low angle smoother

[Jacob]

Niall, as mentioned earlier, better construction and materials (such as ductile iron) made the re-introduction possible. The early Stanley #62 (I have one) were fragile and the mouths would chip owing to the thin grey iron construction. These early planes were only intended for planing end grain, such as chopping blocks.

That's probably why they didn't catch on; end-grain planes easily with a sharp enough typical jack plane and in any case chopping blocks are generally straight grained (cheaper, easier to make, work well).

 

[RobNichols]

I'm very much enjoying the input from woodworkers who are far more experienced than me. However, one trivial comment to add:

Low angle planes really made me appreciate how great the lateral adjuster works in the Bailey design.

 

[Jacob]

I'm very much enjoying the input from woodworkers who are far more experienced than me. However, one trivial comment to add:

Low angle planes really made me appreciate how great the lateral adjuster works in the Bailey design.

Exactly. And vice versa, they made me realise how inadequate the Norris adjusters are on any plane. They look clever, neat, simple, but just don't work as well as the brilliant Bailey design.
The revival of back-catalogue retro designs could be seen as a speculative venture, but then they all were at some point.

 

[schnapps95]

That's probably why they didn't catch on; end-grain planes easily with a sharp enough typical jack plane and in any case chopping blocks are generally straight grained (cheaper, easier to make, work well).

Using a butchers chopping block you would be chopping into the end grain of beech so it would'nt really matter about it being straight grained there is a reason why they use beech but i cannot remember it. The local butcher would bring his block to our workshop to have it made flat again he then brought a plastic one which we put through the thicknesser just before we were going to change the blades because it would have knackered the blades in the end he threw out the plastic and returned to use'ing beech

 

[fleyh]

Hello @Derek Cohen (Perth Oz),

Thank you for the fascinating write-up.

One thing I did not see mentioned is handling the plane when taking it to the workpiece and off of the workpiece.

It may not sound like much, but (at least for me) with the upright handle (a default option in most low-angle planes), the centre of mass feels wrong, too far forward from the tote.

I am used to taking the plane to and from the workpiece with one hand. With the upright handle (regardless of what stance I use, lower/higher) my wrist begins to hurt pretty quickly after I have lifted the plane off the workbench and put it back a couple of dozen times in one session. This is never an issue with the Bailey style planes/handles, even when I use No 7.

Question: are there any technical drawings of the better-fitting handles, like the ones that Veritas offers on their website for Bailey planes?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Fleyh, I wrote two other articles about handle design and positioning. One of the conclusions I came to is that the bed angle, handle angle, and position of the handle create a system. One factor affects all. Getting them in synch is the target.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreOfEffortPart2.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreOfEffortPart3.html

I am not aware of handle drawings other than the ones offerred by Veritas.

regards from Perth

Derek