Scrub Plane

[woodbloke]

Paul Chapman wrote:

subtle gloat with my new Clifton #3 which I picked up at Ally Pally for a bargain price

That's far too subtle for me Paul.....and as you know, I'm not into subtle gloats...much. The No3 is a nice little plane tho' and if the price was good it can only aid your slippery slide down the you know what :lol: - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

.....and as you know, I'm not into subtle gloats...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

Adel - agree allot with this view. In my short time in two professional shops everyone had planes ordinaire of various descriptions that were just free hand sharpened on India stones. When I took my Norris A1 into the 'shops it was examined with very great interest. People generally tho' just used everyday sort of kit for the bench work. Part of it I think was the security aspect as leaving valuable hand tools on the premises overnight was a bit chancy to say the least - Rob

 

[bugbear]

I see no wrong with flattening a plane sole but not obsessively to thous of an inch. I have examined the planes used by some well respected and very skilled craftsmen and found that bog standard either Records or Stanleys are the norm and all had obvious hollows along and across the soles.

(edit)

The skill is in the user not the tool.

IIRC (*) Charles Hayward did some "people I have known" articles in the woodworker, and refers to a guy in a joiners' shop who had an appallingly warped, worn and generallly unwell plane.

He had had it for years, and could use it easily, and did.

In anyone elses' hands it was useless.

I have used a out-of-flat #5 (around 10 thou convex) and it was horrible.

Perhaps I could have learned to use it, but I learned to flatten it (probably "too flat", but it's so hard to stop once you've started)

Learners (most of us) do not need(**) "ultimate tools", but we do need tools that are not an impediment.

BugBear

(*) Alf?
(**) "want" is a different matter :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

I think I may receive some flak so I have my tin hat on but I have to say that woodwork "flat" is not the same as metalwork "flat".

I seem to remember attempting to probe this issue some while back when I asked if woodwork is becoming too much like precision engineering, or should woodworking in fact be a form of precision engineering in its own right. I didnt get much of a response at that time :wink: :lol:

 

[Paul Chapman]

The skill is in the user not the tool.

My Dad had a Stanley #5 and I can never remember him ever sharpening the blade (he didn't even own an oil stone) but he could plane with it. Mind you, he was about 16 stones and had a lot of upper body strength. I sometimes think the shavings jumped out of the way when they saw him and his #5 coming :shock: :shock: Just because someone can make a tool work I don't think you can necessarily assume that they are doing things the right way or that they have any particular skill to be emulated :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Alf]

IIRC (*) Charles Hayward did some "people I have known" articles in the woodworker, and refers to a guy in a joiners' shop who had an appallingly warped, worn and generallly unwell plane.

He had had it for years, and could use it easily, and did.

In anyone elses' hands it was useless.

Nobby Clark in the second part here I'm guessing?

Funnily enough, despite my leg-pulling of BB on the subject, I do think there's an argument for flat soles and precise bevels. If you're on your own without a seasoned pro available to look over your shoulder and point out where you - or the tool - are going wrong, it can be very helpful to cut back on the possible variables by eliminating the ones related to the tool with the blade rather than the tool holding it...

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

The skill is in the user not the tool.

The truest statement I've seen on here in a very long time

 

[Paul Chapman]

Nobby Clark in the second part here I'm guessing?

Delightful articles, Alf. In one passage Charles Hayward wrote "....no two men sharpen exactly alike." Nothing changes, eh :wink: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[David C]

A plane with a 3 thou bump behind the throat will not take a one thou shaving.

Whether you need a one thou shaving depends on your work.

A plane hollow in length by 5 thou, will not plane a straight edge with a fine shaving, unless the weight of the operator is sufficient to straighten out the casting.

These are demostrable facts not just opinions.

A skilled man will make better use of a poor tool than a beginner who will probably struggle and give up, without realizing where the problem lies.

David

 

[MarcW]

...

My experience is that using a longer, heavier plane for the initial scrub work is much harder and I would go for the smaller plane every time.
...

Paul

Paul,

Thank you very much for the pics. Nice drive-by too. One of these days I will try a Clifton and maybe give it a home 8-[ I like this conservative style and heard only good things from Clifton blades.

I made the opposite experience, and came from the LN scrub to the #6 and found it way much easier to flatten boards starting from the fore plane. Its weight makes it gliding through the wood on its own. The scrub plane always made me sweat after one board face, lots of movements and those very fast and strong, meanwhile the fore is a little bit slower in action but I have the feeling it works easier on a gentle manner. I even thought replacing the fore by a low angle jointer, as it has the same weight and so I could use the fore as a try plane, surely with another camber on the blade. But that would just be another reason to buy an additional plane. #-o

I think the sole length is the key to flattening a face side. And there's the point why I wouldn't think of a #3 sized plane to be used for this job. This way I'm amazed and wonder what you think about.

Marc,

near a sunny river, the Moselle

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think the sole length is the key to flattening a face side. And there's the point why I wouldn't think of a #3 sized plane to be used for this job. This way I'm amazed and wonder what you think about.

I think it's about using the scrub plane to get the rough, sawn wood into a condition where the jointer plane can do its job. I use the scrub plane across the wood at about 45 degrees rather than along its length. Once the wood is in a presentable condition, I then move to a longer plane and work along the length. Hope that's clear.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Alf]

I think we may be into "when is a scrub not a scrub - when it's a jack" territory again...

Cheers, Alf

 

[bugbear]

Nobby Clark in the second part here I'm guessing?

Bingo! Thanks. I had a sudden doubt that it might have been the Max Burroughes series, also in Woodworker (and never reprinted AFAIK)

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

Alf wrote:

argument for flat soles

Clearly soles on metal planes ought, in a perfect world to be flat as is reasonably possible within the price range and thus engineering capabilities of the manufacturer (you pays your money etc etc...). That said, I once saw a Record Calvert-Stevens smoother with a .5mm swelling behind the mouth, the owner was baffled as to why it wouldn't work until I showed him the reason, mine was exactly the same until I spent a long time fettling it in.
Japanese wooden planes tho' are deliberately hollow in the sole, iirc. They are flat at the front and heel and just in front of and behind the mouth, I 'spose to reduce friction so in actual fact there isn't any real need to say that a plane sole needs to be dead flat along its entire length, only those four crucial points should form a straight edge and be flat - Rob

 

[bugbear]

That said, I once saw a Record Calvert-Stevens smoother with a .5mm swelling behind the mouth, the owner was baffled as to why it wouldn't work until I showed him the reason, mine was exactly the same until I spent a long time fettling it in.

Hmm. Those were MEANT to be ultra-engineered. The adverts spoke very highly of them

Given their period of sale, they were a good deal more expensive than LN

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

I made the opposite experience, and came from the LN scrub to the #6 and found it way much easier to flatten boards starting from the fore plane. Its weight makes it gliding through the wood on its own. The scrub plane always made me sweat after one board face, lots of movements and those very fast and strong, meanwhile the fore is a little bit slower in action but I have the feeling it works easier on a gentle manner. I even thought replacing the fore by a low angle jointer, as it has the same weight and so I could use the fore as a try plane, surely with another camber on the blade.
I think the sole length is the key to flattening a face side. And there's the point why I wouldn't think of a #3 sized plane to be used for this job.

Hi Marc,

While I have been singing the praises of the smaller scrub plane for initially cleaning up rough, sawn boards, I agree that there is some value in the longer planes for the next stage, so here's an update on what I've been doing over the weekend.

I have a set of Record planes which I don't use much since getting my Cliftons, which work much better. Rather than have the Records sitting idle, I've decided to use them as scrub-type planes. I had already opened the mouths a little when experimenting with thicker blades, so they are ideal for passing through thicker shavings. I have several old Record blades, so I have ground these to approximately a 3" radius and my initial tests on scrap wood with the #5.5 and #7 planes were very good (they seem to work better as scrub planes rather than normal planes ). I want to experiment a bit with the adjustment of the cap iron/chip breaker to see whether having it moved back so that, in effect, it is doing nothing or having it closer to the edge so that it operates as a chip breaker, makes much difference.

I've not yet tried them on really hard woods like oak but I'll report back when I've used them more.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

BB - yup, I do agree the Calvert-Stevens smoothers are superb.....when they work correctly. They come with a Norris style adjuster which works fine and rosewood handles but Record didn't pay very much attention to allowing the body casting to aclimatise before machining the sole flat, so that some considerable effort is needed to make them perform as they should, in fact I seem to recollect that they got a very bad press at the time of release. I have upgraded the original iron to a decent LN A2 with the improved chipbreaker. Now that its been set up correctly its a very, very good plane - Rob

 

[bugbear]

Calvert-Stevens smoothers ... I have upgraded the original iron to a decent LN A2 with the improved chipbreaker.

It was meant to come with a super-dooper laminated blade and (IIRC) a stay-set chip breaker!

That was no good??

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

Better with the LN, the thicker blade (mine is 3.75mm) makes a difference and I can't personally get along with the stay-set two piece chipbreaker - Rob