smoother size opinions

[Matt Stiegler]

At WIA yesterday, I got to see Christopher Schwarz's presentation on bench planes, which, speaking as a newbie, I found informative and engaging.

One of the points he emphasized a couple times was that he is not a fan of 4 1/2 smoothers. He loves his 3, uses his 4 all the time, but thinks 4 1/2 is too long for smoothing. His point, if I understood it correctly, was that a longer sole will do more flattening, and when you're smoothing a show side that flattening is wasted effort. (His example was a cabinet, where the outer faces you want smooth but they don't need to be dead flat, vs. the inner faces you want dead flat but don't need perfectly smooth.) Older 4 1/2 smoothers are a lot more rare than 4's for a reason, said he.

He didn't talk specifically about the LV bevel up smoother or low angle smoother, but both have 10" soles (same as a 4 1/2, vs. 9" of a 4), so I take it he prefers a conventional BD 4 instead.

Do you agree that the additional length of a 4 1/2 is a serious drawback for smoothing?


(Just to be clear, I don't think he was saying "if you're an experienced plane-user who likes a 4 1/2 smoother you're an idiot." More like, "if you're an inexperienced user, don't get caught up in the hype around bigger smoothers, try smaller too and decide for yourself what you like best.")

[David Keller NC]

Matt - There is a nearly identical thread subject here:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=121649

[Matt Stiegler]

If I'd been thinking, I would have posted this as a reply to his. Maybe I will now.

[Phillip Pattee]

Older 4 1/2 smoothers are a lot more rare than 4's for a reason, said he.



I suppose his remark is meant to imply that the relative rarity is some evidence for how useful woodworkers in general found the tool. By way of comparison, the Bailey #5 jack is more common than the Bedrock #605. The Stanley bevel up version, the #62 is a lot more rare. So, do you suppose he would use this as evidence for today's woodworkers to skip considering the low angle jack? Or that the Bailey design is more useful than a Bedrock design? I doubt it. Perhaps the reason is simply price and has little to do with the tools performace.

[Joel Moskowitz]

Chris is absolutely right here. Shorter is better. A #3 or #4 does a far better job of following minor undulations in the wood when smoothing than a longer or wider plane.

Also I think the balance on those two models is great. the 4 1/2 is nose heavy and I would not like to use it all day. (I have a complete set of bedrocks so I have the option of using any model and one day I tried to force myself to use the 4 1/2 - I just couldn't).

Wooden smoothers and English infill smoothers are shorter still 7" or so long.

at WIA I had an opportunity to prove the utility of a shorter smoother when I planes a board, a longer plane wouldn't follow the wood but the shorter plane gave me full shavings.

Accuracy for a smoother isn't important.

[Matt Stiegler]

Chris is absolutely right here. Shorter is better. A #3 or #4 does a far better job of following minor undulations in the wood when smoothing than a longer or wider plane.


That makes sense to me. But it does seem to me that the objection to a longer smoother (the two LV BU planes, specifically) is stronger for folks using their planes all the time who have a stable of planes to choose from. For a lighter user trying to choose one smoother to cover a range of situations, it seems to me the added flexibility of the BUS or LAS compared to a BD 4 may be worth the extra time spent smoothing.

Well, okay, now I've gone back and pulled the specs from the LV and LN websites (and measured the one I have here). The lengths are a little different than what I'd supposed:

Plane.............Length
LN#3 .............8"
LN BD #4 ........9 1/2"
LV BD #4 ........9 1/2"
LN LAS ...........9 1/2"
LV LAS ..........10"
LV BUS ..........10"
LV #4 1/2 ......10" (actual 9 13/16")
LN #4 1/2 ......10 3/8"

The difference between a 4 and the 2 LV LA smoothers is actually only a third as big as the difference between a 3 and a 4. For the LV 4 1/2, it may be less than that; a bit more than that for the LN. (This assumes the posted specs are accurate; someone who owns these planes may correct me).

My hypothesis from these numbers is that the folks who say '4 vs 4 1/2 isn't a big deal, just get whichever one floats your boat' are right. (Could it really be that 8" and 9.5" are okay but 10" isn't?) And that the way to make a dent in smoothing effort isn't by choosing a 4 over a 4 1/2, its by using a 3. And that the benefits of the LA smoothers may very well outweigh their length disadvantage compared to a #4.

Those hypotheses seem to run counter to the experience of some people (Chris Schwarz and Joel, at least) who know a lot more what they're talking about than I do, so I'd continue to welcome input on this.

[All of the above assumes that sole length is the only factor, which I'm sure is a false assumption. A heavier plane making a wider cut is presumably going to take more muscle regardless of length, and a narrower sole may ride over high/low spots that a wider one would not.]

[Joel Moskowitz]

When I studied my teacher brought in all the stanleys. buy the size that feel good in the hand. Another problem with the 4 1/2 is that's it's heavy, a LN even heavier. personally I can't imagine wanting to use one all day. When I actually work in a shop (and I lately have spent almost no time there - business and kid take priority) my #604 stays by side constantly. I don't use block planes the 604 does everything. It is however a little long for a great smoother - good but not great. For that I use an infill with a 7" sole. That saves me a lot of time.

If you mill wood by machine and only use a plane to get rid of planer marks a longer plane might not be a negative.

[Robert Lang]

IIRC, the 5.5 is highly advocated by David Charlesworth as a "super smoother" and Tom Fidgen also uses a 5.5 for larger work.

BTW, I am not suggesting bigger is better...just offering what I have read/heard elsewhere.

[Jim Koepke]

When all is said and the day is done, me thinks it still all comes down to what works best for the job at hand and personal opinion.

Sometimes one plane just feels more right than the other.

jim

[David Keller NC]

My hypothesis from these numbers is that the folks who say '4 vs 4 1/2 isn't a big deal, just get whichever one floats your boat' are right. (Could it really be that 8" and 9.5" are okay but 10" isn't?) And that the way to make a dent in smoothing effort isn't by choosing a 4 over a 4 1/2, its by using a 3. And that the benefits of the LA smoothers may very well outweigh their length disadvantage compared to a #4.


Matt - I own all of these planes, with the exception of the LV LAS (had it and sold it - I couldn't stand its looks, nor the Norris adjustment mechanism in a bevel-up configuration).

And all of them get used - the #2 and the #3 on smaller-sized projects like boxes and doll furniture, the #4 and #4-1/2 on things like table tops and panels for paneled doors. Generally speaking, there is a noticeable difference in weight and ease of use with the smaller planes with smaller pieces of wood. Keep in mind that a little extra length means a fair difference in weight because volume (and mass) increases with the square of the increase in length.

Also, be careful that you don't drink the coolaid when it comes to BU planes. I own them and use them, and they are quite useful for planing end grain. But that is their only advantage, and they have disadvantages compared to the BD design. The oft-cited ability to change out blades with different cutting angles to get "2 planes in one" isn't all that useful. You can get the same thing in a BD plane by owning 2 or more blades with a small back-bevel to change the cutting angle. A BD plane is considerably easier to change the cutting depth on the planing stroke (this is actually impossible with the LV design), and the higher sidewalls of a BD offer considerably greater stability when used on a shooting board. Finally, (and this isn't really relavant with a smoother) a BU plane isn't nearly as suitable for use as a fore or jack plane where the objective is taking off thick, narrow shavings to rapidly flatten and dress a board's surface.

In my opinion, the popularity of the BU design has a whole lot to do with something that isn't mentioned much in the threads on the subject - cheapness. Because a BU plane has fewer parts, it can be manufactured at a lower cost, and there are an awful lot of folks that have the rather odd perception that $300 for a plane is "ridiculous", but $100 for a saw blade, $2500 for a table saw, and a cool grand for dust collection is somehow reasonable.

Keep in mind that a plane from LV or LN is a lifetime purchase - you will have forgotten the +/- $75 for whatever choice you make long, long before you will have removed a measureable length off of the blade from re-sharpening it.

[Tri Hoang]

It really depends on how one use the smoother. I don't think it's a serious drawback to use a #4.5 instead of a #4. I've been surfacing my lumber with hand tools only for some time now and the smoother got little use. I typically use it for a few minutes on show surfaces. I spent most of my time on an old Stanley 5-1/2 (camber/fore plane and lighter than most modern #5/#5.5) and #7.

Most of my surfacing end with the #7. By the time I need to use the smoother, the surface is quite flat/smooth already. I have both the LN 4.5 and LV BU smoothers but I seem to reach for the BU plane more often. Performance-wise, they are similar. However, the BU plane is easier to clean (a few seconds to open the mouth and blow out the dust/shavings) and quicker to sharpen (no chip breaker involved)...and yes, BU planes are a little less expensive.

Giving the amount of time I spent with the smoothers...size doesn't really mater. There are time when it's advantageous to have a small/short smoother to deal with tricky boards but those are not everyday usage of smoothers...at least not for me.

[Danny Burns]

I have a LN 4 1/2 and was told that this plane is too heavy and too wide to do the job, by an expert no less.
Odd thing is that I just enjoy using this plane, and it's one of my favorite planes.
The weight actually works for you and not against you. The plane is heavy when you first start out, but your body learns to handle it, and your muscles grow, until it sings in your hands.
Most of the lumber I handle is around 16" long, and 8" to 10" wide, so you can see why the comments seemed valid about the size, but if you never tried past day 1 to use this plane, then you would not know that it gets easier. My goal was to use the largest smoother I could so I could tackle the odd bigger job.

I just can't see any downside to any of these planes. If you can go to a WoodShow and try out all these planes, then you will know what is what.

[Derek Cohen]

Do you agree that the additional length of a 4 1/2 is a serious drawback for smoothing?

Hi Matt

Many planes may be used to smooth a surface, but traditionally - as Joel pointed out - smoothers were short planes, somewhere in the region of 7" - 7 1/2" long. The reason for this was that they were used on boards that might not have been perfectly flat, and a long plane would re-dimension the boards as it smoothed ... that is, a long plane would not ride the hills, removing them to get to the valleys, while a short plane could smooth the valleys without removing the hills.

These days, with the advent of powered surfacers and pre-dressed boards, there is not need to concern oneself as much with the length of a plane ... these boards have fewer hills. This is why some, such as David Charlesworth, favour a longer smoother (the "Super Smoother"), which is more correctly a modern version of a panel plane (another word for a long smoother).

Still, some dimension boards by hand, or wish to avoid re-dimensioning the boards as they smooth, and the smoother of choice is a shorter smoother.

Another reason for a shorter smoother is that the plane width tends to increase along with its length. So a #4 1/2 is wider than a #4. This may not be a problem for most, particularly if you are using a common pitch (45 degrees) in softer woods. However, as you begin to work on harder and harder woods, and then further on woods that contain reversing grain that benefit from higher cutting angles (such as a half pitch, or 60 degrees), then the wider blades become ever more difficult to push. I would rather push a high angle 2" blade (#4) than a high angle 2 3/8" blade (# 4 1/2).

The #4 1/2 is reputed to have been Stanley's response to the UK-driven infill planes. The #4 1/2 is heavier, starting to approximate the mass of an infill plane (compared with a #4 or a woodie, that is). There is a lot to be said for extra mass when working with difficult grain. Mass is not all that is important, but it can make a difference.

I have a couple of #4 1/2 planes - one is a Stanley Type 11 (common pitch) and the other is a bronze LN Anniversary (York pitch). I find the york pitch much less user-friendly than the common pitch in very hard woods. I was at one time interested in getting a 55 degree frog for the LN, but I think that this will be even less pleasant to use in such woods. The LN is otherwise a great plane, and I was using it with much success and considerable pleasure with a medium hard wood that with moderately demanding grain.

Of the BD planes I much prefer a #4 size to a #4 1/2 size. They just have a better balance and are easier to use. I think a bronze LN #4 with a 55 degree frog would be super, but they only make it to 50 degrees (while the #4 1/2 get the 55 degree frog, as it is rated as the top smoother).

Where do the BU planes fit? Well it would be a gross lack of insight to view them as appropriate for use on end grain only. These planes excell when used with high cutting angles, from 60 degrees and even higher. With their low centre of gravity, they are far, far less effort to push that a BD plane of the same blade width and the same cutting angle. The Veritas LA Smoother (#4 equivalent) and the wider/heavier BU Smoother (not really #4 1/2 equivalent, but let's call it that) are absolutely the best value for money around. They can perform and hold their own with the best performers around.

This is not to say that BD planes are irrelevant. I use as many BD planes as I do BU planes. It is horses for courses. They each have a definite set of advantages and disadvantages. This is not a topic for this post, but I can bore you to tears on the subject if you wish. :)

In summary, choose a plane that feels comfortable and does the type of work you wish it to do. There are no rules that say that you must do this or that. There are advantages and disadvantages for everything. What you get here are personal preferences, and you need to recognise this as you make up your own mind.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matt Stiegler]

Wow, thanks everyone who's responded. Those responses were quite helpful to me, and suspect they will be just as helpful to lots of other beginners too.



These days, with the advent of powered surfacers and pre-dressed boards, there is not need to concern oneself as much with the length of a plane ... these boards have fewer hills. This is why some, such as David Charlesworth, favour a longer smoother (the "Super Smoother"), which is more correctly a modern version of a panel plane (another word for a long smoother).


I suspect that this may be the most persuasive response to Chris Schwarz's point. Chris felt that part of the popularity of longer planes was irrational: older 4 1/2s were relatively rare because when people knew what they were doing they knew 4 1/2 was too big, but due to their rarity they re-sold at higher prices; people foolishly thought if they're so expensive they must be better, and pretty soon everyone wanted a 4 1/2. The lemming theory of smoother inflation.

But maybe modern woodworkers aren't so dumb after all. Maybe what has changed is not that modern woodworkers are suckers, but instead that modern woodworkers just are using flatter stock. Shorter smoothers may be more important to traditionalist woodworkers like David who eschew power dimensioning than they are for someone using their smoother to dress pieces dimensioned on a power planer. (And, at the same time, modern woodworkers are more likely to have higher benches and thus may benefit more from added smoother mass).

Not sure I've hit on the truth, but I do find this interesting.



This is not to say that BD planes are irrelevant. I use as many BD planes as I do BU planes. It is horses for courses. They each have a definite set of advantages and disadvantages. This is not a topic for this post, but I can bore you to tears on the subject if you wish. :)


I, and many others I suspect, would be eager to hear your thoughts (and others' thoughts) on that point. But rather than hijack my own thread, I'll leave that question for another one. [Edit: or I'll just use the search function and read the many insightful posts already out there on the subject, including this (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=92939) thread.]

[Matt Stiegler]

It really depends on how one use the smoother. I don't think it's a serious drawback to use a #4.5 instead of a #4. I've been surfacing my lumber with hand tools only for some time now and the smoother got little use. I typically use it for a few minutes on show surfaces. I spent most of my time on an old Stanley 5-1/2 (camber/fore plane and lighter than most modern #5/#5.5) and #7.

Most of my surfacing end with the #7. By the time I need to use the smoother, the surface is quite flat/smooth already. I have both the LN 4.5 and LV BU smoothers but I seem to reach for the BU plane more often. Performance-wise, they are similar. However, the BU plane is easier to clean (a few seconds to open the mouth and blow out the dust/shavings) and quicker to sharpen (no chip breaker involved)...and yes, BU planes are a little less expensive.

Giving the amount of time I spent with the smoothers...size doesn't really mater. There are time when it's advantageous to have a small/short smoother to deal with tricky boards but those are not everyday usage of smoothers...at least not for me.

Tri, I suspect that some would respond that you are spending more time and effort at flattening than many other woodworkers do. Based on Chris Schwarz's presentation and other posts here, I gather that many view that extra flattening effort as unnecessary to quality work, at least when you're talking about show faces rather than, uh, joinery registration faces.

In any event, you illustrate the point pretty much everyone seems to agree on, that there is no one correct approach or correct choice of tools for satisfying, quality work.

[Eddie Darby]

Do you agree that the additional length of a 4 1/2 is a serious drawback for smoothing?
I would rather push a high angle 2" blade (#4) than a high angle 2 3/8" blade (# 4 1/2).


I find the york pitch much less user-friendly than the common pitch in very hard woods. I was at one time interested in getting a 55 degree frog for the LN, but I think that this will be even less pleasant to use in such woods. The LN is otherwise a great plane, and I was using it with much success and considerable pleasure with a medium hard wood that with moderately demanding grain.

Of the BD planes I much prefer a #4 size to a #4 1/2 size. They just have a better balance and are easier to use. I think a bronze LN #4 with a 55 degree frog would be super, but they only make it to 50 degrees (while the #4 1/2 get the 55 degree frog, as it is rated as the top smoother).

Derek

I put more of a camber at the edges of my #4 1/2 blades so that they end-up having the same force requirements, or thereabouts, as a #4 blade, when planing forces get tough.
I only go to a higher pitch angle if I am experiencing tear-out, and that is only after a few other options fail.
I am not though working in the tough woods that you are, since Australia can have some pretty tough ones. Mostly curly maple and curly birch.

My approach is sorta like, well I have this #4 1/2 and so let's make it work, rather than how to avoid these problems in the first place approach.

Thanks for the history explanation for short smoothers!!!!
I really enjoyed that.

[Matt Stiegler]

I came across this (http://popularwoodworking.com/article/understanding_bench_planes)Chris Schwarz article wherein he makes the "4 1/2 is too big" point, albeit less pointedly than he did at WIA:

The No. 4 Bench Plane
Sole length: 9"
Cutter width: 2"
The No. 4 smoothing plane is historically the most common size. It is an excellent balance of sole length and cutter width to be useful for typical furniture parts. And the last part of that sentence is what is important here: typical furniture parts. Typical furniture parts range from 2" wide to 24" wide and 12" long to 48" long. That's a gross generalization, but it works.

...

Another important detail of the No. 4: It's not terribly heavy and won't wear you out as quickly as the bigger smoothing planes.

The No. 4-1/2 Bench Plane
Sole length: 10"
Cutter width: 2-3/8"
What a difference an inch makes. The No. 4-1/2 is a little bigger than the No. 4, but that additional metal is a game-changer. The No. 4-1/2 smoothing plane is more popular now than it was when Stanley was the only game in town. Why is that? Good press. Lots of high-profile woodworkers have sung the praises of this size tool. And, as Americans, we also seem to like things that have been Super-Sized.

In truth, the No. 4-1/2 is an excellent size tool, though it's more apt to wear me out faster because it's heavier and has a wider cutter. So it requires more effort to push the tool forward.

Of course, the advantage of the wider cutter is that you'll get the work done in fewer strokes, so that might be a wash. And the advantage of the extra weight is that the tool will stay in the cut with less downward pressure on your part. So it's not the simplest of trade-offs to calculate.

I think the No. 4-1/2 is ideal for woodworkers who like a big and heavy plane (a legitimate preference) and those woodworkers who work on larger-scale furniture. If you build jewelry boxes, the No. 4-1/2 likely isn't for you. If you build armoires, you'll love it."

[David Keller NC]

"Where do the BU planes fit? Well it would be a gross lack of insight to view them as appropriate for use on end grain only. These planes excell when used with high cutting angles, from 60 degrees and even higher. With their low centre of gravity, they are far, far less effort to push that a BD plane of the same blade width and the same cutting angle. The Veritas LA Smoother (#4 equivalent) and the wider/heavier BU Smoother (not really #4 1/2 equivalent, but let's call it that) are absolutely the best value for money around. They can perform and hold their own with the best performers around."

As Derek notes, some simply prefer the low center of gravity of BU planes, and use them as their main smoother. However, from a physics perspective, the center of gravity has almost no effect on the effort require to push them. The resistance force on a handplane is almost entirely from 4 factors: the cutting angle, the shaving dimension (thickness and width), the friction co-efficient between the plane's sole and the particular wood surface, and the weight of the plane that must be accelerated at the start of the planing stroke.

And, as Jim Koepke has noted in numerous posts, the winner in best-value-for-money hands down is a 1920's -1930's Stanley with a replacement blade. No new manufacturer will ever be able to compete in this department, as many hundreds of thousands of Stanleys were made in this era before the advent of small, inexpensive power planers. And though the world population is much larger than it was in the 1920s, and even with the large resurgence in the interest in handtools, there are still far fewer folks interested in working with handplanes than there were those that made a living with one in the early 20th century.

[Joel Goodman]

I find weight a double edge sword -- often a bit of weight helps keep the plane moving forward with less effort once it is started. I have a question -- what is the approximate weight of the classic infill smoothers? I have never seen one in the flesh but I bet they are on the heavy side! And weren't the irons 2 1/8" - 2 1/4" -- halfway between a 4 and 4 1/2? I think they are on the shorter side -- more like a #3. Would someone with knowledge in this area comment please? It seems that the "anti 4 1/2" sentiment is partially weight, partially length, and partially iron width -- with different folks finding different issues.

[Matt Stiegler]

And, as Jim Koepke has noted in numerous posts, the winner in best-value-for-money hands down is a 1920's -1930's Stanley with a replacement blade.

Yes, hard to dispute that.

I'm persuaded, by feedback and older posts here and my own fumbling at WIA, that BD planes still have some real advantages. I decided that the smoother arsenal that made the most sense to me was an old #4 and a new LAS for shooting and for smoothing difficult grain and to compare with the BD for general smoothing. So I ordered a #4 type 13 from Walt at Brass City, and an LAS from LV with the WIA discount today. [When did I become a fountain of gibberish?]. If I change my mind later (again), I don't think it will cost me much.

[Matt Stiegler]

It seems that the "anti 4 1/2" sentiment is partially weight, partially length, and partially iron width -- with different folks finding different issues.

I agree, I think my original post over-simplified it.

[Matt Stiegler]

Chris Schwarz just added a post to his blog, here (http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Small+Planes+For+Fast+Work.aspx), which elaborates on his small-smoother preference.

(Those of you who've never met him might think he's just a small guy with small hands, but actually he's 6'4". FWIW.)