Krenovian Damascas Plane

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm reading this thread with interest. Can I ask anyone to volunteer a couple if links so that I can see some "best in class" wooden planes made without the glue up method. I'm interested in the most accurate and efficient techniques for getting the blade properly bedded and an achieving an accurate, fine mouth.
I'd enjoy making a wooden plane, need a scraper plane anyway, but don't want to waste time and timber on something that is simple but appears to be flawed.
Also, any recommendations for irons ? Ron Hock ?
Thanks in advance.

A good start would be snaffling a copy of 'Making Traditional Wooden Planes' by John M Whelan. It's regarded as the classic text on the subject; so much so, that when it went out of print, used copies fetched huge sums. Happily, it's been reprinted, and Classic Hand Tools can oblige - scroll down to the third entry:

https://www.classichandtools.com/acatalog/Planes.html

 

[D_W]

I'm reading this thread with interest. Can I ask anyone to volunteer a couple if links so that I can see some "best in class" wooden planes made without the glue up method. I'm interested in the most accurate and efficient techniques for getting the blade properly bedded and an achieving an accurate, fine mouth.
I'd enjoy making a wooden plane, need a scraper plane anyway, but don't want to waste time and timber on something that is simple but appears to be flawed.
Also, any recommendations for irons ? Ron Hock ?
Thanks in advance.

For the iron, look for a tapered NOS iron and cap iron, and if you can't get that, if you can find a broken plane with any of the following:
* i. sorby
* ward
* Mathieson

(there are a lot of others, but I've never had a bad one from any of the above).

You're living in the country where i get my irons from (all are old NOS double irons).

Hock has nothing for you in this case, and anything new would be exorbitantly expensive compared to the irons above, and no better (probably not as good).

If you see something on ebay UK, feel free to send me a PM - the earlier irons are a little better in general, the later are usually solid steel and sometimes on the soft side.

You don't necessarily need a fine mouth in a wooden plane, especially if it interferes with the cap iron. You need a metal sole to have both, and a mouth that's filed away from the direction of the iron as you go up into the casting or infill sole. To get a wooden plane with the same mouth tightness and functional cap iron (the cap iron is far more important), you need to intentionally plug the mouth with an insert (which isn't actually a bad idea, but it does bear a visual resemblance to a mouth that's been plugged on an old damaged plane).

As for entire planes, any reasonable age nurse, mathieson, griffiths, hields...there are tons of excellent makers. I have bought complete try planes from your side of the pond complete with ward iron for $30, which is almost a sin. I think the market is on the upshot for them, but there's nothing better about my planes vs. those older planes except that when I make one, the iron is fitted and function checked (which means the plane is cutting out of the box with no problems - and that sounds great, but you have to do those things to make a nice plane, so it's just a thing that "is" and is not the white collar boutique preparation that it sounds like it is. Users were expected to do any final fettling in the old days, I'm sure, as NOS planes that I've gotten won't feed with the cap iron set close until they are fettled a little bit).

 

[patrickjchase]

A glued-together plane is destined to be set aside by a serious woodworker. I made duds before I made good ones, and making duds and then setting them aside is what drove me to figure out how to make good ones. "Oh, but they're easier to make" doesn't go that far if you find yourself making a half dozen turds in the same time that you could've made one or two good ones that you'll actually use.

I agree that traditional mortised planes are preferable for the reasons you outline, though I think you may go too far in denigrating laminated ones. After all, most folks deemed Krenov a "serious woodworker". If anything I think that his planes illustrated just how unimportant our tools really are relative to skill and creativity (and I say that as somebody lacking in both).

 

[D_W]

I think krenov did most of his stock preparation with machines and didn't know how to use a cap iron. It didn't keep him from making nice furniture, but I get the sense that his real business was teaching classes and selling books or designs (I haven't studied his history too much, because he said something to the effect of handled planes being uncomfortable - which is a really strange notion).

That said, his plane styles work fine, but they're substandard compared to a stanley 4 - and that's a problem.

My smoothers - that I've made (unless they're infills - those work pretty well), are also substandard to a stanley 4, which is why I use a stanley 4 to smooth. (Or an infill from time to time, but I can't deny the goodness of the bailey design for smoothing).

All that said, if a plane was laminated (and wooden) and made the same way as a mortise plane with wedge and abutment support all the way down to the top of the cap iron, it would be just as good of a plane. But it would take just as long or longer to make. Terry Gordon makes a style like that, and I'd guess he's got it so that he can do most of the work with machines, perhaps 99% of it? - so it makes sense for him, but it probably won't for a hand tool woodworker in the end.

The one improvement I see to wedged mortised planes is leaving the wear more open and then blocking the mouth with a replaceable sole insert that has a negative wear. It looks tacky, though, and I don't see it becoming popular on $300-$400 wooden planes. The point of it is to basically copy the geometry that you get in a fine pre-war infill plane, which is a tight mouth, and clearance for the cap iron. You can get it from the outset with a 90 degree wear and no insert, but a plane like that will still open up and need blocking later.

 

[Droogs]

Derek , I just thought he used a nice piece of wood and it looked pretty. Just eye candy while having a cup of tea at half six in the morning after walking the mutt.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Derek , I just thought he used a nice piece of wood and it looked pretty. Just eye candy while having a cup of tea at half six in the morning after walking the mutt.

Droogs, he did use a stunning piece of timber. That's what the ooohs and aaahs are about. Plus the nice looking blade. As David pointed out, and if you read the comments after the video, none of those making nice noises appear to have a clue about plane design or use. The point is, do not take these videos seriously, and do not use them as a guideline for yourself. That is really the issue here, that is, this plane was a very poor design in the hands of a beginner. If you are a serious planemaker or user, then look at the David's (DW and DC) videos.

I think krenov did most of his stock preparation with machines and didn't know how to use a cap iron. It didn't keep him from making nice furniture ..

David, that is so. I have one of Jim's smoother's, and it reached me complete with fluffy curlies from his work bench. I recorded all the settings and took photos before using the plane. Jim set the chipbreaker too far back for it to be involved. It was used with a tight mouth and common cutting angle (it is a Hock blade and chipbreaker). I recall using it as is on slightly interlocked wood, and it did not leave the best surface. It did a great job on straight-grained timber. It's a nice plane to use and better with the chipbreaker set. His first book described his journey with machinery - many of us do the same as Jim ... machines to rough out and hand tools to shape, join and finish the work.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

.......
The reason is that a planed finish is likely to have some tiny scalloped ridges somewhere on the surface. .....

All over the surface in fact. It's not possible to hand plane a surface which is wider than the plane blade, without all the last passes of the plane leaving marks, depending on the camber. No camber will leave lines from the corners of the blade, camber leaves scoops.

 

[bugbear]

The blade is hilarious - pure bling! It's Damascus, or at least pattern welded.

Except the actual cutting edge, which is a laid on piece...

Damascus (either kind) has some virtues for swords and knives, but none at all for wood working tools or razors. Silly.

BugBear

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Kind of telling that he makes a plane and at the end of the video planes a board with a no.5 and then puts his plane on the planed section, telling us it "works very well", without showing us it taking a single shaving.

EDIT Whoops, I totally mixed up what he was doing at the end, the speeding up didn't help

 

[Rorschach]

Kind of telling that he makes a plane and at the end of the video planes a board with a no.5 and then puts his plane on the planed section, telling us it "works very well", without showing us it taking a single shaving.

He does use it at the end. Hard to say how effect it is, the shavings look more like scrapings though.

 

[Racers]

Racing stripe or spacer? the blade looks very tight.

Pete

 

[Bodgers]

No slight to the fellow, but a hand forged iron deserves a plane that's not glued together (one with a wear would be an improvement, too).

What is the disadvantage of a glued plane, vs one made out a single piece?


I notice The English woodworker has plans and a video series on making a wood jack using the glued method...

You end up with an inferior plane that has the potential for creep and movement (but the inferiority isn't just due to glue). I saw that Richard decided to sort of junk it up with an accessible plane design, but most people watching his videos would be better of watching mine - not to make a plane - but to buy one of the many fabulous used low-wear wooden planes that you guys have left over there and do a once-over on the wedge, iron and cap iron and sole. You'd have a better plane for less money and much less effort. You'd actually have a lifetime plane that you couldn't really improve upon, even if you went so far as to build them like I do.

I think Richard was probably looking for accessible when he made a plane glued together with a cross pin and in at least one, used a stanley iron and cap iron. I get it from his perspective - he can't turn around and suggest that everyone copy a holtey plane with holtey's accuracy constraints, but I have issues with those compromises (cross pin, wrong style of iron, etc) because a plane like that will not perform as well, especially if you get into heavier work with it. The fact that it may come apart or creep over time isn't really that big of a deal, you can lap the plane from time to time and remove any glue creep problems, and if it comes apart, you can just build another one. Mortising a plane out of properly sawn wood (a single piece) exempts you from any of that ever occurring, though. And it's a lot easier than it seems. Using a proper tapered iron and cap iron means that the fit, support and nuances (how the fingers terminate at the top of the cap iron and don't create clog points, but don't have to terminate short of the end of the cap to do it, how the wedge and tapered iron and cap work together for adjustment etc) are all as they should be. They're all the way they are for a reason.

A glued-together plane is destined to be set aside by a serious woodworker. I made duds before I made good ones, and making duds and then setting them aside is what drove me to figure out how to make good ones. "Oh, but they're easier to make" doesn't go that far if you find yourself making a half dozen turds in the same time that you could've made one or two good ones that you'll actually use.

Interesting info.

I think I was working on the old 'glue is stronger than the Wood' assumption. Which obviously isn't correct, at least for hand planes.



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Kind of telling that he makes a plane and at the end of the video planes a board with a no.5 and then puts his plane on the planed section, telling us it "works very well", without showing us it taking a single shaving.

He does use it at the end. Hard to say how effect it is, the shavings look more like scrapings though.

I got mixed up by the super speed up at the end. Edited my post.
Paddy

 

[Bodgers]

Kind of telling that he makes a plane and at the end of the video planes a board with a no.5 and then puts his plane on the planed section, telling us it "works very well", without showing us it taking a single shaving.

He does use it at the end. Hard to say how effect it is, the shavings look more like scrapings though.

If it's bevel up and high angle they were probably scrapings I think as the combined angle has to be way more than say 50 Deg?



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[bugbear]

You end up with an inferior plane that has the potential for creep and movement (but the inferiority isn't just due to glue).

Are you sure there aren't glues that don't creep?

I know that luthiers are pretty fussy about the issue, since instruments are under continual load from the strings, bowyers make laminated bows, and something like a structural glu-lam beam (clue is in the name) would be unusable if no-creep glues weren't available.

Obviously (and sadly) the commonest woodworker adhesive in modern times, PVA, does creep.

BugBear

 

[D_W]

You end up with an inferior plane that has the potential for creep and movement (but the inferiority isn't just due to glue).

Are you sure there aren't glues that don't creep?

I know that luthiers are pretty fussy about the issue, since instruments are under continual load from the strings, bowyers make laminated bows, and something like a structural glu-lam beam (clue is in the name) would be unusable if no-creep glues weren't available.

Obviously (and sadly) the commonest woodworker adhesive in modern times, PVA, does creep.

BugBear

Yes, I don't think hide glue creeps. I don't see people putting planes together with it, but it would probably be my choice.

I'm not sure about epoxy, but I doubt it creeps, either. How long either of those would last under use, though, not sure. Hide glue makes a hard joint and may eventually fail. If you're the builder, you can just repair it.

Not sure what people use in bows, urethane glues? If you just make the plane out of a single billet, you never have to worry about it, but these days we put "accessible" ahead of "good".

 

[D_W]

Interesting info.

I think I was working on the old 'glue is stronger than the Wood' assumption. Which obviously isn't correct, at least for hand planes.



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

"stronger than the wood" is certainly something the glue manufacturers like to say, and there are cases where it's true, but not always, and over time, usually not.

One of the more interesting videos that I've seen from paul sellers is one where he pops a glued panel with a chisel, though I no longer see the video on youtube.

 

[AndyT]

Dave, you might like to look at this thread - marples-hybrid-plane-t90264.html - where we discussed the line of composite planes made in the 1960s by Marples. Even with the evident neglect that mine had had, the parts stayed glued together, thanks to glues developed for the aero industry. 50 years+ is pretty good for a tool like that, I think.

 

[D_W]

That's an interesting cobble! Basically a transition plane, and the frog and lever cap eliminates the problems that krenov planes have with a high cross pin and a wedge that doesn't have the same lower area influence that wedge fingers have.

 

[AndyT]

Yep. You'll notice from the pictures of the Paul Sellers reproduction that these have a nice way of shooting the shaving up vertically - mine does the same. Very nice in use.