heavy plane

[sunnybob]

In a very rare moment for me yesterday, I had to resort to using hand planes.
I have a stanley 4 1/2 and a 5 1/2 among others, none of which I choose to use because of my arthritic hands, but while using the 5 1/2 I found it was a bit blunt and swapped to the 4 1/2 because I didnt want to take the time to sharpen the blade.
I was amazed how much heavier the 4 1/2 is compared to the 5 1/2.
I just always assumed the larger plane would be the heavier.
The 4 1/2 got the job done, its back on the wall where it belongs, but I just wondered why?

 

[MikeG.]

Dust, Bob. Your 5-1/2 was probably last used a decade or two after the 4-1/2. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can only assume that it's just a difference in the thickness of the casting, so either different makes of plane, or same make but different eras.

 

[John15]

According to The Superior Works http://supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan0a.html the 4 1/2 weighs 4.75lbs and the 5 1/2 weighs 6.75lbs.

John

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My 4 1/2 Stanley is 2066gms, my Record 5 1/2 2622gms.

 

[sunnybob]

That spurred me to go check.
After removing some dust, they came in at ;
5 1/2 = 6lb 4.4 oz.
4 1/2 = 5 lb 4oz.

According to that book I have an overweight 4 1/2 and an underweight 5 1/2.
But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.

 

[novocaine]

to much sun me thinks.

maybe spend a few days inside fella.

 

[sunnybob]

to much sun me thinks.

maybe spend a few days inside fella.

You obviously dont watch the weather channel. :roll:
We've swapped with you. the wettest winter in a 120 years, night time temps of low single digits, and even now at 10 am its not even 15c outside.
i'm starting to suffer from lack of vitamin D. Thats whats affecting my judgement.

 

[shed9]

But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.

This is pretty much it. It's the distribution of the weight as opposed to the weight itself.

 

[Ttrees]

I find on my near identical 50's Stanley 51/2's, that one tote is angled more acutely and seems lighter because your holding it closer to the middle of the plane, I designated this plane to use for face grain work, I feel you can "get sthuck into the work" a bit more solidly
I'm guessing the tote makes my stance a bit wider so I put my back and my legs into it, especially with a heavy set cut.
The other plane got designated to the shooting board, I may get another some day :roll:
With the other it's a bit more upright.. to over-exaggerate... it stands more upright like with the Veritas planes.
This is near unnoticeable when looking at them though.

 

[sploo]

That spurred me to go check.
After removing some dust, they came in at ;
5 1/2 = 6lb 4.4 oz.
4 1/2 = 5 lb 4oz.

According to that book I have an overweight 4 1/2 and an underweight 5 1/2.
But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.

No pics, as I'm at work, but there's a huge difference between the castings of even the Stanley planes through the eras. All the older (approx 1880-1910) planes I own have really delicate thin wall castings - be that a No 4 or a No 8.

The WWII era No 4 1/2 generally seems to have a really chunky casting with very thick walls. I've not weighed the planes to check, but I assume the casting thickness will have a fair impact on the weight.

My preference is very much for the older planes, but these days there seems to be a desire for heavyweights.

 

[sunnybob]

I have no way of dating mine, unless someone has a special system?
But I got them from retired carpenter who would have been using them thoughout the 90's at the very least. If he had them as an apprentice they would be 1950's or early 60's.

 

[Brtone]

It’s just down to the balance of the planes, pick up a Clifton 41/2, now that does feel heavy.

 

[sploo]

I have no way of dating mine, unless someone has a special system?
But I got them from retired carpenter who would have been using them thoughout the 90's at the very least. If he had them as an apprentice they would be 1950's or early 60's.

http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... wchart.php

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?

 

[sploo]

Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?

Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.

 

[ED65]

I have no way of dating mine, unless someone has a special system?

You'd have to post pics Bob, or at the very least describe all the relevant details (and there are many, sorry) for us to try to narrow the date down.

But it's not always possible to accurately date UK-made Stanleys as touched on in many previous threads, most recently this one 5-1-2-jack-and-low-angle-jack-planes-t115421-30.html

 

[ED65]

Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?

Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.

How's that? English-made Stanleys started as basically type 16s, not exact clones but just after the introduction of the ogee-shaped frog. Then when type 19s were being produced in the US the sorta-type 16s were still in production with minor tweaks.

 

[sploo]

Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?

Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.

How's that? English-made Stanleys started as basically type 16s, not exact clones but just after the introduction of the ogee-shaped frog. Then when type 19s were being produced in the US the sorta-type 16s were still in production with minor tweaks.

Fair point. I guess I've mostly only owned (and thus classed) the UK made Stanley's as being "pre WW2", "likely during WW2", and "not really interested because it was probably made in the 1960s or later"