How Necessary is a Specialised Scrub Plane?

[paulrbarnard]

Yes 5mm too much, I was guessing! Just checked - can cut 3mm in softwood easily, ditto in hardwood but with difficulty (piece of sycamore)- 1.5mm blade projection better for hardwoods.
Cap iron on a modified 4 you could just set it back so that the bare blade is sticking through the slot? You'd also have to widen the slot more than as per video and reduce the radius of the camber to get a comparable deep and narrower cut. I widened the slot on my ECE scrub see 4th photo down ^^^^
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/thread...crub-plane.127181/#lg=attachment98394&slide=0
Just had a look at Sellers modified 78. Good idea! Less camber than the ECE. Basically they'll all do something useful but suit certain tasks better than others.
https://paulsellers.com/2018/05/the-stanley-78-scrub-plane-what/

I just picked up a scrub plane shaving from the floor. This was from a peice of oak. It was from a LN 60 ½. Callipers say it is 1.2mm thick and 15mm wide. I dimensioned a large number of small planks using it before Christmas. I find it very easy to use with that much protrusion on oak.

 

[Jacob]

First, addressing the dirty wood, etc. There's nothing about such wood that an old wooden plane won't work on (and better). I'm not sure why there's some thought that filthy wood requires a special oddball plane that costs more than a jack plane by some factor.

My ECE was cheaper than a Jack plane and does the job as shown earlier, better than any other hand plane How Necessary is a Specialised Scrub Plane?

..... The question at the beginning of the thread is how necessary is a scrub plane? The answer is, it's not necessary at all,

Unless you are doing a job like the one I showed earlier

..... It's a trinket.

No it isn't

re: the narrow iron, there's some idea that it can just penetrate deeper and make up for things, but if the corners of the iron get into the work, you're tearing wood rather than cutting it and wasting even more energy. If you resign yourself to the width of the iron, you're stuck with a fraction of it in practice and working less efficiently than a jack. To understand how much work it is to dig the corners of an iron into work to remove heavy work, one can easily do the same trying to push a chisel through wood with the corners buried. It also causes prying and tearing.

I agree. The scrub works like a gouge and the corners don't cut into the wood. n.b. I just checked the camber on mine and the radius is close to 25mm

... Most of the folks who idealize hand woodworking will buy a few planes, try them, get a thrill and then rarely use them

I sell the ones I don't use (except for a No6 which I keep meaning to dump). I've got a lot of old woodies though - I keep meaning to sort and ebay them

If someone wants to play with two premium scrubs, and hunt down some old ones or convert rabbet planes or smoothers, that's play. Play is fine, this is a hobby.

MyECE is in fact very useful for the purposes described. I've got a lot of old building timber and the scrub is one easy way of getting it into condition such that I could put it through a PT

If there's some attempt to twist the answer into a scrub plane having a productive role in a shop where it works better than a jack plane, it's just incorrect. It's also more expensive.

Wrong, see above, read the whole thread, and the ECE is cheap

anything too much for a jack (which is probably more than what's too much for a scrub) is suitable for axe, saw or drawknife work.

Scrub nearest equivalent would be an adze or perhaps a deep gouge

 

[Jacob]

I just picked up a scrub plane shaving from the floor. This was from a peice of oak. It was from a LN 60 ½. Callipers say it is 1.2mm thick and 15mm wide. I dimensioned a large number of small planks using it before Christmas. I find it very easy to use with that much protrusion on oak.

Sounds right! Desperate Dan could probably do 5mm deep and 30mm wide

 

[D_W]

jacob, you're still in the weeds. I get the sense that you've done roughing for site work and not a whole lot of cabinet work without power tools (dimensioning rough lumber to a specific size or fit rather than just scuffing bits off). You're still avoiding what I said earlier - work a length of time dimensioning wood with a rank set wood jack, and do it with a "scrub" plane. Weigh the results.

When the scrub plane's efforts weigh less, the user is more tired (and if using a bismarck, with beat up wrists and elbows), and the wood is in worse shape for the next step, the novelty of "knocking corners off of a twisted board" is gone.

Even "knocking corners off" is better done with a jack plane, and a jack is easy to use with either hand.

It's bad advice out of inexperience (and I don't mean experience by showing a test piece or two with shavings scrubbed off or taking a gimmick shaving that you couldn't take off of wood for 20 minutes in a row).

I see a lot of jack planes for sale on ebay.uk for UK only buyers for 7-10 pounds. I also see recommendations on forums to buy a "premium scrub" because they're better than the old ones (wood show plane factor - get a new heavier plane, use it for a short period of time and certainly it feels better. Use it for 10 minutes and notice the friction and weight and it's not such a great idea).

I just checked US ebay - stanley scrub, about $100 on average (usually more). Few have an iron that's had much length taken off of it. Not a surprise why that is.

Most of the jack planes that I see have irons that are getting close to or are at the height of the wedge.

 

[Jacob]

...I get the sense that you've done roughing for site work and not a whole lot of cabinet work without power tools (dimensioning rough lumber to a specific size or fit rather than just scuffing bits off).

I did a large amount of joinery from about 1969, entirely by hand for several years, before I got set up. Small boxes at the beginning then mostly period panelled door, window, replicas for house conversions. I carried on using hand tools, as and when, even when mechanised. Bits of furniture in small runs, later. Very likely I've made more stuff and planed more timber than you have. Retired now.

.......When the scrub plane's efforts weigh less, the user is more tired (and if using a bismarck, with beat up wrists and elbows), and the wood is in worse shape for the next step, the novelty of "knocking corners off of a twisted board" is gone.

I don't use it to knock corners off a twisted board - read what I wrote!

..It's bad advice out of inexperience (and I don't mean experience by showing a test piece or two with shavings scrubbed off or taking a gimmick shaving that you couldn't take off of wood for 20 minutes in a row).

Wrong again. Yes that was a demo piece but I've certainly worked a lot more than 20 minutes in a row with that ECE and it is the easiest plane I've ever used.

........ recommendations on forums to buy a "premium scrub" because they're better than the old ones (wood show plane factor - get a new heavier plane, use it for a short period of time and certainly it feels better. Use it for 10 minutes and notice the friction and weight and it's not such a great idea).

I agree. Just another Stanley speculative offering in the first place, then copied by our modern retro tool makers as heavy expensive things with brass knobs, not as useful as the little light ECE

Most of the jack planes that I see have irons that are getting close to or are at the height of the wedge.

I've only had hands on with one other scrub (photo above) and that was very well used.
I used my ECE to scrub up this bit of old beam, taking nails out in the process, until it was clean enough to jack plane. My answer to the Utah obelisk! (Several more on the go, to be appearing in various deserts in due course)
I started the diagonal saw cuts with an old 16" back saw for a straight kerf, then dropped in my 28" rip saw (see earlier thread) to finish. Clean up with paring chisels and a Stanley 78 (one of the most under-rated but useful tools going).

PS and yes I agree a scrub plane isn't a jack plane and I didn't see any point in Sellers' demo - better with a well cambered jack

 

[Jacob]

Talking of hand planing experience - my last two big jobs were to plane up two sets of 4x4" newel posts from sawn redwood - about 20 pieces in all with the longest about 14'. The other stuff was shorter OK through the machine and the spindle.
Has to be hand planed on two sides because they are too difficult to handle over/through a planer thicknesser until you have two finished sides straight and square.
There's a cunning technique with long pieces - you don't start by flattening a face you start by creating a dead straight arris along one corner, especially if that corner is over 90º due to drying.
It's much easier to sight accurately along straight corner rather than a flat face. That straight line is then your reference and once you've got it you can start on the two faces - or rather, one face first then the other.
Worth touching in the reference arris with a felt tip to remind you not to touch it - work right up to it but stop!
Using 5 1/2 jack at first, then a 7, then a 22" woody, with boning rods.
Once you have them you can do the other two faces through a thicknesser.
I actually like hand planing and ended up doing the short pieces the same.
It's well worth hanging on to very long woodies as they are very light for the size. A Stanley 8 is relatively short and a heavy PITA and best ebayed, they are very collectable!

 

[SamTheJarvis]

I'm so confused as to how there's so much contention around this tool! They're bloody marvellous. The curved blade is a completely differently planing experience.

I usually scrub plane every inch of slabs I plan to break down for 3 reasons:

1. To get a good idea of what grain is where (plus inevitable tearout informs you of grain direction)
2. It's bloody good fun
3. It's bloody good exercise

So yes, absolutely necessary (for me anyway)

 

[Exluthier]

I can understand the speculation about scrub planes and door-frames, etc., though I have never seen scrub planes used thus myself, but we should not forget that the context in which any tool is used in another land might be very different from its use elsewhere, and the fact that it is still in use elsewhere might just be a function of that differing context. Though now almost a thing of the past, the wooden-framed house with exposed detail on both the outside and inside of the building is still far more common in some mainland European countries, and restoration and repair work on them still requires trained craftsmen to do it. Internally-visible load-bearing timbers are still finished by hand, using the scrub plane, the only tool (other than the huge gouges used in house-framing in, for instance, North America, which I have not seen in wide use in Germany or Switzerland) which will produce a convincingly hand-finished impression. I have owned and used Stanley, LN, and Ulmia (ECE) scrub planes, with the lighter (and narrower) Ulmia being the one I would choose for a job requiring more than a few minutes of planing. The element of Vorsprung in the particular Technik applying to the scrub plane might have happened centuries ago, I think.

 

[D_W]

There's no real controversy. The issue is that everyone is using a scrub and setting jacks up like something else. You can't really rely on demonstrations from people like Sellers or Schwarz, they generally give demos with planes set up to do work off of a thickness planer, or otherwise too shallow with some nonsense about making X's, etc as a rule or method.

Jack planing is a simple matter of first removing spots that prevent a continuous overlapping cut and then moving on to the continuous overlapping cuts until you're near a mark, and then finalzing the surface while hitting the mark with a subsequent plane.

I get the sense that people think there's some need or gain to a scrub plane because they've not set a jack plane up the way a jack plane would've been used.

It leads us back to the question about a scrub being essential or needed, and the answer is a definitive no. It's not as good at anything as a purpose made jack plane, but if one is going to set jacks up as jointers,panel planes and smoothers, i guess then you can waste time with scrub planes.

Jacob talks about being ready for the jack plane off of a scrub, which is a strange notion - they do the same job, or the jack isn't set up as a jack. If there is fear of setting a jack plane up with considerable camber to do rough work, I don't understand it. It works in greater volume than a scrub, is a better indicator of flatness when being used (so you can let the plane tell you when something is flat rather than stopping and checking), and can work almost to a mark once a user is skilled.

 

[D_W]

I can understand the speculation about scrub planes and door-frames, etc., though I have never seen scrub planes used thus myself, but we should not forget that the context in which any tool is used in another land might be very different from its use elsewhere, and the fact that it is still in use elsewhere might just be a function of that differing context. Though now almost a thing of the past, the wooden-framed house with exposed detail on both the outside and inside of the building is still far more common in some mainland European countries, and restoration and repair work on them still requires trained craftsmen to do it. Internally-visible load-bearing timbers are still finished by hand, using the scrub plane, the only tool (other than the huge gouges used in house-framing in, for instance, North America, which I have not seen in wide use in Germany or Switzerland) which will produce a convincingly hand-finished impression. I have owned and used Stanley, LN, and Ulmia (ECE) scrub planes, with the lighter (and narrower) Ulmia being the one I would choose for a job requiring more than a few minutes of planing. The element of Vorsprung in the particular Technik applying to the scrub plane might have happened centuries ago, I think.

The problem with comparing the LN to a wooden scrub is the LN and stanley scrub planes aren't really suited to doing significant heavy work - the metal soles will wear out a user.

There's another case where I can think of for the scrub as you're mentioning house work, though - that is planing wall surfaces or overhead, etc - it would be easier handling a small plane for awkward work like that. Jacob keeps showing us pieces of softwood reclaimed (house work type stuff), but I would guess that the vast majority on this thread are thinking of taking lumber and making something that looks like this:



All worked from rough on a flat bench. I can't imagine where a scrub would fit in for this kind of stuff - there's no room to hack off accidental bits, and it works more slowly, at the same time, leaving much more follow-up work.

 

[Andy Kev.]

@Jacob
I had to grin at "... my answer to the Utah obelisk!"

Is this a subtle way of telling us that you are from the planet Squlibx?

 

[Andy Kev.]

@D_W

Ref your "I can't imagine where a scrub would fit in for this kind of stuff..."

Supposing that the original rough boards showed a fair degree of cupping. Those are the circumstances where I would use my Nr 5 - configured-as-a-scrub. I'd chamfer the far edge and then get the worst of the cupping off while looking for the first practical opportunity to switch to the normal jack for conventional flattening.

I understand why you maintain that the first step is not strictly necessary but OTH I can't see that it is disadvantageous.

 

[Jacob]

......

Jacob talks about being ready for the jack plane off of a scrub, which is a strange notion - they do the same job, ....

No they don't, as I keep patiently explaining. How could they possibly, with such different shapes and sizes of blade?
My narrow but deep cutting ECE scrub cuts through the surface gunge on old timber, or paint, into the clean wood underneath.
Deep is the operative word. DEEP
If you do the same with a jack it can't cut as deep because of the width of the blade and the effort requires and hence it cuts into the surface gunge or paint, getting blunt very quickly.
The scrub also removes more material more quickly but very roughly. If the surface is already rough a jack can only skim the high points.
You can get a similar scrub effect with a power thicknesser - if you try to skim a painted surface you will blunt a blade very quickly. If you do a deeper cut into the cleaner wood it will last longer and you remove more material. Not advisable in either case as you don't know what pins and bits of grit are hidden beneath the paint.
Not sure if I can be bothered to explain it all over again, again!
Andy Kev and other people seem to use different "scrub" planes differently.
Good luck to them, and happy new year!

 

[Jacob]

The problem with comparing the LN to a wooden scrub is the LN and stanley scrub planes aren't really suited to doing significant heavy work - the metal soles will wear out a user.

There's another case where I can think of for the scrub as you're mentioning house work, though - that is planing wall surfaces or overhead, etc - it would be easier handling a small plane for awkward work like that. Jacob keeps showing us pieces of softwood reclaimed (house work type stuff), but I would guess that the vast majority on this thread are thinking of taking lumber and making something that looks like this:



All worked from rough on a flat bench. I can't imagine where a scrub would fit in for this kind of stuff - there's no room to hack off accidental bits, and it works more slowly, at the same time, leaving much more follow-up work.

A scrub could fit in to this kind of stuff if you were reclaiming old or painted timbers, in the way I have described too many times already, to be re-sawn or planed into into thinner boards.
I haven't had hands on with a metal scrub and am not likely to as they are extremely expensive and for my purposes can't do anything better then the little ECE scrub

 

[D_W]

If I had a cupped board, I'd plane it hollow side down in the direction of the grain. Same with corners or high centers, etc. IT's faster on all but the widest work to run a jack right down the middle of them - it stays in the cut vs. small stabbing partial cuts, and all of the work is done in the direction of planing.

I think it gives people a thrill to feel like it's easier to plane across the grain and shear wood off, but it usually ends up being more work on anything but a large glued up panel (where there's enough room literally to get a full plane stroke across the grain.

On the cupped side with the high lips, the tendency is to knock the ears off diagonally or across the wood, but this is also a waste of time. They can be planed in the direction of their length until they're in reference to the rest of the board. It *feels* harder to do this because you may be planing off 10 times as much material with each stroke vs. running across a board.

Once the "lips" or "ears" are nipped off of the edges of the cupped board, it should be ready to choose the face side.

I went through all of this when I was trying to figure out how to dimension wood efficiently so that I could stop using power tools (not because there's something to gain except exercise, but the way dimensioning feels, I like it. The more efficiently you do it, the better it feels - it feels like taking a brisk walk or a moderate hike).

The result is obviously a lot cleaner, also.

The case that I showed was made with fairly poor quality wood. I ordered a #1 common load of cherry from a guy here as another lumberman advised me that it would have a little bit more waste but the price would make up the difference. That part is true, but it was full of cupping and runout and otherwise poor sawing orientation. It costs about a third as much to work with wood like that here vs. perfectly straight wood, so I end up working with a lot of it. Generally working entirely by hand would be more productive with perfectly straight wood or wood with symmetry in its issues, though.

 

[Jacob]

...

I think it gives people a thrill to feel like it's easier to plane across the grain and shear wood off,

yes it is quite pleasing

but it usually ends up being more work on anything

Not if you need to shear lots of wood off before you can use the timber

 

[Andy Kev.]

If I had a cupped board, I'd plane it hollow side down in the direction of the grain. Same with corners or high centers, etc. IT's faster on all but the widest work to run a jack right down the middle of them - it stays in the cut vs. small stabbing partial cuts, and all of the work is done in the direction of planing.

I think it gives people a thrill to feel like it's easier to plane across the grain and shear wood off, but it usually ends up being more work on anything but a large glued up panel (where there's enough room literally to get a full plane stroke across the grain.

On the cupped side with the high lips, the tendency is to knock the ears off diagonally or across the wood, but this is also a waste of time. They can be planed in the direction of their length until they're in reference to the rest of the board. It *feels* harder to do this because you may be planing off 10 times as much material with each stroke vs. running across a board.

Once the "lips" or "ears" are nipped off of the edges of the cupped board, it should be ready to choose the face side.

I went through all of this when I was trying to figure out how to dimension wood efficiently so that I could stop using power tools (not because there's something to gain except exercise, but the way dimensioning feels, I like it. The more efficiently you do it, the better it feels - it feels like taking a brisk walk or a moderate hike).

The result is obviously a lot cleaner, also.

The case that I showed was made with fairly poor quality wood. I ordered a #1 common load of cherry from a guy here as another lumberman advised me that it would have a little bit more waste but the price would make up the difference. That part is true, but it was full of cupping and runout and otherwise poor sawing orientation. It costs about a third as much to work with wood like that here vs. perfectly straight wood, so I end up working with a lot of it. Generally working entirely by hand would be more productive with perfectly straight wood or wood with symmetry in its issues, though.

I think that at the next opportunity I will do two boards with each method so as to compare methods directly. I have in the past done it as you describe and got perfectly good results. I don't recall thinking that it was particularly easier though: much more a valid alternative.

 

[D_W]

No they don't, as I keep patiently explaining. How could they possibly, with such different shapes and sizes of blade?
My narrow but deep cutting ECE scrub cuts through the surface gunge on old timber, or paint, into the clean wood underneath.
Deep is the operative word. DEEP
If you do the same with a jack it can't cut as deep because of the width of the blade and the effort requires and hence it cuts into the surface gunge or paint, getting blunt very quickly.
The scrub also removes more material more quickly but very roughly. If the surface is already rough a jack can only skim the high points.
You can get a similar scrub effect with a power thicknesser - if you try to skim a painted surface you will blunt a blade very quickly. If you do a deeper cut into the cleaner wood it will last longer and you remove more material. Not advisable in either case as you don't what pins and bits of grit are hidden beneath the paint.
Not sure if I can be bothered to explain it all over again, again!
Andy Kev and other people seem to use different "scrub" planes differently.
Good luck to them, and happy new year!

Jacob, I have no idea why you think you can't put a significant radius on a jack plane. Most people seem to believe this is also the case, that the smoother is flat, the jointer has a tiny bit of camber and a fore or jack has just a little bit more taking near full width strokes. They don't do that - in wood that's suitable to be planed like that, there's no need to use even a jack.

If you get obsessed with super narrow and deep, you end up suffering serious accuracy issues with flatness and taking a shaving that's not more volume than a jack shaving, but is harder to overlap.

if you knew what you were talking about here, Nicholson would've written about it. I don't need you to keep explaining it, you're prescribing gentleman's modern woodworking and accusing other folks who are doing more accurate work just as fast as showing gentleman woodworking. If you're talking about just roughing up reclaimed fir and soft redwood beams, nobody here is likely to be doing anything of the sort.

What's far more likely is facing and then perhaps thicknessing up to a quarter of an inch off of a rough board. Again, done more slowly with a scrub, with more damage, and needing subsequent assistance. The part which seems to be flying completely over your head is that at one point, with dry wood, this was something of a subsistence issue for a worker. If it was easy enough to just gimmick a narrow plane to save time and make more money, it would've been common. I haven't got a clue what the history of the euro bismarck is here and many probably don't, but I would suggest it's more likely that such a plane was used with wet lumber or for sizing small bits like shoe blanks.

Not only did nicholson not write about a scrub, but he clearly said that the radius of the jack is to be set as needed for the material being worked. You set it at whatever works fastest rather than stopping at an arbitrary point and saying "more coarse would be a scrub". It turns out that something less drastic than the often quoted 3" scrub radius is the most productive in volume planed for a given level of effort, not to mention the improved follow up condition, but this is the case even for thicknessing, especially if you have to hit a mark and volume and accuracy count at the same time.

You have yet to address how tens or hundreds of thousands of woodworkers did something different for a living working far harder than you, but somehow missed the gimmick that only became widespread for construction work after rough work was completed with power tools.

Which leads back to the topic of the thread - a scrub plane is not essential, and you'll do faster and better work if you set up a jack plane properly and keep a scrub plane out of the shop. How do I know? I've used several patterns of scrub planes and now have none because I started to count time and effort so that I could work entirely by hand and not ruin stock or waste time stabbing around breaking wood out. The precise problem with a scrub plane is that it's narrow and short, and doesn't ensure very good flatness by itself, and even at its best possible setup, it may be equal to a rank set jack plane.

Just how easy is this to see? set two jack planes, one intentionally rank as one of mine is, and another with something far more drastic in curvature than someone like schwarz or sellers would demonstrate, but that can be driven to within a 16th or so of a mark without concern. The former will end up collecting dust, just as mine does.

If the generation of living tradesmen and their fathers hadn't come about in a period of time where hand tools were just spot work and play, we'd never be stuck with this kind of goofy talk.

I do get that refitting an older wooden jack plane with a double iron can be a bit tricky, but I can't do anything about that for people in the UK other than make a video showing how to address feed and fit issues in a double iron plane. In the states, I just refit planes for anyone who asks and is willing to send their plane.

When I do make jack planes for people here (which I don't do for pay, but I will if someone has something that's interesting to me), I know better than to set their planes up as a jack plane save one person (brian holcombe, a professional woodworker - I knew he'd use a jack plane like a jack plane), and instead send a jack plane set up like a smoother, but with the capability to work in either context (no tight mouth or any other such nonsense).

There are generations of long gone workers who set the standard for this, and revisionist gentlemen tool catalogue advice or construction site advice isn't going to be useful unless someone is working on a construction site.

(I checked with brian a month or so after I shipped him a plane, as he was using planes at that time for paying work dressing rough lumber, and he said something along the lines of "I haven't had to adjust the radius, and to be honest, I don't know If I've sharpened the plane". That's a separate issue, not noticing a jack getting dull, and I'm sure once he resharpened the first time, subsequent sharpenings were more often. brian was the last person I knew making an actual living doing work - furniture and cabinets - with only hand tools full time, but his order list has gotten larger and larger, and he's moved to power tools for the work.

When I say he was working full time, that means self employed and at the time deriving no other income from teaching classes or having an hourly wage job.

There are so many people giving advice about this stuff and so few who do it that this scrub nonsense lives on. Everyone I know who has done significant work by hand only to a standard uses two wooden planes (jack/try or long plane) and a metal smoother.

back to what I mentioned earlier - if this is just being done for play, then people can leave their jack planes with little camber for fear of not being able to use them for smoothers. If they want to master this stuff and move on, they'll follow what nicholson prescribes or what's shown in the seaton chest as far as tools go. It may be boring at first, but the efficiency and quality of the work in combination of using the correct tools makes that go away.

 

[D_W]

yes it is quite pleasingNot if you need to shear lots of wood off before you can use the timber

OK, now we're addressing different questions at the same time. A good jack plane is clean enough (not ideal, but clean enough) to face lumber on one side and put it directly in a thickness planer. That means no matter how much the wood is cupped or bowed.

it's also faster at removing more wood *if it's needed*. If one goes to make something like I showed vs. what you showed, there will be plenty of opportunity to remove an eight or a quarter from more than one piece of wood. This will not be done with a scrub plane except by people with frontal lobe issues. It likely will not be done with any single iron plane for long because the results negate it.

Of course, the jack is also better at spot removing wood without leaving any low spots and doing as little as possible if someone just wants to use a thickness planer. My jack plane (the one set up for typical use in medium hardwoods) leaves a scalloped surface, but the scallops can be manipulated so that the overall surface is flat and without any significant issues. An uninitiated person might think it's close to a scrub plane in orientation, and not understand that the larger footprint of the plane doesn't slow the work but rather speeds it up and allows for accurate work right or left handed.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, I have no idea why you think you can't put a significant radius on a jack plane. .....

You can put a 25mm radius camber on a blade which is 50mm wide but you wouldn't be able to use much more than the middle 15 - 20 mm of the blade. Waste of a good blade and using an unnecessarily large heavy plane.