Scrub Plane

[MarcW]

...
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

Hi Paul,

Initially I went through this too; first the scrub and then the fore. But later on I realized that on most rough sawn boards, the scrub is kind of redundant. After two to four diagonal passes on the board I often can go on to the jointer. If only there are high spots or badly torn ends, I scrub those off. But normaly I use the scrub for sizing down edges half an inch or less. There it works great.

I have set back the chipbreaker quite back on my fore and couldn't find much difference. In any case the heavy camber will prevent you from setting it near the cutting edge.

Using the fore instead of the scrub helped me using less my winding sticks.

Regards, Marc

 

[Wiley Horne]

Hi All,

My experience has been very much like Marc's, and it sounds like Paul may be headed in the same direction.

At one time I used a 65mm Japanese jack plane for initial preparation of roughsawn boards. Flat blade. Very effective, but it wore me out. (I think at that point, I was still under the impression that a 'jack plane' was defined by its length rather than by its camber.)

A little more learning took place, and I bought an LN40-1/2 scrub. I got on pretty well with this plane after I learned that it works best on a steep diagonal, and using short strokes. However, it was difficult to make blade depth adjustments on the fly, and the plane had a nasty habit of tearing out 3/16" deep peppercorns of curl from curly maple, even when sharp enough to carve newsprint. The scrub seemed like the functional equivalent of a hatchet or adze, but jigged in a metal plane body.

A little more learning...I kept reading Bugbear's comments about woodie jacks. Bit the bullet and bought one. From Clark & Williams. This plane was a revelation about camber in woodie planes. Radius on the blade was 5-1/2". Incredibly good feel and potent performance. The LN40-1/2 hasn't been out of the drawer since.

Then I obtained a copy of Moxon, English trades work circa 1700. And Moxon spoke of only 3 bench planes--fore plane, joynter, and smoother. He didn't specify length of these, but a 1736 English publication put the fore plane's length at 18". No jack plane at this time, for either the joiner or the house carpenter. And the scrub plane was still in Germany. Initial board prep. was done with fore plane only, but surely different cambers were used--you have to think so.

Anyway, in the past year, curiosity rose to the point that I bought a C&W woodie fore plane, 18". The camber on the blade I would estimate at about 1/64" (max. projection beyond the blade corners). Well, this thing is even more fun than the jack plane, and works well with the jack. Use the jack on the diagonal to remove cup and knock down the high spots, and then the foreplane lengthwise. As Marc points out, you've basically got the board flat when you're done with the fore plane--it turns the jointer into a long smoother. These woodie jacks and foreplanes sing a song as they plough the wood, when they're real sharp. You don't get tearout to speak of, and the blade depth is easy to adjust as you go.

This learning curve reinforces a growing feeling I have, that it takes a lot of doing to outsmart those guys doing piecework back in 1700. I believe they were right about the fore plane. And Marc too!

Wiley

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi Wiley,

Many thanks for posting your comments and experiences on this issue. I find it's good to stop and have a re-think every now and then and to bounce ideas off others who are grappling with the same issues, so it's good to have your thoughts.

Your comments about tearout are interesting. One of the issues, I think, is how to achieve good stock removal without leaving yourself a lot of problems with tearout and you seem to have cracked this one as well with your latest woodie. Must keep my eyes open for some nice wooden planes as there are always plenty about in second-hand shops and everyone who uses them seems to rave about them.

Thanks again for your very helpful comments.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Well, this thing[C&W fore plane] is even more fun than the jack plane, and works well with the jack

Coupla' points

1) planes don't exist in isolation - one uses a sequence of planes as the workpiece goes from "rough to ready". The requirments for the separate planes in a sequence are partially defined by the properties of the previous and successor planes in the sequence.

2) I think Moxon has confused everybody. The various quotes about fore planes need to be viewed very carefully, given that he never defines the length, blade width, or camber. For a long time we've had quite a tight definition of "fore plane", and it is this (modern) tool that we tend to think of when reading Moxon; and I suspect we end up mis-interpreting Moxon.

BugBear

 

[MarcW]

Coupla' points

1) planes don't exist in isolation - one uses a sequence of planes as the workpiece goes from "rough to ready". The requirments for the separate planes in a sequence are partially defined by the properties of the previous and successor planes in the sequence.

2) I think Moxon has confused everybody. The various quotes about fore planes need to be viewed very carefully, given that he never defines the length, blade width, or camber. For a long time we've had quite a tight definition of "fore plane", and it is this (modern) tool that we tend to think of when reading Moxon; and I suspect we end up mis-interpreting Moxon.

BugBear

Hi BugBear,

I guess it isn't only Moxon, but Roubo, Alembert, Halle, Greber... help spreading some misunderstanding among us. And the actual confusion starts when the woodworkers coming each one from another state, country and even continent, speak together, like we do here in this great virtual shop. There is great confusion ahead. Some writers split up periods, like Greber, who speaks of German and French jointers, Raubank, Fugbank, varlope and riflard. One for coarse work the other one for jointing edges. The measures go for Raubänke (jointers) from 68 cm to 87cm or even more. But there are small Raubänke (jointers) too 31,5 cm...

Then comes the period after the chipbreaker is installed and only one jointer survit, the coarse long plane disappears... Some even attribute this to the upcoming machines a little later on in the century.

So for me ... I don't read much this kind of books because it's confusing me quite alot. I agreed with me to stick to the sizes and names the toolmakers of our days stamp on their planes. That's why I'd like to use a bevel down jointer for coarse work with a heavy camber touching as first plane a rough sawn board ... being up to date and at the same time jointing to the past :wink:

Regards,

Marc

p.s.: And now thinking of metal planes versus woodies... I better go have some sleep :lol:

p.p.s.: Wiley, thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Most people I invite in my shop and let work with the #6 don't trust their eyes and I can feel some stunning over my woodworking habits. You increased my self-confidence on jointer work :wink: 8)