Silchester plane

[rxh]

Now I am curious of course how the plane works, in comparison with more modern planes. Do you think you could take a good guess about the size and thickness of these stee plates? The weight of a plane is a factor in how it works.

.

Corneel,
For dimensions, please see my earlier post of 27th July in this thread. I think it is going to weigh at least as much as a Bailey No.5 or even a 5 1/2.

WOW! Air Traffic Control of the vise squadron!! That is so cool!

"Permission to land Woden Air 186B Heavy....runway 1A...."

This is a seriously impressive project my friend...and I can't wait for the next episode...

I have a feeling I will have to start mine when you've finished...otherwise things may get a tad confusing....plus I can cheat!

Jimi,
The vice stack-up gets the workpiece to a convenient height for me to work on where I can see it without glasses and not bend my back too much Those are two of the reasons why I am pleased to have a Moxon vice for woodwork.
Yes, it might be a good idea to start yours later . One pitfall to avoid is using a light coloured wood like yew. Today I flattened the underside of my plane and made the rivets flush with the sides (the holes in the sides were taper-reamed to retain the rivets without heads). In doing all this the wood has become very grubby with marking blue and steel dust and I don't think it will clean up completely so my plane will start its life looking a bit shopsoiled. I think this style of plane will accept various blades so it will be interesting to try out any we can find. As a "starter" I have made one of 1/8" thick O1 steel - see pic below (the iroko wedge is not intended to be the permanent one). I'm waiting for delivery of the sole material so there may not be much more action before next weekend.

xcellent thread guys
You might find a plane in Christian Peglow's collection of interest
google - hobelaxt tyrol 1800

Thanks, Matt. That is a very interesting site.

 

[jimi43]

Yup...I had the very same problem with the boxwood when I did the Scottish infill smoother BUT...don't worry...it does clean up. If you want to do much more "dirty" work with the plane as a whole...sand off the crud now and put a layer of button polish on it and then take that off when you finish.

The resultant picture with the iron looks very impressive indeed and it's a lovely plane mate...it's going to be a stunner.

I think I might use that wonderful piece of English walnut Douglas gave me...it's been waiting for that special moment and like yew...it would have been native and around in those days. Plus...I haven't done anything in walnut yet.

So that's cheat number one for me...I'm sure there will be more as we go along! 8) :mrgreen:

I have a feeling that you will be very surprised at how well this old lady cuts! It has all the ingredients.

Jimi

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I wonder at the ergonomics of the rear handle. How comfortable was it to use with the grip 90° out from all the planes we use today. Looks like it might be hard on the wrist. There's a reason to make a replica, you can find out !

 

[JimB]

I wonder at the ergonomics of the rear handle. How comfortable was it to use with the grip 90° out from all the planes we use today. Looks like it might be hard on the wrist. There's a reason to make a replica, you can find out !

I wonder if it were pushed from behind the handle in use? There's going to be quite a learning curve at first.

 

[AndyT]

I wonder at the ergonomics of the rear handle. How comfortable was it to use with the grip 90° out from all the planes we use today. Looks like it might be hard on the wrist. There's a reason to make a replica, you can find out !

Agreed. As Shrubby has pointed out, that style of grip remained in use for a long time so it can't be all bad.

Anyone wanting to read more about Roman Woodworking might be interested in this book by Roger Ulrich. The Yale site says it's out of print but links to Google Books preview which lets you read quite a lot of it:

http://books.google.co.uk/books/yup?vid=ISBN9780300103410&redir_esc=y

 

[Bedrock]

Might the ergonomics have something to do with the height of the bench or whatever at which the user was working? If you are working at floor level or close, viz. Japan, then you are more likely to be working much more from above, than at a bench height more usual for contemporary woodworkers? If that were the case, the horizontal loop handle might be more comfortable. Japanese planes don't ever seem to have had a vertical grip, and they worked at a low level or on an inclined beam.
Mike

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Have you seen the Roman infant's crib from Herculaneum ? It was at the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibition at the British Museum about a year ago. Can't think you would do much differently construction wise if you made one today.

 

[AndyT]

Have you seen the Roman infant's crib from Herculaneum ? It was at the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibition at the British Museum about a year ago. Can't think you would do much differently construction wise if you made one today.

I think you must mean this one

(image from the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21897925)

... but does that imply that you are planning to make a Roman style compass plane for those nice curved rockers? :wink:

 

[AndyT]

I've just noticed a subtle difference.

Looking back at the earlier discussion, this is the picture I posted, drawn by Bill Goodman, showing how he thought the plane would have originally looked, made from a single piece of wood, clad in iron:

Compare this with RXH's version:

in which the two wooden parts are separate blocks, united by the metal sole and side plates.

I reckon that Bill Goodman may have been influenced by looking at other Roman or Anglo-Saxon planes in which a single block of wood has a mortice excavated in it and is then protected by adding a metal sole. Planes like this one

or this one (as spotted by JimB and included in Ulrich's book)

The point I am trying to make is that, once you add the structural side plates, there is no need to do the difficult job of cutting the big sloping mortice for the mouth. It makes much more sense to use two separate blocks, sawn with the suitable angles at their ends, exactly as RXH has done. I'm perfectly happy to think that the Romans would have seen the sense of that.

To me, (unless there is some other evidence, only visible if you can get the original out of its glass case) this shows that actually cutting up the materials and making the thing is always going to be better than drawing as a means of reconstructing the past.

Bravo!

PS - Further evidence in RXH's favour - looking at the dimensions given in Goodman's book, the overall width of the plane is 50mm and the width of the iron is 38mm. So, the maximum total thickness for the cheeks either side of the iron would be 6mm each. Even after making allowances for quite a lot of thickening up from flaxy rust, that's not enough to include a wooden part on either side, which would have had to be so thin as to be structurally redundant.

PPS - Even more evidence - the next picture in Goodman's book is of a better preserved Roman plane found at Cologne. In this one the central iron 'box' for the cutter and wedge clearly leaves no room for any wood, and what would have been there underneath the two fancy tops would have been two separate blocks - making it one of the first infill planes.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The Roman way of making the metal claddings would likely have been by blacksmithing the pieces - they didn't have rolling mills. Beating thin stuff out with a hammer and anvil is tricky, because it's hard to get the metal to 'hold the heat' for long enough to work it much. That lends credence to the idea of making the claddings and sole from thicker stuff. Whilst 1/4" may be a tad heavy, much less than 3/16" would have been difficult to forge out and leave enough to finish to flatness by filing. So that makes the idea of 50mm overall width, 4 to 5 mm sides and 38mm iron width (allowing a mm or so each side for lateral adjustment) seem very plausible.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

So the Romans perhaps made their planes Krenov style. Well I never ... :lol:

 

[jimi43]

Oooooh!

This thread is SO exciting...amazing stuff guys!

And rxh...you are on the right road I'm sure.

Ground breaking!

=D>

Jimi

 

[JIJ]

Wow!

It's completely different to how I imagined from looking at the original plane. I think it's because of the way the side plates have corroded at an angle.
Have you let the museum know that it's in progress? I bet they'd be interested in having a photo to display.

It's looking great, can't wait to hear what it's like to use. Could it hold it's own with a more modern infil?

James

 

[rxh]

Really interesting comments from all contributors.

I think I might use that wonderful piece of English walnut Douglas gave me...it's been waiting for that special moment and like yew...it would have been native and around in those days. Plus...I haven't done anything in walnut yet.

I think walnut would look very good. BTW, one change I made from the drawing was to reduce the size of the rearmost hole in the side plates to 5/16" so as to leave the wood thicker there.

I wonder at the ergonomics of the rear handle. How comfortable was it to use with the grip 90° out from all the planes we use today. Looks like it might be hard on the wrist. There's a reason to make a replica, you can find out !

Well, it'll be interesting to find out. I think the best way to hold it may be to grip the sides of the plane between thumb and first finger, and grasp the "handle" with the other three fingers.

I've just noticed a subtle difference.

Well spotted, Andy - I admit I didn't notice this . However, I agree there would seem to be no point in fitting iron side plates to a "conventional" woodie.

It's looking great, can't wait to hear what it's like to use. Could it hold it's own with a more modern infil?

It will be fun to find out - I have written to a certain "test pilot" to see if he might like to give the finished article a trial run

 

[JimB]

Has there ever been any analyses of the steel the Romans used for plane irons and chisels?
I assume apprentices made their own tools - wooden parts anyway and by the time they'd finished they'd have learned to live with the ergonomics of their own tools.

 

[rxh]

Here we have the sole attached. The next jobs will be to make the sole flush with the plane and the rivets flush with the sole.

 

[rileytoolworks]

Wow, this is coming along really well Richard.
Are you going to David Stanleys next week? If so, I for one would love to see the plane in the flesh.

Adam.

 

[jimi43]

Stunning work....really impressed!

=D> =D>

Jimi

 

[bugbear]

Here's an old thread (1994) about a more recent plane - Saxon;

http://www.florilegium.org/?http%3A//ww ... e-art.html

BugBear

 

[rxh]

Wow, this is coming along really well Richard.
Are you going to David Stanleys next week? If so, I for one would love to see the plane in the flesh.

Thanks Adam, I probably can't go to David Stanley owing to a family occasion but there is a chance.

Stunning work....really impressed!

Thanks Jimi,
I cut the mouth the Richard T way with saws and files but I may resort to milling to get the sole flush with the sides to give my poor elbow a break

Here's an old thread (1994) about a more recent plane - Saxon;

Thanks BB, a really interesting thread.