Toothed Foreplane.

[Corneel]

Looks good so far. From where I am looking it seems like the wedge fits perfectly. Are you going to chamfer the wedge too? That helps to avoid splintering in the long run and I think it looks neater.

 

[swagman]

Looks good so far. From where I am looking it seems like the wedge fits perfectly. Are you going to chamfer the wedge too? That helps to avoid splintering in the long run and I think it looks neater.

Thanks Corneel. I will add a slightly heavier chamfer to wedge later on. Whats as important to consider IMO is the grain direction on the wedge.

I am very happy with the flatness of the blade bed as well as the fit of the wedge within the abutments. I use 2 different methods to create a good result with both. With the blade bed I use an ink blotting paper to highlight any high spots with the back of the toothing blade. These marks are then removed with a side or edge float and the process repeated until an even spread of markings show up at the top and bottom of the bed. The middle area of the bed is not as critical in height and can be slightly lower.

With the wedge abutments I coat the top and sides of the wedge with a coloured crayon pencil prior to refitting the wedge with the toothing blade installed. When the wedge is removed any tight spots that impinge on the wedge going full depth will show up with a crayon marking. These marks are removed with a side or edge float and the process repeated until an even spread of markings show along on each side of the wedge abutments. (top to bottom).

I am definitely not in the same league as Phil Edwards when it comes to traditional hand plane builds. But I do reasonably well considering my limited experience.

regards Stewie;

 

[AndyT]

I am still undecided on whether a rear tote is needed. Feedback welcome on the need to do so.


Stewie

Looking at more ordinary planes for a moment, the shortest sort with a rear handle is a Jack plane at 15-17" long. This plane is only 12" now. Although you are calling it a Fore Plane it's clearly not going to have a deeply cambered iron, so there won't be the necessity of a handle to get a good push on it (to cut a thick shaving) as there is with a Jack/Fore plane. I imagine in use that it will feel more like a smoother - successive strokes may not even all be in the same direction. So there is less need for a handle.

But then, your stock looks quite wide, so unless you have very large hands, it will be difficult to pick up.

Overall, I think I would not fit a handle but I would consider giving the body some shaping and tapering, along the lines of a boat/coffin shaped smoother, to make it easier to pick up and hold.

 

[MIGNAL]

Even many coffin shaped smoothers don't feel that comfortable, especially from new. Once there's a certain degree of wear to all the edges things get better. I did a lot of work on ergonomics when I was making wooden Planes. I finally settled on finger grips and 'palm pads'.

 

[swagman]

I am still undecided on whether a rear tote is needed. Feedback welcome on the need to do so.


Stewie

Looking at more ordinary planes for a moment, the shortest sort with a rear handle is a Jack plane at 15-17" long. This plane is only 12" now. Although you are calling it a Fore Plane it's clearly not going to have a deeply cambered iron, so there won't be the necessity of a handle to get a good push on it (to cut a thick shaving) as there is with a Jack/Fore plane. I imagine in use that it will feel more like a smoother - successive strokes may not even all be in the same direction. So there is less need for a handle.

But then, your stock looks quite wide, so unless you have very large hands, it will be difficult to pick up.

Overall, I think I would not fit a handle but I would consider giving the body some shaping and tapering, along the lines of a boat/coffin shaped smoother, to make it easier to pick up and hold.

Hi Andy. At 22 inches it started out as a fore plane but with the reduction in length a smoothing plane is now a much more valid description. The stock width is 70mm, so it may be a manageable size to be hold in its rectangular form once a bevel edge is applied to both sides. I had a closer look today at fitting a rear tote, and your spot on with the lack of room available behind the blade.

Appreciate your thoughts.

regards Stewie.

 

[swagman]

Even many coffin shaped smoothers don't feel that comfortable, especially from new. Once there's a certain degree of wear to all the edges things get better. I did a lot of work on ergonomics when I was making wooden Planes. I finally settled on finger grips and 'palm pads'.

Very nice work Mignal. Great idea with the finger grips down both sides of the body. I am after a more traditional look with this plane so the finger grips wont suit. Appreciate your thoughts and feedback.

regards; Stewie.

 

[AndyT]

You could always go very traditional - back to Roman design - and use through holes to make gripping easier. This is the Goodmanham plane, which is about the same length as yours:

More here:
http://www.handplane.com/906/the-ancient-roman-plane-of-yorkshire-wolds/

(I'm sure yours will look a bit smarter!)

 

[swagman]

You could always go very traditional - back to Roman design - and use through holes to make gripping easier. This is the Goodmanham plane, which is about the same length as yours:

More here:
http://www.handplane.com/906/the-ancient-roman-plane-of-yorkshire-wolds/

(I'm sure yours will look a bit smarter!)

Thanks Andy. Not sure I like the through holes idea, but the shaping to the sides before and after the blade is a worthwhile consideration. I like that idea better than going to a coffin shape.

Stewie;

 

[swagman]

A bit of a teaser for those well versed in traditional bench planes. Later down the track, if I need to re-flatten the sole of this toothing plane.

Will the mouth opening in front of the blade;

1/Increase in size.
2/Stay the same size.
3/Reduce in size.

Stewie;

 

[JohnPW]

Apart from Philly. Out of curiosity is their any other forum members that have made a wooden bodied bench plane using the traditional technique of mortising out a single block of wood.

Stewie;

This is the first and only plane I've made:

It's 60mm long, behind it in the pic is a Record 120 plane.

More at https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/making-one-piece-wooden-plane-t78693.html

 

[AndyT]

A bit of a teaser for those well versed in traditional bench planes. Later down the track, if I need to re-flatten the sole of this toothing plane.

Will the mouth opening in front of the blade;

1/Increase in size.
2/Stay the same size.
3/Reduce in size.

Stewie;

As nobody else has answered, I'll stick my neck out - the answer is No 1 - the opening will increase in size.

Borrowing your own picture for a moment,

the starting mouth size is with the sole at the bottom of the block.
If you move the sole up the picture (by planing wood off the bottom) you reach a wider place on the tapered mortice (mouth) so the gap in front of the blade will be bigger.

 

[swagman]

A bit of a teaser for those well versed in traditional bench planes. Later down the track, if I need to re-flatten the sole of this toothing plane.

Will the mouth opening in front of the blade;

1/Increase in size.
2/Stay the same size.
3/Reduce in size.

Stewie;

As nobody else has answered, I'll stick my neck out - the answer is No 1 - the opening will increase in size.

Borrowing your own picture for a moment,

the starting mouth size is with the sole at the bottom of the block.
If you move the sole up the picture (by planing wood off the bottom) you reach a wider place on the tapered mortice (mouth) so the gap in front of the blade will be bigger.

Hi Andy. Your correct. To be honest I was working on another theory that the gap did not increase, but I did forget to consider that the iron does slide further up the bed every time the sole is re flattened.

Stewie;

 

[MIGNAL]

Yes it does widen slightly. I think the theory states that if the front wall of the chute was absolutely vertical the mouth would open much faster. Theory is correct of course.
Not that it matters in the slightest, being a toothing plane. It doesn't matter that much in a smoother. There are better fish to fry with the chipbreaker.

 

[swagman]

All done. Hope you like what you see.

Stewie;



Tote Tool CO.







Sharpened and gave it a test run on a large block of Red Myrtle Burl wood.

No blade chatter so I did a very good job with seating the blade and wedge.

Extremely pleased with the performance of this hand plane. 10/10

 

[AndyT]

Very smart!

I like the way the chamfers join to give perfect equilateral triangles and the black finish, especially on the end grain.

 

[swagman]

Thanks Andy. A lot of the early traditional stains still maintain their valid use.

Stewie;

 

[Racers]

Very nice chamfers, and a very nice plane.

Pete

 

[bugbear]

I'm late to this thread; how did you choose the bedding angle?

All the 19th and 20th C toothing planes I've seen bed at 80 to 87 degrees (i.e. very close to vertical).

BugBear

 

[swagman]

I'm late to this thread; how did you choose the bedding angle?

All the 19th and 20th C toothing planes I've seen bed at 80 to 87 degrees (i.e. very close to vertical).

BugBear

Hi bugbear. Process of elimination. I have previously built toothing planes bedded at 55, 60, & 90*. For the purpose of dressing the surface of curly grained timber IMO the 55 performed this task best of all 3. Keep in mind that the single irons I am using are tapered 3* so the actual approach angle is 52*.

Stewie;

 

[bugbear]

I'm late to this thread; how did you choose the bedding angle?

All the 19th and 20th C toothing planes I've seen bed at 80 to 87 degrees (i.e. very close to vertical).

BugBear

Hi bugbear. Process of elimination. I have previously built toothing planes bedded at 55, 60, & 90*. For the purpose of dressing the surface of curly grained timber IMO the 55 performed this task best of all 3. Keep in mind that the single irons I am using are tapered 3* so the actual approach angle is 52*.

Stewie;

Interesting; one might reasonably assume that they had the angle right (back in the day) by the same
empirical process, for the task they were performing.

My tentative conclusion is that you're doing a slightly different task (or different timbers, those damned eucalypts) from the
makers of the old near-vertical toothing planes. A different enough task that a different bedding
angle is optimal.

BugBear