Norris #61

[IWW]

There you go then, Adam, they are essentially 'infills', so you've fallen for the story-line too!

One of those planes was also in my lust-bucket way back, & I would dearly have loved to get my hands on one, but where I live they are almost as rare as feathered frogs, & out of my price range in any case. So I made my own, using a Record blade (& a design heavily influenced by the 073) which I was pleased with at the time, but which looks rather fugly down the retrospectoscope!


That was around 1980, & one of my earliest plane-making efforts, so I plead ignorance, m'lord. It worked quite well (surprisingly, considering my near-complete lack of experience in the art!), but I have learnt a little bit more in the near-40 years since, so I recently replaced it with a new model.

The profile of this one is shamelessly plagiarised from G. Miller of London - I like his flowing side profile much better than Spiers' & Norris's. I also dispensed with the adjustable toe that I (laboriously) fitted on #1, as I found it an unnecessary complication once I'd figured out how to reliably make fine mouths...
Cheers,
Ian

 

[Adam W.]

Ian, I'm going to have to fess up.

I do indeed have a soft spot for these particular planes and have a bit of a small collection going. They do get to taste wood now and then and the one I like using the most is the mahogany one.

I consider it my own little bit of London, which I can visit at any time whilst living in the hand tool deserts of The North.

And I can do the Lambeth walk at any time I like.

 

[JobandKnock]

Hand tool deserts of the North???

 

[Adam W.]

Hand tool deserts of the North???

Jutland, Denmark. It's north east of you and a handtool desert.

 

[JobandKnock]

Ah. I just live in the North (of England). Hence the query. Still, at least where you live it's flat enough to cycle, isn't it?

 

[Adam W.]

Ah. I just live in the North (of England). Hence the query. Still, at least where you live it's flat enough to cycle, isn't it?

I stopped cycling in Denmark about 5 years ago when I was deliberately rammed by an irate motorist and ended up going headfirst through the van window, but yes it's flat but windy.

 

[IWW]

Ian, I'm going to have to fess up......

Struth! Three of 'em - no wonder I could never find one....!

Since we're into confessions, I'll fess up too, I've got 3 as well, but all different sizes:


These are built around blades for various different makes, the 1 1/4" has a Lie-Nielsen blade, the 3/4" & 1/2" have Chinese-make blades. Of the 3, the largest & smallest get the most wood-time. (The smallest is particularly handy when preparing the stuffing for infill planes...... )
Cheers,
Ian

 

[Adam W.]

Nice wood that Ian, what is it?

 

[richarddownunder]

Well, this thread has had me out in the shed fiddling with a Mathieson smoother I got some months ago but never really felt worked terribly well - although rather spiffy looking IMHO. So, having flattened the sole a bit more (it had been polished rather aggressively by the looks of it to tart it up for sale and was a bit rounded) and practicing setting it with a very small hammer and tickling up the iron a bit more, I tested it against a Stanley #4. I think I am beginning to get it. For a start, the Mathieson leaves a very nice surface on Sapele (with less tear-out than the Stanley), or Maple. But it also has a different feel. It seems to slice through the wood in a way that the Stanley doesn't - sort of a level up in the planing experience. I hadn't really noticed it before as I probably hadn't put too much time into practicing and fettling them. I have 3 infills, a post-war Norris which I don't really use (as mentioned, I thought it might be a collectable) and it is fairly horrible, a nice Preston, which is a lovely plane but the iron isn't so good, and this Mathieson with an original iron. So, I'm going to persevere and you never know, may end up using the Mathieson quite a bit more. Here is a pic - how can you say that looks like a door stop

 

[IWW]

Nice wood that Ian, what is it?

Hi Adam, it's "Ringed Gidgee", or Acacia cambagei. One of our (many) dry-country acacias. Hard (Janka hardness ~19,000N) and dense (SG 1.1-1.2) and the wild grain makes it a beast to work with, but when you do manage to bully it into shape, it's magnificent, at least the equal of the Dalbergia rosewoods for stuffing infills, imo.

It's more typically a plain, straight-grained, deep brown wood, but a proportion (exactly what, I don't know), has this fine fiddleback figure. It's available from a few merchants, usually in small pieces for knife handles, but you can get hold of larger bits occasionally...

I infilled this little rear-bun smoother with a block I got my hands on for next to nothing because it had a largish loose knot, but I buried that inside against the sole & it's unlikely anyone'll ever know about it.

It's a lovely little thing, one of my best performing products to date, I take any excuse to use it!
Cheers,
Ian

 

[IWW]

Richard, I agree, when a good infill is working at its best, it's a hard tool to beat, and if you are inclined that way (as I am!), they also look very spiffy compared with the more industrial-looking cast-iron things everyone has on their benches. The infills certainly have a 'feel' that is very different from any Bailey, be it good, bad or indifferent. As I said above, I have & use both types - Baileys for more general preparation, largely because of their convenience & versatility, and the infills for the final phase. My old type 11 #4 is quite capable of matching any of my infills for a fine finish should I choose to use it, but I just enjoy the feel of the infills, & keep them set up for the fine stuff, while the poor old Bailey sometimes gets a bit of a rough deal (which it takes in its stride).

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Adam W.]

Very nice Ian, I like that one too.

It's got that old fashioned racing car shape. How long does something like that take to make ?

 

[D_W]

The infills certainly have a 'feel' that is very different from any Bailey, be it good, bad or indifferent.

It's a feel like you're planing with a solid billet of something. At least that's what I get from it with the ones I've made, as well as from the few older ones that I have that are really heavy.

But there's a workman preference for normal work for something like an older spiers or Norris 2 or similar plane (where the weight is much less) if doing a lot.

I can't make any functional defense for any infill I've ever had over a stanley because when I went nuts the first time (2011 and 2012), I compared LN, older planes and infills and found no difference in the prepared surface, BUT, there are little bits of tearout that you will feel in a stanley and not in an infill or lie nielsen, and I guess people have to pick whether they'd like to feel that or not. Much like a 1980s cadillac in the US where the suspension, noise reduction and steering were set so that you didn't feel anything on the road - you vaguely heard expansion joints on the highway, but that's it. I guess that's out of style now, but it was considered to be tops at the time (to be able to go on the highway and feel like you were in a vault).

 

[D_W]

View attachment 111790
It's a lovely little thing, one of my best performing products to date, I take any excuse to use it!
Cheers,
Ian

Separately, on the rosewood, I'd bet it was used because it was available, dries well and works easily for a relatively hard wood. And it's dimensionally stable. Gidgee looks pretty close (in terms of volumetric shrinkage, etc, and obviously higher in hardness).

 

[richarddownunder]

Hi Adam, it's "Ringed Gidgee", or Acacia cambagei. One of our (many) dry-country acacias. Hard (Janka hardness ~19,000N) and dense (SG 1.1-1.2) and the wild grain makes it a beast to work with, but when you do manage to bully it into shape, it's magnificent, at least the equal of the Dalbergia rosewoods for stuffing infills, imo.

It's more typically a plain, straight-grained, deep brown wood, but a proportion (exactly what, I don't know), has this fine fiddleback figure. It's available from a few merchants, usually in small pieces for knife handles, but you can get hold of larger bits occasionally...

I infilled this little rear-bun smoother with a block I got my hands on for next to nothing because it had a largish loose knot, but I buried that inside against the sole & it's unlikely anyone'll ever know about it.
View attachment 111790
It's a lovely little thing, one of my best performing products to date, I take any excuse to use it!
Cheers,
Ian

Hi Ian

I'm just starting a panel plane as mentioned based on a Spiers. Normally, on the few planes I have made, I have rivetted the lever cap...um, pivot or whatever it's called, so the lever cap isn't removable. I see you use a screw system so it is removable, which seems a sensible approach. What sort of screw system did you use? I guess it still has a solid rod which is tapped and acts as the bearing surface. Is that right?

Thanks
Richard

 

[richarddownunder]

It's a feel like you're planing with a solid billet of something. At least that's what I get from it with the ones I've made, as well as from the few older ones that I have that are really heavy.

But there's a workman preference for normal work for something like an older spiers or Norris 2 or similar plane (where the weight is much less) if doing a lot.

I can't make any functional defense for any infill I've ever had over a stanley because when I went nuts the first time (2011 and 2012), I compared LN, older planes and infills and found no difference in the prepared surface, BUT, there are little bits of tearout that you will feel in a stanley and not in an infill or lie nielsen, and I guess people have to pick whether they'd like to feel that or not. Much like a 1980s cadillac in the US where the suspension, noise reduction and steering were set so that you didn't feel anything on the road - you vaguely heard expansion joints on the highway, but that's it. I guess that's out of style now, but it was considered to be tops at the time (to be able to go on the highway and feel like you were in a vault).

OK, that makes sense. I suppose, why should it prepare a surface differently if the iron angle is the same and the iron is sharpened the same - unless it is to do with support, iron thickness/quality etc which I'm sure has been covered rather fully in threads I have read - maybe that is more to do with the dampening feel than actually cutting the wood.
Cheers
Richard

 

[D_W]

OK, that makes sense. I suppose, why should it prepare a surface differently if the iron angle is the same and the iron is sharpened the same - unless it is to do with support, iron thickness/quality etc which I'm sure has been covered rather fully in threads I have read - maybe that is more to do with the dampening feel than actually cutting the wood.
Cheers
Richard

Yes, feel, though if one isn't going to set up a plane properly, the fine mouth infills are still decent and a Stanley can be a bear.

But when a Stanley is set up right, it should pretty much stop anyone in their tracks before it chatters.

 

[JobandKnock]

This may be opening a can of worms here, but in the real world just how much of an issue is blade chatter. I've only experienced it a few times in my life but then 75% of what I deal with is sodtwood, however some of the oak, ash, walnut and maple I've dealt with have been awful, but still very little blade chatter

 

[IWW]

...It's got that old fashioned racing car shape. How long does something like that take to make ?

Adam, I suppose if I was working to a tested pattern/design and had my templates and peening block ready & went at it seriously, I could do a plane that size in a few days fairly comfortably. However, so far all but a couple of the planes I've made have been one-offs of my own design, which means a slow start, making templates, cross-checking all dimensions, making up a peening block, & so forth. So realistically, and especially if it's your first attempt, I'd allocate many weekends! My very first infill stretched into years, but that was due to circumstances beyond my control, in total, I would not have spent more than a couple of weeks at most, including the disasters that required re-making several parts.

The shoulder planes have laminated bodies riveted together (a technique I 'borrowed' from another plane maker more skilled & more imaginative than I), and I could easily make one of those in a weekend (provided all went according to plan!). But I reckon I have made something north of 40 infills over the last 12 years or so, so I'm starting to get the hang of it. (I only set out to make a couple of planes for myself, the others just sorta happened... )

Richard, the lever-cap "axles" are indeed 'cheese-head' or machine screws (depending on your country of origin). They are available in a good range of sizes from specialist suppliers, but I have a small metal lathe & make my own, with the 'heads' a half mm (small planes) or a mm (larger planes) more than the nominal thread diameter. The smooth 'head' of the screw forms the axle. I discovered the stainless steel shafts they use in ink-jet printers are a great source of raw material for such things, the stuff turns & threads beautifully and given the ubiquity & short life of printers, there is an inexhaustible supply!

Making the LC easily removable was a no-brainer for me, I knew I would have it in & out a few times before I got everything sorted and a proper fit (& for once my prognosis was absolutely correct). I suppose riveting them in is quick & neat in a production situation where you have everything well-organised & you know your LC is going to mate nicely with the cap-iron or blade before you clench the rivet off.

Apart from the fact that the screws show, I can't see any downsides to this method for mounting LCs, my #1 plane is still going fine after a dozen or more years of use, but perhaps there is something I've overlooked that I'll discover eventually.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

[richarddownunder]

Thanks for that. So the axles screw directly into the lever cap then, rather than drilling all the way through. Seems an easy solution although the moving bearing surface is just the axle and the brass sides rather than the moving bearing being distributed across the width of the lever cap - I doubt that matters much though given it doesn't move much!

Cheers
Richard