THE ROLE OF PLANES #1-8

Archived from the hallowed halls of the Oldtools mailing list.

Plus an extra-special bonus thread re: PLANE IRON SHAPE?

From: Paul Pedersen <pedersen@ulix.net>

If anybody feels so inclined, I'd be interested in hearing about what each of these planes is good for. Currently I own a #4 and a #5. I have the feeling that #1-3 are just smaller and smaller smoothers, but why would you use them instead of a #4 ? I just went over today's messages about ten times looking for the one that mentioned a planing order of (I think) scrub, jack, jointer, smoother but I can't find it. At first this seemed like an odd order, but after thinking about it a bit it started to make sense. Where does the #6 fit in ? What are the differences between using a #7 or a #8 to joint ?

There no rush for this, I'm not about to buy more planes, but I'm curious...

Paul Pedersen

Montreal (Quebec)

From: Andy Wilkins <awilkins@physics.adelaide.edu.au

Hi, i'm only a newbie but these are my answers:

the smaller planes are for planing smaller areas --- you could smooth with a #8 but it'd take ages cos you'd have to take off so much stock. have you seen a #1? i don't know why such planes were ever made, i'm pretty small but there's no way i could grasp the tote of the #1, that's why the #3 is the smallest plane used i think. the order of planing that you write is the order that i use. the #6 is just a heavier and longer jack, or a shorter and lighter jointer depending on how you want to use it (i think a #5 was invented because carpenters found the #6 too cumbersome). actually i use the #6 as my jack plane and my jointer but that's only cos i don't have enough money to buy a #5 and a #7 and the #6 was going cheap. the #8 will get things flatter more easily than the #7 will. i think a #8 might be too big for me but you never know....

Andy

From: groberts@shore.net (Gary Roberts)

Paul... as I am sure others will answer your query in depth, here are my thoughts... The difference between the 7 and 8 has to do with how much money you have to spend

The number 6 was created by a Stanley accountant who could not bear the thought of a missing numeral. The number 1 was created to fuel the astronomically rising prices of today's old tool market and to give the old boy network something to brag about over a case of beer.

The number 2 is for those of us who cannot afford a number 1.

The number 3 is actually a really nice little plane. I use it for planing and edge jointing small workpieces. It is actually one of my favorites, and I have fairly large hands.

BTW, I heard that if you feed a number 8 steroids, it turns into a number 9.

Gary Roberts <groberts@shore.net>

Boston, MA

From: "Dan Attaway" <attaway@platinum.com>

I got this off of Dan Hogan's list of URL's: Stanley Blood & Gore http://www.access.digex.net/~mds/stanley.html

This looks to me to be a fairly comprehensive list of planes. I believe it said it was written by Patrick Leach. I didn't the #999 plane on there though. :)

Dan Attaway

From: Randy Roeder <RROEDER@coe.edu>

If you can't think of a use for a no.1 or no.2, try building jewelry boxes.

In the current copy of American Woodworking it looks like Ian Kirby is making the final passes on a panel with a no. 6. When you think about it, a no.6 is a nice size for this.

I had an old timer describe a no.6 to me as a "carpenter's jointer." He mentioned that the no. 7 and no. 8 were "only good for a workbench." He said that if you had to carry your tools in a box to the worksite or take a plane up into the rafters, you'd know why the no.6 was invented.

Randy

From: ledzep@elmo.lz.att.com (Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052)

There's probably a good analogy between the Stanley bench plane numbering scheme and golf clubs, but because I know beans about golf I won't try it.

My "arsenal" of bench planes is very modest:

1) A "new" UK Stanley #3 smoother

2) A 1940ish #5 jack plane

3) A 1918ish #7 jointer and (honesty compels me to include this)

4) A new AMT 9" all purpose junk plane

I bought before I knew any better. These work pretty well for me. I got the #3 instead of a #4 pretty much at the flip of a coin. The #7 instead of a #8 because the latter seemed like overkill. I got the #5 because the #3 was a little dainty and I wanted something with a little more power (and PL recommended it). I keep the AMT thing for really rough stuff sort of like a scrub plane. I played with the Lie-Nielsen #1 and #2 up at his place last summer and played is the right word. Seemed pretty useless to me. I haven't a clue what a #6 would do that the others can't.

This hasn't stopped me from ordering a L-N #4 and the infill planes for the "project", but this where things are starting to get pathological. I hope I don't get excited about block planes anytime soon, the #9 gets used a lot though.

Carl

From: "Thomas R. Bruce" <tom@barratry.law.cornell.edu>

On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052 wrote:

> and (honesty compels me to include this

> 4) A new AMT 9" all purpose junk plane I bought before I knew any better.

Hey, I don't mind exposing my AMT in public. I have one too, which I also bought before I knew better. They can be modified into half-decent scrub planes (though not as good as a #40).

Tb.

From: polgu@paracel.com (Patrick O'Deen)

#1 expensive paperweight.

#2 less expensive paperweight.

#3 a handy little smoother, even for folks with large hands.

#4 an overgrown #3.

#5 nice plane for whacking away saw marks and #40 furrows.

#6 no known sane people use these. the jack of no trades.

#7 a suitable jointer, if you're *that* way.

#8 the only jointer for the self-respecting neanderthal.

All but answers 3, 5, and 8, are typical Paddy joking, case you couldn't tell

From: gpjohns <gpjohns@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>

On Mon, 22 Jan 1996 Paddy wrote:

[shave, shave. Huh! Now that's a thin shaving!!!]

> #6 no known sane people use these. the jack of no trades.

Now, Now Patrick! I didn't stand for the Man from Lamantia making whoppee with my #6 for a snowshovel. I shan't let you get away with such dispersion either. As I shall now wax poetic upon; a #6 in your hand is the epitome of a Calipagianist, Tintinabulationing good time. Let others spend their time with those harlots the #7's and 8's. I shall reign supreme in the end with the knowledge that the Master Carpenter HimSelf uses a #6!!!!! ;-)

Gary Johns

From: Paul Pedersen <pedersen@ulix.net>

As some fellow members have pointed out to me, a good place to start is Patrick's B&G. I'd certainly heard about it before (jealously) but it wasn't until just before Christmas that I had the means to go and get it, and it hadn't occurred to me since then that now I could. Well, I downloaded today (nifty html).

Just finished reading it and my head is spinning.... (with all this talk, my next plane will probably be a #6 :-)

Paul Pedersen

Montreal (Quebec)

From: Ernest Fisch <ernfisch@indirect.com>

After using a #8 for a few minutes a #5 feels like a toy. The #4 almost disappears in my hand. I guess it is all relative.

ernie

From dmcconne@jasper.knox.net Sat Jan 27 14:11:28 1996

Am not a Stanley collector nor user to any great extent (tend to prefer wooden stock planes), so am surprised to be sending in a thought on the Stanley #1. First saw a couple of these about 18 years ago, and immediately went through the various possibilities as to their purpose. Still am not sure of its true purpose, though a small "smoother" seems as good an explanation as any. Still remember my first impression being that it would be difficult to hold to actually put to use, however. Had one thought on the idea of it being a "salesman's sample" while scanning through Patrick Leach's Revised Stanley B&G. (Yes, I realize Patrick discounts the idea.) I hadn't realized before that they never had a lateral adjustment lever. To me this totally discounts the idea that their purpose may have been as "samples." If they were to represent the Stanely line, then they would have reflected the other bench planes in miniature, so the salesmen could have pointed out all of the features. The fact that the adjustment screw doesn't angle up as on the larger planes, would also tend to reenforce this argument.

Interesting how this plane excites virtually everyone's imagination.

From: Meade Helman <ehelman@barint.on.ca>

I don't recall seeing this info posted here, so if it was just ignore this.<G>

I have seen some discussion on the purpose of the Stanley #1 and because of it's size how hard it would be to use (Whether here or elsewhere). Questions like, "How to do you hold it." I just received a collection of Woodcuts Magazine. An article in there claims that woodworking was fairly commonly taught in primary schools before the 1930's and these planes were for kids. Between the schools discontinuing them and the WWII metal drives, most were disposed of. Makes sense to me. Those itty bitty totes are probably perfect for 8 yr old hands.

Meade

From: Larry Poffenberger (rstytool@cris.com)

>Still am not sure of its true purpose, though a small "smoother" seems as

>good an explanation as any. Still remember my first impression being that

>it would be difficult to hold to actually put to use, however.

I've used both the #2 and the #1. My hands are a little larger than most and I found the #2 uncomfortable to use. The handle is too small for 3 fingers inside and it's awkward to hold with just two. (I prefer the #3 or the 5 1/4 for most uses, except jointing.) I did use my #1 to make a simple "platform" to set it on. I found it usable by wrapping my hand around it with no finger(s) inside the handle.

There is a tool chest in the Smithsonian museum that was featured in American Woodworking (I think that's the right mag) that was owned by a piano maker named Studley. It is absolutely magnificent, with over 300 tools in an area only 19 1/2" X 9 1/2" X 39". There are several planes in this ingenious chest including a jointer, a jack plane, a full set of chisels, etc. There are all kinds of nooks and crannies and fold out sections, etc. Included is a #1. I am certain there weren't any tools in there that he didn't use as it must have taken him hundreds of hours to build it. As far as I'm concerned this chest forever answers the question of whether the #1 was really used. I think it was used as a smoothing plane where a block plane might not fit, being 1/2" narrower than most, and having a fine adjustment mechanism. Also, it fits very nicely in your pocket... Or, maybe there was some other reason, I'm just sure they were used.

Larry Poffenberger rstytool@pop3.cris.com

Tulsa, Ok

BONUS: SCRUB PLANE IRON SHAPE?

From: marty spencer (102557.1336@compuserve.com)

I have two Stanley #4 smoother planes and am thinking of setting up one as a scrub plane. I am unsure exactly how to go about this task. As I understand it, a scrub plane has a 'rounded' iron and a wide mouth, the better to remove a large quantity of wood in a few passes. Exactly how "rounded" should the iron be ground? Does the extent of the curve go full width or are just the outer edges of the iron rounded up a bit? Some measurements would be very helpful. How about the placement of the chip breaker and frog? I guess these are easy enough to experiment with once I get the blade shape right, but some neander-suggestions would be appreciated!!

Another question for you master galoots: should you round the edges of a plane iron? I have been working on the surface of my future shaving horse with my jack plane and keep getting grooves from the sharp edges of the blade. This can be reduced somewhat by taking thinner shavings, but the 'edge' is still there. If rounding the edge of the iron is permitted, how much is enough and how exactly do you do it? I'm sorry it these questions are too 'newbie' but this seemed like the best place to ask them. (And yes, my bevels are down ;-) Thanks,

---Marty Spencer, GT (Galoot Trainee)

---Ft. Lauderdale

From: Patrick Leach (leach@bedford.progress.com)

marty spencer <102557.1336@compuserve.com> writes:

>I have two Stanley #4 smoother planes and am thinking of setting up one as

>a scrub plane. I am unsure exactly how to go about this task. As I

>understand it, a scrub plane has a 'rounded' iron and a wide mouth, the

>better to remove a large quantity of wood in a few passes.

Scrub planes usually have very wide mouths - wider than what is normal for a #4. You'd have to modify your #4 by filling its mouth wider, in which case you'll incur the wrath of Randy Roeder. Yeah, a #4 is as common as mud in some areas of USofA, but what if yours happens to be the elusive type I or type III? You could take a very collectible plane and ruin it forever by filing its mouth.

As an alternative, you might want to consider a beat up wooden smoother with a sole shot to hell. These planes usually have mouths that are wide enough to accommodate a thick shaving due to all the wear and tear that they've already suffered. My scrub plane is just such a plane, and I find that it works nicely.

>Exactly how "rounded" should the iron be ground? Does the extent of the

>curve go full width or are just the outer edges of the iron rounded up a

>bit? Some measurements would be very helpful.

The iron of a scrub plane is typically rounded completely and uniformly across its width, with the mid-point of the iron being the 'apex' of the curve. The degree the curve is made is entirely up to you. I like mine rather tight since it allows me to accommodate the wood I'm scrubbing. If it's of an agreeable grain, like pine, a very rank set, where nearly the full width of the iron is exposed, is my preference. If the wood has a nasty grain or is very prone to tearout, I back the set off so that just a portion of the iron is exposed. A tight radius to the iron will allow the plane to take a thick shaving (in relation to its width) regardless of the set, whereas a shallow radius will cut a wider shaving that isn't as deep. My scrub has an iron that's about 2" wide. It's about 3/8" higher at the 'apex' of the curvature than it is at the edges. The Stanley #40 has an iron that's 1 1/4" wide with its 'apex' around 1/4" (going from memory here so I'm probably off a bit).

>How about the placement of the chip breaker and frog? I guess these are easy

>enough to experiment with once I get the blade shape right, but some

>neander-suggestions would be appreciated!!

If you're using a plane that's fitted with a cap iron, you back it way off. The cap iron is unnecessary on a scrub plane, and if it's too close to the cutting edge, you run the risk of choking the plane with the massive shavings being curled back on themselves (as is the function of the cap iron). Position the frog as far back as possible to make the mouth as wide as possible.

>Another question for you master galoots: should you round the edges of a plane iron?

Yes, you should knock the corners of the iron off just a bit. You want the edge to be rounded gradually so that you don't leave plane marks after each stroke.

> If rounding the edge of the iron is permitted, how much is enough and how exactly do you do it?

How much to round the corner is a function of how deep the set is. If the set is very fine, like that on a yupster infill plane, the amount is barely perceptible. If the set is to be either fine or somewhat rank, like on a jointer, the amount is noticeable. For a uniform curvature across the width of the iron, you simply pivot the iron over the stone from side to side through an arc. This eventually leads to a rounded cutting edge. For the iron of smoothers and jointers, I first grind them straight across their widths then knock the corners off by placing each corner over the edge of the stone and making a sweeping motion while simultaneously pivoting the iron.

Patrick Leach

Just say It's better to see how it's done than to read how it's done.

etc.

From: wbarry@forlorn_hope.sbi.com

marty spencer wrote:

> I have two Stanley #4 smoother planes and am thinking of setting one up as a scrub plane..........

Patrick wrote:

> The iron of a scrub plane is typically rounded completely and uniformly

> across its width, with the mid-point of the iron being the 'apex' of the

> curve. The degree the curve is made is entirely up to you....

I used Patrick's advice with good results awhile back on an old SW #5C. Works great, set the frog back to open up the mouth, then set the iron as deep as possible, until it chokes, the grain tears, or it becomes too difficult to push. It's most effective when planing slightly diagonally, across the stock's surface.

Since then I stumbled into a write-up on converting a jack into a scrub & using it in FWW. Don't remember the issue (I'm here at work) but it's the one with a pine toolbox on the cover with the lid up, made by one of Krenov's boyz. Somewhere after number #100? Email me offline if you need me to hunt the exact issue.

I like the versatility of the Bailey design, and with a sharp iron, it can really "hog" off the waste. But I don't know how a #4 would do. You might have to do a little filing to widen the mouth. A jack is probably better suited for this task & the extra length & weight doesn't hurt either.

What's Paddy's saying bout an #8 in motion? Besides, I'm a little big too & the so are the wooden fore planes that traditionally used to do it. As far as the curvature, I think I used somewhere around 1/4" or a little less. I used a marker & square to draw a clear line across the back side of the iron, then marked the center, at the edge. I might have used a pencil & compass to approximate the curve, or I freehanded it with the marker. Don't remember. But grinding it was a breeze if you use a cool white aluminum-oxide grinding wheel. These are specifically designed for grinding tool steel, and run much cooler than the usual stock wheels that come with bench grinders, which helps reduce the chance for burning. Another big tip to reduce burning (blueing the edge) is to NOT grind to a sharp edge. Leave it a little "flat", for as long as possible, because the increased mass will help to dissipate the heat. When the edge gets too thin, that heat can't go anywhere and it can blue in a instant. Then finish it a bit thinner & do the rest on the stones.

Patrick's comment about setting the chip-breaker is interesting, since I've been setting it forward, close to the corners, which is what the FWW piece recommended. I haven't experienced any choking yet, and you can only set the iron as deep as the thickness of the chip can still pass through. But I'll play with that next time out. I guess if it chatters, I'll slide it up. That's where an old sole shot wooden plane has a distinct advantage, in its thick tapper iron tp reduce chatter.

A scrub is a nice addition. With my B&S vernier calipers I can measure those tissue thin continuous shavings at around .002 from my smoothers & LN#62, but hogging off a clean 1/16" or more shaving in a single swipe is also pretty impressive, and it sure does speed things up a bit.

Walter

From: Larry Poffenberger (rstytool@cris.com)

>marty spencer wrote:

>> I have two Stanley #4 smoother planes and am thinking of

>> setting one up as a scrub plane..........

Of course the #40 and 40 1/2 are the best scrub planes, the iron is much thicker and the plane is narrower. And they're not that expensive. About the cost of one month at the health clubs (which you won't need anymore). I have also used a #3 or a 5 1/4 quite successfully for "scrubbing". I mostly use burly walnut for material and these planes work great (if they're very sharp). I also skew the plane about 30-45 degrees.

BTW I've tried to follow the discussion on angles and gave up, I just know it works... Whether it's uphill or downhill... :>)

Rstytool@pop3.cris.com (Larry Poffenberger)