One for the Plane Makers

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Cheshirechappie":28oevio6 said:
Came across this whilst rummaging about in YouTube. Thought it might be of interest - especially for those obsessed with blade steels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6Kw4d-k2w

You guys have the best stock of old wooden planes in the world. I see gobs of almost spotless 150+ year old planes with bright irons over there for 30 quid.

Nothing wrong with a plane out of plywood, but it's not the equal of what's available in the UK for low cost.
 
I once made a plane out of plywood. Actually it was worse than that, I made the plywood too. Old veneers that had been lying around for years. Must have been some of the highest grade of plywood ever made!
The plane worked fine, although mine had a solid wood sole. It was just the sides that were plywood, so it wasn't really a plywood plane as such.
 
Not so much the material that makes the old ones better, but the design.

I'd bet plywood would make a solid 19th century style plane.
 
Given the qualities of modern wood glues, I see no reason why plywood would not make a very serviceable (and dimensionally stable) plane.

The use of recycled circular saw as a source for steel for the blade is, perhaps, a bit more unusual - though it seems to serve adequately enough, at least on milder timbers.
 
Cheshirechappie":1kx33v3e said:
I see no reason why plywood would not make a very serviceable (and dimensionally stable) plane.

It would, but back to the original comment - if you're in the UK, there are scads of much better planes for about 25 pounds (even if you have to buy them).

We could only wish to be so well off in the US.

(I didn't notice the blade material, but circular saw blade material would be substandard - but not much worse than a lot of other stuff on youtube in terms of quality of advice).
 
D_W":hppbfbpf said:
We could only wish to be so well off in the US.

You're making us feel like The Prince & the Pauper, David.

Most people over here can only dream of a large sized workshop and Grizzly machines installed as near every neighbourhood has over there - well it seems like that on the luthier forums... :D
 
iNewbie":1wd8e5z7 said:
D_W":1wd8e5z7 said:
We could only wish to be so well off in the US.

You're making us feel like The Prince & the Pauper, David.

Most people over here can only dream of a large sized workshop and Grizzly machines installed as near every neighbourhood has over there - well it seems like that on the luthier forums... :D

Well, there is some truth to over-outfitted hobbyist workshops over here - as far as power tools go. I know of a couple that have a lot of tools in them but don't get used.

The guy who got me into woodworking has a shop full of spiral headed things, some very large, but no initiative to use them.....er, I forgot, he's from England. Maybe he's just enjoying our excessive consumption habits over here!

I'd take the gobs of hand tools over the power tools, but it's perspective, I suppose.

If there wasn't 30+ pounds of shipping on every top shape long plane I see, I'd get every one I saw and put one in the hands of each person who says they want to make a krenov plane or plane out of plywood.
 
I made a laminated plane from baltic birch ply. It works fine, but I don't use it much.
 
Cheshirechappie":g2wyfx5q said:
Given the qualities of modern wood glues, I see no reason why plywood would not make a very serviceable (and dimensionally stable) plane.

The use of recycled circular saw as a source for steel for the blade is, perhaps, a bit more unusual - though it seems to serve adequately enough, at least on milder timbers.
A good while ago I made a hollowing plane which used a cold cutting circular saw blade from a metal cutting saw for an iron.It works very well,but I suspect an untipped metal cutting blade is a good deal harder than a general purpose wood cutting sawblade.
 
Metal-cutting circular saws (or slitting saws) are usually made of High Speed Steel these days (or with carbide cutting tips), but in days not that long ago, carbon steels were used. They would be a good grade of steel, probably rather harder than most wood-cutting saws, and either the carbon steel or high-speed steel metal-cutting blades would make excellent wood plane blades. They would be hard to cut and shape, though.

It's by no means certain that a standard untipped wood-cutting circular saw blade would yield sub-standard plane blades, either. If it's good enough to slam into wood at several thousand surface feet per minute and hold it's edge for a reasonable time, it's not made of rubbish. It may not match the modern everlasting plane irons that supposedly hold an edge for several months of continuous use in hard tropical timbers, but it won't be too bad.
 
Cheshirechappie":1ktxi2yu said:
Metal-cutting circular saws (or slitting saws) are usually made of High Speed Steel these days (or with carbide cutting tips), but in days not that long ago, carbon steels were used. They would be a good grade of steel, probably rather harder than most wood-cutting saws, and either the carbon steel or high-speed steel metal-cutting blades would make excellent wood plane blades. They would be hard to cut and shape, though.

It's by no means certain that a standard untipped wood-cutting circular saw blade would yield sub-standard plane blades, either. If it's good enough to slam into wood at several thousand surface feet per minute and hold it's edge for a reasonable time, it's not made of rubbish. It may not match the modern everlasting plane irons that supposedly hold an edge for several months of continuous use in hard tropical timbers, but it won't be too bad.

Aren't those blades sharpened by filing?
 
This one needed a cutting disc in an angle grinder to cut it out, a belt sander to clean it up, and a bench grinder to form the bevel. If he could have cut it with a hacksaw and filed the bevel, he probably would have done.

Anyway, aren't you always advocating plane blades of steels easily and quickly sharpened on fairly simple stones? Just like the guy did in the video?
 
I would advocate plain steel with carbon between 0.85 and 1%, hardened to 59-60 if I had a choice.

(I guess I have that choice to advocate).

I'd say another thing for plane irons - it doesn't cost much to find a decent used one. It also (if one has the facilities to do the hardening, which isn't much) doesn't cost very much to get tool steel and make one, though that can be a tall order for an iron that should be tapered. One of the best irons I've used is one that I hardened out of 1/8th O1. It is probably in my ideal hardness range, and it was a straight up turd for the first 64th of an inch or so. By facilities, I mean I have a $50 torch that's normally used for weeds, and three quarts of soybean oil in an old paint can. The torch hooks to my grill bottle.

At any rate, I wouldn't cut a saw blade into an iron, just not the kind of thing I'd do because doing something proper is not very difficult.

If I didn't have proper wood around, though, I wouldn't hesitate to use plywood if I wanted to just make planes.

My opinion on this is a little further down the road than most peoples', though, and here's why. In the last 11 years, I've made a whole bunch of planes, and for the first 6 or so of that, I liked the idea of making something that was easy to make or used spare whatever is around that's free kind of stuff. What happens when you do that, though, is that you end up with a plane that works, but it doesn't work well enough that you'll keep using it very long. I have the same feeling about krenov planes, especially the type with the really little narrow irons. The little details like a substandard iron are the ones that make you put a plane down, among other things (poor design, poor construction, etc). In my opinion, someone making a tool for more than a youtube video (the youtube universe loves the "something for nothing" idea of making a plane out of junk, just like it loves videos like "newspaper log makers" or other such things that nobody would actually do in quantity off of youtube), then the idea should be to make a tool at least as good as you can buy so that you are not so willing to just cast off the tool at a later date in favor of something else.

To make a plane as good as you can buy is a pretty tall order, especially when you guys can get stuff like this postage paid:

http://www.oldschooltools.co.uk/product ... ane-wp175/

It'd be a wiser investment by someone who wanted to do serious woodworking to learn to refit these older planes, but it doesn't make those something for nothing kind of youtube videos to do it.

For various reasons, the guy who made that plane will end up casting it aside. It's possible that the iron will be one of those reasons, and certainly possible that it won't.

I guarantee if I was making plane-related videos on youtube to try to generate views, they wouldn't be about making the planes in the style of the above (which is sold out because I bought it. I don't need it, but the cost is still in the range of what it costs me just for materials to make a similar plane, even with shipping to the US).

Sometimes, when you've thought about planes as much as i have (and cast aside as many as I have - at least they were sort of fun to make), it's a pain in the *** to actually talk about those thoughts.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top