Perhaps this is not the correct place for what I'm looking for, but I have been trying with no luck. I have been looking all over the internet to find plans, drawings, blueprints, etc. for a Norris A5 smoothing plane. I would also welcome plans, drawings for other Norris infill planes as well. The dimensions, size, and shape is what I'm looking for. There are many images of Norris planes on the internet but no dimensions are given. Can anyone help?
Norris a5
- Thread starter tdelewis
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
What's your intention - to build one? If you want to build one, it's a good idea to find a basket case to take measurements off of and just sell it when you're done.
But they're not a very good plane as-is with the adjuster. Better without an adjuster, but better yet are older norris designs like the no 13, no 2 and no 6
But they're not a very good plane as-is with the adjuster. Better without an adjuster, but better yet are older norris designs like the no 13, no 2 and no 6
Inspector
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
I think the book by Jim Kingshott. Making and Modifying tools, might have a bit of what you are looking for. Certainly enough to take the basics in it and scale the size and shape of the one you want. I have a copy that I will hunt for tonight and see.
Found a site with infill plane making info. https://www.handplane.com/39/norris-number-13-smoothing-plane/
Company that makes kits. http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com
Pete
Found a site with infill plane making info. https://www.handplane.com/39/norris-number-13-smoothing-plane/
Company that makes kits. http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com
Pete
Ahh, if you're scaling it down, I guess it would be OK to have one in hand just to photo and then shrink the photos, but it'll be less useful than it would be if you were just making a copy of one. I'm not of any help - had two A5s in the past and after sorting out their issues, was glad to get rid of both of them.
Inspector
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
I found the book and don’t think it will be of use to you. Sorry.
Pete
Pete
I've got an A5. I could make a sketch with the main dimensions, and trace the sole profile on some 5mm grid paper. That should get you close enough for a model.
I recently finished a small coffin-shaped infill myself, that is roughly half-size. It was fun but more of a fiddle than doing a full-sized plane! The plane in the background is the size of an A5 except for its width; it's built around a #3 blade, which is 1 3/4" wide, I don't think any of the Norris (handled) smoothers ever went below 2". The infill in the 'full size' plane is Allocasuarina torulosa, commonly known as "She-oak", & the mini has Acacia rhodoxylon woodwork (known locally as "western rosewood"). It makes a great substitute for real Rosewood, it takes a beautiful tactile finish, but hard to get (& dry!) in pieces large enough for a full-sized infill.
I haven't made an adjuster for it yet, which will be the bigger challenge - scaling down the Norris design & keeping it functional may prove to be beyond my limited equipment (& capabilities). It's easy enough to set by the tippy-tap method for demonstration purposes, and actually works very well, but it's too small to be a practical tool...
Cheers,
Ian
I recently finished a small coffin-shaped infill myself, that is roughly half-size. It was fun but more of a fiddle than doing a full-sized plane! The plane in the background is the size of an A5 except for its width; it's built around a #3 blade, which is 1 3/4" wide, I don't think any of the Norris (handled) smoothers ever went below 2". The infill in the 'full size' plane is Allocasuarina torulosa, commonly known as "She-oak", & the mini has Acacia rhodoxylon woodwork (known locally as "western rosewood"). It makes a great substitute for real Rosewood, it takes a beautiful tactile finish, but hard to get (& dry!) in pieces large enough for a full-sized infill.
I haven't made an adjuster for it yet, which will be the bigger challenge - scaling down the Norris design & keeping it functional may prove to be beyond my limited equipment (& capabilities). It's easy enough to set by the tippy-tap method for demonstration purposes, and actually works very well, but it's too small to be a practical tool...
Cheers,
Ian
Thanks everyone for your input. I found some resources that are somewhat helpful. Hand Plane Central, Jim Bode Tools, 1928 Catalog, and The Infill Planes Showcase.
Iron width and sole lengths are always given. I should be able to estimate other measurements from a good side view. I have enough information I should be able to do a drawing.
Iron width and sole lengths are always given. I should be able to estimate other measurements from a good side view. I have enough information I should be able to do a drawing.
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
@IWW Curious to see why one would favour the Norris adjuster over the Stanley, if not an ergonomic issue.
I'd love to have a go at making a wee double iron plane with Bailey style frog/adjuster for bevels.
Something smaller than a no.1 for getting into small areas to mainly be used one handed.
Wondering if you had pondered about this before.
Nice planes BTW, the wee one looks nifty.
Thanks
Tom
I'd love to have a go at making a wee double iron plane with Bailey style frog/adjuster for bevels.
Something smaller than a no.1 for getting into small areas to mainly be used one handed.
Wondering if you had pondered about this before.
Nice planes BTW, the wee one looks nifty.
Thanks
Tom
Tom, I most definitely do NOT favour the Norris adjuster! Clever as it is, it has fatal flaws, imo. To alleviate the insensitivity of the early design, the later patent uses absurdly fine threads which wear quickly (especially when used by heavy-handed types who are accustomed to Bailey planes & don't ease the lever-cap before attempting to adust blade depth), creating loads of backlash. Backlash doesn't bother me much, Baileys develop plenty of adjuster backlash too, so it's something you soon get used to on regular users, the characteristic of the Norris style adjuster that really annoys me is that if the blade is even slightly slewed to even blade exposure (as it virtually always is unless you are more meticulous with keeping your blade edges perfectly square to within small fractions of a degree!), screwing the blade back or forth pulls it straight or pushes it more skewed. Setting my Norris for a fine, even cut can induce a good case of gastric rubor!
I find it quicker & easier to set my adjuster-less infills with a small brass hammer (what else can you do with those funny-shaped offcuts from sawing out a lever cap from a chunk of 1/2" brass? ):
In my opinion, the Bailey adjuster system is a hands-down winner - dead easy to use, and no blade slewing (there must be some, but it's very slight & far less noticeable than with the Norris). As to building a small Bailey-type plane, you have my utter respect if you can manage that in a typical home workshop. I can understand anyone wanting to build one for the fun of it, & I'm sure it's possible if you are determined enough. However, if you want a practical small working plane, a rear-bun infill is far easier to build and much more user-friendly. I've never used a #1 for anything serious& I don't think I'd like to. This little plane is the same length & has the same blade width as a #1, and is much more comfy for my average-sized hands:
The little plane in my previous post was made purely for the challenge - you could use it at a pinch, but I'd definitely reach for this one first!
I'm a great advocate of small planes. I've made about a dozen of this size:
And smaller:
This was the first miniature I made with a dovetailed body (on the 'prototypes' I used brass channel for the bodies ). I started out of simple curiosity, to see if I could manage it, but even my first crude example was so handy, it was soon followed by a series of "improved" versions. I had no trouble giving the early ones away or selling later ones....
Cheers,
Ian
Last edited:
Inspector
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
Ian out of curiosity what is your opinion of the Norris version adjuster Veritas/Lee Valley use in their planes?
Pete
Pete
In a word, Pete, 'low'. I've got two Veritas low-angle jobs and my only real beef is with their adjusters. Both mine are last-century & have the original coarser thread adjusters. These are a bear for fine adjustments, the blade goes from zero to 100 at the merest touch! There must've been a lot of whining about this because a few years ago they came out with an 'improved' version with finer threads. They are very reasonably priced but getting it posted to our remote part of the world is prohibitively expensive so I've dithered about trying one. The Veritas suffers from the same blade-slewing problem as the original, in fact, I think they are marginally worse because of the short shaft. Both my Veritas planes are "set & forget" types so the adjusters don't bug me as much as they would if they were used like I use my Bailey planes on which I often vary the set several times a session.
There was a time in my life when I thought a plane without a screw adjuster was a very inferior thing, but nowadays, I'm just as happy adjusting by the tippy-tap method for planes that are usually set once after sharpening & not altered until the next sharpen. But I can understand how someone in their early woodworking career, or anyone who has just never been exposed to "adjusterless" planes would much prefer a screw adjuster.
Quite a while ago I was asked to review the Veritas small plane kit. I made it up "according to directions", and it was ok, but I did complain about the coarse adjuster in my write-up! This is the plane I made, which followed the design suggested in the instructions (thankyou Mr, Krenov):
I used an extremely dense wood, Allocasuarina leuhmanii, locally known as "bull oak" and the plane turned out rather clunky & just not nice to use, so a couple of years ago, I pensioned it of & cannabalised the blade & adjuster for a small infill (& made a chipbreaker for it as well, to improve performance):
That was a much nicer little thing to use.
Encouraged by that I had yet another go, this time I only used a Veritas blade (a PM-V11 in this case), and had a crack at making my own adjuster. The original Veritas has a right hand thread for the main shaft & a left-hand thread for the traveller that engages the blade. As you screw the main shaft in, the traveller "unscrews" & moves away, so the two threads are "additive" (The Norris is the same, but the LH thread part screws into the main shaft instead of being an extension of it).
My cunning plan was to make both threads RH, so that as the shaft is screwed in to increase the set, the traveller screws back. But because the main thread is much coarser, the net movement of the traveller is still "down".
Well, long story short, it worked. My plane has very fine adjustment (but it still suffers from the slewing effect). However, the cost is the threaded parts of the shaft had to be much longer than the Veritas version in order to get enough travel of the mechanism to use up the blade as it wears down. I couldn't fit it into a bun type rear end, so I made a handled plane:
By sheer serendipity, this turned out to be one of the nicest plane I've ever made. It has a sweet action & the PM-V11 blade handles our horribe hard woods with great aplomb. The adjuster is not as easy to use as a Bailey adjuster, and the plane is actually a bit ugly in the flesh (looks sort of disproportionate because of the narrow blade), but it's so nice to use, it stays with me to the end!
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I felt obliged to give some reasons for my opinions....
Ian
Similar threads
