the day off... So let's make a real case for the much debated 5 1/2 bench plane.

[John A. Callaway]

Call it boredom, call it just showing off what I did the last few hours...

but it seems that alot of folks seem to debate this plane against the low angle jack for all things... shooting, edge jointing, smoothing, and just being an all around bench plane.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3037.jpg

to be totally fair here.... I am much less experienced than alot of you and my arsenal of planes includes a number 8, a number 3, this 5 1/2 , a LN 102 block, and a LV DX60. I have never used a low angle jack... but I do plan to purchase a low angle smoother at some point.

First... and the reason I figured I would sit here and type out what is really just a time killer.... is to show off what motivated me to even post this thread. Maybe all of this is just a typical hand plane users revelation... but the range of shavings this plane makes is simply nuts. I wish I had a micrometer...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3025.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3017.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3022.jpg

( pretty nice huh ? )

the stock is a piece of cherry, that I ripped off the live edge with the table saw. the other edge was out the bandsaw at the saw mill. The stock is cherry. I have a friend who bought a 18 foot long log from a saw mill , and he had it all cut down to 4/4 thickness.... I got a couple of 12 inch wide boards and a couple of 4-6 inch wide boards from him for free. They have been drying out in my attic since lat July. The three was cut down in march of last year. the moisture meter is already showing 7 % ... so I will soon need to decide what to build with it. If I need more, it's just a phone call away... and he has plenty of it.

I took a small board and decided I would flatten, edge joint and shoot the end grain for a piece of wood I could get as flat as possible, and as square as possible with just this one tool. I have not read any of David charlesworth's writings on his super smoother.... but after this... I am going to order his books.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3024.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3023.jpg

[John A. Callaway]

After flattening and smoothing the faces, I moved on the the edges. I used a finger fence and a square...making a few passes and then checking my work with a square.


here is the other piece for comparison in these photos
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3032.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3027.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3033.jpg

then, I shot the ends with the board and the plane on its side. I used one side of the shooting board for one end, and just cause it is there ... I flipped the plane to the other side and shot the other end right handed...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3036.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3029.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3031.jpg

So.... maybe you can do the same thing with a low angle jack.... hence its name.... but this one does it just the same... so... in the end... I am a bevel down fan.

the real test though... I have a piece of bird's eye in there... I bet with out a High angle frog I would see some severe tear out... but I am okay with buying a HAF first then attempting this same test on a piece.... :)

( but mainly... this whole thing is just because I am quite fond of my first Lie-Nielsen bench plane )

[David Weaver]

The 5 1/2 is a nice plane. Keep your paraffin around, though.

I personally wouldn't get too hyped up in DC's talk about supersmoother this or that. The one thing where a smoother is far and away the most handy is in agility around changing grain without having to immediately compromise the effective angle steeper and reduce the quality of the surface finish (let alone how much faster it is to do that).

I have two of those thigns - i think the 5 1/2 makes the most sense to set up with just a little more camber than a smoother (not a lot like a jack) and use it to follow something that roughs. You are essenatially using it like a panel plane then.

[John A. Callaway]

The 5 1/2 is a nice plane. Keep your paraffin around, though.


amen! to that.

[David Weaver]

I should revise that, a LN bench plane, particularly the 5 1/2, is an exceptionally nice bench plane, not just a nice plane.

[jamie shard]

I'm a big fan of my 5 1/2, it was one of the three planes I recommended on the other thread. Part of it is the plane: dead flat, tight mechanisms, thick blade, nice handles, and good size for most work. It hurt a little to spend the $, but I'm glad I did.

But if anything, it's the idea behind using this plane that is the most valuable --- and it is easily adapted to any plane. By that I mean Charlesworth's use of a cambered blade and stop cuts to bring a block of wood into close tolerance. By using a large flat plane and taking fine "scoops" out of the wood, cabinet size pieces of wood can be made to dimension and just slightly (~0.001") hollow so there are no bumps to throw off they layingout/marking of joints.

I'm definitely not saying it is the "right" way to do things -- and as a beginner making beginner projects, I'm rarely working to that level of precision -- but it's the kind of thinking that really helps you understand what planes (and patience) can do.

All of this can be done with any plane. I'm sure I could take my LV bevel up jack and set it up the same way, but it has dedicated endgrain shooting duty. And I'm sure any plane can also be tuned up to match a new LN plane in performance (making shavings). As a beginner, though, the 5 1/2 has helped me to know/experience what to aim for.

So for all those reasons... I really like my LN 5 1/2 too! :D

[David Weaver]

The methods charlesworth teaches are good ones, they are just at a painfully slow pace, but that is the pace you go until they are reflexive. They are, however, generally a repeat of what robert wearing put in his book, the essential woodworker, and who knows where he got them from - i believe he and charlesworth were in the same devon guild.

They can be adapted pretty easily to the process of finishing rough lumber, and you can move at a much faster pace with them.

The essential woodworker is a book that every beginning woodworker should have, and it's my opinion that it is very good practice to do one project where you thickness boards and all with a hand plane. It gives you a lesson in what pace you need to work to get things done.

[Roy Lindberry]

I have the LN Low angle Jack, and it is a phenomenal plane. It has really become my go to plane for most things.

However, I miss the ease of adjustment of the bevel down planes, and having tried some of the Lie-Neilsen planes at a tool event last year I saw that their bevel down planes can do remarkable work. So, I think from here on out, I'll be a bevel down guy, simply for the sake of ease of adjustment over the bevel up planes.

[David Weaver]

All of those steeper bevels work just as well on their BU planes, if you want to have spare blades around, too. DC himself demonstrates that in one of his videos, and i have an iron set up for one of my bench planes at 65 degrees. Not an easy pusher, but it does work.

I still keep a LV LA jack around for endgrain, but I never use it for anything but that.

[Chris Fournier]

That 5 1/2 is a fantastic plane! I have the LN low angle jack plane and it is currently my least favourite handplane. I'm gonna sell it and that's serious! I wouldn't sell any of my LN bench planes.

[Sam Takeuchi]

What is wrong with your LA jack?

[Chris Fournier]

What is wrong with your LA jack?

I just don't find it to be very effective. It's miserable on endgrain and I'd use bench planes for everthing else. I have a #9 for shooting board work so I don't need it for that either. It's odd because I have quite a few BU planes and like them and they perform well but the BU jack just can't run with them.

I got mine as a pre-production model and used it for years, one day I checked the plane for square and it was way out on both sides. Sent it back and got a brand new one no questions asked. LN service has been terrific for me.

I guess in the end there's just no chemistry between us. I'd take a bench jack over this plane any day.

[Jim Koepke]

I just don't find it to be very effective. It's miserable on endgrain and I'd use bench planes for everthing else.

That is strange. My LN LA Jack gets most of its use on end grain.

As to the #5-1/2, John has shown us that it is not the tool that makes the difference so much as the person using the tool.

I tend to use a #6 for the task John did with his #5-1/2. It may be that my #5-1/2 is an older one with a 2-1/4" blade. It does work well for shooting as does a #6. Now though most of my shooting is done with the LN #62 LA Jack.

BTW John, nice work on that cherry.

jtk

[James Taglienti]

i never understood why the 5 1/2 gets so much respect while the 6 is considered superfluous. theyre almost the same plane.

if youre meticulous enough to use a 5-1/2 as a smoother, whats the extra couple inches of the 6?

i have sold a couple 5-1/2 planes on the auction site over the last two weeks. they were in mediocre shape and one indeed had a broken tote. still, they got bids like crazy. i also had a gorgeous old 6 size, much better condition and from a better era, that wouldnt even take an opening bid of $10

a lot of folks blame pat leach for this.

actually ive had little use for either size plane.

this is not a sarcastic or smarmy question, .... why do folks think the 5-1/2 is better than a 6?

[David Weaver]

No clue why any one would be better than another, I think they're both wonderful planes, as are the 18 inch panel planes, though they're a bit heavy.

In my pea brain, i imagine a 5 1/2 being something I would have a little rougher than a normal try plane kind of cut. I rarely see anyone use them like that, though. I have one like that and one that's set up dead smooth. I should sell one or both of them, but one was a gift (a guy's now deceased dad used it and he gave it to me and I refurbished it), and the other one was a money pit. I'd feel bad selling one, and I'd feel rotten selling the other.

Either of them makes a nice smoothing plane if you are only smoothing straight grained stuff. Any flat plane does, though.

[Chris Griggs]

i never understood why the 5 1/2 gets so much respect while the 6 is considered superfluous. theyre almost the same plane.

if youre meticulous enough to use a 5-1/2 as a smoothing, whats the extra couple inches of the 6?

i have sold a couple 5-1/2 planes on the auction site over the last two weeks. they were in mediocre shape and one indeed had a broken tote. still, they got bids like crazy. i also had a gorgeous old 6 size, much better condition and from a better era, that wouldnt even take an opening bid of $10

a lot of folks blame pat leach for this.

actually ive had little use for either size plane.

this is not a sarcastic or smarmy question, .... why do folks think the 5-1/2 is better than a 6?

I've never understood that either, as they are very similar in size.

While I can't attest to the 5 1/2 (since I don't own one, and have only used one once) I will say that a number 6 is a very under rated plane. It's plenty long enough to serve as a trying/jointer plane for small to medium furniture work. I find them a bit heavy for VERY rough work but they certainly function well as lighter cutting fore plane. While you can use a 6 for smoothing once your board is really flat, I don't love using for that, but then again, I don't like using a 5 for smoother either.

I think that maybe the thing the 5 1/2 has going for it over the 6 is in using it on a shooting board. If you are going to shoot with a no.6 you need to make sure you have a longer than normal track to avoid having the plane tip of the board on the back stroke (trust me on this, my no. 6 hit the concrete once!)

I think maybe the no. 6 gets a bad wrap because it gets grouped in with the long jointers, which if your jointing a really long board are, of course, better. But once again, for most small to medium furniture work, a no. 6 joints quite well.

[Matt Radtke]

i also had a gorgeous old 6 size, much better condition and from a better era, that wouldnt even take an opening bid of $10



Whaa? PM me on that #6. I'd pay $10 for a #6...



a lot of folks blame pat leach for this.

actually ive had little use for either size plane.

this is not a sarcastic or smarmy question, .... why do folks think the 5-1/2 is better than a 6?

I have a few ideas. I too blame Leach for the negative view on the 6.

I would say the 6 is nice when used as intended: as a fore plane. If you have a tailed jointer/planer, the 6, IMHO, borders on worthless. But then, I would argue the same for any of the 5s. Usual disclaimers if you work with small enough stock that a 6 could be used as jointer. Blah, blah, blah.

The 5 1/2 is loved probably for the same reason the 6 is hated. Someone In The Know, David Charlesworth, championed it. I have one, but I don't get the love either. Its a fine plane, but in a standard bench set, it'd probably be the first one I'd get rid of, if I were so limited.

[jamie shard]

i never understood why the 5 1/2 gets so much respect while the 6 is considered superfluous. .... why do folks think the 5-1/2 is better than a 6?

I had the same question/realization recently. I have a #6 bedrock that is a dedicated, heavily cambered foreplane (which seems like a waste of a bedrock) and I remember hearing that Allen Peters used a #7 for everything... and it struck me that a #6 would be a great substitute for an expensive #5 1/2.

I think I like the 5 1/2 is a cool combination of heavy and light, wide and narrow, etc and that's part of what people like. But its kinda like having a roadster that is only good for weekend drives (too small for a jointer) but has no room for grocery shopping and too much of a gas guzzler for long distance drives (too big for a smoother). It either is just what you need or an expensive lump of metal that would be the first to go.

Sheesh, that might be a load of *#$?!

[Mike Brady]

I'm the third owner of my LN 5-1/2 and its a keeper. It has the weight to power the high angle frog so this can be a super smoother if you need it. Overall I find it a very nice plane to use as a foreplane and it can be tightened down to take the same type of shaving as the 4-1/2 if needed. I think it will be great for bench-top flattening andmaintenance. My LAJ has become the the specialty plane for end grain, toothed blade, and high-angle work on difficult woods. I really dislike putting back bevels on my bench plane irons.

[James Taglienti]

I never understood using a 5 1/2 as a smoother but then again my lumber has a tendency to shift a bit overnight etc...

[John A. Callaway]

Which one charlesworth's books has the information about setting up the blade and making scoop and stopped cuts ? I can get all three books on amazon pretty cheap..... should I just spring for all three ? I have the essential woodworker .... but I haven't read it cover to cover yet. I keep it with me at work for a hotel read.... but I just hadn't got through it yet.

And Jim ..... I appreciate the pat on the back.... but I am very much a novice when it comes to getting the most out these tools .... I owe the pretty shavings to just adjusting the depth at a half a millimeter at a time and taking a pass. I keep the frog pretty high up so the mouth opening stays small. I only rounded my corners and the blade has no camber. It is straight across flat. I would like a second more heavily cambered blade for fore plane work. I think two blades and two frogs and this plane could easily handle the jobs of planes no. 4 through no. 7

I know that's a lot of cash up front but the benefits will give a good return on investment. I am game to test that out. The next non specialty plane I want is bronze no.3 ( plow and router planes next ) and until I really get more versed in manipulating these tools the number 3 , 5 1/2, and the no.8 should keep me well covered.

As for the 6 ....( I am doing this post from my phone ) isn't it narrower that the 5 1/2 ? I can't look it up right now .... but maybe that is why people over look it.... again... a heavy camber on the extra blade and the 5 1/2 does the same tasks....? I would agree that perhaps the shooting board sells the thing. Several bloggers have went on about its performance at that task... I can't lie.... it helped persuade me ....those posts and the guys here who encouraged me to by pass the typical first purchase number 4 or LAJ that most make....

Simply put .... I think you get more bang for your buck out of this bench plane than any other....

I love the conversation this thread has generated. I like learning. Thanks guys.

[David Weaver]

John, the stopped cut stuff is in the essential woodworker if I recall. Also there is stuff that's in Charlesworth's chisel DVD (and he credits Robert Wearing when he goes through the mortising technique)

[David Weaver]

I never understood using a 5 1/2 as a smoother but then again my lumber has a tendency to shift a bit overnight etc...

Well, if you do all of your smoothing right off of a power jointer and a planer, no problem. I think that's the crowd charlesworth is aiming at with the super smoother thing.

Maybe you need to use all quartersawn!! (of course, if you do that, you'll want a nimble plane that works well on the skew on narrower stuff).

[Sam Takeuchi]

#6 has 2-3/8" blade. Pre-1938 (I think it was 1938, maybe off) #5-1/2 had 2-1/4" blade, and after that, 2-3/8" blade. Only difference between #5-1/2 and #6 is the length.

Don't get too caught up on those plane numbers. It's pretty arbitrary. You might look at it and think "#3, #5-1/2 and #8 should cover the most tasks!", but in the end, there's a lot of small details that makes people want #4 instead of #3, maybe #5 instead of #5-1/2, or #7. It's the weight, type of work you do, size of the materials you work on and all that. And same goes for you. Before you decide you want to buy a #3 and all that, use your planes you have now a lot. Eventually you'll really see if what size of planes you need.

While #5 and #5-1/2 are versatile, they won't really cover "#4 up to #7". If you translate these numbers into words, you want to do smoothing and jointing or face flattening. While published opinion(s) state that #5-1/2 or even in some cases, #6 can be used as super smoother, you aren't really getting the most efficient work out of #5-1/2 or #6 for that particular task. Nor if you want to edge joint a 30" board, #7 or #8 will do it quickly while with #5-1/2, you'll have to pay extra attention and check straightness more carefully. No extra blade or frog will change the lack or excess of length. If efficiency isn't the priority, in all honesty, you can do pretty much everything with a single #4. So while I think knowing the number and corresponding size of the planes is very handy, I don't think it's a good idea to start running and try to figure out your future tool need through plane numbers. In end, what matters is efficiency and comfort, if #3 is too small for your task, it'll always be too small and uncomfortable even if it 'covers' general area of work defined by those plane numbering system.

[Dwain Lambrigger]

Sam,

I really appreciate your response. I have type 11 4, 5 1/2, 6, 7 and 8. I feel like I have most of my needs covered. The only reason for the 3 and 4 1/2 is the itch to have a set. Still, as a beginner, I am also trying to figure what works well. I haven't invested in LN or LV...yet. I do like the idea of keeping a #6 for shooting board duty. I am a pretty big guy, and it just seems like the six is a good fit for me, rather than the 5 1/2 or 5.

Quick question, is there any advantage between types if Stanley planes for shooting board use?

[Sam Takeuchi]

Types as in type study? In that case, no. Maybe early pre-lateral planes would be hard to make adjustment while on a shooting board, but other than that, I don't think it matters at all.

By the way, good choice on type 11. I like type 9 ~ 11s myself.

[Dwain Lambrigger]

Types as in type study? In that case, no. Maybe early pre-lateral planes would be hard to make adjustment while on a shooting board, but other than that, I don't think it matters at all.

By the way, good choice on type 11. I like type 9 ~ 11s myself.


OK, then one more question...I have a really nice type 16 that was given to me. With a little clean up, it could be as good as new. It has the lateral adjustment, the frog adjustment as well. Is this a good choice for a shooting board plane? Should I sell and find something better within a $100 price range?

[Sam Takeuchi]

It'll be perfectly fine. If the weight of the plane is not a problem for you, it'd be just as good as any. Only thing to watch out for is the comfort. It is a heavy plane and if you have to shoot a lot, it might be tiring. In that case, either make a handle to make pushing easier or use a smaller plane. Shooting board should track it straight even if it's little shorter.

[Jim Koepke]

OK, then one more question...I have a really nice type 16 that was given to me. With a little clean up, it could be as good as new. It has the lateral adjustment, the frog adjustment as well. Is this a good choice for a shooting board plane? Should I sell and find something better within a $100 price range?

Dwain,

Type doesn't matter if you can make the plane do the job you want it to do.

Depending on the stock and the shooting board, even the plane size, which your post doesn't mention, is not so important.

I have used planes on my shooting board in sizes from a #60-1/2 up to a #8.

As for type, one of my #6s is a type 4 and works fine shooting edges and end grain. One of my #5s is a type 17 and works fine shooting edges and end grain.

After reading this thread yesterday my shop time included some planing. So, the #5-1/2 was taken off the shelf and it did work fantastic and was easy to use on a piece of wood that was about 14" long. It cleaned up the band saw marks nicely.

It seems the handle on this one has not been fettled to my hand. Maybe a bit of work on the handle would get this plane to see a bit more use. Sometimes it seems a few of those intangibles, such as how a plane feels in one's hands, may be the real factor to determine if the plane gets a lot of use or not.

jtk

[Dwain Lambrigger]

Sorry Jim,

I am talking about a number 6. Forgot to mention in the thread. So it sounds like the real keys are square sole to sides, really sharp blade, and possibly making a handle to keep comfortable.

[Jim Koepke]

Sorry Jim,

I am talking about a number 6. Forgot to mention in the thread. So it sounds like the real keys are square sole to sides, really sharp blade, and possibly making a handle to keep comfortable.

Sole to side square is not as important as might be thought. If the lateral adjustment can correct the problem, then there is no need for extra work.

My work is always checked with a square after shooting. My tools are trusted, but they are always verified.

jtk

[John A. Callaway]

Sam, I have a number three now... and I like it very much. But something is off with it. Perhaps a new blade or more frog fettling. It leaves very noticeable plane tracks .... and I cant make them go away... The plane needs something... but I dont know what it is ... every once in a while I mess with it to see what I can get it to do... but I havent touched it since the LN showed up.... so like most, I will use the LN as a bench mark as to what to truly shoot for now. The number 8 on the other hand.... I would put it up against a LN number 8 in a minute. It is a fine tool and you can see my tune up of it below. I love it. I long for a hock set for it, but it does a great job as is.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?144408-number-8-restoration-...-YAY-!!!! (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?144408-number-8-restoration-...-YAY-%21%21%21%21)

So I guess what I am trying to say is this :

The three is small enough to get into tight spots, the 8 is a flattening monster, and the 5 1/2 ( and the right frog ) can tackle almost any grain....but again... I am still a novice here... and my completed works are just a few....
Everybody has a collection of these things for a reason... so three tools can't possibly do it all ( at least that is what I tell the wife )