Essential hand planes

[custard]

I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it).

That's pretty much where I end up too,

 

[Oskar Sedell]

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation.

I have a plane set up like the euro scrub planes, and it's pleasant to use cross grain on panels, but not much else (the caveat with blown out far-side edges still exists. I don't know that it's faster than the English jack plane, but it might be easier to use cross grain on narrower wood. Without knowing someone who has read continental european texts (in german, etc), it's hard to tell.

the other thing you'll notice about them is that they're two-handed planes if you want to do heavy work, and the horn is handy, but they can be rough on you (shoulders and elbows) in heavy work.

Thanks David!

one of the reasons I´m asking is that I have a very strong itch to build a birchwood horned plane, and I thought a scrub might be a good choice since I already have a good jack. I´m still at the point where making a new plane doesn´t necessarily mean making a doublet of any kind.

Now I have to think if a narrow, single iron plane has to give way for a wider, double iron plane. Still horned and cambered for rank cuts.

 

[Jacob]

......

Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub,......

Scrub blades are narrow about 1 1/4", camber radius about the same i.e. diameter 2 1/2" = about the width of a jack plane blade. You could file that on a jack plane but it'd be very peculiar and useless for anything else but deep scrubbing. Waste of a good plane - and too heavy for scrubbing which involves a lot of fast action.

A 2.5" camber radius on a 2" wide Jack iron would extend back about 0.2" measured along the iron, i.e. the curved part would be 1/5" long from corners to tip. That's consistent with historical practice for traditional English Jack/Fore planes. As I said earlier, the texts describe a "thumb's nail profile". I also know of more than a few modern WWers who use such cambers in their Jacks (though I personally use ~5-6").

Your main limitations here seem to be lack of historical knowledge and a failure of imagination. Things that you keep insisting are "impossible" are/were actually common practice.

I think you need to work that out again! Try it with a pencil paper and compasses, you maths isn't up to much. (Just did that and the answer is nearer 3/8" - a very deep camber)
In fact I was talking about a 1 1/4 radius, even deeper camber (2 1/2"), but your maths is till way out.
My point is that the camber on the two scrub planes I own (one new ECE one old origin unknown) would be possible but pointless on a jack, or even a no 4. Only the central 1" or less of the blade would ever be usable.
A proper scrub is a very different plane from a modified jack
Or to look at it another way - look at your thumb nail - double that in size and you have a typical scrub plane width and profile (if it's anything like mine!).

 

[swagman]

Within the following article there is an online calculator (near the bottom of the page) that will give you the optimum radius of camber, based on the values of the irons width, desired depth of cut, and bed angle. BD application only. http://www.timberframe-tools.com/tools/ ... cambering/

 

[Jacob]

An ECE scrub looks much like a no 4

but it isn't if you look underneath

and it will do a very different cut (2 quick passes here)

resulting very quickly in this

which you can then smooth with a 4 or anything

scrub v 4 or jack, chalk n cheese!

PS I modified the mouth on the ECE to stop thick shavings from jamming

 

[swagman]

The most obvious difference to note is the width of the iron. Scrub planes have much narrower irons than do fore planes. Subsequently the iron of a scrub has a greater camber and is a narrower plane all together.

In modern planes scrubs still lack a chip breaker - it's of no advantage for a scrub plane. However hat's not a conclusive detail, early planes were all single irons without a chip breaker.

The easiest way to look at this is as follows. A scrub plane is a particular type of plane designed for one job. A fore plane is a bench plane in all aspects other than being tuned with a heavy camber and open mouth.

Here's the real difference though - Scrubs are of of Germanic / Dutch origin.

Fore planes are French / English.

ie - two different cultures having different means for the same job.

http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/f11/choo ... ded-52942/

Moxon writes more about the Fore Plane than any other plane,

http://www.creoleproject.com/2014/04/ma ... moxon.html

 

[Jacob]

Within the following article there is an online calculator (near the bottom of the page) that will give you the optimum radius of camber, based on the values of the irons width, desired depth of cut, and bed angle. BD application only. http://www.timberframe-tools.com/tools/ ... cambering/

It will give you their optimum but it won't be mine and can safely be ignored. Don't waste your time just sharpen a deep camber and get on with it!

They refer to "The common scrub plane whether made by Stanley, Record, Lie Nielsen, Veritas". In fact non of these are common - the Stanley is rare, did Record even make one? the LN and LV are newcomers and just cashing in on fashions.
The ECE seems to be the most common form - much like the "bismarck" referred to in the literature.
The only one I've seen in its natural habitat (collection of old cabinet makers tool from ebay) is this one
It has a much shallower camber than the ECE - which presumably the maker found suited him.

 

[D_W]

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation.

I have a plane set up like the euro scrub planes, and it's pleasant to use cross grain on panels, but not much else (the caveat with blown out far-side edges still exists. I don't know that it's faster than the English jack plane, but it might be easier to use cross grain on narrower wood. Without knowing someone who has read continental european texts (in german, etc), it's hard to tell.

the other thing you'll notice about them is that they're two-handed planes if you want to do heavy work, and the horn is handy, but they can be rough on you (shoulders and elbows) in heavy work.

Thanks David!

one of the reasons I´m asking is that I have a very strong itch to build a birchwood horned plane, and I thought a scrub might be a good choice since I already have a good jack. I´m still at the point where making a new plane doesn´t necessarily mean making a doublet of any kind.

Now I have to think if a narrow, single iron plane has to give way for a wider, double iron plane. Still horned and cambered for rank cuts.

build a plane that can be used as a jack or as a utility plane between jack and smoother (something with a mouth around 3/32 inch or so. You'll never mind having a little bit of extra width over the scrub type of narrow-soled plane.

 

[D_W]

I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it).

That's pretty much where I end up too,

I go a bit steeper than that (none of my shavings would have waviness because they're thicker and cracking), but each of us is to determine the set that makes for the least effort. Narrower correlates to a little bit lazier and more dependent on the try plane to do follow-up work, but I wouldn't need to go as deep if I used a thickness planer.

The prescribed tables are farce, except to introduce the concept to a beginner. If one doesn't work enough wood to find the "lazy" spot in the materials they use, then ...well, they're not working enough for it to matter.

Once in a while, I still get a comment about these kinds of things through youtube or on a forum "Chris Schwarz has some blog posts on the cap iron, I think they might help you out". I see on Stewie's link that he had made a video that showed "the right" way to grind and hone irons. :roll:

 

[D_W]

It has a much shallower camber than the ECE - which presumably the maker found suited him.

Precisely - whatever he was working must've worked well with that camber. If it didn't, he'd have changed it.

I admire that you made your planes what you wanted them to be (but laziness would've gotten you there - why work harder than you have to with something just because someone else says you're not doing it the right way).

 

[D_W]

Speaking of the right way, I have a 2 7/16" wide 1/4" thick iron going into a skew infill shooting plane in a week or two. I need to taper it. I wonder what all of the gurus would say about tapering it.

I also want it to be a bit hollow in its length.

I'm sure the gurus have a tip for me (I already know how I'm going to do it, it's not rocket science and it doesn't involve drawing pictures or referring to something someone else said. I could go to a machinist's forum and have all of the armchair machinists and book writers tell me that you can't do it accurately by hand, but I'll have it done within a few thousandths of what I'm aiming for before they decide the right way to do something like that. Reminds me a little bit of Larry Williams, who suggested that I'd have to lay out $3K minimum to create a setup that would make useful tapered irons. ......what happened to hands, eyes and measuring tools. Jeez.).

 

[patrickjchase]

A 2.5" camber radius on a 2" wide Jack iron would extend back about 0.2" measured along the iron, i.e. the curved part would be 1/5" long from corners to tip. That's consistent with historical practice for traditional English Jack/Fore planes. As I said earlier, the texts describe a "thumb's nail profile". I also know of more than a few modern WWers who use such cambers in their Jacks (though I personally use ~5-6").

Your main limitations here seem to be lack of historical knowledge and a failure of imagination. Things that you keep insisting are "impossible" are/were actually common practice.

I think you need to work that out again! Try it with a pencil paper and compasses, you maths isn't up to much. (Just did that and the answer is nearer 3/8" - a very deep camber)

Nope, my math is good. Try it with the calculator Stewie posted. 2" blade width, 2.5" camber radius. You'll get 0.15" depth of cut, 0.21" depth of camber (measured along the iron). Are you perhaps systematically confusing radius and diameter in your math? That's the only way I can obtain an error like yours.

In fact I was talking about a 1 1/4 radius, even deeper camber (2 1/2"), but your maths is till way out.

As noted above my math was/is good as confirmed by 3rd party tools (more than one). When I used radius there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you'd mistyped, as 1.25" camber radius is "highly unusual". Your subsequent reply makes me almost certain that I was correct in doing so. Most scrubs including the ECE (I've used it) ship with about 3" camber radius.

You can obviously contrive a configuration where a narrower blade becomes necessary, but be aware that that's not a common or productive way to go about roughing wood, now or historically.

By the way, you obviously don't practice what you preach. The picture of your ECE in another post obviously reveals a ~2.5" camber radius, or maybe larger. Why don't you just admit your mistyped and were wrong about the suitability of Jacks/Fores for roughing, and we can all just move along? It happens to everybody.

 

[Jacob]

You are confusing radius and diameter.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/circle.html

Worried (dementia setting in?) I just carefully measured my ECE blade (the one in the snap) and it has a radius of about 30mm. slightly less than 1 1/4". I set a compass at 30mm radius, drew a circle and dropped the blade on for a close fit.
This would give a diameter of less than 2 1/2" i.e. same radius would give a neat but very unusual complete semi circular camber in the end of a normal jack with 2 3/8" blade. (With a 30mm 'sagitta', to use bugbear's favourite word!)
This would work as a scrub but not be a very effective use of a plane - heavy and most of the blade un usable. Would it stay in situ under the cap iron?
Hence a jack or a smoother can't sensibly be adapted to emulate a scrub like the ECE, though they can of course be heavily cambered a little way in that direction.

The ECE is how it came, though it isn't as regular now as it was when new, I'm fairly slapdash with sharpening.

PS and of course the ECE removes wood much faster than you could possibly do with an adapted jack, but leaving a rough surface like an adze or gouge.
Which begs the question, how can this be, surely same amount of effort can only remove same amount of wood?
The answer is that the scrub shavings are thick, more like long chippings, like a ploughed field. A shallower cambered plane would have to slice through these shavings several times, with several times as much effort.
Or to put it another way - the finer the camber the more cuts you have to make to remove a given amount of wood. You could chop a tree down with a razor blade but it would take some time!

 

[Trafalgar]

=D> =D> =D>

 

[Andy Kev.]

PS and of course the ECE removes wood much faster than you could possibly do with an adapted jack, but leaving a rough surface like an adze or gouge.
Which begs the question, how can this be, surely same amount of effort can only remove same amount of wood?
The answer is that the scrub shavings are thick, more like long chippings, like a ploughed field. A shallower cambered plane would have to slice through these shavings several times, with several times as much effort.
Or to put it another way - the finer the camber the more cuts you have to make to remove a given amount of wood. You could chop a tree down with a razor blade but it would take some time!

Does not the above imply two planes for two jobs?

I ask this because yesterday I had to remove 3/16" of an inch of wood to get to a line. So I quickly took of roughly 1/8" with a heavily cambered No. 5 and then went down to the line with an LA Jack. I don't think I'd have trusted myself not to inadvertantly have crossed the line with a scrub plane that leaves an adze-like finish.

It sounds like there's a place for both of them in the tool box although personally I think I can get by without a scrub in the light of your Pictures.

 

[Trafalgar]

If the grain of your stock was reasonably compliant then that was probably a job for a scrub plane. If it were highly figured, plucky, or tended to tear out in deep chunks then even a heavily cambered jack might have been too aggressive. Point being: it depends. If you have more money than sense, tend to use twice as much wood and time as somebody else would to build the same project, regularly screw up workpieces only to happily make another, enjoy endless experimentation, etc., etc. then it all doesn't matter.

 

[D_W]

As for two planes - I don't regret keeping two jacks that I use fairly regularly, though they're not set that differently (compared to the extremes we're talking about). If the try plane is working well, the jacked surface doesn't need to be that fine, and you can get good with a rank set jack at coming up with a fairly even surface.

If I used a metal plane, I'd just keep a separate iron, but switching irons in wooden planes isn't a great idea.

For you guys in the UK, I've seen a lot of nearly new jack planes sell for 10 or 15 quid on ebay (I just bought an essentially unused Mathieson jack from there for 25). That suggests that if you can find them on the ground, they're probably less than that, and of all of the planes that it's useful to have two of, the Jack is at the top of the list. Having two long planes or two smoothers doesn't save much (time), but two jacks could potentially be useful if you're bouncing back and forth between softwoods and hardwoods.

 

[Jacob]

I should add - I only bought the ECE scrub because I wanted to know what the fuss was about.
Can't say I need it, nor would anyone else unless they are really into cleaning up manky old joists (as in photos above) or painted wood, for which they are excellent
They aren't much use for basic stock removal because of the roughness of the finish - rougher than hand rip-saw, axe, adze.
Not much use at all!
This is why there aren't many of them about.
The rear handle on the ECE is a bit small so I wear a rigger's glove. Could change the handle but it's not top o the list yet!

 

[Tasky]

So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??

 

[Jacob]

So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??

Yes.
They are very different.