Building a Traditional Wooden Plane (Lessons Learned)

[Dan Barr]

Hi Creekers,

I'd like this thread to be about all the lessons learned in building a traditional wooden plane. (not a Krenov style plane) I am soliciting all the knowledge and experience that anyone will offer.

Here is my first meager attempt at building just the body of a plane. I did'nt have any nice scraps of wood, so i took this small piece of qtr swn wt oak, marked it up and had a few hours of fun. I don't plan on doing anything else with this piece. I'll probably just do a few more practice pieces in the near future for now.

Things I learned:

-Start waste removal 1/16" in from the scribed lines

-Leave the top and bottom of the stock 1/16" (1/8" total) larger than final size (i plan on cheating by doing this. I use my mortice chisels and pry and leave marks. then i plane off the 1/16" on top and bottom. Also, It gives nice clean lines to the mouth

-Cut well inside your angles (I exceeded mine and the mouth is huge)

-My skewed combo Float is awesome!

-Skew chisels are invaluable

-Using my shoulder to run my chisel down the bed wasnt that hard. (this is a small plane though)

-Floats are better for getting a flat surface than paring chisels. However, I had to use both constantly because floats will cause the wood to lift up as with miter planing.

-Clean the corners out extra sharp with the skew and paring chisels.

-Touch up chisels at least once or twice with a strop, if not a few more times.


Let me know your experiences as well.

Thanks,

Dan

[george wilson]

Sorry to tell you that your geometry on the angled cheeks is backwards. There is no way to fit the wedge. The grain should be oriented so that if the plane were inside the tree,the sole would face the outside of the tree.

You need to get an old wooden plane and study how it is made.

[Dan Barr]

Yea,

I know. I was simply making this as an exercise in how to bang out the mortice, cheeks, abutments, etc.

Not that good of a plane body.

Cheers,

dan

[David Gendron]

In my opinion, when practicing, practice doing every thing a right as possible so you have a better understanding of the tasks and you have less chances of mistakes when ready for the real stuff!
Good luck

[Dan Barr]

George,

I don't see how the geometry is wrong. Please explain. I don't see how fitting the wedge is impossible.

I know the grain is wrong. I dont have any other pieces of wood available. Also, i'm not going to use a perfect piece when i know that im not capable of producing a perfect plane yet.

David,

Yes, that is the point of practice.

Does anyone have any "lessons learned" or do they just want to sharpshoot my attempt? :)

Cheers,

dan

[Matt Benton]

Seems to me that George's comment about the sole facing the outside of the tree is indicating that the sole should be face grain instead of edge grain. Is this correct? I thought the sole should be edge grain for both durability and stability...

[Dan Barr]

The sole should be the outer most grain. lumber can be cut at that point so that it could be either face or edge. In this instance, i would call it edge grain. edge and face could be ambiguous. i would consider the sole of the plane to be the edge of the wood. so, depending on the height and width, what would you call the edge?

the outer most grain has the straightest ring lines due a larger diameter.

This little block of wood is the only little scrap i could muster at the moment. so, i just squared it up and started. the growth rings in this piece are perpindicular to what they ought to be.

i need to go get a few larger scraps of wood. this one was too small for my first one. but it will probably make me a little better in the future.

cheers,

dan

[Matt Benton]

Seems like we're talking two different questions. I understand wanting stock closest to the outside of the tree (larger diameter, straighter rings, more stable).

But assuming you already have the stock, seems to me that you would want the grain running perpendicular to the sole. If the grain were running parallel to the sole, wouldn't any movement cause the sole to become concave or convex?

[Jim Koepke]

Dan,

I think people are offering the lessons they have learned.

George commented about studying old planes and the grain orientation. He also mentioned the angled cheeks. Take a look at other planes like these:

http://www.crownplane.com/catalog.html

and it may be clear. To me, it looks like the fat part goes to the back, not the front.

My thoughts on practice is everything is practice. All practice should be done as if it is for keeps.

As David said,
In my opinion, when practicing, practice doing every thing a right as possible so you have a better understanding of the tasks and you have less chances of mistakes when ready for the real stuff!

Practicing is also the developing of habits. If the habit is to always properly align the wood, it will lead to better results in the future and in all of one's endeavors.

My attempts at plane making were done years ago, not only before my experience with SMC, but before SMC was on the net. The lesson I learned is that it is not as simple of a project as it looks. Learned I needed to know more about making planes before I tried to make them. Soon, I think I will try again to make planes.

jim

[george wilson]

Dan,I am not trying to "sharpshoot" your efforts. neither is David. English is a second language to David. If you want advice,I'll be happy to give it,but if you aren't open to it,no progress will be accomplished. You may,or may not know that I have made hundreds of wooden planes.

I think the pictures that Jim has kindly posted show clearly that the angled cheeks on your plane need to go the other way. Otherwise,you cannot cut a groove to insert the wedge into.

Your escapement,which is the part of the throat in front of the opening,is also incorrect. If you can't find pictures,at least buy an old junker that you can study. The making of a proper plane involves quite a few angles,which can be confusing.

Your old junker plane doesn't even need to have an iron,and can be half rotted,but it will give you the throat to study. I strongly recommend that you get an old 19th.C. plane,as there are many improper deviations from the classic plane throat later on. Old English planes frequently have the best aesthetics.

I might point out that none of the planes shown in Jim's pictures have "eyes" cut into them,which greatly increases the aesthetic appearance of the wooden plane throat,and makes it easier to insert one's fingers to remove stuck shavings. This,to me,is one example of an improper deviation in throat making,which I do not consider as attractive as a decent original. Eyes are hard to describe.What they consist of is the top area of the angled cheeks are scooped away in a pleasing curve.

[Raney Nelson]

Dan,

I think I see what George is referring to, though I think it may just be that your escapement and bed angles look to be a bit reversed from standard. In most of your pictures, you're shooting looking down along the angle that the blade would sit at, correct? In that case, your geometry is not backwards, but it looks like the angles you've used are a bit different than would be common. It may well be the angles you're photographing at, but it looks to me like the bed angle is at about 60-70 degrees to the sole, while the escapement is closer to 45 degrees. That would be the exact opposite what one would normally use, though as I said it may just be the angle of the photography.

Also, it looks as though you've not got much of a wedging angle in here. Somewhere in the maybe 8-10 degree range above bed angle would be common for a non-tapered blade - describing the angle between the top of the wedge to the angle of the bed. If you're using a tapered blade, it would obviously be a couple of degrees less.

Also, don't take the comments on the block orientation as 'shooting you down' - they're absolutely critical for a plane that will last more than a couple of weeks without serious problems from movement. CHanges in the sole flatness are the least of the concerns because you can easily flatten a sole. However, a change in bed linearity, or in the wedge abutments can lead to a self-destructing plane, or one that requires a lot of work to adjust, and even then you may be left with a mouth that is unacceptably large.

I would strongly second George's recommendation to copy a quality old plane - or work from a good book (Both Whelan and Perch/Lee are good starting points). Perhaps you already are, and it's just not easy to see from your pictures. I can't be sure. A side view with the angles you've used, the terminus of the wedge abutments, the throat height - these are all things it's almost impossible to see accurately from the photos.

Here's a pretty good online article, from c. late 19th c. I believe, which spells out (though not quite as simply as some other sources) the critical basic geometry to laying a block out, just in case you haven't seen one yet. I should say, though, that I think this one lacks a LOT of important information...:

http://www.handplane.com/practical-plane-making-1

Also, here is one of Larry Williams' excellent articles, this one on some of the considerations for stock orientation:

http://planemaker.com/articles_tuning.html

[george wilson]

Raney,yes,the angles of the cheeks are indeed backwards. Take a closer look at Jim's pictures. The cheeks come inwards as they approach the wedge. Then,the grooves for the wedge are cut into the extra meat at the top of the plane body. As the wedge progresses down into the plane body,the cheeks get wider,until they are nearly the same width as the throat. This keeps the cheeks from blocking the chips coming from the throat.

[Raney Nelson]

Ah - I see what you mean (I think) - to me, though, it's just that the reduction in the wood hasn't been accomplished yet - the cheeks could still be reduced through paring or with a float for the necesary clearance. I don't think I'd have called the geometry backward, though - it's jsut that the cheeks have only been partly formed, with the front-back taper more or less in place, but the top-bottom taper not done yet.

Regardless, though, I still would strongly suggest Whelan's "making traditional wooden planes" as a really good primer on the geometry.

edit: I just looked through a couple of good online tutorials I know of (noresewoodsmith has a couple) but unfortunately I can't seem to find a good illustration of the cheek formation from that perspective. Most of the drawings and photos are very much top-down shots, and it's tough to see the taper on the cheeks at the abutments.

[Dan Barr]

George,

The cheeks taper slightly along the abutment to widen as they descend towards the mouth. Also, the cheeks widen towards the wear and towards the front as well. the thickest part being the abutment. However, there is not enough meat in the sides to allow me to pare out any more in order to make the abutments wider.

the pictures are taken looking down on the bed from the rear.

Yes, the angle for the wedge is not as sharp as it should be. the fact that i screwed up and made a larger mouth reduced the angle of the wedge abutment as related to the bed.

Also, the abutments are not as thick as i intended. i was too close to the edge when morticing.

Yes, i try to practice anything correctly each time. However, this is my first attempt. i don't think this could be called practice at this point.

Cheers,

dan

[george wilson]

I am tired,and creaky today. If I can get up to it,I could try to put up some pictures of proper plane throats. I have ones I made,and a nice old English coffin shape smoother that has beautiful eyes. The eyes flow right along with the curved sides of the coffin shaped smoother.

Unless I was having to copy an original plane,as I was paid to do as toolmaker,I am very particular about the exact form of my coffin smoothers. I like a somewhat narrow rear end,and a certail curve to the sides. When these things are just right,the plane is beautiful. If not,ho hum. Now,don't get the idea I am a particular guy.:)

[David Gendron]

I think Raney mean Dan instead of David even if I learn a lot in is post.
And Dan, I,m sorry if I sounded like I was "sharpshooting" you... I was just reffering to my own experiences as a self tought hand tools woodworker. I always try to make my practices end up as a final piece, even if it's not perfect. I also try to establish new skills by doing small projects I can use in the shop, like try squares, small planes, tools handles etc... doing so I practice my sawing, paring boaring etc...
Good luck with your plane making!

[Dan Barr]

I see the taper. this is what i've done here on this piece. however, my taper is not as pronounced.

i have hardly any scraps of wood. so, i was stuck with this little piece. its only 5 1/2" x 1 1/4" x 1 3/4" approx. I'm not at home right now, so i cant measure it.

the bed is about 1 1/16 wide, too wide for the stock really.

the bed angle is 50 degrees and the abutment angle is 59 degrees. but, since i screwed up the bed and it came out in the wrong place, its probably about 52-53 degrees thus reducing the wedge to 6-7 degrees. (not good)

the proportions of the features are also not correct. the size of the throat is almost right but not quite. i'm pretty particular too.

the bed sucks and cam out about 1/8" off the scribed line.

The wear is almost good, but slightly off. the cheeks are not tapered enough and the mouth is horrible.

i need to work on staying INSIDE the lines on the next one. Once i got about 3/4" down when morticing the bed, I started getting off the line. to compound the problem, i hadnt even floated and pared the bed. :mad:

luck! i need a lot of practice. :( i need to leave at least 1/16" of the stock before floating/paring.

loads of fun.

i'm going to find a few more scraps of wood and do a few more of these.

cheers,

dan

[Dan Barr]

when opening the mouth initially and letting in the abutments, bed and wear.

this is a pain in the #$% I drilled four small holes from the sole into the throat. i stayed in the lines. but, when i started morticing the rest of the bed towards the mouth, i opened it up too much from the bed side.

is this just me being too impatient. i guess i should have used a smaller chisel and settled for smaller chips. I was using a LN 1/4" morticing chisel. only sinking about 1/16" at a time and chipping out from there.

any tips on letting in the mouth and abutments?

cheers,

dan

[Raney Nelson]

I have to admit that I can't see what you're referring to either, George. the pictures he's taken are facing the escapement, looking down the bed. He's shot his photos from the heel of the plane, such that the cheeks are at their thickest where they form the wedge abutments - exactly as it should be. At first I suspected the 'problem' was that it looked as though he was shooting photos from the toe, in which case the cheek taper would have been formed on the bed side improperly, but from what I see it looks more or less correct - perhaps notcompletely formed, especially where the escapement and wear meet, but I can't for the life of me see what you mean by having the taper backwards.

Perhaps I'm having a senior moment...

[george wilson]

I suppose the photograph,and the angle of the escapement is fooling me. The front edge of the throat is called the escapement,and it is divided into 2 angles. His looks like 1 long angle going all the way to the throat. To me it looked like where the blade would lay.

Does he have the 2 angles that comprise the escapement? Is it 1 long "ramp"? I can't tell.

[David Gendron]

Dan, Can you tell us, on picture #2, wich one is the ramp, blade bed and wich one is the escapement? I don't think we are seeing what we are supposed to! is the shapping of the opening(blade ramp, escapement, embutment) done?

[Dan Barr]

gents,

in picture #2 the bed is closest to you. youre looking down into the bed. i shot it from the heel of the plane looking down the bed. the abutments are just above that. cheeks in front of that and the escapement in the more distant part of the picture.

from this view the wedge would go from your eyeballs directly into the mortice.

make sense?

my morticing skills are lacking right now. (i should remove the post :D) i've been out of woodwork for the past two years. should come back quick doing these things though. this is alot more demanding than a simple mortice and tenon

leaving the right amount of stock in the abutments is challenging.
I failed :D

cheers,

dan

[george wilson]

The ay I saw the photos,the plane looked the wrong way around. I thought that the front escapement was the blade incline. Oh,well,I've had an epidural injection,and am a bit mixed up today.

[Lowell Smith]

Dan,

Among many things Lief provides on his site, I found his
presentation on making tradition coffin smoothers very useful

http://www.norsewoodsmith.com/content/building-traditional-coffin-smoother

This link will also clarify George's comment.

Keep on having fun with the chisels!

Doug

[george wilson]

Yes,the long,straight incline of the escapement,which should have a dog leg in it was confusing me. I took it to be where the iron was to lay.

[David Gendron]

Thank you Lowell for the link to Leif, it is indeed a great tutorial!

[Dan Barr]

Gents,

Here are more pics. I am just using this mini coffin smoother as my approximate template. i put pictures of both as you can see. one from the side of the one i banged out. cheeks are more apparant, abutments are easily identified.

cheers,

dan

[John Adam]

So, let me see if I can hijack the thread ;)...can anyone outline the benefits of this style plane vs the Krenov plane (with the cross pin)?

Seems like the Krenov is easier to build - although it seems like you could use similar techniques (bandsaw off the sides, cut everything and re-assemble)...

[Wilbur Pan]

The Clark and Williams website has an article (http://www.planemaker.com/articles_beech.html) on some considerations to be made when making a wooden plane, and has a discussion on the downsides of laminated wooden plane construction towards the bottom of the page.

In a nutshell, the glue line can cause problems with the natural movement of the wooden body of the plane with moisture/humidity changes, and the laminated construction can lead to making a plane out of different species, which can compound the movement issue.

Their feeling is that making a plane out of a solid body of wood will give you a plane that is better behaved overall with changes in humidity. Japanese plane makers agree -- no Japanese plane maker would consider laminating together a body for a Japanese plane. These are also uniformly made by chopping out a mortise into which the blade fits.

[David Gendron]

Wilbur, It all make sense but in reality, I do have a few laminated plane and a few from solid block, and didn't notice any of the problems noted, other than an older sqew rabet plane that is like a banana or maybe more like a C shape... even if the graine is well oriented!?!?! I would like to know if any one with laminated planes have had some of those problems.

[David Gendron]

Dan, this plane(the one you are making) look like a keeper to me... I would definitly find a blade, make a wedge and try it out!

[Raney Nelson]

I'm not sure that laminated planes have been used long enough for people to necessarily see the moisture barrier issues in a widespread way. As near as I can tell, Krenov started making them a bout 30-40 years ago, and his school's students have been making them for what - 20 years maybe? I think in the larger community, they've been popular for about a decade or so. Professional makers like C&W and the better japanese dai makers are making tools that will still be working in a century or two...

I saw a plane this weekend that was about 6 or so years old, I believe, where the wood movement was causing serious delamination problems. This was a plane my friend purchased from a planemaker who definitely knew how to make these, so I don't think it was 'user error' at all - I think it's part of the inherent problems with laminated planes.

Personally, I don't like laminated planes for these, as well as aesthetic, reasons - but I think they're really just fine, and can of course be made to work as well as most of use will ever need. They may not last forever, but then I suppose one would just make another.


Dan: the plane looks great. Looking forward to seeing it making shavings.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Dan

I've just seen the thread. I can see why George reacted as he did initially, but now I would imagine that he would agree with me that what you did is perfectly fine. Good job.

For reference, I did put together a step-by-step pictorial (I would not call it a tutorial) on a jack I built recently. This was a combination morticed and laminated construction, ending with a traditional design.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingAJackPlane_html_m4a188386.jpg

Article: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingAJackPlane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Harlan Barnhart]

If the laminations were cut from the same block and reassembled in order, why would there be any more movement that a solid block?

[george wilson]

Yes,I got the impression that I was looking at the plane from the front end. The way the plane was pictured,I couldn't make out the dog leg in the front escapement. plus,he didn't say that he already had an old plane for a model. Having a large epidural shot in my spine also caused me to be generally out of it.

[Raney Nelson]

If the laminations were cut from the same block and reassembled in order, why would there be any more movement that a solid block?

Movement is primarily about moisture moving into and out of the wood. Unequal moisture distribution leads to stresses as part of the wood swells more than another. The laminating leaves a moisture barrier in the wood that can affect and inhibit the equalization of moisture through the block. My instinct is that the problem would be worst in woods with higher radial water transfer through the rays (which are inhibited here), but the delaminated/warped plane I mentioned before was actually in afr. blackwood

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think historically, cutting mortise was faster than laminated construction. To make laminated plane, parts have to be cut and prepared before hand. Experienced plane maker could probably complete several planes in the time it takes to prepare parts and wait for glue to cure. Whilst not Western Plane, the Japanese plane dai maker, Isao Inomoto, can cut mortise, fit blade, make adjustment and final tuning a plane in about 20 minutes. Probably Western plane makers of the past could complete a plane in similar speed (or little more if it has to be shaped to make coffin shape). Compare to that, laminated design takes a lot of time.

I think compounding issue is that historically, hide glue was 'the' glue. For hide glue to form strong bond, gluing surfaces have to be prepared to make very good fit. It had (and still has) very poor gap filling ability and open time was very short, about a minute in an ideal condition. Tack is monstrous and once it grabs, it is very difficult to make any last minute adjustment. Glued parts have to be either heated to separate or forcibly pulled apart to redo it. Plus, hide glue uses water as solvent, plane's bed would have to be checked and adjusted for wood movement after water completely evaporated (like a few days to a week).

If you think about it, laminated construction required a lot more time and was more involving. In the days when craftsman made hand planes, it makes so much sense to just go with mortised design to skip all that hassle. I don't think wood movement in laminated construction was the reason they avoided this type of plane, especially when they already had a basic, tried and tested design to base on, they didn't need to switch to more time consuming production method.

For hobbyists and occasional woodworkers, it's simpler to make a laminated plane. Cutting accurate mortise requires a skill of its own and when you are making one or two for yourself, it's not that important whether it takes 2 hours or 2 weeks to make. Plus not many people use hide glue nowadays, modern glue are more forgiving and allow longer open time to get things right (except they creep). While I do think laminated construction affects wood movement different from solid body construction, I think it can be made manageable and for the most part, it's not that much of a huge issue. As long as material used is relatively stable, and adequately dry, they shouldn't warp to the extreme. It's not meant to stay flat. It's wood.

[Dan Barr]

John,

I think Sam pretty much summed it up.

I can tell you one drawback to the krenov style planes though. after much use, the wedge will form a slight dent from the cross bar. :D (this is why i'm not going to build any Krenov style planes)

If the dent gets bigger over time, you have to drive the wedge in harder to secure the blade. this becomes next to impossible at a certain point. then you are left to make a new wedge or shave the old one.

this problem does not manifest in the traditional planes due to actual abutments being morticed in. the entire wedge snugs in. (technically, the lower portion of the wedge should snug in the most) nonetheless, the entire wedge is seated in a matching mortice.

Yet another reason not to go krenov. (thanks for the hijack... :p)

Cheers,

dan

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Dan

The thing is that a "Krenov" plane is correctly made with a flat - not round - cross bar. This is free to rotate so that the wedge sits flat against it. Jim Krenov made plane for decades and his never suffered from the fault you describe, for the reason I gave.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Gendron]

I would also point out that on traditional planes, it some time happen that the abutments would crack... So to get the iron snug, you have to sink the wedge deeper, that result in more stress on to the abutment, that could conduct in to a bigger problem than having to reshape the wedge on a Krenov stile. That said, IMO, a well made traditional plane or Krenov style plane, will serve you well for years, maybe a life time or two, with out any problems other than thrueing it once in a wile!

[Matt Benton]

Regarding the Krenov plane, you could also utilize a wooden lever cap instead of a wedge. A t-nut and brass screw should be all you'd need...

[John Adam]

Thanks for all your comments (this site is amazing by the way).

I just "finished" a Krenov style (with square peg) and a Hock blade. I say "finished" because I can't seem to stop fiddling with it...


It's good, but I don't get shavings I can read through. I'm guessing it's a sharpening issue (new to the whole thing).


Anyway, it was a blast, and I can see myself building a whole set of planes this way. I have a bunch of Oak that a friend was using for firewood (!), all cut in 1 to 2 foot pieces, about 1 1/2" thick....


Oak's probably not the best wood due to movement issues, but I figure I can always just make another. Once I've got it down, I can go to Beech/Wenge or some such combo....

[Dan Barr]

the actual Krenov style has the pin with a flat face for wedging.

However, i have seen many "krenov Style" planes with a round pin.

cheers,

dan

[David Gendron]

You know, Some time, people try to reinvent the weel... I meen, if Jim K use a flat side on the cross pin, there is a reason! By changing that for a round pin like a brass pin, it would probably bring up the problem that Dan mention earlier!

[James Scheffler]

You know, Some time, people try to reinvent the weel... I meen, if Jim K use a flat side on the cross pin, there is a reason! By changing that for a round pin like a brass pin, it would probably bring up the problem that Dan mention earlier!

When I make a Krenov-type block plane I'll probably try the metal pin because it would take up less room in there. It would give just a little more space for getting a finger in there to clean out shavings. (This plane is in line after several other projects!)

Jim

[John Adam]

Good point on the shavings. My home-made plane has the square peg and it's a bear to get the shavings out.

In fact, I think that shavings may be one of my problems. I think the 'front' angle is too steep, making it hard for the shavings to clear, causing a jam.

My next plane will have a more relaxed angle on that part. Assuming I keep the mouth size the same (small), can anyone think of a reason why I can't have a wide open 'front'? I cut the front with two angles, one steep right at the mouth so that the mouth doesn't open up when I sand/flatten the sole, then another more shallow angle that gives me room to get my fingers in there and for the shavings to clear....

[David Gendron]

that's how traditional plane are kind of made, I think. I've read some where that you can also carve the escapement to be concave(hollow away from the pin). The pin on mine, is flat on the wedge side but round on the top. I think I might try to shape the next one like a tear drop!!

[william scott]

Sorry to tell you that your geometry on the angled cheeks is backwards. There is no way to fit the wedge. The grain should be oriented so that if the plane were inside the tree,the sole would face the outside of the tree.

You need to get an old wooden plane and study how it is made.

O.K., I'm confused. What should the grain look like? I'm working on a Krenov and I'm too where I need to decide which 'side' is going to be the sole. Does anybody have pictures showing what the best grain structure should be? My reading says close together, running parallel to each other..right or wrong?

[george wilson]

Looking at the end of a plane,the grain should be going straight across the plane,with the convex bend of the rings facing the bottom of the plane. If the future plane was still inside a tree,the sole of the plane-to-be would be facing the bark of the tree.

There are plenty of old planes around where this is not done perfectly,but this is the ideal grain orientation.