Combination Planes - The differences

[woodbrains]

Hello,

You're right, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and pairing works, for sure. Cranked paring chisels are useful for long stopped housings, and probably beneficial here. A router plane is similar to a cranked pairing chisel, with depth stops and reference surface built in, so the principle is similar. Preference of working method is, of course down to what feels good and what is available. We do like our planes, though!

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

A router plane is similar to a cranked pairing chisel, with depth stops and reference surface built in, so the principle is similar.

A router plane is great tool for the final, accurate trimming; it's fairly poor at getting the bulk waste out. A "free" chisel, even a cranked parer can be used more flexibly to take rougher cuts in the early stages of the process.

Chisels are also a lot easier to sharpen - those L blades are a pain.

BugBear

 

[Corneel]

You can use a chisel bevel down to remove the bulk and then trim to fit with a routerplane.

 

[bugbear]

Hello,

You could try running the plane, sans fences, rods etc, against a clamped board, it may well depend on the specific combo plane in question. But generally, the blades do not sit flush with the side of the skate, they are recessed into the plane body just a bit deeper than the skate edge. This means that the skate will not necessarily run against the edge of a board. My 044 is definitely like this, I will check my others at the weekend, though if memory serves my 405 is the same. I also have a 050C and a 044C which I seldom use (read never, they are horrible) and I think they may be just the same. Perhaps different vintages of Records may be better for this and I do not have Stanley's to comment, though since they were not designed for this, per se, I don't think there would have been any care taken in manufacture, to get the blade edge and skate level.

Mike.

I've just checked Planecraft (AKA the Record manual) and both the 1934 and 1950's editions put forth the method of nailing (!!) a plywood batten in place, and working against it. When the position of the dado is established, the batten is removed, and the dado worked to full depth against the depth stop; this is listed for both the #050 and #405.

In the illustration the #050 has had its fence removed, but not the fence rods, possibly to provide more of a grip for the left hand.

I will admit I recalled the idea from wooden dado planes, which are much more prevalent in the USA, and (obviously) have matching blade and body size, making everything easier.

BugBear

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Go on then. What don't you like about the 050C. I have one and find it ok; is it the styling and plastic handle, or function ? I think it could eject the shavings better without clogging up so often, any other problems ?

Hello,

Maybe it is ergonomics, but I don't get on well with the 050. I don't like the auxiliary skate being shorter, it seems to work less well. At first I thought it was the weight (lack of) because th 405 is much heavier and I get on with really well. But I have since got an 044 which is much lighter, and works a treat. I don't mind modern styling as such, I like Veritas styling for instance, so it is not the plastic handle, except that it is a really awful forward angle. Modern thinking is to have less shaping and more plight handles, which don't always feel as comfy, but have less user fatigue. Maybe this is it. Like anything, it is a lot of small insignificant details which add up to something that doesn't suit. Oh, the nickers on the 050 are a bit crude, though probably could be sorted, I haven't since I don't like the tool in the first place. I always wanted to try and make a new handle for it and if that improved things, then fix the rest, but it is just one of a long list of 'to do's'.

Mike.

Ok. I have the choice of a 050C or a 043 for making grooves; I get on OK with the 050C but maybe I haven't done enough grooving in one session for fatigue to set in. Despite them being quite popular, I can't say I'm a fan of the 043 - too fiddly to set up with the loose clamp, lack of adjusters and the clamping screw doesn't really clamp the narrow blades well at all.

I have used a '45 long ago; I keep eyeing up a #46 and might buy one if I can find one at a reasonable price with at least some of the cutters.

 

[bugbear]

I keep eyeing up a #46 and might buy one if I can find one at a reasonable price with at least some of the cutters.

BugBear

 

[Sheffield Tony]

:lol: :lol: It sort of depends how you define "reasonable" though.

 

[woodbrains]

Ok. I have the choice of a 050C or a 043 for making grooves; I get on OK with the 050C but maybe I haven't done enough grooving in one session for fatigue to set in. Despite them being quite popular, I can't say I'm a fan of the 043 - too fiddly to set up with the loose clamp, lack of adjusters and the clamping screw doesn't really clamp the narrow blades well at all.

I have used a '45 long ago; I keep eyeing up a #46 and might buy one if I can find one at a reasonable price with at least some of the cutters.

Hello,

If you get on with the 050C, then fair enough. They all work the same way. At least the C versions have depth adjusters that work without a screwdriver, so a bit handier. I just found, and it a personal thing as much as practical, the 044 worked better for me than the 044C and similarly with the 50.

I've just checked Planecraft (AKA the Record manual) and both the 1934 and 1950's editions put forth the method of nailing (!!) a plywood batten in place, and working against it. When the position of the dado is established, the batten is removed, and the dado worked to full depth against the depth stop; this is listed for both the #050 and #405.

In the illustration the #050 has had its fence removed, but not the fence rods, possibly to provide more of a grip for the left hand.

I will admit I recalled the idea from wooden dado planes, which are much more prevalent in the USA, and (obviously) have matching blade and body size, making everything easier.

BugBear

Forgot this was in Planecraft, though I think they might have been over egging the uses of the plough, as a promotional thing here. I will have to experiment at the weekend (my home workshop is not at home, bah!) but I can't imagine scraping the exposed side of the cutter down the guide batten being particularly efficacious, or the fact that the skate will see-saw along the guide, being particularly accurate. That said, I think my 044 is a latish one, and perhaps the 34-54 vintage ones may have been manufactured differently. Though, the cutters are slightly trapezoidal, so might have to be set in to the body to have a better seating, so maybe not. We should all get some wooden dado planes, a full set of all widths. We need more planes anyway!

Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

If you are going to hog out the waste in a housing with chisels, a shoulder plane of the rigt width, or a bit narrower, is a food tool for levelling also, though again, stopped housings are not really possible. 3/4 inch shoulder planes are useful and a common size.

Mike

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Not familiar with the #46 but having googled it a 1923 model retailed at $110 .

What would it cost today??

http://www.oldtooluser.com/TypeStudy/St ... eStudy.htm.