring aren't settled in one place so don't need any - so my projects these days are small - like knives. I have too many of them too, but at least they can be stuffed in a drawer and forgotten about!

Cheers
Richard


----------



## D_W (15 Jun 2021)

Bubinga has fairly high shrinkage values for it's hardness. East indian rosewood is about as hard and dense with better stability and the plantation stuff is pretty reasonable (about the same as bubinga here).

Cocobolo is also nice, but higher now than rosewood by a long shot.


----------



## IWW (15 Jun 2021)

D_W said:


> I kid you not that a high speed belt grinder may be the ticket for all but the final shaping on woods like that. I've made chisel handles with mine, but no exotic plane parts at this point. The dust load is incredible, though, and you will be the color of the dust except where your mask was.



David, I have enough trouble with dust in my shed without creating mini dust-storms!! Even the toughest of woods yields to a saw, rasps & files which are pretty hard to beat for efficiency when it comes to shaping plane totes & buns imo. Still dusty work with bone-hard woods, for sure, but at least the dust is more limited to the immediate work area & not dispersed over the entire shed. (My dust-collection system has been waiting to be set up 'properly' for 15 years).

Shaping the woodwork for an infill is far less taxing & more satisfying to me than most of the metalwork. The trickiest part is cutting the rebates to fit over the tops of the sides when overstuffing, and there are no powered tools that I could use safely to do that. I find filing off the peened dovetails on a medium to large plane a bit _too_ 'contemplative', & not a very rewarding activity so I do sometimes wish I had a decent belt sander to alleviate that bit of drudgery. But wherever possible, I much prefer a quiet approach that doesn't obliterate the background music. Ain't got no deadlines, these days.

Ian


----------



## richarddownunder (15 Jun 2021)

Is that shrinkage after drying or in the drying process? I had thought it quite stable and have used it in knife handles a bit. Cocobolo is generally unobtainable here although it is fantastic stuff. I got a bit for knife scales from the US some years ago. I'll see if I can get Rosewood. Again, fairly difficult to find here. The last lot for a guitar was from Oz but there has been difficulty importing due to the protected nature of many of these woods.


----------



## D_W (16 Jun 2021)

richarddownunder said:


> Is that shrinkage after drying or in the drying process? I had thought it quite stable and have used it in knife handles a bit. Cocobolo is generally unobtainable here although it is fantastic stuff. I got a bit for knife scales from the US some years ago. I'll see if I can get Rosewood. Again, fairly difficult to find here. The last lot for a guitar was from Oz but there has been difficulty importing due to the protected nature of many of these woods.



Yes on the import, someone has to import it and take care of the cites paperwork. If they do, it can be very reasonable ($40 for quartered 8x8x3).

Bubinga and purpleheart will continue to expand and contract for a while. If you make a plane in the dry season, the pins and tails may telegraph their lines due to wood expansion. Btdt. Less movement means less telegraphing, but everything moves a little unless you can find really old wood.


----------



## D_W (16 Jun 2021)

IWW said:


> David, I have enough trouble with dust in my shed without creating mini dust-storms!! Even the toughest of woods yields to a saw, rasps & files which are pretty hard to beat for efficiency when it comes to shaping plane totes & buns imo. Still dusty work with bone-hard woods, for sure, but at least the dust is more limited to the immediate work area & not dispersed over the entire shed. (My dust-collection system has been waiting to be set up 'properly' for 15 years).
> 
> Shaping the woodwork for an infill is far less taxing & more satisfying to me than most of the metalwork. The trickiest part is cutting the rebates to fit over the tops of the sides when overstuffing, and there are no powered tools that I could use safely to do that. I find filing off the peened dovetails on a medium to large plane a bit _too_ 'contemplative', & not a very rewarding activity so I do sometimes wish I had a decent belt sander to alleviate that bit of drudgery. But wherever possible, I much prefer a quiet approach that doesn't obliterate the background music. Ain't got no deadlines, these days.
> 
> Ian



I've never fitted infills with anything other than hand tools. Working to invisible lines isn't difficult but there are some tricks that make non-show parts easier. 

That said, the rough sizing would be easy to do with belt grinder. I leave an open path to the door and run a box fan (mostly grinding metal, to keep the flow of dust and smoke headed out). Leaf blower at the end solves any setting dust and out it goes. But this does require a large opening to push everything out. The portaband and belt grinder are a poor man's fabrication setup. Everything else is finish work that can be done by hand.


----------



## IWW (17 Jun 2021)

D_W said:


> ... Bubinga and purpleheart will continue to expand and contract for a while. If you make a plane in the dry season, the pins and tails may telegraph their lines due to wood expansion. Btdt. Less movement means less telegraphing, but everything moves a little unless you can find really old wood.....



Every wood remains hygroscopic and will move no matter how "old" it is. "Stable" woods are simply those that move least within the typical annual relative humidity ranges they are exposed to. This doesn't equate to initial shrinkage values, one of the more stable woods I use has very high shrinkage from green, but once it finally equilibrates, it is extremely 'stable'. Denser (& especially oily) woods absorb & release moisture very slowly, which makes them a pest to "dry" but once equilibrated, this slow response to humidity changes is what makes them 'stable'. However, they will never stop absorbing/discharging some water vapour in response to RH changes & must & do move a little. 

The dovetails on a reasonably well-constructed body should tolerate the small amount of annual movement involved with a 'stable' wood without any external signs, the wood at their level is the most 'protected'. I've not yet seen any indication of the dovetails being stressed on any of my planes, but I have noticed a couple of the rivets through the upper part of the woodwork showing some faint feathering at their edges, indicating there's been a bit of expansion & contraction of the wood. 

From my own experience, the most likely scenario with very dense woods is that you'll use them before they fully settle to EMC and end up with shrinkage after a year or two. I've had to replace one front bun when the wood shrank after installation (I think I mixed up some pieces due to poor labelling). It was only a small crack either side, but it thoroughly ruined the look of my plane! So far that's the worst that's happened, all of my other infills have remained tight & the only evidence of wood movement is the slight feathering of a couple of rivet heads as mentioned. The old makers & some new makers use an internal metal sleeve around the rivets. I've never understood the point of these, tbh, the wood can still shrink & open up cracks, and the sleeve doesn't resist expansion. I think teh best I can do is to make sure the wood has had more than enough time to settle & bed the infill with epoxy, in the hope it will slow down moisture ingress & egress a little. 
Cheers,


----------



## D_W (17 Jun 2021)

Older wood moves less. There is a springback factor with wood. It springs back only a fraction of its expansion, and subsequent cycles equate to overall shrinkage over time. Eventually, expansion in humidity is less and less, but not zero, and moving from a more humid climate to less with old wood can still lead to cracking.


----------



## D_W (17 Jun 2021)

Good information about wood stability with seasonal aging is hard to find, probably because it doesn't have much commercial value. 

The best I could find was a discussion on internet forums with professional violin and viola makers. Somewhere around 5-7 year old wood is where the makers stop seeing seasonal movement problems. Old wood is a selling point with buyers as far as tonality goes, but I've never seen the difference in guitars from good makers. The discussion with violin makers confirms the same, that tonality is usually adjusted by fine makers and physical characteristics of the wood are more important than age. But for stability, some cycling of expansion and contracting is needed to lower movement and reaction to moisture changes. 

Is it absolutely necessary for planes? No. Is it nice to get wood with lower volumetric movement and that is a few years old? Yes. Some limitation of change can be had by allowing at least a season of wood movement in the same place where the plane will be used. 

If the infills that I've made, movement is lowest in wood that I've had on hand for a while. I had made a skew shooter out of new kiln dried purpleheart and the springback in the summer was far more than desired, making for telegraphing that can be seen and felt on the tails.

The first large infill that I made 11 years ago with an extremely old blank of bios de rose shows no telegraphing kept in the same area. No gaps or noticable movement at all, but it's not practical to try to find wood like that, either. It's more practical if one is going to do this for the long term to find good blanks at a low price and store them.


----------

